Mayor & Common Council Meetings

CITY OF WESTMINSTER, MARYLAND MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 14, 2013 QUORUM: A meeting of the Mayor and Common Council was held in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1838 Emerald Hill Lane, Westminster, Maryland on the evening of January 14, 2013, at 7:00 P.M. Mayor Utz; Council President Halstad; Council Members Whitson, Chiavacci, Wack and Frazier; City Administrator and Acting City Clerk Wolf, City Treasurer Palmer, Chief of Police Spaulding, Director of Public Works Glass, Director of Planning, Zoning, and Development Beyard, Interim Director of Planning, Zoning, and Development Horn, and City Attorney Levan were present. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Utz recognized the accomplishments and long history of Sherri Hosfeld-Joseph and recommended her appointment to the Historic District Commission to the Common Council. Mr. Chiavacci moved to approve the recommendation. Dr. Wack seconded and the motion passed unanimously. MINUTES: Upon motion of Dr. Wack, seconded by Mr. Frazier and unanimously passed, the minutes of the Council meeting of December 10, 2012, were approved. CONSENT CALENDAR: Mr. Frazier moved to approve the Consent Calendar, which consisted of November 2012 Departmental Operating Reports and approval of Good Cause waiver for 102 Liberty Street. Dr. Wack seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. REPORT FROM THE MAYOR: Mayor Utz reported that he, along with some of the Council members, met with Congressman, Chris Van Hollen. He shared with Mr. Van Hollen some of the City’s difficulties with regulatory legislation and the burden it causes for the tax payers. Mayor Utz commented that Mr. Van Hollen understood these concerns. Mayor Utz also reported that he attended MML’s opening day Legislative Reception in Annapolis, on January 9, 2013. He shared that he had the opportunity to speak to some of the legislators about the ethics legislation. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITEES: Dr. Wack reported that between January 14 and the January 28 the electricity contract bid will be coming up again. He explained that the City has used a group that has gone through a collective process of bundling together multiple jurisdictions to try to negotiate the most favorable rate possible. Dr. Wack explained that there is a possibility that at the next meeting there will be a new rate proposal that the Council will need to take action on very quickly. Dr. Wack also reported that the audit report came back, having only one finding, making this audit the best ever. Dr. Wack thanked Ms. Wolf, Mr. Ehlers and Department Heads for their hard work. Mr. Chiavacci reported that he attended the meeting with Congressman Chris Van Hollen as well. He shared that in his perception of Mr. Van Hollen is that he is a reasonable guy and that he was upbeat about City of Westminster. Mr. Chiavacci explained that Mr. Van Hollen knew a fair amount about the City and what the City is doing. He feels that Mr. Van Hollen is someone the City may be able to count on if the City needs something from that level of government. Mr. Chiavacci shared that he as well as Mayor Utz and other Council members spoke in front of leaders from the community. He felt that they did a nice job representing the City. Mr. Whitson reported that the Arts Council had a meeting where they shared how thankful they were for the City’s assistance in painting and upgrades. Mr. Whitson also shared that their membership for the Arts Council is down a little bit, asking to please spread the word to those who may be interested in joining. President Halstad reported that he also attended the meeting with Chris Van Hollen. He commented that Mr. Van Hollen has visited Westminster twice in the past three months. He complimented Mr. Van Hollen that he is a good politician and that he appreciated his visit to the City. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS: Mr. Beyard shared that the Rental Licensing Task Force met on November 15, December 4th and then on January 8. He explained that Ordinance No. 839 is a replacement Ordinance for Ordinance No. 834, recommending that Ordinance No. 834 would be pulled. Mr. Beyard covered the key points that are addressed in the Rental Licensing report beginning with the license fees, commenting that the recommendation that the Task Force had received was to keep twenty dollar ($20) licensing fee. He then explained that from the guidance from Mayor and Council the program would be a complaint driven program, similar to what the City has done, but with a few changes. Mr. Beyard explained that the complaints would be from citizens and referrals from other departments who give input about things that are a problem. The Task Force recommended a sunset provision, explaining that should this legislation be adopted by the Council as recommended and after a three period the Mayor and Council would have to act on the legislation. Mr. Beyard explained that the sunset provision would require the Council to review how the program has worked or has not worked. The Council would then decide what changes may need to made in order to improve the program. Mr. Beyard shared that another recommendation is that there is a three member Board of Housing Appeals who would be the body to hear any cases and make the decisions without the need of going to court. The committee also took into consideration the importance of people to register, using a sliding scale of fees that increases over time for those who do not register within a timely manner. He further explained that inclusion of a habitual offender and pays fines in regards to the program, will pay a higher fine and higher registration fee. Mr. Beyard shared the Rental Licensing report includes the outreach and education. He then explained that the task force has researched different types of inspection forms and how people should apply, making it as easy as possible. He noted that long term it is recommended to have an automated system, where the property owners can apply online and pay their fees and generate their license right online. Mr. Beyard also explained that as part of the program certain inspections will require the consent of the landlord or tenant. Mr. Beyard recommended on behalf of the Task Force for March 1st with a 60 day window of time to begin the Rental Licensing program. Mr. Hoff reinforced that the goal of the Rental Licensing program was for it to be as friendly and painless as possible to property owners that are doing what they are supposed to be doing but gives the City the ability to address the problem areas. Dr. Wack agreed with Mr. Chiavacci that the Task Force has done a good job and has created a solid program, but Dr. Wack was not fond of sunset provision. Mr. Chiavacci explained that the sunset provision gives Council an opportunity to reevaluate the Rental Licensing program in three years. He explained that the City does not have a lot of data in terms of what the program will be dealing with. Dr. Wack commented that the Council has the opportunity to do that at any time. President Halstad commented that in his opinion the sunset provision enforces that at least one time in three years, as an Agenda item, the Council is forced to reflect on the program. Mr. Hoff commented that this is a complex issue, explaining that the Task Force’s goal was that the Council would look at the program in three years from now, seeing how the program plays out. He explained that the Council may want to revisit it and may need to change a couple of things. He commented that not all of the problems will be solved in three years. Mr. Chiavacci noted that Council does do not need to wait three years if the City finds that the program is really problematic. Mr. Whitson questioned if the Task Force has met with some other realtors other than the ones they have met with before. Mr. Hoff replied that that the Ordinance was been reintroduced the night of January 14, therefore the landlords have not seen the final version. In Mr. Hoff’s opinion he feels that they are going to not have a problem with the revisions because of the changes that were made and feels comfortable with the suggestion of the sunset provision. Mr. Beyard explained that it wasn’t just the twenty dollar ($20) that was the issue at the Public Hearing, it was the hundred dollars ($100) plus the inspection fees, but the other intent of the sunset provision it would be a certainty of what the fee would be so that under the proposal that fee would remain consistent during the period of the legislation. Mr. Chiavacci questioned if the ordinance required another Public hearing. Ms. Levan replied that it could be waived, but technically this is a new Ordinance therefore the City would handle it like a new Ordinance and have a new public hearing. Mr. Chiavacci suggested that the City have another public hearing, giving an opportunity for people to give their opinions regarding the new Ordinance. He feels that there was positive feedback that came out of the other public hearing. Mr. Whitson and Mr. Frazier agreed. Mr. Whitson questioned who this program would be affecting. Mr. Hoff replied that it is any rental property. Dr. Wack motioned to introduce Ordinance No. 839. Mr. Chiavacci seconded and the motion unanimously passed. Mr. Horn shared that the Westminster Planning and Zoning Commission, during its meetings on September 13, 2012, and October 11, 2012, reviewed and debated a proposed amendment to the City’s business signage allowances within the “N-C” Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. The proposal was brought forward to the Mayor & Common Council for hearing on December 10, 2012, with a favorable recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. The record on the hearing was left open to allow for additional comments to be submitted. Mr. Horn explained that the approval of Ordinance No. 838 would allow for one (1) additional on-premises business sign upon any “N-C” zoned land meeting specific geographic and physical characteristics. To be eligible for the additional sign, the “N-C” zoned property must exceed 14 acres in size and have at least 1,000 linear feet of frontage along a dual highway. Additional signage, allowed in accord with Ordinance No. 838, would improve visibility and facilitate the growth and development of the property. Adding a sign to an existing development would necessitate a revision to the approved site plan, thus requiring a review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission with regard to the specific characteristics of the new sign (location, height, design, etc.). Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 838 by the Mayor & Common Council. Mr. Frazier commented that he does not support this Ordinance as he shared during the Public Hearing. When he was on the Planning and Zoning Commission, and Applebee’s was being built, the owner said that he may not be able to build in Westminster unless a variance was granted. The variance was not granted but Applebee’s was still built. Mr. Frazier explained that the Council has to look at different ways with technology rather than just with signs for advertising. He noted that most businesses have a Facebook page and are on the internet and GPS. He doesn’t feel that there is a need to change the sign Ordinance. Mr. Frazier commented that if you are going to go to the place of business, you are going to go there. Additionally, he does not agree when builders/contractors come in under one premise, put a substantial amount of money into the project and want to make a change. He questioned how many other businesses would have come to try to develop property if they knew they could get changes down the road. President Halstad questioned if Mr. Frazier thinks this revision is going to adversely affect the site situation. Mr. Frazier replied that when homeowners bought their property they saw what was allowed and bought with that understanding. He does believe it will downgrade the neighborhood. He feels there are other ways to incorporate what has been requested. President Halstad questioned if this change will require future signage requests to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Horn replied that it will. He also noted that existing developments, such as the applicant in this case, will have to go back to Planning and Zoning Commission for review and approval. Mr. Chiavacci questioned Mr. Frazier if he has received feedback from the neighborhood that would have an issue with the sign. Mr. Frazier replied that he has not. Mr. Chiavacci commented that Mr. Frazier made some good points. Mr. Chiavacci questioned if there has been any public comments. Mr. Horn replied that he received a letter supporting the change from Mr. Shaffer. President Halstad commented that he feels signage is still pretty important. Mayor Utz questioned Mr. Shaffer if he had a copy of the letter that the homeowners had signed to clarify if they knew there was going to be signage or if they knew it was going to be a commercial site. Mr. Shaffer explained that the letter said it was going to be a 15 acre commercial site. President Halstad commented that he feels good about the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Whitson motioned to approve Ordinance No. 838. Mr. Chiavacci seconded and the motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Frazier opposing. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Chief Spaulding explained that during the Mayor and Common Council meeting on November 12, 2012 there was a discussion about the policy that the City uses to notify the employees and the community that there will be a change in office hours due to closures for the day or a delay in opening. Chief Spaulding explained that in the past Mr. Glass would make that decision and he would he would post a voicemail message for the nonessential employees so that they were aware of the change in the office hours. The local media would be notified that the City would be closed for the day. Chief Spaulding shared that the City didn’t take advantage of some of the new technology infrastructure that has been put in place as of late, so after several discussions with City Staff, they came up with a more simplistic policy for not only Mr. Glass, but for the citizens in the community to find out if there is going to be a change in office hours. Chief Spaulding explained that Mr. Glass will continue to make the decision whether there is going to be closure or delay in opening for the City offices before 6 am. He will then place a brief message on the City’s voicemail message on the City’s general information line. Chief Spaulding shared that this announcement will also be remotely posted on the City’s website so can get that information out at 6 am for citizens and employees. Upon motion of Dr. Wack, seconded by Mr. Chiavacci, the Council unanimously approved the Policy on change of City Office Hours. NEW BUSINESS: Mr. Glass shared that the City contracted with Stearns and Wheler GHD originally for a Preliminary Design Report to investigate the engineering required to design and construct improvements necessary for our Wastewater Plant to achieve ENR standards required by MDE. There has been much time to elapse between the start of the ENR project and where the City is today. Finally, we are at the completion of the schematic design phase with engineering design scheduled to take approximately a year before bidding and construction can begin. During the schematic design it became apparent that additional work beyond the initial scope was in order to solve issues related to solids handling and the Septage Facility. Mr. Glass explained that the work beyond the initial scope includes relocation of the solids handling facility and repurposing the existing building for use as administrative, laboratory and maintenance. This change enables the construction of a sufficient size building to incorporate current electrical and fire codes necessary for the solids dryer, chemical odor control etc and locate an operation that is potentially odorous, as far away from residences as practicable. In addition, new more efficient dewatering technologies will be investigated to potentially replace the current 20 year old equipment. The NTE cost associated with Amendment 4 is $235,277.00. Mr. Glass then shared that Amendment number 5 is with regard to the Septage Pretreatment Facility, which contributes a waste load to the Wastewater Treatment Plant and is located on- site. This Facility is funded entirely by Carroll County and is in place for disposal of septic wastes from the County and leachate disposal from County Landfills. The amendment provides for upgrades as needed to comply with the engineering changes associated with the Wastewater Treatment Plant’s ENR project. Mr. Glass explained that Carroll County was advised and recognized the need for improvements to the Septage Facility and wishes to utilize the City’s engineer with the full understanding that all costs associated with said improvements are the responsibility of the County. An existing agreement between the City and County stipulates the financial arrangement originating from the initial construction of the facility. Amendment 5 is for a study phase and is expected to develop into design as the process unfolds. The NTE cost for the study is $69,920.00. Mr. Glass noted that both amendments are outside the Grant funding and are therefore not subject to MDE’s approval. Mr. Glass recommends that the Council approves the amendments for the Mayors signature, pending completion of legal review, to minimize potential delay of engineering design work, as the schedule is strict with regard to commencement of construction and ultimately compliance with the effluent regulations. Dr. Wack questioned Mr. Glass as to what possible objection could MDE have, commenting this all seems like reasonable elements of the project that need to be done. Mr. Glass replied that MDE would look for any portion of the project that they would think would be eligible for grant funding. Mr. Glass commented that the City is not trying to receive grant funding because it is ENR not eligible. Dr. Wack inquired because it is not directly related to nutrient reduction, it is just processing improvement. Mr. Glass replied that is correct. Dr. Wack question the odor control, inquiring if there is enough gases coming off to be recovered. Mr. Glass replied that the gases that are useful are a different process. If it were anaerobic digestion then you could capture a combustible gas. This is aerobic digestion and it does not provide that possibility. The odor control that is proposed for the sludge dryer on the other hand would be necessary to contain a very odorous process, so the City would definitely need to have the odor facility control take care of that. Mr. Chiavacci questioned what the total cost of this study that the Council has already approved, inquiring that this is an addendum to that. Mr. Glass replied that that is correct; explaining that right now for engineer and design work that we are contracted with is $3 million dollars. Mr. Chiavacci questioned if the City has budgeted funds for this. Mr. Glass replied that in his conversations with the Ms. Palmer that there is. Mr. Chiavacci questioned if the funding is coming from water and sewer, not general operating budget for the City. Mr. Glass replied that is correct, it is not coming from the general budget, but is coming from the sewer fund. Mr. Chiavacci commented that it is passed onto the water and sewer users of the system. President Halstad questioned if the County was picking up the costs for Amendment 5. Mr. Glass replied yes. Upon motion of Dr. Wack, seconded by Mr. Chiavacci, the Council unanimously approved the Amendments 4 and 5 for ENR Project. Ms. Wolf shared that when Access Carroll moved its facility, they obtained a considerable amount of grant funding from a variety of sources, but it was all related to bond funds. She explained that Access Carroll proceeded with their plans and modified the building and moved in. When the bonds went to settlement, it occurred that the City back in 1984 obtained an easement for the exterior of the building. Ms. Wolf explained that it is a historic building and the condition of the bond funding is that the Maryland Historical Trust has to have first place for the easement for the bond building. She explained that the agreement states that the City will take second place on the easement of the building. Ms. Wolf commented that the Maryland Historical Trust does a good job at maintaining the historical nature of the buildings. She shared that there is $400,000 worth of funding for Access Carroll that will not be released by the State until they receive the agreement. Ms. Wolf recommends that the City suborns its interest in the exterior of the building to Maryland Historical Trust and enable them to release the funding. Mr. Chiavacci was concerned if at some point the City would need to provide funding because Access Carroll is unhappy with the exterior of the building. Ms. Wolf reassured him that this would not happen. Mr. Chiavacci questioned who is responsible for making sure that the building meets the Historical Trust criteria down the road. Ms. Wolf replied that the owner is responsible. Mr. Chiavacci inquired if that was the County. Ms. Wolf replied yes. Dr. Wack shared that he is on the board of Access Carroll, questioning Ms. Levan if this affects his ability to participate in this vote or should he abstain. Ms. Levan replied that she suggests that Dr. Wack abstain, explaining that she is not sure that his position on the board has direct immediate impact on this transaction. Upon motion of Mr. Chiavacci, seconded by Mr. Whitson, the Council unanimously approved the Subordination Agreement with the Maryland Historic Trust. Dr. Wack abstained from the vote. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: President and C.E.O. of the Westminster Fire and Hose Company No. 1 Mr. Bob Cumberland reported that for the month of November, the department responded to 131 fire calls; 61 in the City, 54 in the County, and 16 Mutual Aids. He shared there is an average of 9 responders per call. He stated for 2012, the department has 1,486 calls compared to 2011, when they had 1,471. He also reported that EMS ran 460 calls, averaging 15 calls a day. The department’s total for 2012 is 4,868 compared to 2011 at 4,788. He pointed out that the department is up 80 calls from last year. He stated that 218 calls were in the City, 208 calls were in the first due area, and 10 were mutual aid calls. He shared the total fire loss for 2012 was $1,430,000.00. He explained EMS transported 337 patients to Carroll Hospital Center, 6 patients to University of Maryland Shock Trauma, 3 patients to Sinai Hospital, 1 patient to John Hopkins Hospital and patients refused transport 22 times. President Halstad questioned 2012 figures were over 50% were outside of the City, if that was typical. Mr. Cumberland replied that the Fire Departments call average for the last 10 years has been around 48% in the City and 52% outside of the City. Mr. Chiavacci inquired about the department having close to 5, 000 calls for 2012, questioning how it stacks up County wide. Mr. Cumberland replied that it was correct, explaining that their department received about 2/3 of all the calls in Carroll County. Mr. Chiavacci questioned if the County is still splitting the money. Mr. Cumberland explained that each year the department submits a budget to the County Fireman’s Association. The Association has a budget committee that reviews the department’s budgets. The County gives the money to the County Fireman’s association from what they have determined in those budgets. Mr. Cumberland explained that there are 14 departments in the County, Westminster is receiving about 1/3 of operating expenses, and the rest of it needs to be raised by the department. He shared that the department has 19 full time employees including an administrator and an executive secretary that handles the day to day business and has 36 part time employees. Dr. Wack explained that the challenge is that have independent volunteer stations in the County including Westminster and that independence is highly valued and cherished, yet increased public support requires increased public oversight and control, but as a group they do not want more oversight and control. He commented that something needs to give. Mr. Cumberland commented that the Association only looks at what each district is providing, not the individual departments. Mr. Beyard reported that the Housing has moved out of City Hall and needed to shut down for a few days, but now they are fully operational. The Housing department was the last department to move. Chief Spaulding reported that there were two traumatic incidents in the City. He shared that one was a homicide on West Main Street on January 5th and the other was a fire death in Winters Alley on January 8th. Chief Spaulding shared that thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families. With respect to the homicide Chief Spaulding wanted to publicly thank the State police for all of their assistance that they provided to the Westminster Police Department. He shared that with their help they were able to locate and apprehend the suspect in about 8 to 9 hours, taking him off the street. Mr. Chiavacci commended Chief Spaulding for recognizing the limitations of the resources that the City gives the department to investigate a crime such as murder and that the department is willing to go out and bring those resources in. Mr. Chiavacci commented that Chief Spaulding mentioned that he got lucky; he explained that as the Chair of the Public Safety committee, he wanted to point out that the Westminster Police Department makes your own luck in cases like that. Mr. Chiavacci feels that the Westminster Police Department and the investigators deserve a lot of credit because they played a big role in allowing that case to be closed. He commented that Chief Spaulding and his department deserved a tremendous amount of appreciation for bringing that case to what will hopefully be a conviction. Chief Spaulding thanked Mr. Chiavacci sharing that he will pass that along to his department. He shared that the department has excellent investigators, the reality is that only have a handful of investigators that serve in that role and when you have a case of that magnitude it requires lots of resources. He added had about 10/12 investigators from the State Police that were spreading out across the State to try to get the suspect in the custody in early hours of the case where could optimize the ability to gather evidence that would convict them. He explained that he does not have that level resource and that is why reached out to State Police. Chief Spaulding wanted to let Council know that he will be out of town for the Special Olympics Winter games, leaving on January 17 and returning February 2. Major Stevens will be Acting Chief during his absence. Ms. Wolf reported that Ms. Palmer had surgery, has come home, is doing well. Ms. Wolf shared that the Council approved a good cause waiver for 102 Liberty Street under the Consent Calendar because the City contacted Council to receive approval to move forward with this. Ms. Wolf shared that this was a family that needed to be tied into the City’s sewer system and had an FHA mortgage that was due to settle Friday. She shared that the family had spent $11,000 in plumbing costs in digging for the sewer line. Their basement had flooded because they had to dig out of the ground and keep filling it back it back in. Ms. Wolf shared that the Utility employees volunteered to work on that Saturday, commenting that this was not an emergency, but that they were unable to find the line. They then had to rush down to get an SHA approval to dig in the road, dug up the road, found the line, and then got the plumber there to get it all fixed. Ms. Wolf shared that the City received a letter from the owners expressing their appreciation and that they shared they were able to go to settlement. Ms. Wolf then reported that Mr. Glass and some of the people from DNR and the County took a walk down Hull Creek, asking for the City’s participation on a stream restoration project. She explained that Hawk creek is where the intake is for the reservoir; this will be a couple of million dollar project to do the stream restoration and a tree planting project. CITIZEN COMMENTS: Chuck Zellers of 517 Larson Court questioned what happens in a situation where someone is the owner of a property and does not take care of the property, how would this be handled by the City. Mr. Chiavacci replied that there are property codes that would address that situation. He explained that the City has an Ordinance in place that would address that just as if it were a rental property. Mr. Zellers questioned why the City is spending time on the Ordinance for the Rental Licensing if the City already has an Ordinance in place. Mr. Frazier replied that the City is only looking at the inside of the properties, not the outside of the properties for complaint driven. Daniel Strickler of 542 Roops Mill Road questioned that the City already has registration for Rentals and that it is enforced because he knows of owners who have received a $100 fine for failing to register, he questioned why this Ordinance for the Rental Licensing program is not an effective measure not knowing what is going on with the rentals. Mr. Chiavacci explained that it had not been followed through with very well, which is what Ordinance No. 839 is about. Mr. Strickler questioned why the City needs a new Ordinance if they have not done a good job with the one already have. Mr. Chiavacci explained that the current Ordinance does not address all of things that are trying to address in the new Ordinance. It doesn’t do everything that the previous one did, but it does incorporate some of things that are already in the existing ordinance as it is. He explained that the old Ordinance did not do everything needed it to do, it was not just with registration. Mr. Frazier added that the Ordinance if a property owner were to ignore paying fines, there was no recourse for the City, now there is, and Landlord cannot ignore the City because there will be repercussions. Glen Spiker property owner of 3787 Sells Mill Road inquired when a complaint is filed and the inspector inspects within a reasonable time, that the owner/agent be notified so that they can attend. Mr. Hoff explained that may never hear about the complaint because if an inspector goes out, they find may find that it is not valid, which would waste the landlord/agent’s time. He explained that the point of the matter is that trying to give the City of Westminster more power to go after the problem landlords. The fact of the matter is there is some problem properties in this town. Majority of the people do what they are suppose to be doing, but there is a certain percentage that don’t. Mr. Hoff explained that this Ordinance will help with those who are not doing what they are supposed to be doing. Mr. Spiker commented that if a complaint is made, as a landlord he would like to be notified, even if the inspector finds that it is not a problem, it may be something that he would want to address. Mr. Chiavacci suggested making that part of the policy, suggesting sending a letter to the landlord that will be inspecting due to a complaint, but not requiring the Landlord to be there. Mr. Beyard added that when a complaint is received the property is inspected. If there is a problem, the Landlord is notified at that time. He shared that under this Ordinance is requiring the property owners to have a license, if you do not have a license you cannot rent. If there are continuous violations then the license can be pulled so that the landlords cannot rent. Tina Mawhinney of 125 Airport Drive wanted to voice her displeasure at permits that were issued by the City for soliciting and peddling for two food vendors that have appeared out at the Airpark. She explained that she has had several conversations with Mr. Horn who referred her to Mr. Beyard. She spoke to Mr. Beyard on January 14 inquiring why it was allowed for them to have their business out there when the industrial zone prohibits eateries without a zoning hearing. President Halstad questioned if they were hotdog carts. Ms. Mawhinney explained that they are carts, one selling cheese steaks and one is selling pit beef and pulled pork barbeque. She explained that her first conversation with them indicated that neither had a permit to solicit, and then the permits were issued. Mr. Beyard explained that zoning only pertains to a building structure. Ms. Mawhinney added that when the carts are parked on the streets, with so much tractor and trailer traffic, it causes a traffic nightmare on a daily basis. She questioned if the permits were valid. President Halstad questioned Mr. Beyard as to what kind of consideration is required for permits for food carts. Mr. Beyard explained the zoning is not really the issue - zoning pertains to the land and buildings. Ms. Mawhinney inquired about the code regarding commercial vehicles being parked for more than one hour; she questioned how this would be different. Dr. Wack explained that the zoning district pertains to a parcel of land. President Halstad explained that the City looks at these requests on an individual basis and questioned Ms. Mawhinney if the two carts are together. Ms. Mawhinney replied no, explaining that there are now three permits for food carts to be out at the Airpark. She questioned Mr. Beyard as to how many carts are acceptable. She explained that two of the carts sit on the same street; one only comes in the summer time. President Halstad said that based on what Mr. Beyard said, he suggests to Ms. Mawhinney to allow the City to look into the details of the complaint and then someone will get back to her. ADJOURN: President Halstad adjourned the meeting at 8:33 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Shannon Visocsky