Riverlea, Ohio home page.
Riverlea, Ohio

Planning Commission

Visitor Info  •  Resident Info  •  Village Council  •  Planning Commission  •  Street Commissioner
Another thing that is replica rolex watches often complained about is that it is "very difficult", a bunch of fake rolex replica watch long numbers and proper nouns often make people think about the swiss replica watches whole jump, to be honest if you are the end consumer, then these things you really Do not understand, basically as long as fake rolex uk they know what role they actually wear.

Frequently Asked Questions  •  Ordinances  •  Newly Adopted Ordinances  •  Meeting Archive

Meeting ArchiveArchived Minutes

Public Information

Architectural Review Board (ARB) meetings are held on the second Monday each month at 7:00 pm, pending the need to meet. The ARB does not do building inspection, only architectural review and zoning compliance. All Village residents are welcome and encouraged to attend the meetings.

Regular meeting: April 13, 2015

A special meeting of the Village of Riverlea Planning Commission was held April 13, 2015 at the Evening Street Elementary School. Carolee Noonan (Planning Commissioner), Robert Davis, and Taylor Surface. Also present were Brian Burnett and Janet Brown. Joshua C. Mehling served as Clerk. The Planning Commissioner called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.

  1. The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of December 8, 2014 were not read since each member had received a copy. Davis moved and Surface seconded the motion that the minutes be approved as submitted by the Clerk. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea: 3, Davis, Noonan, and Surface; Nay: None. The motion carried 3-0.
  2. An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness and variance by Brian and Melissa Burnett at 5822 Pioneers Ct to install a composite deck over the current concrete patio and add a small brick walkway. The patio would be one step down from the house and one step up from the lawn. The variance is being requested because the patio would end closer than the required 10 feet from the property line. Burnett submitted a letter from Janice Williams, the neighbor on the other side of the property line, indicating that he approved of the patio addition. Given that the current patio ws also closer than 10 feet to the property line, Davis enquired as to whether a previous variance had been issued for this house. Burnett stated that he had built the house and the COA application had been approved at the time. Noonan noted that future neighbors may not approve of the location of the patio, but also noted that there was a privacy fence in place between the properties. Burnett stated that they had tried to keep the patio at ground level for privacy purposes.

    Davis asked Burnett if the deck would still be desirable if it was reduced to not extend within 10 feet of the property line and Burnett replied that it would not be enough space. Davis then asked whether it would work if the deck was extended east to compensate for this and Burnett replied that they wanted to leave some grass for in which the children could play. Davis stated that he was concerned with the deck falling so close to the property line and that he would most likely vote against the variance. He stated that he would not be against extending the deck eastward to add the additional space. Surface mentioned that he also had concerns but that given the close proximity of the houses in question, it would be hard to do anything and not extend within the 10 foot limit. Noonan mentioned that she also had concerns about the location of the deck, but stated that she wanted to make the voices of the residents heard and that the neighbor had written the letter of approval. Surface moved and Noonan seconded the motion to approve the variance to place the deck within 10 feet of the property line. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea: 2, Noonan and Surface: Nay, 1, Davis. The Motion carried 2-1.

    Davis enquired how close the lot was to the 40% threshold with the deck addition and Burnett mentioned that it would be at 40% with the addition. Davis asked whether this included the brick walkway and Burnett stated that he would try to find this out. He believed that the total of the patio extension and walkway was less than 2%. Davis stated that a variance may be needed as well before approving the COA application if it turns out that the lot coverage is more than 40%. Brown suggested that the committee could approve the plan contingent on the lot coverage findings. Davis moved and Surface seconded the motion to table the application for a certificate of appropriateness until the question about lot coverage was answered. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea: 3, Davis, Noonan, and Surface: Nay, None. The Motion carried 3-0.

  3. The Commission set up a special meeting to discuss the results of question on lot coverage at 7:30 on Monday, April 27, at which time the COA could be approved. Davis moved and Surface seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:47 pm.

    Carolea Noonan, Planning Commissioner

    Josh Mehling, Clerk