Granville Community Calendar

Council Minutes March 1, 1989

MARCH 1, 1989
Mayor Eisenberg stated that there was a lot people in attendance
who wished to speak, and asked that they restrict their comments
to five minutes.
Vice Mayor Schnaidt asked that in addition to items already
listed on the agenda, two more items be added: discussion under
New Business of payment to the Baptist Church for use of their
facilities for the purpose of meetings, and; whether or not
Council wishes to take a stand on the liquor permit hearing
coming up on the L&K Restaurant.
Mayor Eisenberg then convened the meeting at 7: 30 p.m..
Responding to roll call were:
Councilmember Rader
Councilmember Hughes
Councilmember Morrow
Councilmember Malcuit
Councilmember Avery
Also Present:
Bruce Bailey, Metz &Bailey
Vice Mayor
Law Director
Mayor Eisenberg stated that the first order of business would be
Ordinance No. 1-89 and 2-89. He then explained Councils' procedures,
and gave a brief history of the proposed annexation and
how it came about. He said the intent of the annexation was
three-fold: first and foremost to preserve the integrity of the
Granville School District; 2) the desire of property owners to
annex to the Village, and; 3) the desire to retain control over
development of the eastern borders of Granville. He then opened
the hearings.
Ordinance No. 1-89, "An Ordinance Accepting An Application For
Annexation Of Territory."
Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
March 1, 1989
Page 2
Those who gave testimony and spoke in favor of the annexation
ordinance (1-89) were:
Maxine Montgomery, Agent for the petition
Bob Essman
Donna Tegtmeyer, Granville School Board
Eric Jones, Township Trustee
Jim Matesich
Clare Green
Kathy Larson
Those who gave testimony and were opposed to the annexation
ordinance were:
James Bascom
Dennis Frey
Janice Thiele
William H. Keeler
John Crecca
Public Hearing continued on the next ordinance.
Ordinance No. 2-89, "An Ordinance Establishing Certain Zoning
Those who spoke in favor of the ordinance as introduced: (Open
Space District for undeveloped land five acres or more)
Debra Farrar
Mike Lafferty
Sara Jean Wilhelm
Tim Dennison
Those who spoke in opposition to Ordinance No. 2-89 as it was
introduced (mainly the Open Space District classification),for
undeveloped land five acres or more:
Frank Murphy
Jim Gordon
Harrison Smith
Public hearing on this ordinance closed and Council continued
with the next piece of legislation scheduled for a public
Ordinance No. 3-89, "An Ordinance To Amend Sections Of The Code
Of Ordinances Of The Village Of Granville Establishing Zoning
And Planning Regulations And To Repeal Existing Sections Of The
Code Of Ordinances."
Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
March 1, 1989
Page 3
Mayor Eisenberg noted to those in attendance that this ordinance
is a housekeeping item. Plans are to table this ordinance until
the next regular meeting to allow Council more time for review.
He also pointed out that the ordinance did not relate to the
current proposed annexation.
No comments, questions, or concerns were voiced from citizens at
this time on Ordinance No. 3-89.
Ordinance No. 4-89, "An Ordinance To Amend Ordinance No. 19-88
Providing For Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal
Year 1989 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses."
No one appeared to speak for or against this ordinance. Public
hearing closed.
A tape recording of the above public hearings is on file at the
Village Hall.
February 15, 1989 -Regular Council Meeting -Councilmember
Morrow moved that the minutes be approved as distributed. Motion
seconded by Councilmember Hughes. Motion carried.
Those who signed the register were:
please see attached attendance list.
Development Commission -Councilmember Malcuit referred to the
minutes covering the Commission' s meeting of February 22, 1989.
A copy of those minutes are hereby attached as part of these
Ordinance No. 1-89, "An Ordinance Accepting An Application For
Annexation Of Territory", was moved for adoption by Vice Mayor
Schnaidt. Motion seconded by Councilmember Avery. Roll call
vote: Schnaidt-yes, Avery-yes, Hughes-yes, Rader-yes, Morrow- yes,
Malcuit-yes, Eisenberg- yes. Seven yes votes. Motion carried.
Ordinance No. 1-89 duly adopted.
Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
March 1, 1989
Page 4
Ordinance No. 2-89, "An Ordinance Establishing Certain Zoning
Districts",was moved for adoption by Councilmember Avery.
Motion seconded by Councilmember Rader.
Discussion: Councilmember Hughes said he had two ordinances
before him, both 2-89. One version spells out bringing the newly
annexed area that is five acres or more and undeveloped as Open
Space District, and the other version spells out bringing the
same areas in as PUD. Mr. Hughes said that he was in favor of the
land being brought in as Open Space District.
Mayor Eisenberg stated that there has been a fairly exhausted
discussion on this matter, and there has not been a great
deal of sentiment to support the Open Space District zoning.
Councilmember Avery then moved to amend Ordinance No. 2-89
as follows: Section II: replace Open Space District with Planned
Unit Development; Parcels 142, 144, and 161 be inserted into
Section III: Suburban Residential District A; transfer parcels
2, 7,8,5a and 52, from Section IV Suburban Business District to
Section III Suburban Residential District A.
Motion seconded by Councilmember Rader. Roll call vote:
Avery-yes, Rader-yes, Morrow- abstained, Hughes-no, Malcuit-no,
Schnaidt-yes, Eisenberg-yes. Four yes votes, two no votes, one
abstention. Ordinance No. 2-89 amended.
Roll call vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 2-89 as
amended: Avery-yes, Rader-yes, Schnaidt-yes, Hughes-no, Morrowabstained,
Malcuit-no, Eisenberg- yes. Four yes votes, two no
votes, one abstention. Ordinance No. 2-89 as amended duly
Ordinance No. 3-89, "An Ordinance To Amend Sections Of The Code
Of Ordinances Of The Village Of Granville Establishing Zoning
Regulations And To Repeal Existing Sections Of The Code Of
Ordinances", was moved for adoption by Councilmember Avery.
Motion seconded by Vice Mayor Schnaidt.
Councilmember Avery moved to table Ordinance No. 3-89
until the March 15, 1989 meeting to allow more time for review.
Motion seconded by Councilmember Malcuit. Motion carried.
Ordinance No. 4-89, "An Ordinance To Amend Ordinance No. 19-88
Providing For Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal
Year 1989 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses", was moved
for adoption by Councilmember Morrow. Motion seconded by Councilmember
Councilmember Morrow moved to amend Ordinance No. 4-89 as
follows: Section II: Al-6-B-230 Contractual Services -Street
Maintenance &Repair from $2, 700 to $4, 940. Motion seconded by
Councilmember Rader. Roll call vote: Morrow- yes, Rader-yes,
Malcuit-yes, Hughes-yes, Avery-yes, Schnaidt-yes, Eisenberg-yes.
Seven yes votes. Ordinance No. 4-89 amended.
Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
March 1, 1989
Page 5
Roll call vote on the motion: Morrow- yes, Malcuit-yes,
Rader-yes, Hughes-yes, Avery-yes, Eisenberg-yes, Schnaidt-yes.
Seven yes votes. Ordinance No. 4-89 as amended duly adopted.
Resolution No. 89-10, "To Award The Bid For the Purchase Of A
New Street Sweeper And to Authorize The Village Manager To Enter
Into A Contract With Wagoner Machinery Therefor",was introduced,
read in its entirety and moved for passage by Vice Mayor
Schnaidt. Motion seconded by Councilmember Rader. Motion carried.
Resolution No. 89-10 duly passed.
Resolution No. 89-11, "To Authorize The Village Manager To Enter
Into A Lease Agreement With Denison University", was introduced,
read in its entirety, and moved for passage by Councilmember
Malcuit. Motion seconded by Councilmember Rader. Motion carried.
Resoltuion No. 89-11 duly passed.
Resolution No. 89-12, "To Award The Bid For The Purchase Of
Water Meters And To Authorize The Village Manger To Enter Into A
Contract With Water Works &Industrial Supply Therefor", was
introduced, read in its entirety, and moved for passage by
Councilmember Morrow. Motion seconded by Councilmember Avery.
Motion carried. Resolution No. 89-12 duly passed.
Payment To Baptist Church -Vice Mayor Schnaidt stated that this
would be the third time the Village has used the Baptist Church
Sanctuary for their meetings, and proposed that $150. 00 be paid
to the Baptist Church to date and $50. 00 each time the Sanctuary
is used for such purpose. He then put the proposal in motion
form and moved for its passage. Motion seconded by Councilmember
Morrow. Motion carried. This motion will be put into resolution
form and assigned a number (please see Resolution No. 89-13).
Stand On Liquor Permit For L&K Restaurant -This issue was
opened for discussion. Vice Mayor Schnaidt said there has been
some thought that Council should take a stand on this issue.
Councilmember Morrow spoke against the issuance of a D-5 permit
for the L&K and cited that the area is located in a busy intersection
and he was concerned for the residents in the area. He
then proposed that the Village participate in the hearing on the
proposed D-5 liquor permit for the L&K and take a position
against the license. Councilmember Hughes also spoke out against
the D-5 Liquor License at that facility. Councilmember Avery
said he didn' t feel the Village had sufficient grounds, and that
the L&K was probably a prime location. He was opposed to taking
a stand citing that the L&K was not in the Village and that
Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
March 1, 1989
Page 6
Council had other things more pressing. Councilmember Rader said
he too was concerned about the traffic, but didn' t feel Council
had grounds to object. Vice Mayor Schnaidt noted that the last
liquor license the Village Council objected to was turned down by
the Liquor Board. Councilmember Morrow moved that a representative
on behalf of Village Council be present at the hearing and
voice their objections to the issuance of a D-5 Liquor License
for the L&K, and that the Village Manager be that representative.
Further, that the Manager and Police Chief make a list of things
the hearings officer will take into consideration. Motion
seconded by Councilmember Hughes. Roll call vote: Morrow- yes,
Hughes-yes, Avery-no, Schnaidt-yes, Malcuit-yes, Rader-no,
Eisenberg-yes. Five yes votes, two no votes. Motion carried. This
motion will be put into resolution form and assigned a number
please see Resolution No. 89-14).
Development Commission -March 8, 1989 -7: 30 p.m..
Council Meeting -March 15, 1989 -7: 30 p.m.
Councilmember Rader moved for adjournment. Motion seconded by
Councilmember Morrow. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 9: 27 p.m..
Clerk of-C6until
1 11-
r E «-,-s»'»4f
Vice Major
Arnie Eisenberg: We have a lot of people who wish to speak and
asked if they would restrict their comments to three. to five
minutes. Once you get to three or four minutes I' ll let you know
if your running out of time.
I' ll call the meeting to order now:
Regularly Scheduled Meeting of the Village Council of Granville.
Roll Call:
Rader -here, Hughes -
Avery -here, Schnaidt
Plunkett -here.
here, Morrow -here, Malcuit -here,
here, Eisenberg -here, Munro -here,
Arnie: Our first order of business this evening is a public
hearing on Ordinance No. 1-89, "An Ordinance etc.
Let me tell you a bit about our procedures here. We' re going to
have the public hearings on this ordinance and on the ordinance
changing the zoning district. At this time we will discuss and
act on those ordinances under Old Business later in the meeting,
so after we' ve had the public hearings, those of you who want to know what the outcome of our deliberation and what our decision
is going to be, will have to remain for Old Business. I think it
would probably be in order before we start the public hearing
itself to go through a little bit of the history tion of the annexa- and how it came about. I' ll be fairly brief, I don' t want
to go on too long. But I think there is still some misconceptions
about how it came about and the reasons for doing it. As recently
as this evening, I saw an article in the Advocate in which the
statements made by members Newark City Council during the time
of the hearings in front of the County Commissioners referring
to the Granville Land Grab. I think some people still have that kind of thinking in their minds. Prior to all to coming about, the City of Newark annexed the Strafford Woods School District.
There was the prospect of further annexations happening on Newark' s western border from Granville Township. The School Committee was becoming quite alarmed about the prospect of loosing school enrollment and particularly about loosing or having erosion of their tax base. They came to the Township Trustees and they came to the Village Council and asked if we could not jointly come up with some sort of strategy to combat the treat to the school district, and there was a public meeting- joint meeting (first one in history)o,f the Village Council and the Township Trustees and the School Board in order to discuss their problem and that situation. What resulted from that was a formation of a Committee with two representatives from each of those bodies whose charter it was to try to come up with strateg- ies to perserve the integrity of the Granville School District. About the same time, word came to us and to the residents of the Village and to the folks out in Carriage Hill and Fern Hill that an annexation petition was being circulated by the City of Newark to annex Carriage Hill, Fern Hill, Westgate Business Area, substantial piece of land out there north and south of the
expressway at Cherry Valley, and that is what perceptated
residents of Fern Hill, Carriage Hiil, to initiate the annexation
petition that we' re dealing with now. They in no way wanted to
become part of the City of Newark. I think that there are
probably a few folks in the annexation area who signed the
petition to come to Granville, who don' t have any particular
burning desire to become residents of the Village of Granville,
but they certainly don' t want to be residents of the City of·
Newark and they consider themselves to be Granville residents
and would be happy to stay in the Township, but given that
choice, they would prefer to be residents of the Village of
Granville rather than go to the City of Newark. So that' s how
the petition came about. It was at the initative of the folks
out there in Carriage Hill and Fern Hill. The intent of the
annexation is three-fold as I understand it. 1) First and
foremost to preserve the integrity of the Granville School
Distict, 2) Because of the desire of the folks out there, and I
guess when the petition was originally circulated something in
the (Maxine correct me if I' m wrong), 60% of the people in the annexation area signed the petition prior to the hearing before
the County Commissioners and subsequent to that, additional
signatures were obtained which brought the total up to near 70%.
I believe that what it was. Those people are saying that they consider themselves residents very strongly of Granville and want to remain residents of Granville. 3) The desire to retain control
over development on the eastern borders of Granville. So having said that, we' ll start taking comments.
Sam Schnaidt I-', d like to have a brief discussion, under new business of payment to the Baptist Church for the facilities
we' ve been using here. Whether or not Council wishes to take a stand on the liquor hearing that is coming up on the L&K Restaur- ant. Thank You.....
Arnie -Could we get the additional signu-p sheets. We have quite a few folks who wish to speak, we want everybody to be heard who wants to be heard, and we certainly want everybody who wants to be able to stand up and be counted. I would only ask you as we get deep down in the list, a number of people have spoken that we try not to be too repeative. First on the list is Maxine Montgomery. Maxine would you please come to the micro- phone?Maxine is a resident in the annexation area and was one of the leaders in the initiation of the petition.
Maxine Montgomery -Thank you2.4.5.0 NewarkG- ranville Road which is between Cherry Valley Road and Fern Hill on the south side of the road. I was concerned that there are people currently living in the Granville community who didn' t understand the reasons for the annexation and the history behind this request. I appreciate Mr. Eisenberg elaborating on that, and I may be repeating some of the things you said, but I think they' re important. So I would like to share with everyone here some of the information and statements that we presented to the Licking County Commissio- ners on September 26, 1988 at the annexation hearing when we
were asking them to approve our petition. My husband Raymond and
I purchased our home on the south side of Newark- Granville Road
in 1970. At that time we knew that we would some day have to
consider the issue of annexation to Newark. We had looked into
it, we had talk to officials from the County Planning Commission
and it was definite that on the drawing board Newark planned to
move west. We both had lived in Granville most of our lives and
had gone to school here. We were raising our children here and
we thought it very important that we remain a part of the
Granville Community. To us if you live in Granville Township live in Granville. you The Township and the Village together were
the Granville Community and this Community was our preference
for a home and for our family. In June of 1988 we received a
letter from four individuals 'indicating they were planning to
circulate a petition for annexation to Newark for the area in
which we live. I might also add, that prior June of 1988 and
August of 1987, we had also received a telephone call from Mayor
Bill Moore of the City of Newark asking us how we felt about the
future possibilities of annexation to Newark. These four individuals
named in the letter are property owners in the area where
the annexation is to occur but none of them are residents of
that area. My husband and I the very next day attended the
Granville Township Trustees meeting and discussed the annexation issue with them. We indicated that we did not want to annex to
Newark and preferred to remain a part of the Granville Community.
The Trustees had been very helpful to the residents of our area earlier in the year when talk about a possible annexation to
Newark had first surfaced. We had had a meeting of local residents
including the Fern Hill residents and a statement of
preference for remaining in Granville Township had been circulated
among the residents in the eastern township area and was forwarded to the Newark Officials. Following our initial contact with the Trustees in June, discussion began with other residents in the area. .We then contacted the Granville Village Officials and several of us requested and held a meeting with the Village Council to discuss the possible annexation to Granville of most of the eastern part of the township, and how the Village would provide services to our area. After careful analysis and discuss- ions with both Township and Village Officials the decision was made to prepare a petition for annexation of the described area to Granville. So contrary to anything that you have read anyplace else in the press and as Mr. Eisenberg said this movement was made by the residents of our area, it was not made by the Village Officials. We knew that many people when asked would prefer to remain as we were Granville Township. However we were convenced that the time had come when we could no longer stay as we were and a choice would have to be made. On Friday, July 8th, at 4: 00 p.m.,ten people started circulating the petitions, and sweignfialetudresthe petitions the following Monday, July 11th with 140 out of a possible 246 signatures which was sixteen omfore than was required, or 57%E.ventually we had close to 70% the property owners signing the petition. Why did the citizens in this area decide for annexation to Granville?Our reasons and concerns center around maintaining current Granville Community
and Community Services; such as the Fire Department, Granville
Recreation Commission. We also knew that a loss of revenue from
our part of the Township would adversely affect these programs
and the remaining citizens in the Township. We felt that if
annexation to Newark would have take place that the School
District could possibly change also. One reason people live in
the Granville Community is because of their preference for the
Granville Schools. In addition, local control of planning and
development, which is why a lot of you are here tonight, would
be more difficult to establish if we were part of a larger
municipality. Property losses to Newark have already occurred in
parts of eastern Granville Township resulting in a decline of a
tax base and these areas are now in the Granville School District.
Some of you haven' t lived here long enough to be familiar
with areas known as Central City, and Dugway, that they were
part of Granville Township and they no longer are, they are no
longer a part of the Granville School District. Areas on River
Road, James Road and most recently the Strafford Woods area.
They are now all part of Newark and the Newark School District.
We feel we have the best interest in mind for the residents and
property owners in our annexation area. We have an overwhelming
support from the residents, the Granville Township Trustees, the
Granville School District and the Granville Village. We hope the Village residents can appreciate all of our concerns to remain a part of the Granville Community. We simply desire the Granville Community to preserve with no further eroding of the area. Thank you.
Arnie: Thank you Maxine. Next is Bob Essman. Bob is also a resident of the annexation area.
Bob Essman: Thank you Mayor Eisenberg. I' m Bob Essman, I live with my wife Dorothy at 1404 Cherry Valley Road, the old Raccoon Valley Farm, and we too were quite content to remain as part of the Granville Community in Granville Township, but when faced with the possibility of forced annexation to the City of Newark, largely through the efforts on nonr-esident land owners, I joined the effort to seek annexation to the Village of Granville. I think Ms. Montgomery has pretty well covered most of the points, I would add that if some of the Village residents are concerned about development in that area, I think the interest
would be much better served if we were part of the Village of Granville rather than part of the City of Newark. If this for reason this annexation is rejected, this won' t end the problem. Before the ground thaws the Newark Annexation people will be back banging on the doors, I' m certain of that. So I certainly want to support the petition before you. Thank you.
Arnie: Thank you Bob.
Donna Tegtmeyer: As Vice President of the Granville School Board I would like to reaffirm what the Mayor has already told you without belaboring the point. The Granville Exempted Village School District does support the annexation to maintain the
integrity of the existing school district boundaries. We are not
asking for additional places, we are not asking for additional
students, we only want to retain those students who are already
part of our school district. We wish to retain the tax base, and
we wish to retain any of the tax revenues that will come form
that. If we do not and we loose students, that will only be a
greater burden that remain in the district. As I said we wish to
do this to maintain the current integrity of the school district
and that is why I' m here to reaffirm that point. I don' t think I
need to say anything else, other than that Mr. Mayor has already
explained the situation very well.
Arnie: Next is James Reed. Is Mr. Reed here? No?Eric Jones
Eric Jones: I' m here speaking on behalf of the Granville Township
Trustees. It' s a little bit awkward position to be in, in that
we haven' t always supported annexations, that' s true because
we' ve been protective of our own tax base, but in this case we
feel that there is an overriding issue, and therefore at our
meeting on September 12th, we passed the following resolution,
which I think speaks for itself, which we subsequently presented
to the County Commissioners at their hearings on the annexation.
It reads as follows: Whereas, the residents in an area now
commonly known as Eastern Granville Township, expressed concern
to the Trustees over a possible annexation to the City of
Newark, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Granville Township Trustees evaluated the
impact of annexation to the Village of Granville instead of the
City of Neward in terms of the overall good of the Granville
Community for the guaranteed preservation of the existing
boundaries of the Granville Exempted Village School District and
for the continued collection of the Granville Fire Department,
Granville Recreation, and the Maple Grove Cemetery tax levies
from either Granville Township or Village of Granville properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Board of Granville
Township Trustees unanimously supports the efforts of the
residents in Eastern Granville Township to seek annexation of
1230 acres of existing Granville Township property to the
Village of Granville, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Granville Township
Trustees unanimously supports the annexation of this entire area
without reduction in size except as agreed to by the Agent for
the petitioners.
That is our
Thank you.
position then and it continues to be our position.
Arnie: Thank you Eric.
Mr. Reed? Last chance. We' ll go to Jim Bacom. Mr. Bacom is a
Township resident.
Jim Bascom, 15 Thomas Road, and I thank you Mayor and the
Council for the opportunity to present my views. I liked framed
my in forms of some questions, because I can' t say whether I' m
for or against! But I think that there are questions that need
to be addressed. One of the first that comes to mind that I
don' t have written down is, that some people seem to feel that
their destiny won' t be in their own hands. I take it that the
majority of the people want to remain in Granville. It seems to
me that they have no fear of going to Newark as long as it is a
majority. If a majority do want to go into Neward shouldn' t they
be allowed to?The same is true if they want to remain in
Granville. I think that is a misconstrued threat. I don' t
believe it' s there. I believe only that people who want to be
included in Newark, can be included in Newark. I take it that
these people want to stay in the Township or become a resident
of the Village. Will the land that is annexed go' from Open Space
that can be used as agriculture with one dwelling changed to twentyf-ive houses per five acres per five acres under PUD? If PCD
Commercial is permitted on one tract of the land along Newark-
Granville Road would it be fair to say that several PCD' s will
be granted in order to be fair to all? If the Village says that
they need a larger tax base for service then how much larger?
Have Hilengreen and Bryn Du Woods lowered the water and sewer bills?Will not a small problem become a large problem?Will not
annexation with its expansion decrease the value of most existing properties in and out of that annexation?Won' t the law of
supply and demand serve us here?Will the added traffic from
these developments not call for the widening of Neward-
Granville Road and call for traffic lights and other so called improvements? If schools will benefit from a larger tax base,
more children, how much larger do the schools need to get? Twice
as big, or more?With annexation will not taxes have to be raised in order to maintain the present level of service in a few years? I feel sure that annexation will cost the Village
more money than it will raise. Can' t the Township do a better job of controlling the growth now, than the Village can with the
existing laws?You can always annex in the future if the resi- dents are wililng. And we would not want to annex it in any other way, unless they are willing. At this point in time I think the proposed annexation is a bad idea. Thank you.
Arnie: Thank you Mr. Bascomb. Next is Denise Fry. Denise is also a township resident.
Denise Fry, 31 Thomas Road. When we moved to the area it was open space country like settings, and now that it' s going to be annexed into Granville, the PUD allows for massive housing developments. I would rather wait for the annexation to occur until after the New Master Plan is devised and that way the Council and everyone can get together and zone in the Open Spaces and the Preserves that should be written in, because right now it just seems like it too stringent the way they' re
leading into it. My property borders Mrs. Lewis' s property which
has the Wildlife area. Once the development goes in they' re
going to loose a lot of the wildlife in that area. In my opinion
it should be developed into a park or preserve area for all the
community to enjoy. I just really feel the annexation should be
put on hold until a Master Plan is inacted later this year.
Arnie: Thank you Mr. Fry. Janice Thiele is next.
Mrs. Thiele -Thank you, I live at 210 South Mulberry in the
Village. I first would like to say one thing, can you tell me if
it' s possible to vote on the ordinance that deals with the
density prior to the vote on the annexation> It would appear to
me that maybe this would be a way of controlling future land
acquisition. Is that a possibility. Would' you want to address
that now or later.
Arnie: I don' t understand your point.
Mrs. Thiele -You don' t understand? If we were to, I think
density is one of the big problems in all our minds. If the land
comes in PUD, that means five units per acre, is that right?The
Village Development Commission I believe suggested that it maybe
come in as Open Space which I believe one or two units is that right. per acre
Arnie: I don' t want to have a dialogue with you right now, you can make whatever statement you choose. Make your point, then
when we discuss the ordinances, we' ll take into account your statements along with all the others.
Mrs. Thiele: Okay very good. Now that was, I just wondered if
you wanted to address it now. The other, I noticed on the people who signed the petition, they' re Mr. &Mrs. as property owners, and I wondered if the Village of Granville has any say in the matter of the annexation if Mr. &Mrs. Thiele for instance can vote and if we will get a chance to vote?Also I would like to know how you are going to handle the annexation of Parcel 13, that is 6wned by the State of Ohio?I think they originally had a piece of land that' s north of Route 16, between 16 and Newark- Granville Road and they also have a piece of land thats south, I dont' know whether that' s included or not. And one other thing I just wanted to note that the people who live east of Jones Road at the moment. Their address is Newark. I went to the Post Office in Newark to find out where that ended, and the Granville addresses end at 1812 NewarkG- ranville Road which is also Jones Road, and the telephone numbers are also different at Jones Road, 522 prefix. I thought that that was interesting, that they have a Newark address at the moment, and a Newark telephone bnurimngber. The people of west side of Jones Road, I just wanted to that up and I guess that' s it. Thank you.
John Thiele -Mrs. Thiele said I' m sorry he had to leave.
Jim Matisich -I' m a resident of Carriage Hill, 62 Victoria
Drive, and I believe it' s in my interest as a property owner to
be annexed to the Village of Granville. As a resident of Carriage
Hill, I have felt more attached to the Village of Granville than
any other community. I also believe the property value the
value of my property is strongly based on its association with
Granville Township and the Village of Granville. Any other
community attachment I believe could negatively affect my
property value of which I intend to protect. It is the believe
of the residents where I reside that if this annexation fails to
come to about the eventual loss of our attachment to the
Granville School system would soon be jepordized. As anticipated
annexation by Newark could become fact. And soon to follow would
be inclusion of our area into the Newark School System. Since
the majority of my neighbors prefer Granville schools I respect
their attachment to that school system and support their attempt
to continue their relationship with Granville Schools. Even
though my children attend catholic schools in the City of
Newark. I also believe that the eventual development of property
along Newark- Granville which I believe realistically is imminent,
the concerns of residents in the area would be best addressed if
this development is governed and controlled by the officials of
the Village of Granville. I would like to finally those comment on who suggest the annexation be put on hold. Since the
residents of the proposed annexation have already in the majority requested annexation, and the Village has proven that it can provide needed services to the area then the annexation should be approved. Thank you.
Arnie: Thank you Mr. Matesich.
Thomas D. Matthews -I decided not to testify.
Arnie: Alright.
I see Bob Essman' s name again, did you want to speak twice Bob..Well somebody must of signed for you.I..cannot read the next name.
W. H. Keller, Dr. Keller.
I just wanted to speak as a citizen, to bring you up to date about an experience I had a couple of weeks ago pertaining to all of this. I was invited to attend a meeting of citizens to discuss the annexation and whatever at the library. You have already heard many of the questions that developed in the course of their conversation and discussion. My impression basically that I was left with, is that there were an awful 10 of people there who had questions that nobody seemed to know the answers to or even where to get the answers before this annexation legally took place, and a vote was taken at the end of the meeting that indicated that the vast majority by all means voted to ask for the annexation to be delayed until more answers could
Arnie -Alright...
be found to the questions and the type of questions these
citizens were asking so that a mistake wouldn' t be made by doing
everything now in a hurry and then having a big problem develop
and then you know where do we go from there. I just wanted to
speak as a citizen. That' s it.
Arnie: Thank you Dr. Keller. Next up is Tim Dennison
Tim Dennison: Wanted to speak on Ordinance No. 2-89.
Arnie: I' ll see that your name is on it Tim.
Next is John Crecca
John Crecca: I live 1550 Welsh Hills Road in the Township and is
it appropriate to talk about what' s going to be done with the
land after annexation? I noticed everything is just about annexation?
Arnie: Well if you want to make some comments that is realative
to the annexation it' s appropriate John.
John Crecca: I' m concerned about what is going to done with the
property after the annexation. annexed. I' ve if it' s I' ve heard we need some low income housing around here but I also noticed that the Elementery School is full at least
according to the Sentinel, so that' s one of two things either we more low cost housing than we thought or we' ve got an awful lot of rich young people around. Second it does concern the schools. The developers in the information that I' ve seen so far have not addressed what is going to happen to the schools. What is the impact on the school situation?I' d like to know how much it' s going to cost out of my pocket if we have to build additional
school space to satisfy their desires. I' m not trying to vilify them, they' ve got something they want to maximize their profits from investments they have, there' s nothing wrong with that, but I also would like to know and I' m sure some other people would like to know, what' s it going to cost them if the developers go through with this development? If you think it' s easy to pass school levies in Granville we have been pretty successful. I suggest that you work on the next one and I think you' ll have an interesting five or six weeks. We know there' s other land around down that direction where they want to develop. I don' t know how we can develop, talk about developing that one particular block that Mr. Wright and Mr. McClain are talking about without looking at all the other land down there, and what it means. There' s traffic problems, particular the River Road and the Cherry Valley Road. We' ve had at least two deaths there that I can remember. You know the traffic along NewarkG- ranville is going to increase considerably. Now I also understand (I missed the last meeting)b,ut I understand that some of the developers came in with lawyers and they talked about developer' s rights, hwaevlel I think the citizens around also have some rights too that to be recognized. Thank you.
Arnie: Thank you John. Next is Clare Green.
Clare Green: 190 Victoria Drive, which is in the Carriage Hill
Subdivision. I' m not use to talking to this many people at one
time and I' m not that preparebdu.t..I.would like to say that I
agree with everything that' s been said as far as the annexation
of the area by Maxine, Jim Metesick, Bob Essman, and I personally
worked on the committee that fought the Strafford Woods Development
from attaching to the top of Victoria Drive. I will have to tell you that to work with Newark City Council and the Newark
City Planning Commission was murder. I couldn' t get anywhere.
They wouldn' t listen to us, they wouldn' t listen to our reasonable
explanation. I couldn' t vote for these people, and they
were telling me what they had to do with their subdivision and
how they had to have a back door. I don' t want to go into that
because it doesn' t have anything to do with the annexation other
than the fact, that if you think delaying the annexation into
Granville or stopping all together is going to stop development,
your wrong. Because I would venture to say Newark like Bob
Essman pointed out is waiting, and they will annex the area and
if you want to have any say in how it' s developed it needs to be
from this group right here. I agree with controlling the development,
I live in Granville as far as I' m concerned. My kids go to
Granville School, I' m very active in the school, and very active in the community and I work up at Denison. So I' m very tied to this community, and I use to be a Newark native so to speak. I
want to stay in Granville and I want you people to accept us. I want you to work with us, everybody in this room and understand what we' re trying to do. We' re trying to protect what we believe
in. Thank you.
Arnie: Thank you Clare. Next Michael Johnson
Michael Johnson: passed
Tom Lecorchick: passed
Debra Farrar: The last time that I spoke in this room, I' d been a resident for thirteen days. I' m an old timer now I' ve been here for two months. I don' t know where I live yet, I don' t know if I live in Bryn Du Woods or Bryn De Woods. I wish someone would tell me about that, because I keep getting corrected either way. I have several questions for you. I am really concerned of how the land is going to be annexed in. I don' t have any questions
on whether to annex the land in, I' m concerned about how it' s going to be annexed in. The PUD as it stands, the zoning is at five units per acre. I' m wondering why that can' t be changed to two units per acre?
Arnie: Debra that' s not the subject of this hearing.
Debra Farrar: Oh did I sign the wrong one.
Arnie: We are going to have anothr hearing after this one on the
ordinance to revise the zoning of the annexation area. I think
you comments would be more appropriate during that particular
Debra Farrar: Great.
Arnie: I have no more names. I' m sorry I do have Kathy Larson
Kathy Larson: 1625 Hankinson Road, in the Township. I' m here to
urge you not to delay the annexation. The Township can' t control
annexation, and they can' t offer services such as water, sewer,
and police protection. They can only act when they Township
residents request an annexation one way or the other, but they
have no real control over it. I urge the annexation, but caution
the Village Council to immediately explore all possible, legal
methods to control growth. Thank you.
Arnie: Thank you Kathy.
I declare the public hearing on Ordinance No. 1-89 is closed.
The next item of business is the public hearing on Ordinance No.
2-89, An Ordinance Establishing Certain Zoning Districts.
This is the ordinance which was suggested, recommended by the
Development Commission to bring in the undeveloped areas over
five acres in the annexation as Open Space District (OSD) rather
than Planned Unit Development (PUD).
The first to speak to this ordinance is Janice Thiele.
Janice Thiele: I covered it before, I thought you said both
Arnie: All right. Maxine Montgomery.
Maxine Montgromery, passed.
Ron Gonterman, South side of Newark-Granville Road, so I guess
I' m speaking for that minority that hasn' t been heard tonight.
The zoning however you choose to enact it (assuming the annexation
occurs, which is the only reason I' m standing here talking),
I believe needs to consider the traffic problem that has been
alluded to several times and in previous meetings of the zoning
commission we' ve heard how a four land highway is inevitable, it
probably is, it' s just a matter of planning, whether it' s two
years or twenty years. I would urge the Village Council to
exercise good judgement and good foresight in looking ahead to
the eventuality of the widening of Newark-Granville Road, and if
that' s planned for now as you annex and rezone, then any disruption
which must occur to the housing along either side of that
road can be minimized. From the new Bryn Du Woods entrance to
Fachler' s which is about a mile and a quarter, there are something
like 27 houses on the south side of the road. There are
three houses on the north side of the road. So my urge to you is
that as you consider rezoning if you annex, that you consider
some sort of a demilitarized zone if you will, so that minimal
disruption must occur to the housing that has been there from
periods dating to the early twentys. That' s all I have.
Arnie: Thank you RonF.ra.n.k.Murphy
Frank Murphy: resident of the Village of Granville. My brother
and I have about 300 acres plus or minus on the land to be
annexed to the Village and I would like to address that. When it
came time to have the petition signed we were told that when we
signed the petition, we asked what kind of zoning would it be,
and we were told it would be brought in as PUD, and I just urge
Council to remember that, and try to honor what we were told
when we signed the peition. My second brief comment would be to
proceed as fast as you can, I know you' re studying it, and have
bids our now for a Master Plan. My brother and I firmly believe
that that is very, very important for the Village of Granville
and its growth, or however it' s done, but the Master Plan is
very, very essentialfor this beautiful Village to be completed
right. Thank you.
Arnie: Thank you FrankJim...G.or.don
Jim Gordon: Mr. Mayor, members of Council, I speak on behalf of Jerry McClain and Bill Wright this evening, one of the lawyers
rreefieterrreadte to earlier I guess you would say. I would like to some of the points that I made when I met with you two weeks ago. Three concerns that I raised that I see arising out of the proposal to at this point in time change the policy of annexing new territory as PUD, and now briging it in as Open Space. The first of these concerns being: hat it woudl be basically unfair and unjust at this point to change the ground rules by which the proposed developers of the Wright property had been operating and complying since first presenting their plans to you. Secondly: it would be a mark4d departure from well established planning that this Council adobted after thorough study and consultation, and finally: the proposed zoning of Open Space raises very serious constitutional issues. Taking those
concerns in that order. I would point out again to you that WrighMt/cClain came to you long ago with their plans. They have attempted to be aboveb-oard in all their dealings with you. They disclosed their plans as early as July of 1988, and met with the planning Commission in September, 88. They submitted formal plans and application of November, 88. After the hearing in January when it was obvious that there were real concerns in this community about the plan that was proposed under the PUD if granted PUD)th, at there were real concerns about that, the plans were withdrawn for the purpose of consulting with people in the community and attempting to arrive at a plan that was acceptable to the community. And those efforts continue. People in the community have been meeting and discussing this matter with representatives of McClain and Wright. In anticipation of
the hearing on the question of a suitable plan which is tentatively
scheduled for April 12, 1989 before the Planning Commission.
They' ve been playing according to your rules and suddenly
it would seem this would be a marked change in the rules.
They' ve been playing by the book, this would be literally
throwing the book in their face. Secondly, in June of 1987 you
adopted your present revised zoning code, that was not something
that you did after one or two weeks, three or four weeks. It was
something you did after extensive study by both the Planning
Commission, members of Council and with the benefit of counsultation
from professional consultants, the Bohn Group, and I might
add at no small expense. That planning provided that 6n newly
annexed territory would come in as PUD. Now there' s some people
seem to think PUD means there will be five units per acre. The
PUD doesn' t provide that as you well know, it provides the
maximum of five units per acre, and approval of the plan whatever
that plan may be under PUD must first pass with the Planning
Commission and then with Council. It does give this Council
extensive control over what may come in into zoned that area if it' s PUD. You have a zoning code that has been in extence that
is a result of thought and planning and a sudden reaction to immediate situation not thought out and without consultation is
not good planning. Finally, it raises serious constitutional
issues. I spoke to those before. You realize, if you act tongith
to annex this territory the Wright farm will be in the center of
town, whether you look at an East- West axis or a North-South
axis it is the center of town. Not only is it the center of
town, it now comes into the town and must assume the responsibility
of Village property. If it' s to be developed, it will be developed according to Village standards, that means streets,
curbs, meeting city specifications; storm water disposal accord- ing to city specification, water and sewer lines are going to have to be extended to serve the area at no small cost. So we have the responsibilities of the Village, but if you bring us in as Open Space, we don' t have the opportunities to make use of the facilities of the city. Because Open Space would mean one unit per five acres. At best that would mean perhaps twentyf-our units in a 128 acre tract. The cost of bringing in the services
as you would require, would make those the cost of those lots prohibited. It would be an economic ban on development, and perhaps that' s what is intended. The problem with that is that it is not permitted according to a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court. As I mentioned to you before that opinion swpasenot ffered by Chief Justic Wrinequest, who interesting enough a year of his life in this community as a member of the military meteorology unit at Denison in the early 1940' s, and the thrust of that case is that you can' t use zoning to prevent development. Because that is a taking of property, and if you take property, you have to pay for it. Nor can it be used to delay, because if you do that you are deprieving people the opportunity to use their property and it can give rise to damages. So there' s very serious consititutional issues. So for these three reasons, I would suggest strongly to you, that you not change in mid-stream the zoning that you have adopted. One
because it' s hardly fair to people who have been trying to
comply, but your rules and regulations have been changed halfway
through the proceedings, and not even give them a chance to come
back and present their plan on April 12th.
Arnie: Another minute Jim
Jim Gordon: Simple windup Arnie
Two it would be a departure from a well thought out plan adopted
by this Council some years ago, and
Three it does raise very serious constitutional questions. Thank
Arnie: Thanks Matthews
No response.
Dr. Keeler you wish to speak again. Passed
Harrison Smith: I' m another one of the lawyers, and I' m from
Columbus. I also have been asked to come over and take a look at
the Wright property in terms primarily of the land use. Let me just offer a few observations in terms of the process as I understand it. I' ve been involved as some of you know in the
annexation process mostly in the City of Columbus for some thirty-five years. It' s interested, I don' t disagree really with anyting said in favor of the annexation. i don' t disagree with
any of the concerns that has been expressed about not only the zoning that we might propose, but the zoning of the entire tract.
4tLr>Ln- -k-' oPFEEK
LU L--08-*1/ LK..i&,.-
P (4UL_t»
4*j ,S /C7[1£0
91U' 14 <-
94 3 1'--.-& gll ,

10 -5
77 14A.t 16- 2Z-<*
h<go dic-
6606£ 2*56*<1«j A»ZZLL)
54- Z9. h 'uou.s_*Aa.-14*'E- .
5520 W . ry\ cufA-c 54-r€d
2ACT S.1544 46 -1 ((d<M
1 5-6 (1--71. 7 )1 U *LB-A 113--x»t - 65-Oed(o,ok 0 (S*pl/ille Gl, L.,
65 Qhz<41 41
F1.49 1 6 /Y./ELSt---
390,1 97aciL 27-7 )
o-4aKr„ku (
c Ju-uzk_ 1 {7 -kjLDx-E, 1 _
r UL1-Q)f*
S tor
L logk
11 40 6.- e_
30*0904A«. 924*'*
33-56 4*1C/ 7«4,2- 0.
C it j
41&46»2kfi Su .
201 124 i. T) r.
i 9S UALL t- l'0 r * 1 *?L'*ak
5- 1,944;5 9.60* 4. 9« -
94L i#t' ROL BOX11 GvC-*t
i-t-le....*. e
sr-v\jx 1 1'f-A-A
S 172W \/vt /
LY[/, 8 1 0 J;AM, f)}-> ies s=Gc»> A j. d ( y4»£LOoc7- 49Z- idi9l< / O X l}e-i/ll 6 2 0 1 *1 *2 1 (_128· 7 1 . / *, 26·-01«U '1U*,
1 4.7- .4,.-\fkDJe' €4.- L.5 1404 .3 A- l .931/ *I,<*f|-·k ujj]U*.|f L</b 3 c Itm.
3 L' 65Za "
111 'c*
Ilitti-1 \»
- j E<' r 6(16Q»an I
11i1tt l«uuMT-li g o.A. jigit
3 c+uid,
53 0 0 f064.1- 6 /.
1)1. la A A*llkQ, b.
3 -2_ 5- w .8r eq-4v y
5-55 4«-
33 / 3l,Jts+
1 642 5 1 /cl,kLG- il.,4- --0.62
11 f (R:
i,i 0Mi8l L_41164-(45234( ,?42 6 3-5- , C 6»/c ·7 -: AN&7&-\7O,vlEv-U*alU ·
1 d\t(vtt vul Bly '
1S/aa-4 4-d«e.B»<<
001s«)J() 4 /(k-ieu-- 6 -
013 U -0649e
rn A
Rose, fwk 44igqMLTiL&frkiwk#
11 SA-9 28UK 20/ 4 4 2. -
1- 0(·c +Se-_sc-)l-P4_3V n_». 4< > 3 s -2t» ( . / t--,e- . 18 11 22/10 .c t(ri A-p43* r-t. 4 1 1*1( =529-d. G-s(-66(-
4/60 3)*- - (-5' - -*V F )-
v 1/4/4UC/'
572-76 >45.ritct<1<,7.7
rr %-' 65251-e-£ bil 6 /4&14e_p-l RAL 4 {-)Sn_Se-4-* l-0/ -10/-0-i-*1-3 0 i #ii)U*-1c, Q4-,s 8,3»0 210, -4.4«i-«v 3' · .
4.t-ol 66L- fkA1»7 .
5-85 AVt .
*iU114, 0-01 8 1(/4 1)2*4 840- 3jlituy Stie4,411 1 q&(, 0 c _/ goer
111i -/-4,0.dl ·kO]NS L(l,\47<o{ue-,j --5 -10.BAuyI?*t*
afl866*· 0 -
62126LLY1£121 /3oi-Lr 2_r _- 3 1 k .(6- d--_t-«1 -1, 1! 1/,4(
i1-7 712110 §01 .
iii. ,tutcH '0' -irj 14aP€ kal-/ G u'/4644Si-e£.
li 1/ ,A\ Y 2/ 4*
.O 1 20 -Rve AL . GAA,d [6
DE.€0/k (4(i' -
. 1346*„ 05. .IVEra,+ 95-J J( .F«r(S')D-A-C61'- 11 l --f0»1Ie= 2©LA NG 6,363,39'04,6,
Av*91 ,(f«Yol)A, ---- .
331 -1
13£fuv4, 9C')r + 8 4 ./62&6 7'i7 5L»31*>O\U , :
CO&9*c)<U(. LL' t »-
5 .5 . 11UU, J, 87Ao-viati-20 -*1\0A-u i»\IA U
zL< #«2 2 .z..1«1 2,6z*- 03.3<11<t/0, k, 2 &1 ,
Lh. Itr 2 2. c ZE, G/* 1
a 314 '25 ll·_*4«3 -0[)A*LD Ross DR, GIL4, 4 /k
43 7 +«7 VOLA, L A _L. 3 *£ 4-> Lj ,
6 da.4,4-<k ic 'l 4 it 't
1 /
24..51-3- 4« C-EIGUS3-4-.
3,1 0 51e-l y*l
L.«S)L-,L-u>CKv' \4, c-/ -
A-Ga_ i\/ CAA
UB<L 0(4.<a L a(ug Mid4¢* -
09492i ·«
Of> -(LLL 4<2/t,tel- J C- n7 -
rn-n C 4-7-..- Strl
0U-4 (38-)
440 '3L**-* -CE
3/ 0 00.EC__ .
11 c Loui>t.4 E-r.
152q »71- £
C 2(0 Li- Ll.: A 1 .£
6 1 B,Al.UL, Cri-,
dju 7,L-. 2.£82Q. r_. -
19 3 7 '1,.14
111- -,
11jtf,1%14 ,3-3{1-,l, Liguw
11'LK'1( 4 24.6 l/ator 0 3 - (53 EaccodA l/fu@-· 97 Y
Llit (r L JkA-
3 E>
t j t»A 'C'/d-
111 2 ./ .«21- 32/4.(1.E'2(%51Er, crl 1 - ·N25c)l,e,, f ."4-
lr74- NB>rt,12-1-
1 7&119 istri) ·&<
cL' O 5 /6944 Vo-3 S<trs.t /' 7006_t: Ly<aill
E1 -i-6662 6 +Tro- 36 2- E Fl ( Lt br,
LitaL 16 Apl,zter L Ir
Ch( KE 'tli,t,1- 1 8 u gf-
13(31 'Ouuod,LUL ,
I03c' LaUS' C
335 dE, 62€cg.€z 2 /
u*yWo«4 f 4{fll .01 1 fla£
. d)cfcull .- i
j /aS 4-<AA!
00 6LA* CQL TO.«u»C- 420 - 4©04 s-r 41 69 L./ 0 A. -kl.0v-,0 7,#,5/ , p /r'- 3 /y lt,01(lLC SO J(, /0.J(.e0- 0 94
4 1« \1 3«L)s LA«
23,317>.--, c
4J-,J+zr- , - r
762„ 2r%!9' 1.4¢*-
14 c-e * -4·<4-6-
0 ES 3 0 &13<& 1<f6.-z.
&0, M H«LL <
10«78L*uk_28 64
I ty., S-1,e:lungll'iu«, L oj g)diLL Cut -G cuiu
st r< 4 1 1-014(4-4. 1, f
97 4°Q1-2*j 144476/1c--.
1 A.lo j 0) 6L*
4921 j a-4 4M,6
Utl/i4(14.146<c6. 34U+-LO©
Ij --»+
14 l--hre1j-« Al_ILKU -»h. 0 4. -<r »= . » -l,//
n':1„3 /\)
Flulter,f luitt
1 12. C 01C-tt.y5.- 1 Jt-e1.,at.y
762/ «'<-/
0)11 . fwa '
ST«AP --*-,-,
Cii* 1'IL1jj *.
v /A: /
9 lij
v 44 139-4.91<-
LM ·1,
42 6
1 t -ody I \f ./ 1 7 .
C-AD ,- c < i€./ L
l]]s»Buk Lu/u4j\- - -
KEIL«.L0/V' E/ .25>
1, I. 140M1 3 . *
P *- 3%4 (M- »«
1 f 9 /
ri it-· /
Itlf,kic<£01-£-L, .
ULCdf- C M11'A.. l 1 /4 .,. .*_
31f >'Mikat=L--
i·15 3 A l\th
i470 fj,Ut-99S#*
7%4, Ae)k1*1<K-l,
3h>liS_0. »\
327 < rK---
730 2 /041 ;€
6243 / u.11.,.«60 .v,- .,„,
2 43 Re<ofe,voiI
145-1\,1< E-b(le UViN4
( ' l e@u1<,£21#
PN .
6GS VO f i'v'
4 4
41"1 7-4,- e,Ge Yl,.
p L /
t)3. €E. CyV, k#F w\, f'
3E'Li kj. R a- -r /
3 R.-7 L)94'
33 -i cA) .86.vt_
53 L 4/. 1.
10¢Us« 7 1
b 30 7' lzteaLk/24/
3270N>ca (6-1-(1b u' .C .
4-60 13.0124 ST
2/S,t- ( -.
747 5 4 4»Q4€Ti.
Lg<o U < C *t/
82 133- 6,NhiO,-4, 4t' i k d*c
1 131 Taer U.545.
11 5-ld, f 1. 4
1 6.cuL 74-66{11.
IFE 1( L€#M.ce r-U· n
1 Cvis il llc
i 5444 prof
1 441C*kS'
160» -493/5-
1Sss*- 7 022v 1 » F{4j*zf, l o/.tf- L%-«rt=y--, 1: A
J b V\\ CJ 0\-«- \-
1, 1
illf« S ( EL.*
./PGU '(/
tu 6 C#7€ Aylt.W 1/ ce
219 Lut51
l115506- Vulk Y f(+.5--* 9kw*L?K.oozl
24/ 47-C'LU1e,.1£ 9 2 - . f T * 1 11 -/0545-5LLY
LO -2. WR.Of4.
LU,.. 9 C 1 7 <Le
t.--47%1- 3/
FtO CSO -PjpojOU· ty
pitLI \C \\
7f 2@1-,
4fk Ot-
A 'f
Sol 3tuuJ«£
51 5-U./ i &202--U,j
19 9 0 £*26R-
1 1

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.