Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes July 9, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 9, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order (by Chairman Ryan at 7:00 pm) 

 

Roll Call:  Those responding to the roll call were Councilmember Johnson, Mr. Eklof, Chairman Ryan, Mr. Hawk, Ms. Hoyt and Vice Chairman Mitchell.

 

Members Present: Councilmember Johnson (non-voting), Doug Eklof (non-voting), Tim Ryan (Chair), Steven Hawk, Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell (Vice Chair).

 

Members Absent:  Jack Burriss. 

 

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director; Debi Walker; Planning and Zoning Assistant.

 

Also Present:  Fred Abraham, Monique Keegan, Nancy Iker, Carolyn Johnson, Greg Fracker, Chris White, Ann Lowder, Don DeSapri, and Tim Riffle.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

221 East Broadway – Robbins Hunter Museum - Application #2012-74

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of cobblestone pavers

and replacement with exposed aggregate concrete.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Don DeSapri, Carolyn

Johnson, Nancy Iker, and Ann Lowder. 

 

Discussion:  (No action was taken on a roll call vote for Application #2012-74 at the June 25, 2012 meeting.)

 

Don DeSapri, Potter’s Lane, indicated they have made some revisions to the plan by adding stone planters near the rear of the Counting House and they have added a red brick decorative border in the gravel area.  Mr. Hawk questioned if the brick border would go around the exposed aggregate.  Mr. DeSapri stated they are proposing for the brick to only go around the area where they are removing the cobblestones.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the applicant would be maintaining landscaping around the air conditioning unit.  Mr. DeSapri stated they have proposed to place three stone planters in this area.  He also confirmed the Robbin’s Hunter Garden Club would maintain these.  Ms. Hoyt asked what type of barrier would be used to protect the air conditioning unit.   Mr. DeSapri stated they would place hand cut stone (18 x 18 x 4) that are original to the foundation in front of the unit.  Ms. Hoyt asked how the proposed drain in the gravel area would work and will it be screened to keep gravel from clogging it.  Mr. DeSapri stated the contractor said he would raise this area slightly so this is not a problem.  Mr. Ryan clarified if the cobblestones have already been removed.  Mr. DeSapri stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated he was objecting to the applicant using another material, especially with the neighbors proposing a brick entry.  Mr. Mitchell stated he would have preferred to see the existing cobblestones in place and he wouldn’t have agreed to their removal.  Mr. Mitchell stated nonetheless the cobblestones are gone and he thinks brick is more appropriate for the area.  Mr. DeSapri stated the reason that they did not reuse the cobblestones is due to cost and it is a very labor-intensive process.  Mr. DeSapri stated there are over 3,000 cobblestones and not two of them are the same dimension.  Ms. Hoyt asked about the border between the proposed aggregate and gravel.  She questioned what would keep the gravel from coming onto the aggregate.  Mr. DeSapri stated the aggregate would be higher and the gravel would move away from the aggregate.  Mr. Ryan questioned if the entire area was at one time proposed to be exposed aggregate.  Mr. DeSapri stated yes, but due to the dogwood tree and saving money they decided to use gravel in part of the area.  He stated the first twenty-four feet is where the parking is going to occur.  Ms. Hoyt stated she would not be against seeing aggregate in the entire area, but more than anything she would like to see more landscaping to soften the area.  Mr. DeSapri stated the area around the tree would be mulched.  Mr. Hawk stated he too would like to see brick used, but it doesn’t appear as though the applicant is willing to use this material.  He asked if the applicant would consider extending the brick border to the alleyway surrounding the exposed aggregate area and creating a border between the gravel and the exposed aggregate area.  Mr. DeSapri stated this would be possible.  Ms. Hoyt stated she likes the idea of extending the brick. 

 

Nancy Iker, Co-chair of Robbin’s Hunter Garden Club, stated they have worked hard on this project to preserve the historical integrity.  She explained they did an abundant amount of research and found gravel was the most historically appropriate surface material used when the structure was originally built.  Ms. Iker stated gravel is permeable, economically efficient, and would save the plants.  She went on to say the effects from freezing and thawing problems are lessened in the wintertime with the use of gravel.  Ms. Iker stated she can assure the Planning Commission that the Garden Club would landscape around the tree.  She stated the bricks would complement the new entry and be complementary to the alley.  Ms. Iker urged the approval of the presented plan before the Planning Commission.  Mr. Hawk asked if the heat drawn to the area with the larger hard surface is concerning for plant life.  Ms. Iker stated no.  Mr. Mitchell asked why gravel is proposed in the area near the drain if cars won’t be located in this area.  Mr. DeSapri stated the main parking area will be on the aggregate surface, but there could be cars on the gravel at times for loading and unloading during special events. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-74:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Ms. Hoyt stated the materials used are compatible with other materials which have been approved within this District. All other Planning Commission members concurred. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. Ms. Hoyt stated because of the improvement and upgrading of the materials it does improve the historical character.  Mr. Ryan and Mr. Hawk agreed with Ms. Hoyt.  Mr. Mitchell stated the historical character is downgraded and he does not agree this would be an improvement.   

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Ms. Hoyt stated that by contributing to the vitality of a property is contributes to the continuing vitality of the district as well.   All other Planning Commission members concurred. 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Ms. Hoyt stated the proposed materials are historically correct so it does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.    

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to Approve Application #2012-74, as amended and submitted on July 9th with the condition that a red brick decorative border be added along the perimeter of the exposed aggregate.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-74:  Mitchell (no), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-1.

 

New Business:

545 West Broadway – Fred Abraham - Application #2012-97

Suburban Residential District-C (SRD-C) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval the addition of a rear garage addition and replacement of siding with board and batten siding. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Fred Abraham. 

 

Discussion:

Fred Abraham, 545 West Broadway, indicated he would like to add on to his existing garage.  He stated this would be a story and a half that goes back an additional forty feet from the existing garage.  Mr. Abraham stated he is proposing white board and batten siding for the entire structure with dimensional shingles.  He stated he would be adding a porch with a dark green standing seam metal roof.  Mr. Abraham stated he is proposing changing the windows to divided light windows.  Ms. Terry explained this property is not located within the AROD, but due to the proposal being more than a 20% increase in total gross livable area – the AROD standards apply.  She stated there are variances required for this proposal and that the BZBA will be considering those at their July 12th meeting. 

 

Nick Schott, 660 West Broadway, stated he owns property located at 555 West Broadway, which is to the west of Mr. Abraham’s property.  He stated he is in support of the project and feels it would be an improvement to the neighborhood. 

 

Mr. Mitchell asked how much the project exceeds the 20% requirement and has building massing been addressed.  Ms. Terry stated building massing is one of the items that will need to be addressed by the Planning Commission.  She read aloud the criteria related to building massing.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant meets the lot coverage requirements for the addition.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the adjacent homes on each side of the property are two story.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Ms. Terry stated the property to the west drops down in the rear yard.  Mr. Mitchell asked the purpose of the cupola and the reason for the six-foot height increase between the main house and the addition.  Mr. Abraham stated it would add light to the upper story of the garage and the perspective from the street won’t make the cupola look higher than the roof.  The Planning Commission indicated there were no problems with building massing for this project.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-97:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Mitchell stated that the board and batten siding and roof lines are stylistically compatible.  Mr. Ryan stated the overall improvement of the property is compatible with other approved projects in the District. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Ryan stated that the design and materials bring the overall character into line with surrounding properties and the historical character of the neighborhood. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Ryan stated by upgrading the overall character of the house it is contributing to the continuing vitality of the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Ryan stated by upgrading the overall aesthetic it protects and enhances the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-97 as submitted contingent upon receipt of approval of the required variances from the BZBA.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-97:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

217 East College Street – Joe and Demaris Rosato - Application #2012-98

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

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

1)         Removal of an existing one-story addition and replacement with a two-story rear addition;

2)         Removal of a bay window on the eastern side of the home;

3)         Adding a small bump out area for the front door on the front porch. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Frank Rosato. 

 

Discussion:

Frank Rosato, stated his son purchased the property and it is in a sad state of disrepair.  Mr. Rosato stated in 1990 there was an extensive amount of work done on this property.  He stated there is no basement and the existing foundation is not good.  Mr. Rosato stated they are proposing to remove part of the foundation and put in a half bath, laundry area, and storage.  He explained the existing bay window was compromised and they would like to remove this to put in an architectural element on the side of the kitchen.  He stated they are also proposing a sixteen-inch bump out at the front door.  He stated they are planning on gutting the entire house and they expect this to be a nine-month project.  Mr. Rosato stated when one looks at the house from the front it will appear to look exactly the same.  He stated there is a slight chance they will have to replace the wood columns with fiberglass columns, but they are not sure yet.  Mr. Rosato stated HUD paid to have a new roof put on the house and they will only have to put a roof on the front porch.  He stated they are proposing a black rubber roof since this is not visible from the ground.  Mr. Rosato stated the windows will be taken out and reset.  He indicated they will only replace windows with like windows if need be.  He indicated the windows are divided light windows.  Mr. Rosato provided an example of the cement board they would be using for trim around the windows.  Mr. Hawk questioned if the window at the bump out should match the upper story window on the same elevation.  Mr. Rosato agreed this would be a good idea and they are aiming to do this if they can make the interior space work.  Mr. Hawk stated this would help with the massing.  The Planning Commission reviewed the building massing and agreed this was not an issue.  Joseph Rosato, owner of the property, stated they received a letter from their neighbor on the west side, Gloria Hoover, indicating she did not have any problems with the proposed changes.     

 

Ms. Terry stated the applicant would need variances for side yard setbacks from the BZBA.  The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-98:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Hawk stated it is stylistically compatible and by restoring the home it is consistent with other renovation requests approved in the District.  Mr. Hawk further stated the improvements are significant. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Hawk stated that by restoring the home to its historical grandeur it does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Hawk stated the vitality of the District is improved by the proposed project renovations. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Hawk stated by embracing the current structure of the house it does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings.  All other Planning Commission members concurred. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-98 as submitted contingent upon approval by the BZBA of the required variances.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-98:  Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

116 North Pearl Street – Monique Keegan for Three Amigos, LLC - Application #2012-99

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

The request is for architectural review and approval the installation of concrete pavers,

wood retaining walls and pea gravel to the south side of the structure.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Monique Keegan. 

 

Discussion:

Monique Keegan, 115 West Elm Street, indicated she is representing Newkirk Designs.  She stated they would like to install replacement pavers with gravel.  Ms. Keegan stated the color was the biggest obstacle.  She explained they are wanting to create a spa feeling and are proposing the use of sixteen-inch pavers.  She explained they would like to add two stairs for easier access and maintenance between their property and the Granville Inn.  Ms. Keegan stated there is a substantial berm at the side yard where it is difficult for plants and grass to grow due to erosion.  She stated they came up with a barrier to edge the planting bed that runs the entire length of the Granville Inn parking lot.  Ms. Terry stated the lot coverage and setback requirements have been met. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-99:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Hawk stated the proposal is compatible with the business District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Hawk stated that the materials are consistent with the historical flavor and it improves a business.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Hawk stated by contributing to the improvement of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Hawk stated with the appropriate historic materials the facility is enhanced and protects surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2012-99 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-99:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

337 North Pearl Street – Chris and Laura White/Greg Fracker Colorscapes - Application #2012-100

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a concrete paver patio in the rear yard and a concrete paver wall along the south side of the house.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Chris White, and Greg

Fracker. 

 

Discussion:

Greg Fracker, 335 West Elm Street, stated that he is representing the White’s.  He stated the proposed improvements are in an area where they cannot get vegetation to grow and they are having problems with water sitting there.  Mr. Fracker stated they would like to install a drain on the four hundred square foot patio.  Mr. Fracker stated the existing concrete walkway is broken up and the applicant would like to install a wider paver walkway.  He stated the drainage would pipe out near Pearl Street into the flowerbeds.  Ms. Terry stated the proposed patio and sidewalk are not required to meet setbacks because they are under three feet in total height.  Ms. Terry stated all other setback requirements have been met.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-100:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Ms. Hoyt stated the proposed materials/pavers are consistent with similar projects in the district and are historically correct.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Ms. Hoyt stated the historical character is upgraded which contributes to the improvement of the property. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Ms. Hoyt stated the drainage issues are being addressed which positively impacts the vitality of the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Ms. Hoyt stated the project enhances the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-100 as presented noting that the two (2) columns and retaining/seat wall originally requested are not part of the project.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-100:  Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

1000 North Pearl Street – Denison University/Tim Riffle - Application #2012-101

Institutional District (ID).  The request is for review and approval of the installation of a 2-story concrete block press box at the softball field. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Tim Riffle.

 

Discussion:

Tim Riffle, Elm Street, indicated they would like to install a two-story concrete block press box.  Ms. Terry stated this applicant would have to go before the BZBA for Conditional Use approval of this structure.  Ms. Terry stated the height and setback requirements have been met.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-101 as submitted contingent upon approval by the BZBA for the Conditional Use.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-101:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

334 East Broadway – Denison University/Tim Riffle- Application #2012-102

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of existing wood double-hung windows and replacement with vinyl double-hung windows on the second floor.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Tim Riffle.

 

Discussion:

Tim Riffle, Elm Street, indicated he is representing Denison University for approval of the window replacement.  Mr. Riffle stated the second floor of the College Town House is used for apartments and they are proposing the use of more environmentally friendly windows that are double-glazed.  He stated these windows would look exactly the same as the existing windows on the property. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-102:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Hawk stated that the replacement windows are stylistically compatible with the other windows on the structure and are consistent with similar projects which have been approved previously within the District. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Hawk stated the replacement windows do contribute to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Hawk stated by contributing to the upgrading of an historical structure with replacement windows it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Hawk stated by replacing the windows with a consistent style it does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-102 as proposed.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-102:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

 

Application #2012-74: Robbins Hunter Museum; 221 East Broadway; 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 #2012-74 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-74. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (no), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-1.

 

New Business:

 

Application #2012-97: Fred Abraham; 545 West Broadway; 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 1163, Suburban Residential District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-97 as submitted by the applicant and indicated in the conditions of approval.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-97.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2012-98: Frank Rosato; 217 East College 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 #2012-98 as submitted by the applicant and indicated in the conditions of approval.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-98.   Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2012-99: Monique Keegan; 116 North Pearl 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, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-99 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-99.   Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2012-100: Chris and Laura White; 337 North Pearl Street; Exterior Modifications

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-100 as submitted by the applicant and indicated in the conditions of approval.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-100. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2012-101: Denison University; 1000 North 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 1169, Institutional District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-101 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-101. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2012-102: Denison University; 335 East Broadway; 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, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-102 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-102. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve excuse Jack Burriss from the July 9, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for June 25, 2012:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from June 25, 2012 as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Adjournment:  8:25 PM

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Next meetings:

Monday, July 23, 2012

Monday, August 13, 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.