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 minutes: October 10, 2016

A meeting of the Village of Riverlea Planning Commission was held October 10, 2016 at the Evening Street Elementary School. Members present were Carolee Noonan (Planning Commissioner), Robert Davis, Taylor Surface, and Paul Unrue. Also present were Marc & Sheila Benevento, Joann & Kerry Bierman, Jim Favret, Bryce Jacob, and representatives of the Robert Dunn Trust. 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 September 12, 2016 were not read since each member had received a copy. The Planning Commissioner noted that the first sentence contained references to both August and September, and that “August” needed to be removed. Davis moved and Surface seconded the motion that the minutes be approved as submitted by the Clerk with the above modification. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea: 4, Davis, Noonan, Surface, and Unrue; Nay: None. The motion carried 4-0.
  2. An application for a Variance and Certificate of Appropriateness by Bryce Jacob at 258 Frontenac Pl to remove and replace the patio at the rear of the home and add a retaining wall for drainage purposes. The Certificate of Appropriateness application had been discussed and tabled at the August Planning Commission meeting because the new layout would place it closer than 10 feet to the property line, which required a variance. Since the meeting, the variance had been requested and neighbors had been notified, from whom no objections had been raised.

    Davis moved and Unrue seconded the motion to approve the variance for the addition of the patio and retaining wall. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea: 4, Davis, Noonan, Surface, and Unrue: Nay, None. The Motion carried 4-0. Davis moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness and Unrue seconded this motion. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea: 4, Davis, Noonan, Surface, and Unrue: Nay, None. The Motion carried 4-0.

  3. An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Robert Dunn Trust at 5693 Olentangy Blvd to add an addition at the corner of the structure. The new homeowners discussed their plans, which included updating the windows throughout the house, adding a third car garage behind the current one, and adding an addition to overlook the river at the rear of the house.

    The Planning Commissioner mentioned that according to the plans, the project would fall within 10 feet of the property line and as a result, the homeowners would need to request a variance. As part of this process, she requested to know how close the neighbor's house was to the property line as well. The homeowners stated that they had spoken with the neighbors and they were fine with the plans. The affected neighbors, as well as other neighbors, had signed letters approving this project. Given that the neighbors had sent these letters and there were no objections, the Planning Commissioner and Clerk-Treasurer researched the Village Codes to verify that a variance was needed, which they did verify. Unrue mentioned that he had issues with the scale of the drawings and that he would like to see a larger copy. The Planning Commissioner requested that the homeowners bring one or two copies to the next meeting.

    Davis questioned whether it was the expansion of the garage to three cars that required the walls to be moved, causing the need for a variance. The homeowners responded that this was indeed the reason.

    Favret questioned whether the elevation of the roof of the new addition was the same height as the rest of the house, and the homeowner replied that it would be about a foot taller, given their height and equipment to be placed in the room. Favret also inquired about the homeowners' plans for the stucco on the exterior of the house and they responded that they were going to paint the current stucco to a more neutral color.

    Davis moved and Surface seconded the motion to table the Certificate of Appropriateness application until the variance application was received and approved. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea: 4, Davis, Noonan, Surface, and Unrue: Nay, None. The Motion carried 4-0.

Davis moved and Surface seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion was approved unanimously (4-0). The meeting was adjourned at 7:28 pm.

Carolea Noonan, 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.