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: May 11, 2009

A meeting of the Village of Riverlea Planning Commission was held May 11, 2009. Members present were Michael Jones (Planning Commissioner), L. Keith Beachler, Bryce E. Jacob (arrived at 7:36), Jody C. Jones, and Lisa J. Morris. Also present were Lorene Haimerl, Deborah Barman, Todd Parker, Betty and Donald Campbell, Janet Brown, Joel Mazza and Judy Stattmiller. Pamela M. Colwell served as Clerk. The Planning Commissioner called the meeting to order at 7:33 pm.

  1. The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 13, 2009 were not read since each member had received a copy. Morris moved and Beachler seconded a motion that the minutes be approved as submitted by the Clerk-Treasurer. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea, 4; Beachler, J. Jones, Morris and M. Jones: Nay, None. The Motion carried 4-0. (Jacob was not present for the vote.)
  2. J. Jones moved and Beachler seconded a motion to take from the table the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by Lorene and Mark Haimerl at 5805 Crescent Court to connect the existing house and garage under one roof, to enlarge the kitchen by eliminating the breezeway and cat walk, to enlarge the second floor bedroom and to re-roof the entire house and garage. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea, 5; Beachler, Jacob, J. Jones, Morris and M. Jones: Nay, None. The Motion carried 5-0. Lorene Haimerl submitted a transmittal of a new exterior materials schedule dated May 11, 2009 that supersedes the information on the drawings/plans. She also brought samples of the materials and colors. The Commission reviewed the list and samples. They wanted to make sure the entire roof on the house and garage would be re-roofed and Haimerl said it would. Jacob moved and Beachler seconded a motion to approve the application. There were no comments from residents present. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea, 5; Beachler, Jacob, J. Jones, Morris and M. Jones: Nay, None. The Motion carried 5-0. A street bond of $2,000 will be required.
  3. Applications for a Variance and for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 5872 Olentangy Boulevard for a 48-inch high black vinyl wrapped chain link fence was presented by Deborah Barman. She stated she is requesting the variance because of her large dog. She wants to make sure her dog cannot jump over the fence. She stated that she had looked at other types of fences but they were too expensive. An electronic fence is not an option since large dogs tend to be less sensitive to the shock to keep them from escaping. She again stated her desire to not have her dog menace the neighbors or get hurt running loose. Her fence would be about 70 feet from Olentangy Blvd. and about 60 feet from Riverglen Dr. so she felt it would not have much of an impact on the neighborhood. The Commission questioned the choice of a chain link fence, and Mike offered a suggestion to consider matching the iron fence on the side visible by Olentangy Blvd, with the chain link on the other sides. However Barman stated the chain link style was what she could afford. The Commission asked about the height of her next-door neighbor's fence and Barman, refusing to give a direct answer to the question, explained she needed her fence higher since she is downhill from the neighbor. There was more discussion regarding the use of landscaping to minimize the impact of the fence. Barman agreed to add landscaping such as climbing roses along the fence but a plan would need to be provided before approving the fence. She also stated she would have a double gate on one side to allow the mower access to the fenced area. However, she did not have a plan for the fence with a gate nor did she have a plan for the gate opening size or number of swinging components of the gate. The Commission wanted to look at other options than the chain link fence and noted that cost was not considered a hardship. Barman vehemently disagreed. In addition, she stated that the village's ordinances concerning variances, in particular the hardship clauses were no longer relevant because of the Council's action to grant the Surface's application for a variance. J. Jones referenced an anonymous letter delivered to the Clerk-Treasurer citing concerns about the visual impact of a chain link fence in a prominent place. Barman stated that an anonymous letter does not mean anything and stated that everyone knows that. J. Jones wanted the letter entered into the minutes (view as a .pdf file [PDF]). In addition, when questioned about whether or not she had obtained the written letters from her neighbors as are required according to the code, she said that she did – but could not produce them. The discussion turned unproductive and argumentative at this point with Barman not being civil and shouting profanities at the commission. Barman walked out. Morris moved to dismiss the application as incomplete and Beachler seconded the motion. The following was recorded on the motion: yea, 5; Beachler, J. Jones, Jacob, Morris and M. Jones: nay, 0. The motion carried 5-0
  4. An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by Robert Erlanger and Tina Kinner to build a home on parcel #253-003000, located between 141 W. Southington Ave. and 155 W. Southington Ave. A two story English Country style home approximately 3,200 sq. ft. with a 3 car side loading garage. Todd Parker, Architect, made the presentation. He also provided samples of materials and a color rendering of the finished home. The driveway will be asphalt, the cultured stone will be a mixture of fieldstone and ledge stone, the windows will be painted vinyl and the patio will use pavers. The Commission expressed the following concerns: the low-sloped shed roof of the garage, the one shutter on the garage window, the four textures on the exterior, the small windows, no exterior lights noted on the plans, the impact of the driveway, lot coverage and access to utilities. Parker said he would look into trying to screen the asphalt driveway or to add decorative elements to it. He will look at lengthening some of the small windows and will decide on the exterior lighting. He said he was not aware of the ordinance concerning lot coverage. The Clerk handed him a copy of Ordinance 04-2008 that covers lot coverage requirements. The Commission pointed out that the plans now show the coverage to be over 40% and that all hardscape is included in the lot coverage calculation. The Commission suggested that he remove the shed garage and move the house closer to the street to help meet the coverage requirement. Parker said a two-car garage was not an option and he would rather remove the patio in back. He will need to look at what he can do to meet the lot coverage requirements. The Commission will leave the number of exterior textures as a personal choice of the owners. The Commission told him that he could not tap into the neighbor's sewer and water lines. Parker will investigate hooking up to the utilities and will show it on the plans. The Commission also requested that he have accurate square footage for the lot coverage calculation. Jacob moved and Bleacher seconded a motion to table the application to give him time to make changes. There were no comments from residents. The following was recorded on the motion: yea, 5; Beachler, J. Jones, Jacob, Morris and M. Jones: nay, 0. The motion carried 5-0
The Commission took no additional action. J. Jones moved and Morris seconded a motion to adjourn. The following was recorded on the motion: yea, 5; Beachler, J. Jones, Jacob, Morris and M. Jones: nay, 0. The motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 pm.

Michael Jones, Planning Commissioner

Pamela M. Colwell, Clerk



[PDF] - Some links on this page are to .pdf files. These are designated by [PDF] following the link. PDF files require the use of Adobe Acrobat Reader software to open them. If you do not have Reader, you may use the following link to Adobe to download it for free at: Adobe Acrobat Reader