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: September 14, 2009

A meeting of the Village of Riverlea Planning Commission was held September 14, 2009 at 5830 Falmouth Court. Members present were Michael Jones (Planning Commissioner), L. Keith Beachler, Jody C. Jones and Lisa J. Morris. Bryce E. Jacob was absent. Also present were Jan Smith-Reed, Lindsay Smith, Mr. Casparro, Pam and Don Birnie, Patricia Smith, Janet Brown, Chad Miller (Outdoor-FX) and Bob Dalton. Pamela M. Colwell served as Clerk. The Planning Commissioner called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.

  1. The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 10, 2009 were not read since each member had received a copy. J. Jones moved and Morris 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.
  2. An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by Steven Proctor and Patricia Smith at 141 West Riverglen Drive to replace the driveway with pavers and a concrete apron was presented by Patricia Smith and Chad Miller (Outdoor-FX). Two options for the driveway layout were given. The first option is to follow the existing driveway layout. The second option is to curve the driveway around tree roots. The second option would only happen if it is necessary to avoid damaging too many roots to spare the tree next to the driveway.

    Beachler moved and J. Jones seconded a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for either option for a driveway made of pavers (a mix of limestone and sandstone color pavers) with a concrete apron per Village ordinances, with the condition of having no seating wall or columns. A $2,000 street bond will be required. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea, 4; Beachler, J. Jones, Morris and M. Jones: Nay, None. The Motion carried 4-0.
  3. An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by Don and Pam Birnie at 5833 Westchester Court for a deck and stamped concrete patio in the backyard. There will be two decks. The upper deck will be 8'x12' with benches and a step down to the lower deck, which will be 8'x16'. There will be a step from the lower deck to the stamped concrete patio. The patio pattern will be flat rock and the color will be slate with a little red tinting.

    J. Jones moved and Morris seconded a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the flat rock pattern with the #920 slate color with red tint to blend with the existing brick for the patio and wolmanized wood deck per the plans. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea, 4; Beachler, J. Jones, Morris and M. Jones: Nay, None. The Motion carried 4-0.

  4. An application for a Variance and Certificate of Appropriateness by Jan Smith-Reed at 105 West Riverglen Drive for a pergola and stamped concrete patio and walkways in the front of the house. Mr. Casparro and Lindsey Smith assisted Smith-Reed with the presentation. Smith-Reed was unaware of the zoning restrictions when purchasing the home. She wants to replace an old entry walkway with stamped concrete, replace a flagstone 10'x10' patio with a larger stamped concrete patio, add a pergola, and add a short walkway between the patio and main walkway. The house has no backyard and two mature trees were lost recently. This will allow her to enjoy her front yard and entertain. There was discussion about the pergola qualifying as a fence or structure. The Commission said the pergola was a structure since it was attached to the ground but it could also be considered a fence. There was also discussion about setback issues and the fact that the property is a corner lot. The Commissioner pointed out that the corner lot restrictions are greater than on an interior lot. There is a 20' setback and the house is about 16' back. The patio will only be 3.8' from the property line.

    The Commissioner also noted that a Certificate of Appropriateness was not applied for when the work begun in June. In July a Certificate of Appropriateness was approved for the driveway and apron but the apron was not done correctly and no street bond was posted. There is no expansion joint between the gutter and apron, and the gutter is 2 inches too high. Smith-Reed said she will correct this. Her former contractor was at fault and she has since hired another contractor to complete the work properly.

    The Commission asked if she would consider the side yard for the patio. Smith-Reed said there was no direct access to it, there was a raised garden and her son used it for his sports.

    There was some discussion about the patio that existed prior to Smith-Reed removing it. She said it was made of flagstones with grass between and was raised a few inches. The Commission said she could put in new flagstone as maintenance but could not make it bigger without a Certificate of Appropriateness.

    The Commissioner moved and Beachler seconded the motion to approve a Variance to allow a stamped concrete patio and sidewalk that would connect the replacement front entry walkway and would extend to the patio which would extend from the house to within 3.8' of the property line per the patio plans submitted. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea, None; Beachler, J. Jones, Morris and M. Jones: Nay, 4. The Motion failed 0-4.

    There were some comments from residents regarding lack of enforcement of the zoning code and questions as to when a Certificate of Appropriateness is required.
The Commission took no additional action. J. Jones moved and Beachler seconded a motion to adjourn. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea, 4; Beachler, J. Jones, M. Jones and Morris: Nay, None. The Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm.

Michael Jones, Planning Commissioner

Pamela M. Colwell, Clerk