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: August 10, 2009
A meeting of the Village of Riverlea Planning Commission was held August 10, 2009 at 5830 Falmouth Court. Members present were Michael Jones (Planning Commissioner), L. Keith Beachler, Bryce E. Jacob, Jody C. Jones and Lisa J. Morris. Also present were Mary Judith Stattmiller, Jean McMillan, Joe McMillan, Dan Noonan and Don Campbell. Pamela M. Colwell served as Clerk. The Planning Commissioner called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
- The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of July 13, 2009 were not read since each member had received a copy.Jacob 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, 5; Beachler, Jacob, J. Jones, Morris and M. Jones: Nay, None. The Motion carried 5-0.
- An application for a Variance and Certificate of Appropriateness by Mary Judith Stattmiller at 311 West Riverglen Drive for the following:
To replace the west side fence with a 48′ high black vinyl covered chain link fence.
To extend the existing 52″ high black aluminum fence 8′ on the northwest side of the house.
To replace the south fence with a 42″ high black vinyl covered chain link fence.
To replace the existing screen porch on the southeast side of the house with wainscot plywood around the bottom and screens above.
To install a new driveway approach (apron).
Stattmiller stated that she is improving her home. The old original screened porch is in terrible shape and she will be replacing the screens with wainscot plywood on the bottom and screens above. The floor will not be replaced but will be cleaned and stained. The old driveway approach had deteriorated and needs replacing. The front 52″ high fence is being extended to the property line and made of the same material as existing fence. The 48″ high fence on the west side is requested because her neighbor’s dog may be able to jump a lower fence. There will also be less of a height difference between the tie in with the front 52″ high fence and a 48″ high fence. The south fence will be 42″ high and follow a line agreed upon in mediation with her neighbors and will include part of the vacated alley. The 42″ and 48″ fence will be black vinyl covered chain link.
The Commission had questions regarding the location of the fences. The plans that were submitted did not show the fence locations correctly and were marked with the correct locations showing the south fence will be approximately 3′ from the southwest corner and will run in a straight line to the southeast corner to tie into the existing fence and the west fence is on the property line. The east side fence is owned by the neighbor and the height was unknown. There was also some discussion about having the south fence being 48″ high to conform to the 48″ high west fence. Stattmiller had not considered it but was OK with it. However, that fence is located behind trees and not easily seen and her dog does not need a higher fence. The front 52″ fence will continue 8′ to the property line.
J. Jones did not believe the 48″ high fence met the new criteria of the Village ordinances. The Village’s standard is a 42″ high fence. Morris did not have much time reviewing the new criteria but felt it did meet the special circumstance and practical difficulty criteria.
The Commissioner asked residents for their comments. Noonan stated that the south fence was more of a property marker since it is in the middle of a grove of trees. He asked if anyone considered the change in topography. He thought a fence with a level top rail that did not change with the slope of the property would look better. Otherwise, he was in agreement with the fence proposed. J. McMillan said there was a drop from east to west towards the river. She supports the proposed fences. Campbell agrees with the 48″ high fence but wanted to know if a 52″ high fence would better match the front fence. Stattmiller did not want it that high.
J. Jones moved and Jacob seconded a motion to approve the Variance and Certificate of Appropriateness for the 8 foot extension of the 52″ high north front fence to the property line and made of the same materials as the existing fence. 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.
Jacob moved and Beachler seconded a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the driveway approach (apron) and remodeled screened porch as plans and materials submitted. The driveway apron and gutter expansion joint will be constructed per Village ordinances and a $2,000 street bond will be required. 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.
Morris moved and Jacob seconded a motion to approve the Variance and Certificate of Appropriateness for a 48″ high black vinyl coated chain link fence on the west side to be on the property line and a 48″ high black vinyl coated chain link fence on the south, this fence to be approximately 3 feet from the southwest corner to run in a straight line to the southeast corner to tie into the existing fence. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea, 3; Beachler, Jacob and Morris: Nay, 2; J. Jones and M. Jones. The Motion carried 3-2.
The Commissioner cautioned Stattmiller to make sure her contractor looks at McIntyre’s and his driveway approaches for the correct installation. The biggest problem has been the lack of expansion joint material between the apron and back of the curb, and the level of the new gutter must be down to the level of the existing gutter and topped with asphalt.
The Commission took no additional action. Beachler moved and Jacob seconded a motion to adjourn. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea, 5; Beachler, Jacob, J. Jones, M. Jones and Morris: Nay, None. The Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 pm.
Michael Jones, Planning Commissioner
Pamela M. Colwell, Clerk