UNION — With no legislative items on its July 8 agenda, City of Union council listened to concerns voiced by area residents that attended the meeting.

First to speak was Clayton resident Ryan Farmer whose late in-laws and daughter are buried in Minnich Cemetery on Phillipsburg-Union Road.

During the past week Farmer and his wife finally had the headstone placed for their daughter, Grace, a 2012 graduate of Northmont High School who died along with her husband in a traffic accident May 30, 2021.

A newer housing development placed a home extremely close to the border of the cemetery near his daughter’s grave.

“Unfortunately, it is very hard to find that as a place of solitude to visit their graves because of a house that is built right on the perimeter of the cemetery,” Farmer said. “The builder used incredibly poor judgement in the placement of that house. It is within feet of the cemetery perimeter on the eastern side.”

Farmer acknowledged that nothing probably could be done about the house now that it is built, but felt it is an eyesore given its close proximity to the cemetery.

“Whoever lives there, I don’t know who wants their backyard to be a cemetery and witness funerals. It will certainly be an intrusion on any funeral privacy in the future because the home is right there,” Farmer said. “My question for council is, is there anything that can be done for that and will anything be done about it?”

He felt something should have been included in the development plan once the former agricultural land was rezoned for residential use to provide a barrier between the cemetery and the homes.

City Manager John Applegate said he had never fielded a question like that before. Mayor Michael O’Callaghan said he wasn’t sure if anything could be done.

“We will take a look at it,” Applegate stated.

“If anything can be done we will attempt to do that,” O’Callaghan said.

Paulette Farmer also discussed the same issue and was very distraught while addressing council.

“It’s gut wrenching because there is a house right there. How did this ever happen? How could anybody build something right there?”

She placed a bench so she could visit her daughter’s grave but there is no privacy with the backdoor of the house facing the cemetery.

Union resident Linda Black said she did some research on cemeteries and believes there must be at least 50 feet from a burial site to any adjacent property. She said she measured the distance of the home from the burial site and said it is about 30 feet.

She also discussed the proposed rezoning of 17-plus acres of land for a 54 home housing development and argued that the acreage required for the Residential Planned Unit Development is 40 acres, not 17.

Black was also upset about the city confiscating ‘Unite for Union’ signs residents have placed in their yards, even when the signs allegedly do not violate the right-of-way regulation.

She said Building / Zoning Inspector Andy Switzer is removing the signs and refusing to give them back. She alleged that Switzer told her if signs were placed 10 feet from the curb they would not be in violation of the right-of-way, but that he was still removing signs placed more than 10 feet from the curb.

She asked Switzer if he was measuring the distance from the curb to where signs were placed and he responded that he didn’t have time for that. She pointed out that the only way residents could figure out the right-of-way measurements was to go to the county website to look it up.

She said there are no numbers on the site and that residents have to ‘guesstimate’ the right-of-way. She felt that was not reasonable.

Applegate said the city has always returned signs to residents in the past, but stated the current situation has pushed the city to revisit what its policy is going to be regarding these types of signs.

He also said it is each property owner’s responsibility to know where their property pins are located in case they want to put up a fence or add a driveway next to an adjacent property line.

He said the city is updating its database to determine what the right-of-way is for each subdivision so Switzer has a reference to use in each neighborhood.

“The policy we are working on is going to spell everything out so that it is perfectly clear from this point forward,” Applegate said. “I am going to clarify it so that when somebody walks in here there is no question about signs and where they can be placed.”

He said residents will need to obtain a permit to place a sign in their yard, but no fee would be assessed for that permit. Obtaining a permit will enable the city to contact the person that obtained the permit in case any issues arise.

City resident Christy Daugherty said she contacted the city right after the signs were taken.

“The problem I have now even more is when you guys said you decided to re-evaluate the policy and process, to me that is 100 percent retaliation to the community practicing their right of free speech,” Daugherty said. “I am flabbergasted about how that would even be allowed or how you allow anyone to infringe upon that.

“You didn’t re-evaluate the sign policy prior to this,” Daugherty added. “You waited until we put the signs in the yards. My conversation with you was why are these signs a public issue? They say, ‘Unite for Union.’ You said it was about the field. Our Facebook group clearly displays what our actual uniting of the community is about and it is not about that field.”

City Law Director Joe Moore said the city is not retaliating at all, but instead has an ordinance that hasn’t been an issue prior to these signs because the city hasn’t had to deal with the same set of facts.

“Because it has terms in it about what you can do with the signs, how long the city can hold them and terms in there about an administrative fee, we are working on how we are going to enforce that and implement that in the future not just for this situation,” Moore stated.

“We are not retaliating here, we are saying we could not charge someone $500 or $100 to get their signs back because it is not clear,” Moore added. “That’s not retaliation. It’s revisiting the issue and making it more clear. It is what we have a duty to do. We look at these issues when they come up because that is how you get case law. A statute will be written and it won’t cover everything that arises under it, so you get a court case, a court of appeals case, or a supreme court case that says, ‘this is how this law is going to be applied.’ I have work product that I am working on right now that states how we should interpret and enforce the provision of the sign ordinance.”

Applegate told Black the city contacted her on Friday to come pick up the confiscated signs and that there was no fee for her to get them back.

Once written, the new sign ordinance will spell out all the rules regarding signs and would include any fees, if applicable, for residents to retrieve them from the city if a sign is removed for being within the right-of-way.