REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
The Regular Council Meeting was held on July 11, 1994 with Council President Christiansen presiding. Council members present were Mr. Lambert, Mr. Tudor, Mr. Leary, Mrs. Malone, Mr. Weyandt, Mr. Salters and Mr. Hare. Mr. Pitts was absent.
Council staff members present were Chief Smith, Mr. Lucas, Mr. O'Connor, W. DePrima, Chief Osika, Mrs. Boaman and Mr. Rodriguez.
OPEN FORUM
The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council meeting. Council President Christiansen declared the open forum in session and reminded those present that Council is not in official session and cannot take formal action.
There was no one present wishing to speak during the Open Forum.
The invocation was given by Reverend Dorphulia Bradley, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Leary requested the addition of an agenda item to consider salary adjustments for Council employees. Mr. Lambert requested the addition of an agenda item to give a brief update on Cable negotiations.
Mr. Salters moved for approval of the agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27,1994
The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of June 27, 1994 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Weyandt, seconded by Mr. Leary and bore the written approval of Mayor Hutchison.
PRESENTATION - REVEREND ROLAND COKER
Council President Christiansen stated that Reverend Roland Coker has given freely of his time to offer the invocation for City Council meetings on many occasions. Due to a recent illness, Reverend Coker has informed the City that he will no longer be able to offer his services. In recognition of the appreciation of Mayor and Council, Mayor Hutchison and Council President Christiansen presented Reverend Roland Coker with a City of Dover plaque, conveying sincere appreciation for his ser-vice to the City of Dover.
SALARY ADJUSTMENTS - CTTY COUNCIL EMPLOYEES
In accordance with the recent salary adjustments to managerial and bargaining unit employees, salary adjustments for City Council Employees were considered. Mr. Leary moved for approval of the following salary adjustments, effective July 3, 1994.
City Assessor - 3.5%
Assistant City Clerk - 8.65%
City Clerk - 3.5%
City Planner/Inspections Dir. - 3.5%
The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Pitts absent).
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAULSBURY ROAD AND CLARA STREET - MF ENTERPRISES
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located on the northeast comer of Saulsbury Road and Clara Street, owned by MF Enterprises.
Planner's Review
The City Planner reported that to the north and northeast of the site are lands associated with the Playtex Manufacturing facility zoned IPM. To the east and adjacent to the rear of the property are lands zoned RG-1 with a single family home on a lot. Further east are additional lands of Playtex zoned IPM. To the south and southeast and across Clara Street are lands associated with the William Henry Middle School. To the south are also three single family residences that front on Saulsbury Road. To the west and across Saulsbury Road are vacant lands currently farmed and zoned R-8 (single family residential)
The Comprehensive Plan, as recently amended by the 1991 Route 8 Corridor Study, recommends this property be used for industrial and manufacturing uses due to the nature of Saulsbury Road and the close proximity of the Playtex plants.
While this site is not currently sewered, future development under the present or proposed zone would require that sewers be brought to the site by the developer.
Because this proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and because it is compatible with most of the surrounding land uses, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this rezoning.
Public Hearing
Council President Christiansen declared the hearing open.
Mr. Mike Malkiewicz, represendnc, MF Enterprises and the Dover Federal Credit, Union, requested approval of the rezonina request. He stated that all surrounding property owners were invited to attend a meeting and that the Capital School District, Playtex, and surrounding residential property owners support the request. The only concern of the neighbors is that a traffic light should be installed once the Credit Union is established.
Council President Christiansen declared the hearing closed.
Responding to Mr. Weyandt, Mr. DePrima stated that current indications from DelDOT are that they will allow one entrance off of Clara Street and an entrance, to be shared with the remaining property to the north, off of Saulsbury Road.
Mr. Weyandt moved for approval of the rezoning request as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare and by a unanimous roll call vote
(Mr. Pitts absent), Council adopted the following ordinance: (The first reading of this ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of May 23, 1994.)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAULSBURY ROAD AND CLARA 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 RG-1 (General Residence) to IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing).
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 has been amended by changing the zoning designation from RG-1 to IPM on that property located on the northeast comer of Saulsbury Road and Clam Street, owned by MF Enterprises.
ADOPTED: July 11, 1994
PUBLIC I-TEARING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 N. STATE STREET A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located at 2 N. State Street, owned by Willis H. and Elizabeth B. Sargent.
Planner's Review
ne City Planner reported that to the north of this site are three single family homes zoned RG-1 (General Residence), and further north are properties owned by Wesley College zoned RG-l and RG-0. To the northeast and across State Street are three large vacant Victorian Homes recently zoned COUNCIL PRESIDENT-0 (Commercial/Professional Office). To the southeast, south, and southwest across State Street are Multiple Family Dwellings. To the west are the buildings associated with a former church that is now owned by Wesley College.
The 1986 Comprehensive Plan calls for this site to be developed for Government and Institutional Use. This designation is given because of the site's close proximity to Wesley College. Office use is more closely related to government/institutional uses than is the existing residential zoning. The 1989 Central Area Plan recommends this area for residential use.
The property is a distinctive three story Victorian home located at a busy intersection which makes it somewhat undesirable for a single family home. Conversion to a mixed use may be better suited to bring income to the property that is sufficient to cover the high maintenance costs. This proposal is similar to the rezoning approvals recently given to the properties across State Street.
Any changes to the exterior of the property would require Historic District Review Commission approval. The construction of a parking area in the rear yard would also require Planning Commission review.
The surrounding land uses appear to be compatible with the proposal and it is partially supported by the Comprehensive Plan. The Historic District designation would provide extra assurances that the property would not be significantly altered. Because of these reasons, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning.
Correspondence
The City Clerk reported that correspondence was received on the proposed rezoning from John S. Grady of 6 N. Bradford Street. Mr. Grady relayed that although he had no objections to the proposed rezoning, he requested that the concern for adequate parking be addressed.
In response to Mr. Grady's letter relating to parking, Mr. DePrima stated that a parking lot will be constructed to the rear of the property which will contain approximately nine spaces. Entrance and exit from the parking lot will be from the alley at the rear of the property.
Public Hearing
Council President Christiansen declared the hearing open.
Mr. Joe Petrosky stated that he and Mr. George Chabbott plan to purchase the property to locate their real estate office on the first floor of the building. They also plan renovation of the second and third floors to provide for rental of a maximum of five rooms. They have only four employees that work for the real estate business. Asked by Mr. Tudor if he felt adequate parking would be available, Mr. Petrosky stated that the nature of their commercial business requires most of their time to be spent out of the office. They intend to invest a large sum of money into the renovations and they have faith that their plan will be successful.
Council President Christensen declared the hearing closed.
Mr. Weyandt voiced concern with the use of the RG-0 zone, stating that this zone was the demise of residential properties on S. State Street and S. Bradford Street when they were overtaken in abundance for use as physician's offices.
Mr. DePrima stated that the reopening of the RG-0 zone is limited to the central area targeted by the Downtown Dover Development ordinance. Asked by Mr. Weyandt if it is legal to, limit a zone to a certain area, Mr. Rodriguez stated that he felt that it is legal providing the City has adequate grounds for limiting the zone. He felt that the City is on safe legal grounds on this particular issue.
Mr. Salters moved for approval of the rezoning request as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare and by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Pitts absent), Council adopted the following ordinance: (The first reading of this ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of May 23, 1994.)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 NORTH 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 RG-1 (General Residence) to RG-0 (General Residence and Office).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF TH-E 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 has been amended by changing the zoning designation from RG-1 to RG-0 on that property located at 2 North State Street, owned by Willis H. and Elizabeth B. Sargent.
ADOPTED: July 11, 1994
APPOINTMENTS - DOVER LIBRARY COMMISSION
Mayor Hutchison requested the appointment of Richard L. Krueger to the Dover Library Commission, to fill the unexpired term of Dr. Daniel Forsee. The term will expire on June 16, 1997. Mayor Hutchison also requested the appointment of Beverly H. Stewart to the Dover Library Commission, to fill the seat being vacated by Ms. Nancy Maxwell. The term will expire on June 16, 1999.
Mr. Hare moved for approval of the appointments as recommended by Mayor Hutchison, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE
The First Reading of the following proposed ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of June 27, 1994.
Section 14-3.6 - Preventible and Malfunctioning Alarms to the Fire Company
Mr. Hare moved that the final reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
Mr. Hare moved for adoption of the following ordinance, seconded by Mr. Salters.
Mr. Tudor reiterated previous objections to the proposed ordinance. He cautioned Council that approval of this ordinance could cause someone to not use fire alarms in order to eliminate possible fines associated with malfunctioning alarms. Mr. Christiansen stated that most businesses associated with the proposed ordinance is required to maintain a fire alarm system. He reminded Council that the ordinance is not designed to penalize those that are truly attempting to maintain their fire alarm systems. He stated that he is comfortable that the Inspections Department will fairly enforce the ordinance and will work with those experiencing difficulties with their alarm systems.
On a call for the question by Mr. Weyandt on the motion to approve the ordinance, the following ordinance was approved by a roll call vote of six (6) yes, one (1) no (Mr. Tudor), one (1) abstention (Mr. Christiansen) and one (1) absent (Mr. Pitts):
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
Amend Chapter 14 Offenses - Miscellaneous, by deleting in its entirety Section 14-3.6 Preventible or malfunctioning alarm to fire company and by inserting in lieu thereof, the following:
14-3.6 Preventible and malfunctioning alarms to the fire company
(a) Definitions. As used in this Chapter, the following words and terms shall have the following meanings:
Automatic telephone dialing device or digital alarm communicator system means an alarm system which automatically sends a pre-recorded voice message or coded signal over regular telephone lines by direct connection or otherwise, indicating the existence of the emergency situation that the alarm system is designed to detect.
Fee means the assessment of a monetary charge payable to the City of Dover authorized pursuant to this Chapter, to defray the expenses of responding, to a preventible alarm or alarm malfunction.
Fire alarm installation report means a report in a form approved by the fire marshal with the following minimum information: The name(s) address, business and home phone number of the owner, lessee, operator, manager or person(s) in possession of the premises wherein the alarm system is installed. The name address and telephone number of a minimum of two (2) persons who can be notified by Robbins Hose in the event of the activation of the alarm system, who shall be capable of responding to the premises within thirty (30) minutes, and who is authorized to enter the premises to ascertain the status thereof.
Fire alarm malfunction means the activation of any alarm which results in the response of the Fire Department caused by mechanical failure, malfunction, improper installation, or lack of proper maintenance.
Fire alarm system means any mechanical, electrical or radio controlled device which is designed to emit a sound or emit a signal or message when activated or any such device which emits a sound and transmits a signal or message when activated because of smoke, heat or fire. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, alarm systems shall be deemed to include audible alarms at the site of the installation of the detection device, proprietor alarms and automatic telephone direct dial devices or digital alarm communicator systems. A single station alarm device shall not be deemed to be an alarm system under this Chapter.
Fire alarm technician means any person who inspects, installs, repairs or performs maintenance on fire alarm systems and is licensed by the State of Delaware or works under a State licensed alarm contractor.
Operative alarm system means an alarm system which the owner of a premises is required to maintain in an operative condition pursuant to statute, law, ordinance, rule or regulation of the State of Delaware or the City of Dover.
Owner means any person who owns the premises in which an alarm system is installed or the person or persons who lease, operate, occupy or manage the premises.
Premises means any building, structure or combination of buildings and structures which serve as dwelling units, single-family or multi-family, or any other area within a building, structure or combination thereof which is used for any purpose other than residential, wherein an alarm system is installed.
Preventible alarm means the activation of any alarm which results in the response of the Fire Department caused by the negligence or intentional misuse of the system by the owner or his employees, servants or agent; or any other activation not caused by heat, smoke or fire, exclusive of a fire alarm malfunction defined above. An alarm is not considered a preventible alarm if the alarm is activated due to malicious causes beyond the control of the owner.
Serve shall mean hand-delivery by a representative of either the Fire Department or Police Department to the owner or authorized representative who responded to the premises. In the event the owner or authorized representative fails to respond to the premises within thirty minutes, serve shall mean placing the form or other matter in the United States mail, addressed to the owner or authorized representative.
Single-station alarm device means an assembly incorporating the detector, control equipment and alarm-sounding device in one unit operated from a power supply either in the unit, or obtained at the point of installation.
(b) Fire Alarm Installation Report
(1) Every person who installs, owns, leases, possesses or operates any fire alarm system within the City of Dover, shall notify the Office of the Fire Marshal of the of alarm system and necessary information about the system through a fire alarm installation report which shall be completed and forwarded to the Office of the Fire Marshal. When arty of the information required has changed, it shall be reported by the owner within fifteen (15) days of such change.
(2) No fire alarm system acceptance test shall be performed until the fire alarm installation report is complete. It shall be the duty of the fire alarrn installation company to provide the owner with a current copy of the fire alarm installation report.
(c) Responsibility for malfunctioning and preventible alarms, owner response, and corrective action.
(1) The responsibility for a preventible or malfunctioning alarm shall be that of the owner of the premises in which the fire alarm system is installed. A response to a preventible or malfunctioning alarm shall result when any Fire Marshal or member of the Fire Department shall be dispatched to the premise where the alarm has been activated or leams of the activation of the alarm system(s), by any means whatsoever, and responds thereto by traveling to that premises. After responding to a malfunctioning or preventible alarm, the responding official shall notify the owner or their authorized representative and such person shall thereupon travel to the premises to ascertain the status thereof. Should the person notified fail to appear at said premises within thirty (30) minutes after being notified to do so, the City may charge the owner of the premises a fee of seventy-five dollars ($75.00). The official or member of the Fire Department who responded to said premises shall forward a "Fire Alarm Activation Report" to the Fire Marshal's Office.
(2) In the event of a fire alarm deemed by the responding official to be the result of a fire alarm malfunction, the owner will be served a "Fire Alarm Activation Report", indicating that the activation was deemed to be the result of a fire alarm malfunction, and requiring the owner to return a completed "Affidavit of Service/Repair" within fifteen (15) days of said alarm activation which can verify to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal that. the fire alarm system in question has actually been examined by a fire alarm technician and that a bona fide attempt has been made to identify and correct any defect of design, installation or operation of the fire alarm system which was identifiable as the cause of the fire alarm malfunction. Failure to return an "Affidavit of Service/Repair" within said fifteen day period which is satisfactory to the Fire Marshal will result in assessment against the owner of a fee of one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the fire alarm malfunction.
(d) Fee Charges; Multiple Fire Alarm Malfunctions or Preventible Alarms.
(1) A fee may be assessed for the third and subsequent malfunctioning or preventible alarms at the same premises responded to by the Fire Department within the prior 12 month period. Thereafter, the following fees shall be paid by the owner for each preventible or malfunctioning fire alarm responded to by the Fire Department at the same premises during a 12 month period beginning with the date of the first alarm.
Number of Preventible Fee Per Preventible or
or malfunctioning Fire Alarms malfunctioning Fire Alarm
Third. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 75.00
Fourth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $100.00
Fifth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$200.00
All Over Fifth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $250.00 each
(2) Once a preventible alarm or fire alarm malfunction has been responded to by the Fire Department, it shall be unlawful for the alarm panel to be reset by any person, until the authorization of the Fire Department has been obtained. A twenty five ($25.00) fee may be assessed to the owner of a premises where the fire alarm has been reset before the fire company or assisting fire company arrives.
(3) Any premises protected by a fire alarm system that in the opinion of the Fire Marshal or his Deputy(s) will not safely alarm the occupants of a fire, the Fire Marshal or his Deputy(s) may close said building or a portion of said building to human occupancy until the problem with the fire alarm is corrected and a written report from a licensed Fire Alarm Company is submitted to the Fire Marshal.
ADOPTED: July 11, 1994
UPDATE - CABLE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE
Mr. Lambert, Chairman of the Cable Negotiations Committee, offered a brief update on their actions to date. Mr. Lambert stated that the current Franchise Agreement extension expires on July 31, 1994. The Committee has worked very hard with COMCAST to resolve all issues, but there are still some unresolved issues. Their legal advisors have informed them that there is no requirement to extend the current agreement, but that they can continue to work under the old agreement. The most significant concern is the term length of the agreement. Mr. Lambert stated that in order to not renew the Franchise Agreement, we would be required to prove that Storer Cable failed to live up to their previous Agreement. Most customer complaints revolve around rates and do not deal with lack of service. The best source for regulating rates is competition. Mr. Lambert informed Council that recent federal regulations require a cost reduction for cable service of seven percent, which would take place during the month of July.
The Cable Committee will continue its efforts, including the possibility of municipal cable service and other sources of service such as telephone companies who are moving quickly in the direction of fiber optics. The Cable Committee will explore all possible avenues for the best cable service to the citizens of Dover.
Mr. Weyandt suggested that the Committee strive to achieve a one year Agreement, staling that too many changes could take place in the field of television technology. Mr. Lambert agreed, but stated that it would be nearly impossible to gamer a one year Agreement. The Committee is pushing very hard for a five year Agreement, although COMCAST would prefer a much longer term.
Mr. Weyandt moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 8:25 P.M.
DEBRAH J. BOAMAN
CITY CLERK
All orders, ordinances and resolutions adopted by City Council during their meeting of July 11, 1994, are hereby approved.
JAMES L. HUTCHISON
MAYOR
/jg