HomeMy Public PortalAbout12-27-1979 ?5-
•
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY OF THE
CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA, DECEMBER 27, 1979
1 The Board of Public Works and Safety of the City of Richmond, Indiana, met in
2 regular session December 27, 1979 at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in the Municipal
3 Building of said City. Mr. Meredith presided with Mr. Anderson and Mr. Webb
4 present. The following business was had, to-wit:
5
6 Mr. Webb moved to approve the minutes of the previous meeting as prepared,
7 seconded by Mr. Anderson and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried.
III 8
9 Mr. Anderson examined- proof of Publication for police vehicles including 5
10 1980. 4-door manufacturers standard production. 11 4-door manufacturers police
11 package. and 1 1979 or 1980 1/2 ton pickup truck and moved it be accepted and
12 placed on file, seconded by Mr. Webb and on unanimous voice vote the motion
13 was carried.
14 .
15 The following bids were received and recorded:
16
17 Fred First Inc. .
18 11 LTDs at $6417 each $70,587.00
19 1 1980 F150 pickup truck 5,346.00
20 4 1980 Fairmont Sedans 4-door at $5,761. 23,044.00 •
21
22 Tom Brookbank Chevrolet
23 1 1980 1/2 ton pickup 5,233.83
24 1 1979 1/2 ton pickup 4,906.90
25 5 1980 Malibus at $6,025 each 30,125.00
26 11 1980 Impala 4 doors 75,059.60
27
28 Raper Plymouth, Inc. .
29 5 1980. Plymouth Volare 4-door at $5,758. 28,790.00
30 11 1980 Plymouth Volare :4-doors-at $6,043. 66,473.00
31 11 1980 Plymouth Gran Fury 4-doors at
ill 32 $6,640. 73,040.00
III 33
34 Welling's Dodge, Inc.
35 11 1980 Dodge Aspen 4-door sedans at
36 • $5,870.03 . 64,570.33
37 • 11 1980 Dodge .St. Regis 4-door sedans at .
• 38 $7,022. '77,242.00 •
39 5 1980 Dodge Aspen 4-door sedans at
40 $5,665.90 28,329.50
41 1 1980 DOdge D-150 pickup 5,271.70
42 .
43 Mr. Webb moved the bids be taken under advisement for tabulation and recommend-
44 ation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and on unanimous voice vote the motion was
45 carried.
46 •
47 Chief of Police Charles Chris gave recognition to the Communications Alert
48 Team, which consists of a group of volunteers who have been most valuable
49 to his Department for more than a year. They started as a part of a C.B.
50 program and have developed into a group of dedicated people who have written
51 by-laws, set qualifications for membership and conduct and have functioned
52 as eyes and ears for. the Police Department. The group has put in many hours
53 and many miles and has been instrumental in some felony .arrests. They are •
54 under the direction of Technician Brouse and Officer Chambers, who were pre-
55 sent with member Mr. Loren Dixon. Technician Brouse noted that from November
56 11 through December 22, .this group of fourteen (14): have-:driven 1928 miles
57 and spent 930 hours and he thanked them for their assistance. Mr. Dixon
58 stated the group consists of dedicated citizens who want to get involved. Mr. •
59 Meredith noted this group use their own cars and receive no compensation for
60 this. He requested the Clerk write a letter to the organization expressing
61 the City's appreciation •for their past and continuing efforts. Chief Chris
62 requested the Board recognize this group as an auxiliary of the Department.
63
64 Mr. Anderson moved that it is most appropriate and proper that the Board of
65 Public Works on behalf of the City of Richmond recognize the Communications
66 Alert Team for their services to the Police Department, seconded by Mr. Webb
67 and on unanimous voice vote- the motion was carried.
•
Board of Public Works Minutes cont.
December 27, 1979
Page 2
1 Mr. Meredith called on City Attorney Ed Anderson for his opinion requested
• 2 on a petition for a curb cut by Dr. Edward Fox.
3
4 Mr. Anderson read the following:
5
6 This is in response to a request for my official opinion on the following
7 questions:
8
9 1. Is a curb cut petition by Dr. Fox for an access drive from the
10 parking area of his medical offices at 2519 East Main Street
11 to the cul-de-sac on Foxboro Court premature in submission to
12 the Board of Public Works and Safety?
13
14 2. Is there necessity for an amendment to the Special Use Ordi-
15 nance as granted by the common Council for the medical offices
16 for a thru drive prior to the curb cut request coming before
17 the board?
18 •
19 ANALYSIS
20
21 In planning and zoning, the City of Richmond is governed by IC 1971, 18-7-5-1
22 through 18-7-5-99 (Advisory Plan Commission - 1947 Act) .
23
24 P.L. 178 (1979) recodified local planning laws and repealed IC 18-7-4-1 •
25 through 18-7-4-99, 18-7-5 and 18-7-6 but made no substantive changes. These
26 laws are now found in IC 18-7-4-101 through 18-7-4-1213. To avoid confusion,
27 the old law will be cited.
28
29 In this instance, a petition for "special use" to construct medical offices
30 at 2507-09 East Main Street, Richmond, Indiana was filed on November 19, 1970
31 by Raper Realty, Inc. , the legal owner, as provided in Article 48 of the
32 Municipal Code commonly known as the Zoning Ordinance adopted pursuant to
33 IC 18-7-5-34.
Ill
34 •
35 A "special use" is an amendment to the master plan. Since this is an amend-
36 ment then IC 18-7-5-44 governs the procedure as required by IC 18-7-5-39
37 through 18-7-5-42 which requires a public hearing on the proposed ordinance
38 amending the master plan. Also, Article 48 of the Municipal Code requires
39 a public hearing.
40
41 The procedure for petitions for amendment, supplement or change of zoning
42 ordinance regulations is governed by IC 18-7-5-44; Article 62 of the
43 Municipal Code; and by Section 8 of the Rules and Practice and Procedures
44 of the Richmond Plan Commission.
45
46 Ordinance No. 2508-1970, passed April 19, 1971, authorizes this "special use"
47 in a R-3 one-to-eight family residence district and directs the Zoning Admin-
48 istration to issue a permit for the establishment of the use allowed. In the
49 site plan only one (1) entrance is shown being to East Main Street. In an
50 examination of the Planning Commission minutes it appears the special use
51 permit was issued on the basis of traffic entering the office complex from
52 East Main, parking at the rear of the structure, and exiting back onto East
53 Main Street. In fact, there were three (3) Planning Commission sessions on
54 this specific ordinance.
55
56 The question before us then is whether an exit and entry from the parking area ilk
57 to the rear is a "substantial" change to the original special use?
58
59 It has been pointed out, above, that a "special use" is an amendment to the
. 60 master plan and that the law .requires a public hearing on all changes.
61
62 It is my opinion that this request is such a variance requiring a public hear-
63 ing in accordance with the statutory procedure.
64
65 The publication of notice and a public hearing on all matters of government
66 is designed to safeguard property rights and to give property owners a fair
67 opportunity to enter a protest against an ordinance (a law of the city) which
In
Board of Public Works Minutes cont.
December 27, 1979
Page 3 •
1 may materially interfere with the use of their property or decrease its
2 value. Also, if notice and hearing were not required it could be found "to
3 deprive a landowner of his property without procedural due- process.
4
5 The minutes of the Board of Public Works and Safety of December 13, 1979 show
6 the interest of the public, particularly property owners in _the area, in:this
III 7 matter, and their concern for what this use could or might do to their property.
8
9 Procedure for amending the comprehensive zoning plan is established by statute
10: and it is my opinion a substantial deviation from that procedure may be fatal.
11 Amendment of zoning laws should be just as carefully considered and prepared,
12 perhaps more so, than the original.municipal zoning. Consequently, procedure
13 in the. amendment of zoning ordinances embraces safeguards similar to or greater
14 than those of the original zoning, against unreasonable, capricious, needless
15 and harmful rezoning or changes of use classification.
16
17 The general rule is that variances and exceptions (special.uses) are to be
18 granted sparingly and the power to grant variances and exceptions is given
19 only for relief in specific instances peculiar in.this,nature; otherwise,
20 zoning. regulations would be emasculated by exceptions until all plan and rea-
21 son would disappear and zoning in effect would be destroyed. This rigidity
22 is specifically recited and set forth in Article 48.021 of the Zoning Ordinance
23 and only the Common Council of the City of Richmond can grant a special use
24 under these guidelines.
25 .
26 Therefore this zoning ordinance cannot .be ,varied by a municipal board, such
27 as the Board of Public Works and Safety. The discretion is not vested in
28 this Board. In fact, it has been held if a zoning :ordinance fails to estab-
29 lish a sufficiently adequate and definite guide. to govern officials with
30 respect to grant of variances or exceptions it: is void. Indeed, -.unrestricted
31 discretion as to what uses might be made if the property -in a community would
111 32 not only:be contrary to sound social policy:brit clearly.unconstitutional.
33
34 Wehave reviewed many.of the Planning Commission files on requests: to amend
35 special use ordinances and it is our observation after this perusal that in
36 many of these cases the matters causing the amendment were not as serious
37 and as substantial as the matter proposed and before us.
38 . •
39 For instance, in reviewing PC 7573, Ordinance No: 2980-1975 amending Ordinance
40 No. 2508-1970, the petitioner being Dr.. Fox, the request was .to. amend Condi-
41 tions 3 and 4 of Ordinance 2508-19.70 to permit. a sign to be installed being .
42 40 ,square feet whereas the original :ordinance_allowed only 10 square feet;
43 and to allow location of the sign no closer than 4 feet to the front property
44 line whereas the original condition allowed.no closer.than 2/3 the distance
45 in feet between the building and property line. In the amended ordinance an
46 additional condition was attached pertaining to the signs..
47 . . . .
48 Another sign case was PC 70-10, Ordinance No. : 2471-1970 amending Special Use
49 Ordiannce No. 2457-1970 which dealt with the height of a sign.
50 .
51 Would it not be •as severe to require an amendment for a change of a sign as
52 for, a.change of an entry and exit? A sign is generally aesthetic whereas a
53 traffic circulation plan as here proposed involves safety.
54
55 .. . . . . CONCLUSION . , -
56 . •
III 57 THEREFORE, it is my opinion that an amendment of the Special Use Ordinance.in
58 this case is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the acceptance by the Board of
59 Public Works, and:Safety for a curb cut::petition by-Dr: Fox•for.an.+access drive
60 at his medical offices. . .
61 . . .• .
62 Mr. Anderson, therefore, moved that- the petition be continued under advisement,
. 63 seconded by Mr. Webb. Mr. Meredith noted it would be continued under advise-
64- ment until the Plan 'Commission has acted, if they so desire to :take it-to the
65 Plan Commission. So, if taken under advisement,. would remain there until that
66 action was so taken. Mr. .:Webb noted the. Plan D.epartment: should be instructed
67 to notify Dr. Fox. : . .. . : . . .
•
Board of Works Minutes cont.
December 27, 1979
Page 4
1 Requesting for a clarification of the motion was Attorney Robert Burton,
2 25 North 7th, who-was present representing property owners in the area.
3
4 Speaking against the request was Mr. Robert Blomeyer, South 27th 4 Parkway.
5 Mr. Meredith, at Mr. Blomeyer's questioning, explained the procedure of a
6 curb cut request. Capt. Wogoman explained the Police Traffic Department was
7 requested to make a traffic count for the information of the Board and did
8 so. Mr. Burton noted such questions as these and others: could be aired before
9 the Plan Commission at their-meeting.
10 •
11 On unanimous voice vote the motion was carried and Mr.- Meredith announced it
12 would be continued under advisement.
13
14 Mr. Meredith noted a request from Commercial Manager of RP&L Robert Rees for
15 installation of a light at the rear of 608 -Peacock Road is under advisement.
16 concerning a question of excess vandalism in that .area,which had been referred
17 to the Police Department. Chief Chris reported his officers. do not recognize
18 this area as such and did not recall any calls to that area for vandalism.
19 •
20 Mr. Anderson moved that -this request be denied, seconded by Mr. Webb.and on
21 unanimous voice vote the motion was carried. It was noted such alley lighting
22 requests have been denied in the past and some residents have put up their
23 own security lighting.
24
25 The next item on the agenda was a disciplinary action by the Fire Department.
26 Mr. Meredith announced that the City Attorney chairs these types of action and
27 relinquished the chair to City Attorney Edward Anderson.
28
29 Fire-Chief Paul M. Mullin read the following:
30
31 Gentlemen: •
32
33 ' The following charges are being presented to the Board of-Public Works and
34 Safety for disciplinary action against Deputy Fire Marshal William Griffin
35 for violation. of:
36
37 Rules and Regulations of the Richmond- Fire Department:
38 -
39 1) Article XI, Section 6. No member of this Department shall do -any
40 thing prejudicial to the good reputation, order or discipline.of
41 the Department.
42
43 2) Article XI, Section 7. In matters of general conduct, not within
44 the scope of Department rules, members shall'be governed by the
45 ordinary rules. of good behavior observed by law-abiding and self-
46 - respecting-citizens.
47 •
48 3) Article'XIV, Section 1, Item J. Conduct unbecoming an officer or
49 firefighter.
50
51 These charges are being filed for admission of a theft which occurred on
52 Wednesday, December 19, 1979. _ The theft involved an upright sweeper which
53 was taken by Mr. Griffin from Ayr-Way Stores,. 4401 National Road East, at
54 approximately 7:40 p.m. Deputy Fire Marshal Griffin was observed leaving the
55 store, by Ayr-Way security personnel, carrying a box with the sweeper in it.
56 He was observed leaving the parking lot, without, turning his car lights on,
57 and headed south on Garwood Road.
58
59 At approximately 10:00 p.m. , at Police Headquarters, he admitted taking a
60 sweeper from Ayr-Way and also admitted that he did not pay for it.. He also
61 signed a voluntary statement to that effect. At this time, he told us where
62 the sweeper was and Detective Tyra, Deputy Fire Marshal Griffin, and myself,
63 went to the DeBolt property and recovered the sweeper.
64
65 Mr. Anderson announced this proceedings is governed by IC 18-1-11-3. He stated
66 it is the will of the Board at this time whether the charges are prima ficie' and
67 should be accepted and an opportunity for a hearing to be set for Mr. Griffin.
68 It was noted Mr. Griffin is present, has heard the charges and is represented
69 by Attorney David Dennis. Mr. Dennis stated he had only recently been employed
7
Board of Works Minutes cont.
December 27, 1979
Page 5
1 and has not had an opportunity, to investigate the case. He requested, if the
2 Board feels it necessary, a date be set sufficiently far enough in the future
3 to give him time to look into the matter. Mr. Dennis further stated a request
4 for the acceptance of the charges to be postponed. Mr. Meredith stated the
5 Board is required by law to set it within a ten (10) day period.
6
7 Mr. Meredith moved that these charges be accepted by the Board of Public Works
8 and Safety, that Mr. Griffin be suspended continuing the outcome of that hear-
9 ing without pay and that the hearing be set for January 3, 1980 at 10:00 a.m. ,
10 seconded by Mr. Webb and on vote of Mr. Meredith and Mr. Webb the motion was
11 carried.
12
13 Mr. Anderson pointed out that by case law the City Attorney has to be the
14 advocate in a disciplinary procedure and cannot participate in the determina-
15 tion of the actual issues. Mr. Anderson requested Mr. Dennis file a notice
16 with the Board of Works of his being the Counsel. Mr. Anderson stated the
17 charges will be served on Mr. Griffin and Mr. Dennis requested a copy of the
18 charges. Mr. Anderson advised Mr. Griffin that he has a right to hearing,
19 a right to be represented by Counsel and to call any and all. witnesses and
20 prepare his defense. Mr. Anderson stated the charges will include a paragraph
21 explaining Mr. Griffin's rights under the statute. Mr. Dennis requested a
22 copy of the voluntary statement, which was referred to. Mr. Anderson stated
23 the statement will be made a_ part of the charges. Mr. Dennis_ stated he hoped
24 the Board would entertain a motion for a continuance, if the date seems to be
25 a little close. Mr. Dennis asked if there was any provision for a .substitute
26 to replace Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson stated there was not and cited the
27 case of the City of Mishawaka vs Stewart 310 N. E. 2d 65.
28
29 Mr. Anderson announced this hearing is concluded at this time.
30 •
31 Mr. Anderson moved the monthly report for December, 1979 from the Building
32 Commissioner be accepted, seconded by Mr. Webb and.on unanimous voice vote
33 . the motion was carried.
34
35 First District Councilman Jack Elstro appeared with Ms. Sandra Jones, 1337
• 36 South 3rd, noting a problem with the Water Company. , Their water meter is
37 located on South 4th 375' from their house. There is a leak under the new
38- street between the water meter and their house., Mr. Webb stated he had talked
39 with the Water Company about this matter approximately a week ago and they
40 assured him the matter would be taken care of. It was agreed Mr. Webb would
41 go with Councilman Elstro and Ms. Jones to talk with Mr. Allen of the Water
42 Company after this meeting.
43
44 Councilman Elstro brought to the attention of the Board the parking of
45 vehicles along the street at Roy Cates, 13th and South "L". Chief Chris
46 requested Councilman Elstro call the Police Department when he observes this
47 situation.
48
49 There being no further business on ,motion. duly made, seconded and passed the
50 meeting was adjourned.
51
• 52 Donald E. Meredith
53 President
54
55 ATTEST: JoEllen Trimble
56 Clerk 'of the Board