VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
May 30, 2006

Members present: Champlin, Hubbard, Schmidt, Schach
Also present: Bloom, Byron, O’Neil, Dunning, Koepf, King

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Lydia Champlin.

Moved by Mr. Schmidt, seconded by Mr. Hubbard to approve the minutes of the meetings held May 9, 2006 and May 23, 2006. The motion carried unanimously.

Mrs. Champlin said as of May 23, 2006 Jay Schach is now a member of the Commission.

ARTICLE VII, SECTION 9 - ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW

The main issue of discussion was voting. Mrs. Dunning said the Board never used to voted on decisions up until about two years ago. It was just agreed upon if it was a go project or not based on certain recommendations or certain things to be done. It was discussed if this should be a Charter issue or if it should be up to the Board. Mr. Byron said unless there is an ordinance which controls the rules of procedure of the Board, the Board has the ability to determine its own rules as to how it will make its decisions and how it will convey those decisions to the applicant and back to the administration.

There was discussion about Council having the final vote on an issue. This is the same as when they discussed the Board of Zoning Appeals in that Council doesn’t hear the evidence or the rationality behind a project and they are voting with very little knowledge other than hearsay and politics to make a decision. It is more of a problem with the ARB because this is a more technical subject than variances.

It was mentioned that maybe the words “finished grade” should be taken out of the second paragraph because that is an administrative decision of the engineer. After discussion, no action was taken.

It was agreed that no changes will be made to Article VII, Section 9 of the Charter but further dialog should take place with the Administration.

MISCELLANEOUS

Mrs. Champlin said the next meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 6, 2006. She asked that Mr. Bloom make sure that the former mayors and Council members are invited to the meeting.

Mrs. Champlin and Mr. Byron reviewed the minutes from the meeting held May 9, 2006:

“Mr. Byron recommended consideration of providing the Council with administrative authority in the Charter to act on variances and appeals. This authority is lacking in the Charter but is provided by zoning ordinance. He also suggested that a technical flaw exists in the title of Article IX, section 3. The term Declaration of Candidacy is used by the elections board to define write in candidates. While the title has no effect on the meaning of the section it is incorrectly titled. The Charter as it is written does not allow for write in candidates.”

She asked that Mr. Himes look at the original and see if he can come up with what the intent was.
The Commission reviewed their past meetings and the suggestions recommended regarding the Board of Zoning Appeals and Council’s action. Mr. Byron will have all of their suggested recommendations available for their June 13, 2006 meeting.

It was brought up that at the May 25, 2006 meeting Mr. Subel had suggested that the Commission consider changes to protect residents from new eminent domain rulings. It was asked at that time if that would be a Charter amendment or would Council have to pass legislation? Mr. Byron said it is his recommendation that it is not a good idea to tie the hands of Council by putting this in the Charter.

The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

____________________________
Lydia Champlin, Chairman
lgb