Special Council Meeting

August 21, 2014

The Council of the Village of Riverlea met on the above date at the Thomas Worthington High School, Worthington. The following Council members were present: Mayor Kirk M. McHugh, Michael D. Blanchard, Jeffery A. Colwell, Scott K. Gordon, Jenny D. Jones, and Eric A. MacGilvray, President Pro-Tem. Also present were Joshua C. Mehling, Clerk-Treasurer, Michael Jones, Planning Commissioner, Jody Croley Jones, Web Manager, and L. Leah Reibel, Solicitor. Guests of Council were Michael Aljancic, Don & Betty Campbell, Robert Davis, Daniel McIntyre, and Andrew Sears. At 7:00

The Mayor began the meeting by stating the history of the case since it first came before the Planning Commission. The Commission first heard the case at the June 9 meeting and voted to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following modifications: the replacement of the siding on the addition with stucco, changing the double hung window that was installed with a casement window, and to have the drawings for these changes submitted in a timely manner. The owner at the time, Michael Aljancic, submitted his appeal of the decision on June 12. The Village Council met on June 16 and voted to hear the appeal, scheduling the appeal hearing for July 8. On July 8, the applicable parties convened at Thomas Worthington High School, but were unable to enter the building and hold the meeting. The Court Reporter stated that it was too windy for her to create a good record standing on the steps. The meeting could not be moved because official notice of the location had already been given. It was later discovered that the house had already been sold to Andrew & Carrie Sears, raising questions about who had the ability to file an appeal of the decision. After this review, it was determined that the right to appeal was not limited to the owner of the property, and Mr. Aljancic was notified of his right to appeal the decision. After discussion at the August 18 Council meeting, Council agreed to reschedule the special meeting for August 21.

Following the discussion at the August 18 Council meeting, the Mayor asked the Solicitor to review the 60 day period in which the appeal could be held, according to the ordinances. Upon review, it was determined that this 60 day period could cause due process concerns. At the August 21, 2014 special meeting, the Mayor stated that both Mr. Aljancic & the Council would need to vote to waive the 60 day period. Mr. Aljancic stated that he was willing to waive the 60 day period and the Mayor asked Council if they were willing to waive it as well. Colwell inquired as to the implications of waiving the 60 day period and the Mayor replied that if the 60 day period was not waived, the appeal would be null and void and the work performed would stand with no further changes. Gordon reiterated his concern from the August 18 Council meeting that the 60 day period had passed, stating that the Council members had sworn an oath to uphold the law of the Village. MacGilvray moved to extend the 60 day period, stating that it was due to scheduling issues among Council members that it had not been met. Mr. Aljancic questioned the Mayor as to the implications of waiving the 60 day period, and the Mayor explained that if the appeal were to proceed, it could lead to further litigation after the decision had been rendered by Council, as this section of the ordinances was not met. Colwell verified that if the 60 day period was not waived, the Village would offer the Certificate of Appropriateness for the work that had been performed, which included the change of the siding to stucco, but not the change of the window to casement. The Planning Commissioner inquired as to why the Planning Commission decision would not stand. The Solicitor replied that due to the various reasons for the deadline not being met, the appellant would not need to make the changes. At this point, the Solicitor recommended that Mr. Aljancic check with his Attorney before proceeding.

After discussing this with his Attorney, Mr. Aljancic stated that he was advised to not waive the 60 day period. The Mayor stated that because this period was not waived, the appeal was moot and the work that had been performed would stand and the Certificate of Appropriateness would be issued.


There being no further business, Jones moved and Blanchard seconded the motion to adjourn. The motion was approved unanimously (5-0). The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 pm.