The City of Union Municipal Building is located at 118 N. Main St., Union.
Ron Nunnari | The Register-Herald
UNION — Due to the absence of two members of council at its Sept. 9 meeting, the city of Union postponed a planned executive session to discuss disputes subject to pending court actions.
Vice Mayor John Bruns was unable to attend due to illness and Councilmember Lynne Thomas-Roth was absent due to a death in the family.
Council had no legislative items on its agenda. Instead, the meeting consisted of comments by citizens and visitors.
Christy Daugherty addressed council about a proposed residential development of 54 homes on 17.56 acres north of Phillipsburg-Union and east of Old Mill roads.
Daugherty reviewed the minutes of the May 7 planning commission meeting that stated if zoning was approved for the development the city would require a storm water report. She asked if that report had been submitted and when.
She also inquired about limestone on the site and asked if a Geotech study had been performed. She also wanted to know if a preliminary plat for the proposed subdivision had been submitted to the planning commission and if a written application for approval of the plat had been submitted and if the city had assessed $100 per acre for the plans.
“We have not had any submittals yet,” said City Manager John Applegate. “When the submittal comes in that is what starts the process. Some of the things you’ve asked about the storm water report is one of the requirements they will have to fulfill, but we have nothing yet from them.”
Linda Black asked if council actually reads meeting minutes before the minutes are approved.
“I need you to know that they are not fully accurate and I think it would be good for everyone for the city to officially record their meetings,” Black said.
She cited a discussion held at the last meeting about yard signs and the way the ordinance was written regarding where signs could be placed so that they are not within the designated right-of-way.
She noted that Councilman Ken Prunier agreed with her that the ordinance was not entirely clear and that he interpreted it the same way as Black. Lynn Thomas-Roth also agreed with Black’s interpretation.
“But, you will not find that in the minutes that she agreed with me and I know that might sound small and miniscule, but there were two council members who agreed with me and it is not in the minutes,” Black said.
“I find this to be very important and it is very serious because the minutes are a legal document and should accurately say what actually happened, which is why, you as council members should be reading them and approving them,” Black stated.
She also brought up an enforcement of yard signs and an email she had sent to Applegate on Aug. 23 containing three questions.
She asked about when the revisions to the sign ordinance would be available to the public to view. She also asked for a complete list of the right-of-way on each street and how and when the public would be informed of the $100 fine enforcement if a yard sign violates the right-of-way designation.
Black said she finally received a response about the right-of-way list two and half weeks after he inquiry.
“I think promptness in the response of the city is lacking,” Black said. “About questions one and three, my concern is about how you are informing the public. You took the time to explain to council in the memorandum that you were enforcing a $100 fine.
She that info was not included in the memo sent to residents about signs on the back of the September water bill. She said this was not acceptable.
Black said it was not acceptable that the city had not communicated to the public the way it should have. She quoted from the memorandum.
“It says, quote, ‘This memorandum has been prepared to provide to the public guidance concerning the sign ordinance.’ The problem is you put it into the hands of seven people and not the public,” Black stated. “Another part given to council was showing a change to the acknowledgement of public issue regulations form.”
Black alleged that every single part on that form is being cited from the sign ordinance. She said it was her opinion that the city could not add something to the form until it is first added to the ordinance.
“Look at the form. Every single part is being cited from the ordinance,” Black said. “In my mind, the way that should have happened is that council should have amended the ordinance and added the letter ‘G’ that the city manager and the city attorney added themselves.
“If there has ever been a case in which council has delegated their power to someone else, it is right here, right now,” Black stated. “Council has delegated their power to the city manager and to the city attorney. You tell me how or why something could be added to a form when everything else in that form is coming from the sign ordinance? How can you just put something on there?”
Black argued that citizens are supposed to know what is actually included in ordinances but stated adding something to the regulations form that is not actually included in the ordinance was misleading because council had not amended the ordinance to include that wording.
Applegate said the form is something to be used when a sign is submitted to be reviewed and is provided to residents so that they understand what is to be expected.
“That form is something that we created to provide that information,” Applegate said.
Black argued that everything on that form is cited from the ordinance with the exception of the last line, labeled ‘G’ which is not actually in the ordinance.
“The last line was added so that it added clarity of how it would be enforced,” Applegate stated. “You might not agree with it, but that form has been in effect for a very long time and we added that last part to help clarify some of the things that you have raised so people would know.”
Black said she still did not understand how the city could add something to the form when everything else on it is cited from the ordinance but not the last line.
“That form was created so that it would help people know what to look for if they needed to double check the ordinance,” Applegate said.
“Well exactly. But they are not going to find that (last line on the form in the actual ordinance) are they?” Black asked. “When they read ‘G’ they are going to be looking and they are going to ask, ‘Oh, where am I going to find this in the sign ordinance?’ Well guess what? It’s not there.”
Applegate said that if a resident brings their sign to city hall it will be explained to them. Black argued that it was not the point.
“The point is that you disagree with the ordinance and you are wrong in how you look at it and that is all I am going to say about it,” Applegate said. “It’s just for help to have people to be better informed. You may not like it, but that’s what we do to help.”
Reach Ron Nunnari at (937) 684-9124 or email [email protected].
