Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 29, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Councilmember Johnson (non-voting), Doug Eklof (non-voting), Jack Burriss, Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell.

Members Absent:  Steven Hawk and Tim Ryan

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner; Debi Walker; Asst. to Planning Dept.

Also Present: Michelle Ventker, Timothy Church, Kevin Reiner, Don DeSapri, and Tim Klingler. 

Citizens’ Comments: No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

New Business:

120 ½ East Broadway – Patti Urbatis- Application #2012-65

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a sidewalk sign. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Michelle Ventker. 

Discussion:

Michelle Ventker, 120 ½ East Broadway, indicated she is representing Patti Urbatis for this application for a sandwich board sign.  Ms. Ventker stated they had a sign above the awning that has been removed and they would like to replace it with a sandwich board sign.  Ms. Terry stated the application calls for a 2’ wide x 3’9” high sign that meets all of the requirements.  She stated the sign would have to be removed and secured during non-business hours.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the small signs in the window on either side of the entrance was redundant with this proposed ‘open’ signage.  Mr. Burriss stated he would be in favor of the sandwich board sign only if the window signage for ‘office’ and ‘open’ are removed.  Ms. Hoyt agreed with Mr. Burriss.  Ms. Ventker indicated she would think Ms. Urbatis would agree to removing these signs if it means approval of a sandwich board sign is allowed.  Mr. Burriss questioned if a variance is required for this application with the Aladdin signage and this being located within the same building.  Ms. Terry stated yes a variance is required.   

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application $2012-65: 

a.         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated structures in the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that it's consistent with other signs which have been approved in this District; all Planning Commission members concurred. 

b.         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated there are examples in historical photos showing sidewalk signs, therefore it does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character; all Planning Commission members concurred. 

c.         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated by contributing to the continuing vitality of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District; all Planning Commission members concurred. 

d.         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated it's reducing the number of signs at this location which does protect and enhance examples of past generations; all Planning Commission members concurred. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-65: 

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. Yes, multiple signs for single buildings have been approved in the past; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE.  

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 are other signs on the property, however, this will help clarify the hours of operation for this business; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE.  

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  No, it’s not substantial; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE.                     

(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.  No, it will not; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  No, it will not; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  No, they're a tenant only; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE.    

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  No, the variance is the most logical conclusion; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Yes, the spirit is achieved by the granting of this variance; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

c.      That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  True, they do not; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was 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.  It will not; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

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 Planning Commission agreed the applicant should remove the ‘open’ and ‘office’ signage in the window with the addition of the sandwich board signage and the sandwich board sign should be secured indoors during non-business hours.        

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2012-65 with the following conditions: 

1)         That the sidewalk sign shall be removed and secured indoors during non-business          hours;

2)         That the applicant remove the "open" and "office" signage in the front window; and

3)         That a variance be approved to increase the maximum number of sidewalk signs for this building from one (1) to two (2).  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-65: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

121 South Main Street – Kevin Reiner on behalf of John and Maria Bishop - Application #2012-66

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the replacement of a front door.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Kevin Reiner.  

Discussion:

Kevin Reiner, Kevin Reiner Designs, 219 West Broadway, indicated he is representing the homeowners, John and Maria Bishop.  He stated the homeowner would like to change the existing door to an antique wooden door.  Mr. Reiner explained one door would be active and one passive with a transom located above.  Mr. Reiner stated they would use dark non-descriptive hardware and the doors would be painted.  Mr. Burriss asked what kind of glass would go in the doors.  Mr. Reiner stated they would be using the existing single pane antique glass.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the glass has to be replaced with safety glass?  Mr. Reiner stated this was not requested by the zoning inspector.  Mr. Burriss stated the replacement with safety glass is associated with the size of the glass.  Ms. Terry stated the building department would review whether a building permit would be required for this improvement, and would be the ones to determine whether there needed to be safety glass installed.  Mr. Burriss stated the door Mr. Reiner is replacing is not original to the house.    

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-66: 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated that the application is consistent with other remodeling projects which have been approved previously; all Planning Commission members concurred. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated the new front doors are more in keeping with the historical character; all Planning Commission members concurred.  

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated by contributing to the authenticity of a structure it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District; all Planning Commission concurred.  

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated the newer authentic front doors do protect and enhance the property and are closer to the physical surroundings in which past generations lived; all Planning Commission members concurred. 

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2012-66 as submitted with the condition that the doors be painted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-66: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  

462 South Main Street – Auto Trim Design/New Phase/Dent Solutions - Application #2012-67:  Community Service District (CSD).  The request is for review and approval of a wall sign to be located on the south side of the building.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Timothy Church.  

Discussion:

Timothy Church, 462 South Main Street, stated that the automotive center is in the front of the building and there are three businesses in the back that many people are not aware of.  He stated they are in need of additional signage to alleviate any confusion regarding their location.  Mr. Church stated they have a specific entrance to ensure safety for customers coming/going.  Mr. Church stated they would like to add signage for the auto appearance businesses located in the rear of the building and they are attempting to make the rear building more customer friendly.  Ms. Terry explained the applicant is proposing three separate signs for the rear location in the building.  She stated the first application is for modification of an existing sign.  Ms. Terry stated there is a lot of signage on this building and staff cannot find records of all of the approvals.  She indicated that variances would be necessary were the Planning Commission to grant the additional wall signs as the code only allows one (1) wall sign per building.  Mr. Johnson stated the total square footage is not an issue, but a variance is required due to the number of wall signs.  Mr. Johnson asked if there is a color change on all of the applications.  Ms. Terry stated for Application #2012-67 it is a color change and the proposed signage has more than three colors, which was not previously approved for other signage.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if a variance is required due to the Pennzoil yellow for the logo.  Mr. Church stated this color was chosen due to the logo.  Mr. Mitchell stated they rarely give variances for additional colors on signs.  Mr. Church stated he wouldn’t be speaking for himself if he were to change the color of the logos.  He stated these signs are not facing the street and a customer looking for them is looking for what matches their business cards.  Mr. Burriss stated they have worked hard in this district to limit the signage to three colors.  Mr. Burriss stated he is inclined to consider a larger amount of signage for this structure, rather than being inclined to allow for additional colors.  Mr. Mitchell agreed he has frequented the business and it can be difficult to know where to go for which business.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Burriss agreed they would be in favor of a variance for additional signage, but not for additional colors.  Mr. Church suggested the Dent Solutions sign in blue with a grey ‘S’ could be changed to match the signage on the front of the building.  Ms. Hoyt stated it would be best for the public to not see different colors on different signs having the same logo.  Mr. Johnson stated the color change does not just affect one logo, but there are other businesses that are different than the front sign.  Ms. Hoyt stated each business should have compatible signage that matches the signage in the front of the building.  Mr. Burriss stated the new signage also does not have the same font that is in the front.          

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-67 pertaining to the number of wall signs allowed on the building structure: 

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. Burriss stated the physical size of the building and number of tenants creates a special circumstance; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

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.  Mr. Burriss stated the variance is not extreme and is common sense; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Burriss stated for this particular structure the variance is not substantial; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE.          

(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. Burriss stated the entire area would not be affected by this variance; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Mr. Burris stated no, it would not; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. Mr. Burriss stated no, this is a tenant; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE.  

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Burriss stated no, based on the size of the building granting the variance is the most obvious solution; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(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. Burriss stated substantial justice would be done by granting the variance; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Burriss stated they do result from the actions of the applicant; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE.  

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. Burriss stated no, it will not adversely affect any of these; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

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. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2012-67 with a variance to increase the maximum number of wall signs from one (1) to three (3) for this building in the Community Service District; and to continue to observe the three (3) color maximum for signage in this District.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-67: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

462 South Main Street – Auto Trim Design/New Phase/Dent Solutions - Application #2012-68Community Service District (CSD). The request is for review and approval of a wall sign to be located on the east side of the building.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Timothy Church. 

Discussion:

See Application #2012-67 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-68 pertaining to the number of wall signs allowed on the building structure: 

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. Burriss stated the physical size of the building and number of tenants creates a special circumstance; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

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.  Mr. Burriss stated the variance is not extreme and is common sense; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Burriss stated for this particular structure the variance is not substantial; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE.          

(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. Burriss stated the entire area would not be affected by this variance; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Mr. Burris stated no, it would not; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. Mr. Burriss stated no, this is a tenant; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE.  

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Burriss stated no, based on the size of the building granting the variance is the most obvious solution; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(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. Burriss stated substantial justice would be done by granting the variance; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Burriss stated they do result from the actions of the applicant; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

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. Burriss stated no, it will not adversely affect any of these; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

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. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2012-68 with a variance to increase the maximum number of wall signs from three (3) to four (4) for this building in the Community Service District; and to continue to observe the three (3) color maximum for signage in this District.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-68: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

462 South Main Street – Auto Trim Design/New Phase/Dent Solutions - Application #2012-69Community Service District (CSD).  The request is for review and approval of a wall sign to be located on the north side of the building.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Timothy Church.  

Discussion:

See Application #2012-67

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-69 pertaining to the number of wall signs allowed on the building structure: 

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. Burriss stated the physical size of the building and number of tenants creates a special circumstance; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

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.  Mr. Burriss stated the variance is not extreme and is common sense; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Burriss stated for this particular structure the variance is not substantial; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE.          

(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. Burriss stated the entire area would not be affected by this variance; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Mr. Burris stated no, it would not; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. Mr. Burriss stated no, this is a tenant; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE.  

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Burriss stated no, based on the size of the building granting the variance is the most obvious solution; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(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. Burriss stated substantial justice would be done by granting the variance; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Burriss stated they do result from the actions of the applicant; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE.  

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. Burriss stated no, it will not adversely affect any of these; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

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. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2012-69 with a variance to increase the maximum number of wall signs from four (4) to five (5) for this building in the Community Service District; and to continue to observe the three (3) color maximum for signage in this District.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-69: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

Other Business: 

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1171.03 and 1189.13.

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1137.01, 1139.04, 1139.05, 1139.06, 1141.04, 1141.05 and 1141.06. 

Discussion: 

Mr. Mitchell noted two members of the Planning Commission were absent for discussion.  The Planning Commission thanked Ms. Terry for the additional information distributed, including a density comparison chart for their review.  

Ms. Hoyt stated she would like to move to table this discussion until each Planning Commission member is present.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0.  

Finding of Fact Approvals: 

New Business:

Application #2012-65: Patti Urbatis; 120 ½ East Broadway; Sidewalk Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, Chapter 1189, Signs and Chapter 1147, Variances and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-65 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-65. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2012-66: Kevin Reiner for John and Maria Bishop; 121 South Main Street; Exterior Modifications

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-66 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-66. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2012-67: Auto Trim Design/New Phase/Dent Solutions; 462 South Main Street; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147 Variances and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-67 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-67. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2012-68: Auto Trim Design/New Phase/Dent Solutions; 462 South Main Street; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-68 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-68. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2012-69: Auto Trim Design/New Phase/Dent Solutions; 462 South Main Street; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-69 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-69. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

Motion to approve absent Commission Members:

Mr. Hawk moved to excuse Tim Ryan and Steven Hawk from the May 29, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.  

Motion to approve meeting minutes for May 14, 2012:

The minutes were not considered because there was not a quorum of Planning Commission members present to review and approve them. 

Adjournment:  8:15 PM

Mr. Burriss moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 3-0.  

Next meetings:

Monday, June 11, 2012 (Melanie Schott may not be able to attend this meeting.)

Monday, June 25, 2012

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.