Riverlea, Ohio home page.
Riverlea, Ohio

Planning Commission

Visitor Info  •  Resident Info  •  Village Council  •  Planning Commission  •  Street Commissioner
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: June 9, 2014

A meeting of the Village of Riverlea Planning Commission was held June 9, 2014 at 5830 Falmouth Ct. Members present were Michael Jones (Planning Commissioner), Jo Ann Bierman, Robert Davis, Bryce Jacob, and Carolee Noonan. Also present were Bob Barkley, Mike Aljancic, Ed Bangert, Tim Meacham, Judy Statmiller, Donald & Betty Campbell, Don McIntyre, and Rose Stevens. Joshua C. Mehling served as Clerk. The Planning Commissioner called the meeting to order at 7:07 pm.

  1. The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of May 12, 2014 were not read since each member had received a copy. Noonan moved and Davis seconded the motion that the minutes be approved as submitted by the Clerk. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea, 5, Bierman, Davis, Jacob, Jones, and Noonan: Nay; None. The motion carried 5-0.
  2. An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by Robert and Brittin Barkley at 5775 W Carrington Court to add a screened porch to the back of the home, add a patio on the side of the addition, remove the glass block enclosure on the front porch, and change the entry to fit the architecture of the home. In addition, the sidewalk is to be demolished and replaced with pavers. For this case, Jacob recused himself from the Commission due to his role as planner of the changes. The new porch will be where the current patio is, with the new patio to the side of this. The work is due to start in October and will most likely be complete by March 2015. The proposed changes are within the acceptable lot coverage. Davis moved and Bierman seconded the motion to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness as submitted. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea, 4, Bierman, Davis, Jones, and Noonan: Nay, None. The Motion carried 4-0. A street bond of $2,000 will be required.
  3. An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by Michael Aljancic at 5872 Olentangy Boulevard to remove and replace the walls and roof of the existing three seasons room and add a new exterior door. Aljancic apologized for missing the meeting of the previous month, stating that he was unaware of this. Bangert explained that the work that was done removed the glass enclosure of the three seasons room and created a new master bedroom. The roof shingles match the current roof as close as possible. Jacob asked why siding was chosen for the addition rather than the stucco that is used on most of the rest of the house. Meacham stated that they felt the Hardy siding would match well with the rest of the house. Jones expressed that his concerns with the addition were the use of siding vs. stucco, the use of double hung windows vs. casement, which is the primary window style for the house, and the overhang being shown different ways on different drawings and not matching the rest of the house. Bangert explained that the overhang was necessary because making it more substantial would have required reframing the rest of the garage. Meacham explained that it was difficult for him to sell the house before the renovations. Noonan moved and Jacob seconded the motion to approve the application for the certificate of appropriateness. After this, the neighbors in attendance were encouraged to address the committee with their concerns. Statmiller mentioned that the application mentioned a new exterior door, though this was not installed. Bangert explained that this was not installed because an existing steel beam was in the way of this and would not permit the installation. Statmiller asked why there were no gutters on the addition. Bangert explained that they were in the process of settling this issue. The copper gutters on the rest of the house are an off size and do not match the dimensions of those available. They will be using aluminum gutters that will closely match the rest for the addition. Don Campbell mentioned that the double hung window does not match the rest of the house. McIntyre mentioned that neither the window nor the rest of the addition matches the rest of the house. Betty Campbell questioned why the construction was done using siding and windows that do not match the rest of the house, with no stone or stucco. Bangert explained that there is siding above the garage door and the new siding matches this and the decision to use siding was based on cost. Meacham feels that the new window is of a much higher quality than that which was there previously. McIntyre expressed concern that the work was done by a buyer and builder who are not residents and do not respect the looks or planning process of the village. Statmiller feels that the extra bedroom was not necessary, as this could lead to more residents and possibly interfere with her half of the shared driveway. Jacob explained that the Commission’s challenge at the moment was that the addition had already been built and though they were not there to dictate materials for any given project and did not desire to add extra work and cost, they needed to represent the concerns of the neighbors. Jacob felt that Meacham, as the Realtor, should have known the need to address the Planning Commission. Meacham said that he was unaware of this need and that he had been arm’s length from this project. Jones felt that this claim was disingenuous, given his history in the village. Jones feels that the village is being asked to suffer because the project was completed without any input from the Commission or residents. Bierman feels that it is the responsibility of a Realtor to know the regulations in the village and to express these to buyers. Meacham feels that they went through what they felt was the proper process, having approached and receiving approval from Franklin County. Aljancic explained that nothing was done with malicious intent and that they have made efforts to be involved in the process since notification of what they had to do. He mentioned that potential buyers who have walked through the house have offered compliments on the addition. Jacobs inquired as to how difficult it would be to replace the siding with stucco and the double hung window with casement. Bangert replied that it would be possible, but costly. Davis asked whether there were any walls without windows on the east or west side of the addition. Bangert explained that neither the east and west walls have windows due to the need to place furniture in the bedroom. The Planning Commissioner closed the public part of the discussion. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea, 0, Nay, 5, Bierman, Davis, Jacob, Jones, and Noonan. The Motion failed 0-5. Jacob asked the applicant to reconsider the use of stucco and casement windows. Bierman felt that as a representative of the community, she strongly recommended that they make the same modifications. Noonan mentioned that the applicant has the right to appeal this decision to Village Council as part of the process. Noonan moved and Bierman seconded the motion to approve the application for the certificate of appropriateness with the following modifications: replace the siding with stucco, replace the double hung windows with casement, and to submit the drawings for these changes in a timely fashion. Bangert questioned whether the window change was necessary, stating that this may require resizing the window opening. The Planning Commissioner answered this in the affirmative. After this, the neighbors in attendance were encouraged to address the committee with any comments on the new motion. Statmiller inquired as to whether this would mean the overhang and door would be revised. Noonan explained that these were not part of the motion and would not be changed. Don Campbell mentioned that he would be satisfied if the siding were changed to stucco and the window to casement. Stevens also mentioned that she would approve this. Betty Campbell also expressed that she would be satisfied with these changes. Meacham felt that the problem arose from a misunderstanding in that they contacted and received approval from Franklin County before beginning construction. Jacob expressed frustration with the fact that Franklin County issued the permit without following the proper procedure. Noonan asked the neighbors in attendance whether the window needed to be changed to require their approval, with Stevens and Betty Campbell answering in the affirmative. Aljancic noted that the addition was approved by Franklin County and that the potential buyers have approved of the looks of it. The Planning Commissioner explained that Franklin County does not have the same qualifications for offering a permit, lacking the Certificate of Appropriateness that the village requires. The Commissioner also expressed concern that approving the addition now that it has been completed would set precedent for similar activities in the future. Aljancic felt that he was being penalized because of a problem with Franklin County supplying the permit without receiving the proper paperwork from the village and that he has followed the process since becoming aware of it. Jacob recommended that Aljancic discuss the situation as to where the breakdown in the process being followed occurred with Franklin County. . The Planning Commissioner closed the public part of the discussion. Aljancic requested a compromise proposal to change the exterior to stucco but leave the windows as is. The Planning Commissioner noted this proposal, but denied it. The following vote was recorded on the motion to approve with modifications: Yea, 5, Bierman, Davis, Jacob, Jones, and Noonan; Nay, None. The Motion carried 5-0. The Planning Commissioner reminded the applicant of his right to appeal these decisions to Village Council.
The Commission took no additional action. Jacob moved and Davis seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 pm.

Michael Jones, Planning Commissioner

Josh Mehling, Clerk

I have these two mothers, although my life is rolex replicavery unfortunate, but I have them to rolex replica watches give me the selfless love, I will always be happy, they love me forever my heart.Happiness is the highest level of fake rolex human society.The so-called gentleman's conversation is like water. A man who sees the name of the lock. Destined to be unhappy.