Granville property code generates lively debate

GRANVILLE – Opinions both for and against a proposed property maintenance code for the Village of Granville were strong at a public hearing Wednesday night.

As a result, the hearing was continued to Sept. 16, giving time for not only more public comment but for village officials to do more research that could lead to adjustments in the proposal before a vote.

During the hearing Wood Struthers, 30, a Cedar Street resident, said he is selling his house after three years because of a neighboring property where he says there is a foundation with a 6-foot-deep hole in addition to other issues.

“It has forced me out of my house and it has cost me money,” the Granville native, who had moved back here with his own family, said.

But Doug Eklof, a member of the Village Planning Commission, whose members declined to endorse the code, said, “My primary concern was that in the worst-case application of the laws, it could be used to force an unpopular neighbor out of their home.”

The purpose of the 15-page code is “to establish minimum standards necessary to make all structures safe, sanitary, free from fire and health hazard, fit for human habitation and beneficial to the public welfare ...”, according to its language.

The code establishes minimum standards to avoid “blighting, nuisance or deteriorating influence on the surrounding neighborhood” and “to protect property values,” it further states.

The issue was raised last fall when several residents of the East Elm/South Pearl neighborhood brought to the council’s attention photos of buildings they believed were dilapidated.

But Councilman Jeremy Johnson admitted to those in attendance Wednesday, “If you’re living next to one of these properties now, I’m not convinced that this can get the resolution you’re looking for. It doesn’t get us there.”

Village Law Director Michael King agreed: “I don’t think this achieves as a practical matter what some people want.”

One resident of the East Elm/South Pearl area, Laura Frame, backed her neighbors’ concerns.

“I strongly believe if you live in Granville or any community and you own a home, there’s a duty to maintain it,” she said, in the historical nature of community. “If your porch is falling apart and you have pealed and chipped paint, you’re losing property value.”

Struthers, who said he runs a lawn care business, said he mowed a neighbor’s grass himself on some occasions, said we would not have purchased his home if he knew then what he knows now.

“It’s not an investment. It’s cost me money,” he said of his home, calling the neighbor’s foundation hole a hazard to his kids and dog who sometimes stray from his yard. “If that were a swimming pool with water in it, it would require a fence around it.”

Bob Johnson, an East Elm resident who advocated a property code last year in front of the council, said, “I’m sorry to hear what he just said. The original intent from people on his street was not to try to create a police force or something to tell people what colors to paint their house. Our real intent was along the times that if the wood is so bad, it’s a safety hazard.”

“I think the standard the council developed here fits that original bill,” Johnson said. “These are things the citizenry of Granville have a right to expect.”

However, Granville businessman Dan Rogers, who is running for Village Council, was to the point about his view.

“More garbage. More wasted time. More wasted money. Stop hammering people. Help people!” he said. “We don’t need all these rules.”

Planning Commission member Bill Wilken, while sympathetic with those living next to properties they consider eyesores, said, “There are other ways we can get to this matter” and also said he feared the code would lead to political turmoil.

“Probably 60 percent of the residents of Granville are already protected by covenants in homeowner associations,” he said, admitting most of these are in newer neighborhoods. “The problem exists in a particular geographic area of the village. It doesn’t exist in the village as a whole.”

Eklof said the code does not address commercial properties, including rental properties.

“If a home is not owner-occupied, it should be held to a higher standard,” he said. “If someone wants to rent, fine, but must be registered as rental property. The village can force (a) higher standard.”

Sharon Sellitto, who rents units in town, said most non-resident landlords are long gone, and suggested village officials look at a Reynoldsburg “Abatement of Public Nuisance Code” that is only three pages long.

“I think what you’re proposing is using a shotgun to kill a flea. I don’t think you should pass it,” she said of the Granville proposal.

All council members favored continuation of the hearing.

“That will give us a chance to look through some additional language we heard about tonight,” Mayor Melissa Hartfield said.

“I recognize this is an emotional topic for people on either side. It’s emotional for us, too,” Hartfield said. “Council’s not trying to be a gestapo. We’re trying to help address legitimate concerns that exist in this community without inciting the neighbor-hating-neighbor kind of thing.”

“I’d like to appeal to the community to give us more input,” Councilman Rob Montgomery said, stressing he’d like to hear from others. “We’ve heard from people who are closely affected by this. We’re representing all the interests of Granville.”