SHELBY - With the entire council in attendance, several members of the public in the audience and a full agenda, the Sept. 14 Shelby Village Council meeting heard plenty of discourse.
During public participation, residents shared their perspective and asked questions about various village happenings of late. Namely the procedure for suspected ordinance violations, the possible destruction of the village’s historic police and DPW garage on Third Street, the replacement storage building proposed for Nichols Park, policies and procedures for local developers and the village administrator/council’s involvement and handling of such.
With regard to ordinance violations, resident Alex Katt asked if there was a village ordinance giving ordinance inspectors (the village manager and police department) permission to go on anyone’s property at any time. He said he had been alerted by a neighbor that a village officer was walking around on his property. “Is the community going to have to look over their shoulders all the time? It didn’t sit right with me. Maybe the ordinance needs to be clarified for the public," Katt said. “We’re for the community, but where is the line between that and government overreach?”
Village Administrator Phil Morse responded by stating that he has been advised by legal counsel to stay on the property right-of-way or to use the driveway. “But if I’m told not to come back on the property, I don’t,” he answered.
Resident Leo Padot, who had spoken during public comment at the last council meeting and has expressed a strong desire to see the village’s historic buildings saved, said, “I’m not giving up on these old buildings.” He suggested the village put money into upgrading the current police and DPW storage building on Third Street instead of knocking it down and rebuilding something south of town. “It’s part of your history.”
Residents John Heykoop, Andrew Heykoop and Tristin Tanner also spoke up with comments and questions about development and spending in the village.
Following public comment, the council adjourned their regular meeting and convened as the Shelby Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).
Morse started by telling the council he was actually seated on both sides of the table in the hearing. As the village administrator, he had submitted the variance request under consideration. He was asking for ZBA approval to alter the required industrial district setback of 50 feet for the front yard and 10 feet for the side yard. His request reduced the front yard setback to 15 feet for a proposed 1,920-square-foot police and DPW equipment storage building at Nichols Park to replace the current storage building on Third Street.
His provided reasoning was, “...to create a buffer and preserve more of the park.” He added the request was contingent on two things: the approval of the purchase agreement for the current storage building on Third Street to come before council later and the planning commission’s approval of the site plan, which was to be on their meeting agenda the following evening.
Among other clarification questions, some on the council asked if the council could or should approve the variance request, even if a contingency statement was added. Council Member Mike Termer asked,“Aren’t we getting the cart before the horse?”
Only one brief statement was made during the public hearing, so the council moved on to the required Standards for Consideration. The first standard needed to consider if the property was exceptionally shallow, narrow or topographically extraordinary, or if the enforcement of the current zoning ordinance would involve practical difficulties.
Termer said he didn’t feel the property under question fit the standard, that it was more of a preference. With many on the council in agreement, he motioned to deny the first Statement saying he didn’t feel the conditions were met. The motion passed unanimously. Since all six standards needed to be met, rather than continuing through the remaining five standards, they voted to deny the variance request. All councilors voted in favor. The council voted to close the ZBA meeting and reconvened as the Shelby Village Council.
Under “Old Business,” the council considered an update to their yet-to-be-approved Solid Waste Ordinance, first considered this spring. After further discussion, the village’s ordinance committee had decided to remove any language related to the length of time a trash receptacle could be left out. In addition, they worked with legal counsel to outline the definition of what should actually be considered “junk.” In the proposed ordinance, many definitions of “solid waste” were defined (i.e., garbage, bulk items, hazardous, construction, etc.), with “junk” defined as, “...parts of machinery or motor vehicles, used stoves or other appliances, remnants of personal property, any wood, metal, concrete, building materials or any other material or other cast-off material of any kind, whether or not the same could be put to reasonable use.”
Termer wanted to know what the driver was behind the ordinance and expressed his concern for making rules for everyone that really only pertained to one or two people, saying once an ordinance is in place, it could become even more restrictive with future councils. “We have to look at the bigger picture. It’s a slippery slope,” he said.
Council Member Dan Zaverl said he felt the village needed to do something, citing an example from the past when village staff and council members took the better part of a day to remove several truckloads of junk from a residence. Morse added, “Some properties couldn’t be cleaned up because the ordinance wasn’t strong enough. I can write them a ticket, but I can’t force them to do anything.”
With a stronger ordinance, the village could relegate non-compliance to the courts if necessary, Morse said.
After reviewing a previous version of the village’s solid waste ordinance, Termer added, "It feels like the old ordinance is more stringent than the new one.”
Ordinance Chairperson Crystal Heykoop noted there were two other versions of the ordinance prior to the one they were considering amending. Morse said, “When the last draft was rewritten, the junk piece was taken out.”
At the vote, all council members, with the exception of Termer, voted to approve Ordinance 09-26, concerning solid waste, Chapter 155, section 1-6, of the Code of Ordinances of the Village of Shelby as presented.
The third and final action item on the agenda was to consider a purchase agreement between Shelby Village Holdings (SVH) LLC and the Village of Shelby for the purchase of the current police and DPW storage building and property located on Third Street. SVH has acquired several neighboring buildings and has plans to demolish them as part of a wider downtown redevelopment effort. In exchange, SVH is offering to construct a replacement storage building for the village in another location. Part of the proposed purchase agreement states the village would be responsible for any utility extensions and connections needed at the new location.
Morse’s memo to council stated that after an extensive review of other village properties, Nichols Park, with its industrial setting, current limited park use, no immediate redevelopment plans and the potential to support future municipal facility improvements, was seen as the preferred location, thus the earlier zoning board of appeals request.
The village's share of expenses related to this agreement and the storage of village property while a new building is constructed created a lot of discussion. “A new building would fit (our) needs for many years,” said Police Chief Dean Roesler.
He noted that while the current building is working, it is limited in what it can offer. A new building would provide not only more space and storage, but better lighting (and) a temperature-controlled environment, which would be better for all of the technology installed in village equipment, and a wash bay.
“It’s not a budgeted item,” said Councilor Termer. “What’s the spending plan? We haven’t tapped the brakes; bills are going up. We need to be fiscally responsible for our village.”
In response, Councilor Heykoop asked, “Are we going to spend more in another year if we hold off?”
Councilor Steve Crothers replied, “Utility costs will be cut in a new building.”
“I love the building and am OK with the costs,” Heykoop added. “But the only way I’d approve it is if we can have an agreement with Perdue.”
Given there were several questions regarding a proposed storage agreement with Perdue Farms, the council decided to hold off on approving the police storage building purchase agreement until their next scheduled meeting, Monday, Sept. 28.
