Plain City businesses are opposing a plan that would eliminate an expedited approval for building changes in the village.
As part of a public hearing at a council meeting earlier this week, business owners Tim Dawson and Jason Shumway spoke in opposition to the change.
Under the village code, the Design Review Board must approve changes to buildings in Plain City’s Uptown Historic District. In the past, certain minor changes could be fast tracked meaning that rather than going through the full board hearing, the village administrator or other staff could approve them.
Village Administrator Nathan Cahall said the changes that could be expedited were “pretty straight forward.” He used the example of a business that got a new logo and wanted to put it on an existing sign without changing the sign location or size or a business owner that wanted to change the color of an awning.
“It was rare that they would be denied,” Cahall said.
He said he was not part of the process, but he believes a previous staff member approved a change the design review board did not like or believed should have required full board approval. The design review board recommended council pass legislation that would eliminate that fast track option and require any change made to a building in the district to be approved by the board.
“That provision was put in for a reason,” said Dawson. “I just think this is going to make it extremely difficult to do anything by the book.”
Dawson said the change would be “a really bad thing for property owners and investors who want to improve the village.”
He explained that many design review board meetings get canceled and others do not have a quorum. He said getting board approval can take weeks or months.
“It is very important to a business owner to have a fast track,” Dawson said.
Shumway said many business owners want to improve their buildings and work with the village, but eliminating the fast track “is going to have people throw up their hands and things will crumble even more than they already are.”
Dawson said it is also bad for business. He said temporary things like sandwich boards detailing daily specials and seasonal window paintings are important tools for a business to communicate. He said they would likely be eliminated if the legislation passes.
Council member Shannon Pine agreed with Dawson. She said the requirements, “are going to bog down some very simple projects.”
She suggested possibly rewriting the language to more specifically say what could receive fast track approval.
Council member John Rucker, who sits on the design review board, said the legislation would allow some changes to be made without approval. Pine read the regulation aloud to him.
Dawson said he believes the legislation is the design review board’s way of, “trying to control things that don’t need to be controlled.”
He added, “There are so many other violations going on in this village that I don’t know why you want to micro manage a color or a sign,” Dawson said.
Council closed the public hearing and deferred a third reading of the legislation until members can discuss it more thoroughly in work session.
In other business:
– Cahall said the Maple Street repaving project is underway.
“We are still on track to have that completed by the end of June,” Cahall said.
Resident John Doig commented that the project makes it difficult to get to the Post Office. Cahall said the postal box on Main Street is open. He said he believes the portion of the project blocking the post office will be completed this week or next.
Council approved a pair of final development plans for sections five and six of the Darby Fields subdivision. These are the final two sections of the Darby Fields Project. Council also approved a request that will allow fences to be constructed inside an easement in the subdivision. Council did say that while it is approving the change any fence built in the easement is “at the risk of the homeowner” meaning if the fence needs moved or removed so the easement holder can get to the easement, the property owner will be responsible for any damage to the fence.
Pine questioned if the council should address other fences in the village that violate easements. Lee said the village “will address that with the zoning code update.”