Anticipating a shortfall next year in earned income taxes, Parryville Council president Mike Grant still believes that a tax hike is not necessary for 2011.

Grant said that a shortfall of $4,700 is expected due to the sagging local economy.Grant did offer three options of a preliminary budget for council members to study so that the budget adoption process will continue without interruption. One budget has no increase. The second has a 1/2 mill increase and the third would increase taxes by a mill.No tentative budget was released to the press since the figures were not determined.Grant said that for residents with a home valued at $50,000, who are currently paying $550 a year in real estate taxes would see a tax increase of $25 if there was a 1/2 mill increase."Most homes in Parryville are in that assessment bracket," said Grant. He added that any homes valued at $100,000 would see a $50 increase in taxes and a home valued at $150,000 would see at $75 tax increase if a 1/2 mill hike would be warranted."We have remaining funds that were not allocated this year which will make up the shortfall," said Grant. "We should be fine without increasing taxes.""I want all of you to review all three proposals and send me emails with your thoughts," said Grant. "We plan to tentatively adopt the budget at the Nov. 23 meeting and have final adoption at the Dec. 28 meeting. If we don't follow that timeline, we will have to hold a special meeting.""We have no big projects that we are anticipating," said Grant. "I don't believe a tax increase is necessary."Att. Michael Greek, solicitor for Parryville, announced that Mark Stemler, owner of Riverwalck Saloon at 8 Center St., has appealed the decision of zoning officer Dick Fedor. He said a Zoning Hearing Board Hearing has been scheduled to be held at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday, Nov. 17, at the Parryville Fire Company to hear the appeal.According to a legal notice that was published Oct. 26, in the TIMES NEWS, Stemler is seeking approval from the Zoning Hearing Board for special exceptions from the zoning ordinance.Stemler is asking for an interpretation of the zoning ordinance relating to set backs and footage.While the property is nonconforming, both as to use and dimensions, Stemler believes that it is a preexisting and that the restaurant never had parking lot spaces conforming to the ordinance.Before Stemler's purchase of the property, the property had mixed use, with two mobile homes on the property and now the use of the property is strictly commercial. Stemler believes that the restaurant is entitled to expand and should not be required to comply with parking requirements of the ordinance.Stemler seeks a variance with respect to parking requirements because the property cannot provide additional parking in line with the ordinance and poses an undue hardship.He is also seeking to use the decks/porches seasonally with respect for parking requirements to permit seasonal outdoor use.He is also seeking a variance from dimensional requirements for parking spaces. He notes that the business attracts seasonal motorcycle customers who do not require full size parking spaces and more vehicles could be accommodated consistent with the business operations.Another variance is requested to eliminate the off-street loading space additional requirement so that those spaces can be used for parking without interfering with the actual loading and delivery needs of the operation.He also seeks an interpretation of or a variance from the ordinance to comply with sewer and other planning modules until zoning matters can be resolved.Stemler is also seeking to convert one of the outbuildings to a garage and storage facility. He also wants to add attic space in the structure and seeks a variance to modify the structure.He also seeks a variance to convert a second outbuilding to allow the building to be used for covered parking and storage. He seeks to variance to convert the second building from residential use to covered motorcycle parking and storage.Stemler also seeks a variance to permit the entryway to remain because it controls the flow of traffic and access to the premises, The applicant said that removing the entryway is an unnecessary hardship and serves no legitimate purpose.Stemler also seeks a variance from the sign setback and dimensional requirements because a sign that meets the ordinance requirements would not be visible and that the set back serves no purpose in that the property adjoins a highway.