A meeting of the Village of Riverlea Planning Commission was held April 14, 2025 at the Old Worthington Library. Members present were Planning Commissioner Bryce Jacob, Paul Collini, Rich Skowronski, and Jennifer Zipfel. Also present were residents Jake Kolbus and Tim Young. The Planning Commissioner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

  1. The minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of April 14, 2025 were not read since each member had received a copy. Skowronski moved and Collini seconded the motion that the minutes be approved as submitted by the Clerk-Treasurer. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea: 4, Collini, Jacob, Skowronski, and Zipfel; Nay: None; Abstain: None. The motion carried (4-0).
  2. An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by Tim Young at 276 W Southington Ave to add a 4 ft fence at the rear of the house to screen the air conditioner unit. The fence will consist of horizontal boards and will not have a gate, just an opening.

Zipfel moved to approve the plans as submitted and Collini seconded the motion. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea: 4, Collini, Jacob, Skowronski, and Zipfel; Nay: None; Abstain: None. The motion carried (4-0).

  1. An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by Tim Young at 276 W Southington Ave to remove the existing shrubs and add a 6 ft fence at the rear of the property. Young stated that the current shrubs are overgrown and at the end of their life and that a 6 ft fence would maintain a visual line between the two adjacent properties. There is currently a small chicken wire fence belonging to Paul Collini, the owner of the adjacent property, along the property line. The fence will consist of stained cedar boards with 4×4 posts and decorative 2×4 boards stained in black outside the posts.

Young stated that he had spoken with the neighbors and had received approval for the installation of a 6 ft fence. The Planning Commissioner recommended that Collini abstain from voting on the project due to a conflict on interest as his property is involved in the project. Zipfel enquired if it was a possibility to replace the shrubs with other vegetation rather than a fence and Young stated that this solution was cost prohibitive. Skowronski asked why the fence is to be 6 ft in height instead of 4 ft and Young replied that the current shrubs are 10-12 ft in height and lowering this height to 4 ft would dramatically increase the visibility between the two properties. The Planning Commissioner explained that the Planning Commission is working on new language for the fence zoning that would restrict the use of 6 ft fences between properties in the Village. Collini suggested that if the height were a concern, the fence could be stepped down at the southwest corner to remove some visual obstruction. Zipfel questioned why the new fence would extend past the Collinis’ garage and Young stated that this would connect the fence to the neighbor’s fence. Young agreed to conduct a survey of the property line between the two properties before construction to verify the placement.

Jacob moved to approve the plans as submitted and Skowronski seconded the motion. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea: 1, Jacob; Nay: 2, Skowronski and Zipfel; Abstain: 1, Collini. The motion failed to carry (1-2-1). The Planning Commissioner informed Young that he could install a 4 ft fence or appeal the decision to the Village Council if he felt that the Planning Commissioner improperly decided the application. Young stated that although the Planning Commission is working on updating the language in the zoning code, it should base its decisions on the language as it currently exists.

  1. An application for revisions to the previously approved Certificate of Appropriateness and Variance by Jake Kolbus at 311 W Riverglen Dr to replace existing trees at the rear of the house, replace the existing wooden deck at the rear of the house with a composite deck, and build a 10’ x 20’ storage shed at the rear corner of the property. The variance was requested due to lot coverage and the location of the shed. The portions of the application that concerned the shed and deck were tabled at the April meeting pending further information. Kolbus presented a property survey that had been requested.

Kolbus stated that the existing deck needed to be removed due to water & termite damage and that the new deck would be 24 x 17, vs the 20 x 14 dimensions of the old deck, adding 128 sq ft to the size. Kolbus stated that the plans for the shed had been revised to use a gravel base and the Planning Commissioner noted that with this change, the variance request was no longer needed.

Kolbus questioned how the language used in the Village zoning code was created and the Planning Commissioner explained that it had been drafted by previous Planning Commissions and Village Councils and that discussions are currently underway to make changes to the code.

Skowronski moved to approve the application pending the receipt of a lot coverage calculation and that this calculation did not exceed 40% and Collini seconded the motion. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea: 4, Collini, Jacob, Skowronski, and Zipfel; Nay: None; Abstain: None. The motion carried (4-0).

  1. The Planning Commission discussed the potential changes to the Village zoning code around fences. Zipfel stated that she had sent some proposed language to the Village Solicitor and that the Solicitor and Planning Commissioner had been speaking with Council about these changes. The current proposed language is based off of the zoning code for the city of Dublin and this language contains most of what the Planning Commission is looking for.

Collini stated that he felt that the language should clearly state that the code was a guideline and that the Planning Commission ultimately has leeway in their decisions. The Planning Commissioner stated that the language would need to plainly state that the Commission has this room to decide, but that the members would need to be careful not to base their votes on opinions. He felt that the role of the Planning Commission is to decide if applications follow the ordinances as written and to review the ordinances to they properly reflect what the Commission desires to see in the Village. Collini asked what the role of the Planning Commission is if the members cannot provide defense against applications that meet the guidelines as defined in the ordinances but are unsightly.

The Planning Commissioner stated that he felt that the Village should expect an appeal of the decision to deny the 6 ft fence at 276 W Southington as the current code allows the construction of these between properties with the permission of neighbors. The members agreed that they may want to revisit their decision to prevent the work and costs associated with such an appeal. The Clerk-Treasurer will research if the Commission is able to hold an emergency meeting to discuss this and what notice would be needed.

Skowronski moved and Collini seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion was approved unanimously (4-0). The meeting was adjourned at 8:13 p.m.

 

Bryce Jacob, Planning Commissioner

Josh Mehling, Clerk