Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes May 24, 2012

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

May 24, 2012

7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Bradley Smith, Kenneth Kemper, Larry Burge, Scott Manno, and Jeff Gill.

Members Absent: None.

Also Present: Alison Terry and Debi Walker, Village Planning Department.

Visitors: Forrest Blake, Edith Shories, Glenn White, and Nora Corbett.  

Citizens Comments:  No one appeared to speak under Citizens Comments. 

Description of Procedure:

Mr. Gill provided a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

Note:  The items listed on this agenda under New Business are open to the public, but are not a public hearings.  Any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence. The following persons may appear at hearings as parties and be heard in person or by attorney:

(1)        The applicant;

(2)        The owner of the property that is the subject of the application, if the owner is

            not the applicant or appellant;

(3)        The owner of property that is adjacent or contiguous to the property that is the

            subject of the application; and

(4)        Any other person who claims that a direct, present injury or prejudice to a

            personal or property right will occur if the application is approved or denied. 

A person authorized to appear and be heard may:

(1)        Present his or her position, argument and contentions;

(2)        Offer and examine witnesses and present evidence in support of his or her

            position, arguments and contentions;

(3)        Cross-examine witnesses purporting to refute his or her position, arguments

            and contentions;

(4)        Offer evidence and testimony to refute evidence and testimony offered in

            opposition to his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(5)        Proffer any evidence or testimony into the record if such evidence or testimony

            has not been admitted by the Board. 

New Business:

Forrest Blake, 226 South Mulberry Street, Application #2012-51

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for review and approval of the following variances:

1)     To reduce the northern side yard set back from ten (10’) feet to zero-point-seven (0.7’) feet; and

2)     To reduce the eastern rear yard setback from ten (10’) feet to one (1’) foot to allow for the construction of a detached accessory structure.    

(Alison Terry, Forrest Blake, Glenn White, and Edith Shories were sworn in by Mr. Gill.) 

Discussion:

Forrest Blake, 226 South Mulberry Street, indicated he is before the BZBA to request a variance from a ten-foot offset to the rear and side yard.  He stated his desire is to build a garage where the existing garage is located and the existing structure would come down.  Mr. Blake stated he has hired Mark Clapsadle to do the drawing plans for the new garage.  Mr. Blake stated he has done some digging and found a block wall for the foundation, but he is not sure of the condition or usability.  He stated if the foundation is good he would like to reuse it.  Mr. Blake stated one cannot even see the foundation until they start digging.  Mr. Blake stated his neighbor to the east, Edith Shories, is concerned about some trees on her property being damaged due to his plans.  He stated the garage has been in this location for a long time and the neighbor has allowed these trees to grow up in the last thirty to forty years.  Mr. Gill asked if the tree trunks are located on Mr. Blake’s property.  Mr. Blake stated the tree trunks are located on Ms. Shories property.  Mr. Gill asked if Mr. Blake is requesting Ms. Shories to remove the trees.  Mr. Blake stated no.  He stated he would request for the trees to be trimmed enough to allow for construction of the garage.  Ms. Terry stated there is not a variance on file for the existing garage because it was built so long ago.   Ms. Terry stated Council has authorized the demolition of the existing garage.  

Glenn White, attorney representing Ms. Shories, 33 West Main Street, Newark, stated the trees are within a few feet of the property line.  He explained the tree roots are shallow and extend from the base of the tree.  Mr. White stated the BZBA should also have information before them submitted by an arborist indicating their concern over damage done to the roots resulting negatively for the life of the tree.  Mr. Manno asked if Mr. White is a general attorney or a real estate attorney.  Mr. White stated he is a general law attorney.  Mr. Manno stated in his research he thought the tree owner owns vertical and to the ground and if a limb hangs over someone else’s property they have the legal right to remove it.  Mr. Manno questioned if roots are located on Mr. Blake’s property does he have the legal right to cut them.  Mr. White stated there is some dependence on whether the ten foot (10’) setback is enforced.  Mr. Gill clarified the applicant may request to build on the current foundation.  He stated damage could occur with the roots on Mr. Blake’s property with the demolition process.  Mr. White agreed and indicated further damage could occur with Mr. Blake’s proposal for a concrete pad.  He stated there are pavers inside the garage now.  Mr. Gill indicated he thought he saw a dirt floor.  Mr. Blake stated part of the foundation is dirt.  Mr. White stated they would have concern over a poured foundation.  Mr. White stated the applicant is requesting what he calls a “substantial change” with a variance to reduce the setback from ten feet (10’) to one foot (1’).  Mr. Gill indicated the applicant’s request for demolition has been granted and this structure was grandfathered.  Mr. Gill asked if Ms. Shories would like to see the garage built elsewhere.  Mr. White stated yes and presented an alternative position for the garage which would be four feet seven inches (4’7”) from the south property line.  Mr. White stated this alternative would only require one variance rather than the two being presented in Mr. Blake’s application.  Mr. Manno indicated it could be possible to construct what is there now without a variance or one variance to the south.  Mr. White agreed and indicated the applicant would have to trespass on Ms. Shories property to do maintenance.  He explained they are concerned about people going onto Ms. Shories property destroying vegetation.  Mr. Manno stated there is no guarantee the roots would not go ten feet and not hit Mr. Blake’s property.  He added Mr. Blake has the right to cut roots on his property.  Ms. Terry clarified the structure could not be rebuilt without a variance if the value of the structure is altered by more than 60% of its existing assessed value.  Mr. Burge asked if the submitted pictures were taken within the last month.  Mr. White stated yes.  He indicated the trees do not appear to have much foliage.  Ms. Shories stated the trees are lush and green and are worth maintaining.  Mr. Gill stated he did review the property and saw the trees.  Mr. Manno asked about the roots in question and if they are damaged due to the foundation work – who is liable?  Mr. White stated he doesn’t think there is liability there and it could be considered natural growing.  Mr. Manno questioned if there is a guarantee that if Mr. Blake builds in this location that the trees will die.  Mr. White stated they would like to see a location chosen that is less intrusive to the neighbors.  Mr. Manno stated if Mr. Blake removes the foundation he could tear up the roots because they are located on his property. Mr. Smith indicated the BZBA is charged with following the Ohio Revised Code Section 1147.  He questioned which criteria Mr. White would want the BZBA to use to deny the variance.  He asked if it would be Section 1147.03b – ‘Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance?’  Mr. White agreed the criteria would be a focal point to their objection, but they also feel damage to the trees would occur as a result to the applicant’s actions.  Mr. White stated the code requires a ten foot (10’) separation, but it didn’t when the garage was originally built there.  He stated the new garage would cut down on light and visibility.  Mr. Smith questioned if there are other grounds pertaining to this criteria in which the BZBA is asked review.  Mr. Smith stated he does not see anything else regarding Ms Shorie’s argument other than Section 1147.03b3.  Mr. White stated he has provided written answers to each one of the criteria on behalf of his client.  Mr. White questioned how the applicant could construct a new garage without trespassing on Ms. Shorie’s property?  He also stated the requested variance is substantial being 90% of the setback.  Mr. Gill stated there is a reason the BZBA is not bound by precedence.  He stated they are disposed to grandfathering.  Mr. White indicated he used to be on the Granville Township Zoning Board and he is familiar with the process.  Mr. Manno stated it has been the argument that damage of the tree roots could occur with the building of a new garage.  He stated there is no guarantee the trees will live even if the applicant builds the garage ten feet (10’) away.  Mr. White agreed and stated his client would like the ten foot (10’) strip between her property and Mr. Blake’s.  Mr. Manno stated the applicant has already been given permission to demolish the existing structure and there is no guarantee damage wouldn’t occur as a result of removing the foundation.  Mr. White agreed.  Ms. Shorie’s stated the arborist she hired indicated the old garage should be torn down carefully.  She stated the trees are good for all that live there.  Mr. Gill thanked Ms. Shorie’s for her comments.  He stated there appears to be a lot of concern as to what is done on ones own property and he questioned if this feels equitable.  Mr. Gill asked if Ms. Shorie’s feels it would improve the neighborhood if the garage comes down.  Ms. Shorie’s stated yes because there are groundhogs living in the existing structure.  Mr. Gill asked Mr. Blake how he feels about the alternative proposition by Ms. Shorie’s legal counsel for placement of the garage.  Mr. Blake stated he has looked at laying out the garage in a different location and it is not functional.  He stated he needs enough space to back his car out.  Mr. Blake stated this is a shared driveway.  He stated there is no point in reconstructing a garage if it is not functional.  Mr. Blake stated he needs twenty-five to thirty feet (25’- 30’).  He explained Ms. Shorie’s has a fence in this location and there is not enough room.  He stated he has a degree in civil engineering and does traffic patterns and he does not believe Ms. Shorie’s proposal is workable.  Mr. Blake stated other neighbors in the area are for his plans to rebuild a garage.  Ms. Terry stated she didn’t hear from any of the other neighbors in regards to this application.  Mr. Blake stated the building of this garage has been an ongoing discussion with Ms. Shorie’s for several years.  He stated he would attempt to build the garage on the existing foundation so it would not disrupt the roots, but it's not a guarantee this is possible.  He indicated he would do a gravel foundation and figured this was a compromise.  Mr. Blake stated his proposal shouldn’t be much different than what it is there today. Mr. Smith asked about the trespassing matter that was brought up.  Mr. Blake indicated this is the first time this has come up.  He stated there is certainly a problem if Ms. Shorie’s objects to anyone stepping foot on her property.  He indicated he would have to speak to the carpenter to see how much room they would require for construction.  Mr. Blake stated he would like the garage to be bigger, but he can’t due to the amount of space.  Mr. Kemper asked if Mr. Blake shares the turn around with other neighbors.  Mr. Blake stated yes.  Ms. Terry referred to the arborist report, included in the BZBA packets, which indicated the garage was recommended to be located at least four feet from the property line to protect the tree roots.  Mr. Blake stated the garage was there before the trees and the trees were allowed to grow a foot or two away from his property line.  Mr. Gill questioned if the BZBA could place a condition of approval on the application which was dependent on the existing foundation being found usable.  If it was usable, the applicant could place the structure in the existing location.  If it wasn't usable, the applicant would be required to move it further away from the property lines.  Ms. Terry stated this could be touchy because it would be left up to the Planning Department to interpret to what extent the foundation would be usable?  Would this be for one post?  Or a certain percentage?  She stated they do not know what the building code will require at this time and the applicant may have to dig new footers.  Mr. Manno stated the posts would be thirty-six inches (36”) in.  Mr. Smith stated the BZBA could ask for more information from the applicant to address this, but he can understand it would be difficult for staff to monitor.  Mr. Gill asked how open Mr. Blake would be to moving the garage three feet (3’) forward from the back property line, for a total of four feet (4’).  Mr. Blake stated the garage wouldn’t fit and there would not be enough room to turn around.  He stated he could live with two feet but he would have to cut a foot off his deck if the garage were to be moved closer to his house.  This would need to be done to make enough space to turn around.  Mr. White stated the arborist has recommended four feet (4’) from the property line to protect the trees and he has not discussed different than four feet (4’) with his client.  Ms. Shorie’s stated the applicant moved to this location five years ago and maybe he bought the wrong house.  Mr. Burge questioned if perhaps an arborist could be retained to ensure the demolition and construction was done with the utmost care.  Mr. Manno agreed the chances are pretty slim for Mr. Blake to use the existing foundation.    

Mr. Smith stated when reviewing the criteria and restrictions in the code, he feels taking down the grungy old shed and placing a much nicer garage in place is a good thing.  He stated the question is how the law plays out the liability in this situation.  Mr. Smith stated Mr. Blake can cut the tree roots off since they are on his property, which could force Ms. Shorie’s to take down the trees.  Ms. Terry stated any issues regarding the trees would be considered a civil issue and not a zoning issue.  She stated the Village cannot require anyone to keep a tree or remove a tree on private property.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-51: 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. Mr. Smith stated this is common to the area and the lot is extremely small.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  Yes, there can be a beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE.   

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Smith and Mr. Kemper stated given the code requirements the variance is substantial.  Mr. Burge, Mr. Gill, and Mr. Manno stated that given the existing structures in the area and the fact that the applicant wants to reuse the existing foundation the variance is not substantial.  Mr. Burge stated the applicant is requesting the same footprint.    

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Mr. Smith and Mr. Manno both stated TRUE the neighbor could have a substantial detriment, but this detriment could occur anyhow with or without the variance.  Mr. Gill, Mr. Kemper, Mr. Burge stated FALSE because this would be an improvement to the property and essentially a reuse of the existing foundation. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE it would not affect the delivery of government services. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  Mr. Gill, Mr. Smith, Mr. Kemper, and Mr. Manno stated TRUE the property owner did purchase the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  Mr. Burge stated FALSE.      

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE because the property owner indicated why other places on the property would not work. 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Mr. Smith, Mr. Gill, Mr. Manno, and Mr. Burge stated TRUE Mr. Smith stated TRUE because the zoning code was not meant to prevent property owners from essentially repairing their structures.  Mr. Gill, Mr. Manno and Mr. Burge agreed this was FALSE. Mr. Kemper stated FALSE because this request for a variance is one foot (1’) from the property line.  

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE because of the nature of the existing garage and the rear lot layout there are special conditions and circumstances. 

d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Mr. Kemper and Mr. Manno stated FALSE because it will affect the trees and light on the adjacent property.  Mr. Burge stated TRUE because there is not a guarantee damage will be done to the trees.  Mr. Gill stated TRUE because it would improve the property values and the neighborhood would be enhanced.  Mr. Smith stated TRUE there is not other harm caused.        

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Mr. Manno stated he would suggest a two feet setback if a new foundation is required to be placed at the widest part of the structure, which would include the overhangs.  The BZBA agreed this was a recommendation to the applicant and not a condition of approval.    

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2012-51 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-51: Burge (yes), Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Manno (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2012-51 is Approved as Presented. 

Granville Historic Properties, LLC, 122 South Prospect Street, Application #2012-62:  Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for review and approval of a conditional use ford single family residential.  

(Alison Terry, Debi Walker, Nora Corbett and were sworn in by Mr. Gill.) 

Discussion:

Nora Corbett, 122 South Prospect Street, stated she would like to use the space for residential purposes.  Ms. Terry stated Single Family Residential is a conditional use in the Village Business District and this property was previously used for commercial purposes.  Ms. Corbett stated she rented from the owners – Nancy Recchie and Mr. Darby.  She explained they were unaware the space couldn’t revert back to residential use.  Ms. Terry explained the owners were previously given a conditional use for residential use and then changed this back to commercial use.  She stated the owners of the property are overseas.  Ms. Terry stated the conditional use for residential has lapsed because it's been discontinued for more than two years.  Ms. Terry clarified any variances granted for parking for a conditional use is only for that use and not for future uses.  Mr. Burge asked if the applicant occupies the entire home.  Ms. Corbett stated yes she has lived there for two weeks.  Mr. Gill asked the applicant if one parking space would work.  Ms. Corbett stated yes.  Mr. Smith asked if the residential use that was previously granted was for one space.  Ms. Terry stated there is no parking requirement or variance on file for the previous residential use.  She stated there is a higher off-street parking requirement for commercial uses than there would be for a residential use within the Village Business District. 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Conditional Use Criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-62: 

a)         The proposed use is a conditional use within the zoning district and the applicable development standards of this zoning Ordinance are met.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.   

b)         The proposed use is in accordance with all current land use and transportation plans for the area is compatible with any existing land use on the same parcel. Mr. Gill, Mr. Manno, Mr. Kemper, and Mr. Burge unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Smith stated TRUE, it is in accordance.     

c)         The proposed use will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services such as streets, schools and refuse disposal. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE, it will not create a burden.  

d)         The proposed use will not be detrimental or disturbing to existing neighboring uses, and will not entail a use, structure or condition of operation that constitutes a nuisance or hazard to any persons or property.  The BZBA board unanimously agreed TRUE it will not be detrimental.   

e)         The proposed conditional use will not significantly diminish or impair property values within the surrounding areas.  The BZBA board unanimously agreed TRUE it will not significantly diminish established property values.      

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2012-62 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-62: Smith (yes), Manno (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2012-62 is Approved as Presented. 

Granville Historic Properties, LLC, 122 South Prospect Street, Application #2012-63Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for review and approval of the following variances:

1)                  To reduce the required number of off-street parking spaces for a single family residential use from two (2) parking spaces to one (1) parking space; and

2)                  To reduce the required dimensions of the one (1) off-street parking space from ten (10’) feet in width to seven foot six inches (7’6”) in width.  

(Alison Terry, Debi Walker, and Nora Corbett were sworn in by Mr. Gill.) 

Discussion:

See Above Application for Discussion. 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following variance criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-63: 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE, because the Village previously allowed Single Family Use for this property and it lapsed. 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are: 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE there could not be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.   

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Gill stated the requested variance is minimal.  The BZBA unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial.  

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Mr. Gill stated the alternative would be a vacant building in the downtown area.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.  

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE it would not. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with          knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.    

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE it could not.     

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE because there would be usage of the structure and that is of benefit to a downtown property. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Smith stated the previous use lapsed resulting in the need for the variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.  

d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE it will not. 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.   

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2012-63 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-63: Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Manno (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2012-63 is Approved as presented. 

Finding of Fact Approvals 

Forrest Blake, 226 South Mulberry Street,  Variance Application #2012-51

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1159, Village District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.  

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-51.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2012-51 are approved.  

Granville Historic Properties, LLC, 122 South Prospect Street,  Conditional Use Application #2012-62

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1145, Conditional Uses and Chapter 1159, Village District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.  

Mr. Burge moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-62.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2012-62 are approved.  

Granville Historic Properties, LLC, 122 South Prospect Street,  Variance Application #2012-63

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1159, Village District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.  

Mr. Manno moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-63.  Seconded by Mr. Smith. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2012-63 are approved. 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for April 12, 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Kemper made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. 

Motion carried 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM.     

Next Meeting:

June 14, 2012 (Mr. Kemper indicated he cannot attend this meeting.)

July 12, 2012 (Mr. Gill indicated he cannot attend this meeting.)

Employee Payroll / Compensation

The Village has thirty-six (36) full-time employees, 16 regular part-time employees and seaonal employees. Village Personnel Policy

Go to My Pay Stub and login.