Employment Opportunities Event Calendar
Pay EMS Bill Pay Utility Bill
Town Logo

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes 2016

Meeting Minutes

01-25-2016 Board of Zoning Appeals

January 25, 2016 Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes

JIM MACIEJEWSKI PAUL PANCZUK ATTORNEY TIM KUIPER
KEN SCHNEIDER JASON WILLIAMS  
TOM RYAN    

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Maciejewski called the January 25, 2016, regular Board of Zoning Appeals meeting to order at 7:18 p.m.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)

ROLL CALL:

Recording Secretary, Susan E. Wright, took roll call with the following Board members present: Jim Maciejewski, Ken Schneider, Tom Ryan, Paul Panczuk and Jason Williams. Attorney Tim Kuiper was also present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: DECEMBER 28, 2015 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES.

Mr. Maciejewski stated the first item on the agenda for the Board’s consideration were the minutes of the regular Board of Zoning Appeals for December 28, 2015. He asked if there were any comments or changes. There were no comments or changes.

Mr. Maciejewski stated he entertain a motion to approve the minutes of December 28, 2015, as circulated. Mr. Panczuk made a motion to approve the minutes of December 28, 2015, as presented. Mr. Ryan seconded the motion.

Mr. Maciejewski requested a roll call vote. Mr. Panczuk --- yes.
Mr. Schneider --- abstain. Mr. Ryan --- yes. Mr. Williams --- yes.
Mr. Maciejewski --- yes. The motion was carried by roll call vote (4/0/1). Ayes --- four.
Nays --- none. Abstain --- one.

OLD BUSINESS:

Mr. Maciejewski noted there was no Old Business.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. FRANCISCAN FAMILY CARE CENTER --- 11355 WEST 97TH LANE --- PETITION FOR A DIGITAL COMPONENT TO EXISTING SIGN STRUCTURE.

Mr. Maciejewski noted the first item on the agenda was Franciscan Family Care Center, 11355 West 97th Lane, with a petitioner seeking a digital component to an existing sign structure. Mr. Bill Hollahan, All-Right Signs appeared on behalf of Franciscan Family Care Center.

Mr. Hollahan stated that Franciscan Family Care Center currently has an existing monument sign. He stated that the Petitioner wants to refurbish the sign and upgrade with a electronic message center.

Mr. Hollahan stated that the Petitioner has notified adjacent landowners of their petition. He stated he received three additional green cards in the mail today; he submitted them to Attorney Kuiper.

Mr. Maciejewski asked Mr. Hollahan to give the Board a brief presentation on the sign as proposed. Mr. Hollohan stated that the existing monument sign is reflected in the photographs that he submitted. He stated that the Petitioner stated that the sigh that is currently in the monument sign will be removed and replaced with a new layout. Mr. Hollahan stated that the structure/support is there, and the Petitioner will just have the sign reconfigured. He stated the sign will be a double-sided unit with a message center on each side.

Mr. Maciejewski asked about the area of the existing sign. Mr. Hollohan stated that the overall square footage of the existing sign is approximately 75 square feet, the middle piece of the sign. Mr. Maciejewski how much additional footage would be added to the existing sign. Mr. Hollohan stated the current sign is approximately 40 square feet, not including the brick structure.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Hollahan stated a survey was done to ascertain the overall dimensions of the sign. The sign, at the present time is 8x13.

Mr. Maciejewski stated that the size of the sign, as it sits, is substantially over the ordinance requirement. He asked Mr. Hollahan to explain Franciscan’s justification for enlarging the sign even more. Mr. Hollahan stated that the main reason was because there have been issues with clients finding the business.

Mr. Hollahan stated that since the business is off the road, the sisters thought the message center would help direct people to their location. He stated that the proposed sign is approximately the same size as the Alsip Nursery sign just down the street from the health care center.

Mr. Maciejewski asked how the message center would help the clients identify the sign. Mr. Hollahan stated that the message center is “just something to help them promote themselves.”

Mr. Panczuk asked if any consideration had been given to reconfiguring the sign without a reader board and within the Town’s ordinance. He acknowledged, in looking at the sign, he could see it might be hard to read. Mr. Panczuk stated that it seemed like the sign could be reconfigured within the Town’s existing ordinance.

Mr. Hollahan stated that multiple drawings were reviewed with the Petitioner. He stated since the health care center is so far off of Route 41, the sisters figured that this sign would be most adequate for them.

Attorney Kuiper stated that the notices and publications were in order and that the public hearing could be properly conducted tonight.

Mr. Schneider noted that the sign now stands at 12’6” high. He asked the Petitioner if they could reduce the sign to under 10’ high or less. Mr. Schneider stated that the height of the sign is an issue. He stated he’s sure that the Board would like to stick to the 10’ sign height, per the ordinance. Mr. Hollahan stated he did not see that Mr. Schneider’s request would be a problem, and that the sign could be reduced to 10’ in height.

Mr. Maciejewski stated he would open the public hearing. He stated any person in the audience interested in making comment relative to the Franciscan Family Care sign state their name and address for the record.

Karl Madsen, 11347 Valley Drive:
Mr. Madsen appeared before the Board on behalf the Hunters Run Homeowners Association. He stated that the Hunter’s Run opposes this sign for the reasons set forth in the document submitted to the Board. Mr. Madsen stated that the sign will be a nuisance and negatively affect the quality of life for the residents nearby.

Mr. Madsen stated the Hunters’ Run Homeowner’s Association believes the sign will be large, bright and definitely be a light nuisance to the surrounding properties. He stated all of light emanating from the sign will directly affect addresses 9903 Pheasant Lane, 9904 Pheasant Lane and 9953 Pheasant Lane and many other addresses that have windows facing the sign.

Mr. Madsen stated that the homeowners believe that the sign will negatively affect their property values. He stated that the properties closest to the sign will have greater difficulty in marketing and selling their homes. He stated that

REPORTS AND CORRESPONDENCE:

No comment from the audience. Mr. Maciejewski closed the floor to public comment.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Maciejewski stated he would entertain a motion to adjourn. “So moved,” by Mr. Volk. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

(The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

_______________________________________________
SUSAN E. WRIGHT, RECORDING SECRETARY
ST. JOHN BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

02-22-2016 Board of Zoning Appeals

February 22, 2016 Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes

Jim Maciejewski, President Paul Panczuk David M. Austgen, Town Attorney
Ken Schneider, Vice-President Jason Williams  
Tom Ryan    

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Maciejewski called to order the St. John Board of Zoning Appeals for February 22, 2016 at 7:05 p.m., and asked all to rise for the Pledge of Allegiance (recited and all took their seats).

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken by Susan E. Wright, recording secretary. Members present: Ken Schneider, Tom Ryan, Paul Panczuk and Jason Williams. Staff present: Mr. Tim Kuiper, Town Attorney.

ELECTION OF OFFICERS:

Mr. Maciejewski entered nominations for the office of President. Mr. Schneider nominated Mr. Maciejewski for President, with no further nominations, vote was taken. Motion carried 5 ayes – 0 nays.

Mr. Maciejewski asked for nominations for the office of Vice-President. Mr. Ryan made a motion to nominated Mr. Ken Schneider for vice-President, with no further nominations, vote was taken. Motion carried 5 ayes – 0 nays.

Mr. Maciejewski asked for nominations for the office of Secretary. Mr. Schneider made a motion to nominated Mr. Paul Panczuk for Secretary, with no further nominations, vote was taken. Motion carried 5 ayes – 0 nays.

MINUTES:

Mr. Maciejewski advised that the next item on the agenda was the minutes and noted that they have not been provided and suggest that we defer those to the next meeting, and asked if there any opposition to this. Hearing none minutes deferred (no vote).

OLD BUSINESS:

A. FRANCISCAN FAMILY CARE CENTER (11355 West 97th Lane) Developmental / Technical Variances - continued Public Hearing

Mr. Maciejewski advised that Franciscan Family Care Center is here for a continued public hearing on a proposed modification to the existing sign. Mr. Maciejewski called for the petitioner to come before the podium.

Mr. Bill Hollohan of All-Right Signs introduced himself to the board members, advising that he is representing the Franciscan Physician Network. A follow-up from our last meeting, we were asked if we could go back to the owners with some conditions and make some changes to the signage. We have presented drawings to you, showing the overall height of the sign has been reduced to the ten feet (10’); the top portion of the sign at the 30 square feet that was required. We have reduced the size of the electronic message center to 1’ x 10.3’, which they would still like to keep the message center involved in this.

Mr. Hollohan recalled that there was another question in regards to the neighbors, the residents in the area and their concerns about the sign being obstructive and maybe be an issue to the value of their homes. We are showing where the LED’s will generally be projecting, and we have tried to incorporate some bushes that would prevent the LED lights from shining back into the residential area. There will need to be a better survey showing the placement of the bushes, but right now this is the general area.

Mr. Hollohan stated that with respects to the Town that it may not be something that they want to see out there, the LED signs; however, there are multiple units along U.S. 41 as it is a main thoroughfare, and the petitioners want to get more attention to their locations as they sit way back off of U.S. 41.

Mr. Panzcuk asked if this was a full color LED sign. Mr. Hollohan advised that it was. Mr. Ryan asked why it would have to be full color on the message board. Mr. Hollohan advised that blue is their primary color and that cannot be done with the monochrome units. General discussion ensued if there were any renditions where they got the dimensions into the 30 square feet as allowed by ordinance. Mr. Hollohan advised that no, that they are trying to bring easy reading to this location. The text on the current sign has multiple sizes and could not advise that; however, it was a 4’ x 8’ sign.

Mr. Williams commented that we are looking at two (2) zoning variance issues, the full color and then the size? Mr. Maciejewski advised that is correct, and that any digital reader board, as well as the size in general. Right now the size proposed is at 150% of conforming in size, we generally want the reader boards integrated within the 30 square foot, and we have been following an 8 s.f. guideline on that. General discussion ensued as to the preference of monochrome as opposed to full color, and the width of the sign.

Mr. Maciejewski open the Floor for the Continued Public Hearing, he reminded those wishing to speak to please state your name and address for the record.

Karl Madsen (11347 Valley Drive):
Mr. Madsen advised that he has letters for the board members and submitted same.

Mr. Maciejewski asked that if the landscaping that they have introduced addresses at all your concern (reading from a letter) “negatively effecting property values all to the essential character of the neighborhood”.

Karl Madsen (continued):
In opposition Number 1, will be a nuisance, and negatively affect the quality of life. We do address the fact that they plan to have vegetation there, and the problem with vegetation is that vegetation has to be maintained. Vegetation dies, or otherwise is deemed unacceptable by the owner of the property, the effectiveness of the vegetation is then eliminated and then the very point that we are trying to avoid, which is having the neighborhood bathe on light, is now the main problem again.

Mr. Williams inquired if we have the history with Franciscan to indicate that they would not immediately address those concerns. Mr. Madsen advised that they have not tried that because the existing sign is muted and the shrubbery is small, and if the shrubs die it wouldn’t matter.

General discussion ensued as to the sign versus the need for vegetation to block out lighting from the neighborhood, the color variations and the lumens being requested.

Mr. Panczuk asked if they would still object to a monochrome sign. Mr. Madsen advised that he would need to see the plans.

Mr. Schneider asked if Mr. Madsen had material or data to support the comment that the sign would adversely affect the property value of the area. Mr. Madsen advised that it is general knowledge he has acquired, and does not have any a data with him tonight.

Mr. Panczuk asked that if the sign was only operational during business hours that it would have no impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Madsen still stated that he would have to see the specs and he would like to speak to his neighbors.

With no further comment from the audience, Mr. Maciejewski closed the Floor to Public Comment and brought the matter back to the board.

Mr. Hollohan stated that after hearing some of the concerns, for the brightness of the sign, it does have the capability of being toned down more at night-time if needed. There is actually software within that will automatically do that once you set it. Mr. Hollohan also stated that the “Sister” do not want to be a nuisance to them. Mr. Hollohan expressed that if there is something more they can do to address this, he would prefer to bring it back to them. Mr. Hollohan advised that he would bring the monochrome, the size, the message center, issues back for further review.

General discussion ensued as to the 30 square foot sign without the reader board. Mr. Hollohan stated he preferred to take it back for discussion and come back after conferring with his client and go from there.

Mr. Panczuk pointed out that there would be conditions placed such as no scrolling, holding message for six seconds, there are a few examples of that in Town right now.

Mr. Hollohan requested to re-do the artwork and reconfigure one more time and see if it is worth even putting the message center into the sign. Discussion amongst the board members also suggested getting the width within 8’. Therefore, he requested that the matter be deferred to the next meeting of March 28, 2016.

Mr. Maciejewski entertained a motion to defer the matter to March 28, 2016. Mr. Ryan made the motion to defer the Franciscan Family Care Center to the March 28, 2016 and the public hearing will be continued until that time. Mr. Panczuk seconded. Motion carried 5 ayes – 0 nays.

With no further business before the board the meeting was adjourned.

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.)

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L. Haluska, Recording Secretary pro-tem
St. John Board of Zoning Appeals

03-28-2016 Board of Zoning Appeals

March 28, 2016 Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes

Jim Maciejewski, President Paul Panczuk Tim Kuiper, Board Attorney
Ken Schneider, Vice-President Jason Williams  
Tom Ryan    

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Maciejewski called to order the St. John Board of Zoning Appeals for February 22, 2016 at 7:05 p.m., and asked all to rise for the Pledge of Allegiance (recited and all took their seats).

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken by recording secretary, Susan E. Wright. Members present: James Maciejewski, Ken Schneider, Tom Ryan, Paul Panczuk and Jason Williams. Staff present: Mr. Tim Kuiper, Board Attorney.

NOTE: Recording starts at 21:58 into the posted St. John Board of Zoning Appeals meeting, the following minutes reflect once the audio was started.

Okay,., I’ll start again,

Karl Madsen – 11147 Valley Drive:

Mr. Madsen advised that he was appearing on behalf of the Hunters Run Homeowners Association. He stated that they were not excited about the electric sign being installed, with message capability. He did however state that they did like the fact that the sign is smaller, the lighting would be amber, that they have made an attempt to move the sign out at an angle away from the homeowners of Hunters Run. Still concerned about the landscaping proposed, and the maintenance of the landscaping placed. We are submitting this as a remonstrance in favor if the conditions and contingencies are met.

Mr. Schneider asked Attorney Tim Kuiper if there was a way that they could place a condition on this that would address the maintenance matter [Mr. Kuiper in background – inaudible].

Mr. Maciejewski asked if there are any further public comments for the Public Hearing. {inaudible from the floor]. Mr. Maciejewski asked the person to come to the podium and state name and address for the record.

Colleen Yost – 9983 Pheasant Lane:

Ms. Yost asked if the property for the sign is actually Franciscans, and the retention area. She would like them to move it to the other side of the street. Ms. Yost was curious if the whole structure could be moved to an entirely different location, off the premises shown.

Mr. Maciejewski and board members showed the design and site plan to Ms. Yost and had a general discussion.

With no further comments from the floor, Mr. Maciejewski closed the Public Hearing portion of the petition and brought the matter back to the board.

Mr. Schneider clarified his comment concerning the landscape plan as far as the area for placement, to obscure the view of the sign in relation to the homes located in the area.

Mr. Maciejewski asked if there were plans available that would show what the landscape plan would be.

Mr. Hollahan stated they would be placing evergreen type foliage that is great for winter that would not lose volume for that weather condition. However, does not know what type of evergreens. They would be if significant height and planted so that they will grow from that point.

Mr. Maciejewski asked Mr. Hollahan if he was in a position to agree to perpetual maintenance of the landscaping. Mr. Hollahan advised that if that was a condition that there would be no problem with that contingency. Mr. Kuiper and Mr. Maciejewski discussed the legality of the contingency. Mr. Kuiper advised that it would be made part of the motion and a condition of the approval. General discussion ensued as to the enforcement of the condition. Mr. Kuiper advised that whether enforced by Code Enforcement, Building and Planning or the Town Manager; the condition would stand.

Mr. Ryan asked about the brightness of the illumination. Mr. Hollahan advised that the software components have different settings, and if there is a specific “candle lighting” that they want they could have it set, however would need a brighter setting during the day due to the sun.

The sign could be set on a photocell, so as the sun sets it would automatically bring down the brightness of the sign. Mr. Hollahan advised that he would have to go back to “Watchfire” (the company making the sign), to check on what the lowest setting would be. Discussion ensued as to the process and programming of the photocell for the sign.

Mr. Schneider noted that the specifications presented that the brightness is ten times (10x) greater during the day, than it is at night. Mr. Hollahan advised that would be automatic, however it could be programed for it to be brought down even more; somewhere between 30-40%.

Mr. Ryan inquired about a previous request to move back the sign about one (1) foot. Mr. Hollahan advised that was possible and will be redrawn to reflect the change request.

Mr. Schneider stated that he would like to see the masonry taken down a foot, so the sign would be at nine feet (9’), since it is up on a hill already at the location. Mr. Hollahan advised that he would have to take that back to the owners as that is not a decision he can make on their behalf.

The board had general discussion regarding the existing brick, vegetation and bringing the sign down one foot (1’).

Mr. Schneider noted that someone is raising their hand in the back again, Mr. Maciejewski advised that they cannot go back to the public hearing.

Mr. Hollahan did advise that he would not like to have to go through the procedure to come back to the board. Board members discussed conditions that would be placed such as no flash, no scroll, message to hold for six (6) seconds, dusk to dawn limits, brightness settings from the photocell, and no side-to-side motion, amber only as presented.

Mr. Hollahan inquired that if they remove the message center, would they still be approving the top part of the sign? Mr. Maciejewski inquired back, the sign minus the message center, I don’t know why we would object. Board members discussed amongst themselves and agreed.

Mr. Hollahan advised that he just did not want to have to come back for another meeting. So if the owners do not want the message center, can I just center the sign on that wall and not do the angle. More discussion ensued regarding dimensions, angling, cantilevering, height, width, etc. Mr. Schneider suggested that he “go for it”, that if the owners did not like it then they have the option of just amending the structure as discussed, which would not require their approval.

[someone talking in the background] Mr. Maciejewski advised the person that the public comment portion of the meeting was closed and that procedure dictates that they are not allowed to entertain anymore back and forth.

Mr. Maciejewski entertained a motion with the contingencies they have been discussing, subject to the Findings of Fact, which would be attached to any motion.

Mr. Schneider made a motion to approve the sign with the following conditions: that the reader board does not scroll from side to side, flash, time on the message to hold for six (6) seconds, sign shall be set on its lowest illumination setting from dusk to dawn, operated off a photo cell, with amber color with a black background, top of the masonry lowered down to ten foot (10’), with the sign placed at the top at nine foot (9’), landscape buffer is to be erected as shown on the plan to include maintenance and probably with evergreen, and we suggest arborvitae type since they will hold their shape, and we will move the present sign as shown on the masonry structure to be moved further onto the property by at least one foot (1’) to eliminate the cantilever and maintain the same angle.

(no second was forthcoming).

Mr. Hollahan brought back the discussion as to the lettering size on the sign, noting the 210’ distance from 97th Lane, there would be problems in reading the sign, and by the time you get beyond the bank (corner), you are already about forty miles per hour (40 mph), there is still a time issue in trying to get information out there. The owners may look at this and decline it.

Mr. Ryan commented that he knows that Mr. Hollahan has put a lot of work into this, and he appreciates your time, but I am not inclined to second this motion. Mr. Maciejewski seconded the motion.

Roll call vote: Mr. Schneider – Yes, Mr. Ryan – No, Mr. Maciejewski – yes. This is not unanimous so this results in no action. Mr. Kuiper advised that is correct, and suggested the matter deferred to the next meeting.

Mr. Maciejewski entertained a motion to defer this item to the next meeting to allow all the other board members to consider this. Mr. Schneider made a motion to defer this to the April 25, 2016 meeting where we will hopefully have a full board. Mr. Ryan seconded motion.

Roll call vote: Mr. Schneider – yes, Mr. Ryan yes, Mr. Maciejewski – yes. Motion carried 3 ayes – 2 absent.

Mr. Maciejewski advised Mr. Hollahan that he can take it back to the owners, and have additional information of what they have approved, and if for some reason they do not wish to consider that, it is just the sign itself as we discussed, it would just be strictly the height of the masonry and whatever as long it is only 30 square feet.

Mr. Hollahan advised that he would contact the Building and Planning office in advance of the April 25, 2016 meeting with direction as to whether to proceed or withdraw the petition.

Mr. Maciejewski advised that under New Business that we have none, floor is open for Any and All.

Hearing none, the meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L. Haluska, Recording Secretary pro-tem
St. John Board of Zoning Appeals

04-25-2016 Board of Zoning Appeals

April 25, 2016 Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes

Jim Maciejewski, President Paul Panczuk Tim Kuiper, Board Attorney
Ken Schneider, Vice-President Jason Williams  
Tom Ryan    

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Maciejewski called to order the St. John Board of Zoning Appeals for April 25, 2016 at 7:00 p.m., and asked all to rise for the Pledge of Allegiance (recited and all took their seats).

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken by recording secretary, Susan E. Wright. Members present: James Maciejewski, Ken Schneider, Tom Ryan, Paul Panczuk and Jason Williams. Staff present: Mr. Tim Kuiper, Board Attorney.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Mr. Maciejewski entertained a motion to defer the minutes from the January 25th and March 28th, 2016 meetings. Mr. Ryan made a motion to defer. Motion seconded by Mr. Schneider. Motion carried 5 ayes – 0 nays.

OLD BUSINESS:

A. Franciscan Family Care Center – 11355 West 97th Lane (All Right Signs) – Digital Component to existing Sign Structure

Mr. Bill Hollahan introduced himself. He advised he is representing All Right Signs for Franciscan Health facility on U.S. 41 (Wicker Avenue). He reminded everyone that at the last meeting that there were some revisions that needed to be made to the sign, which was the overall height of the sign, bringing it from the top of the sign ten feet (10’) to nine feet (9’), and also knocking the existing brick down to an overall height of ten feet (10’).

Mr. Williams reminded Mr. Hollahan that they wanted to keep it under thirty total square feet and a monochrome sign. Mr. Ryan commented that the monochrome was the visible opening and it was to be kept to eight square feet.

Mr. Ryan advised that he did the math and it is thirty-three square feet total, and we were shooting for eight square feet on the monochrome amber sign. Mr. Hollahan stated that he would have conformed to that, but the manufacturer, according to their specs that they were not able to. Mr. Ryan noted that it is still very close to what they discussed.

Mr. Williams asked about the overhead slide (screen) that they have landscaping to block the view of Hunters Run subdivision. Mr. Hollahan advised that is correct, and with the planting of the bushes there should be no more visibility at all from the residential area, it is projected more towards U.S. 41, instead of inward.

Mr. Maciejewski reminded the board that they discussed the digital component of no side-to-side or scrolling. Mr. Hollahan advised that would all be in the software, the sign has all the capabilities that the members were asking for and is already in the software to program it as such. Discussion included whether the sign brightness could be dimmed at a dusk-to-dawn type setting. Mr. Hollahan advised that could be done, it would be programmed into the photocell, as the sun starts to set it would automatically program that in. Same when the sun rises, it would make it brighter. Same parameter for no flashing.

Mr. Kuiper advised that it is a continued public hearing, and it would be proper to open it back up to the floor, if you are done with questions from the petitioner.

Mr. Maciejewski opened the floor to continued Public Hearing on the matter and asked that you state you name and address for the record.

Mrs. Priscilla Madsen (11347 Valley Drive):

Submitted a prepared letter from her husband, Mr. Carl Madsen. The remonstrance was distributed to the board members. General discussion ensued over points made in the written remonstrance; mostly the landscaping being maintained by the owner of the property.

[talking in the audience addressing concerns, Mr. Maciejewski asked that the person come to the podium and give name and address for the record]

Mary Frances Wolski (11406 Valley Drive):

[her comments and concerns were addressed directly by Mr. Hollahan from her seat].

Hearing no further public comment, Mr. Maciejewski closed the floor and brought the matter back to the board.

Mr. Maciejewski summarized the contingencies that we had discussed: no side-to-side motion, no scrolling, no flashing, message should appear for a minimum of six seconds before changing, we might add to the list, if you are so inclined to include, the landscape to be approximately 6’ in height to shield out the digital component, and maintained by the petitioner. Mr. Panczuk stated to also make sure the sign contains a monochrome amber message and auto dimming dusk-to-dawn.

Mr. Ryan asked about the date on the latest rendering as there were several submitted through the process. Mr. Maciejewski advised that it is dated April 4, 2016.

Mr. Maciejewski entertained a motion to approve or deny and referencing the findings of fact and any contingencies noted.

Mr. Schneider made a motion to approve the Developmental / Technical Variance for Franciscan Family Care Center at 11355 West 97th Lane with the following conditions:

1. The sign be installed per the latest plan dated April 4, 2016.
2. That the sign does not have any side-to-side scrolling, does not flash.
3. It will be dimmable from dusk to dawn.
4. It will be of monochrome background
5. All messages will hold for six (6) seconds
6. The landscape screen, shrubbery should be a minimum of six feet to start with,
7. And will be maintained by the petitioner.

Mr. Ryan seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 ayes – 1 nay.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. 9827 McKenzie Court in Crossing Creek (Petitioner: Mr. Jack Slager ) Request for Reduction of Rear Yard Setback requirement.

Mr. Jack Slager of Schilling Development introduced himself. He advised that he is here tonight in regards to Lot 48 in Crossing Creek. He advised that as they neared the completion of this development there are several unusual shaped lots. He advised that Lot 48 is in the back of the cul-de-sac and when it was designed was 120’ deep from the cul-de-sac to the back of the lot. We have a customer that is interested in purchasing and building on this lot. They have submitted their site plan (placed on screen), and it was discovered that the rear yard requirement is now forty feet (40’). When the subdivision was platted in 2006, it was prior to the Town’s current Subdivision Zoning Ordinance which I believe was passed in June of 2009. So when this was originally platted the rear yard requirement was 25’. So this particular lot, with the home that these clients want to build would require a 30’ rear yard, obviously at the Southeast corner there. You will note that it is 30.2’ at the southwest corner of the home, 36.5’, so we are talking about the one-bedroom jutting into that requirement.

Due to the width of the lot, there is plenty of side yard and so we are asking for a reduction of the rear yard set-back from 40’ to 30’ in order to accommodate this house on this lot.

Mr. Panczuk asked if there were any issues with lot coverage area. Mr. Slager advised no, that it is about a 2,000 s.f. ranch. Again, it’s a big lot, it’s just an unusual shape. It’s wide and shallow. If it had been an issue when originally it was platted it would have been re-drawn, then.

Mr. Slager advised that that is why it is one of the last lots left, because it has been a challenge to build on for the last few years. It was noted that the lot to the left was still vacant.

Mr. Schneider asked what is existing to the South. Mr. Slager advised there are existing homes that back up to it. Mr. Panczuk noted an aerial view which showed a pool in the neighboring lot that appears to be close.

Mr. Panczuk asked for clarification for a typo on the site plan. The surveyor will be notified.

Mr. Panczuk asked if Mr. Slager knew the total square footage of the lot, it was not listed on the plat. Mr. Slager reminded that the R-2 requirement at the time was 100’ x 150’, it is what the standard lots in the development are, or 15,000 s.f. is the minimum for every lot in there, and this one is bigger than that.

Mr. Kuiper was called upon to check if all postings and notices are sufficient for conduct a public hearing on this item. He advised all was in order.

Mr. Slager clarified to Mr. Panczuk that this was a 2,000+ s.f. ranch with a three-car garage.

Mr. Maciejewski opened the matter to Public Hearing and asked that anyone speaking give their name and address for the record. Hearing none, Mr. Maciejewski closed the floor and brought the matter back to the board.

Mr. Panczuk stated he had only one more question, as obviously no one spoke up against it, I can only assume that the neighbors are okay with it. It is a little close to that house and pool. He asked if this was going to happen on more lots. Mr. Slager said that is a good question. Mr. Slager stated that there are only nine (9) lots left, one of the lots will be Lot 49 to the left of this, which is a huge lot. Several of the remaining lots are rectangle, 80’ x 150’, and we do have two very unusual shaped lots left that are quarter circles, so until we find someone willing to build on those. There is potential there could be two more unusual shape lots that we could be back for, however, we will try to market those to where the house will fit the 40’ rear yard requirement that could potentially be built on those. Mr. Panczuk stated that he liked that when it was platted it met the requirements, so it was not as if they were trying to make smaller lots after the fact, it is just the way it worked out.

Mr. Maciejewski entertained a motion to approve or deny a Developmental / Technical Variance, for a reduction in the rear yard setback from 40’ to 30’ and if there are any contingencies please state them with your motion adding that it could be contingent on this particular ranch discussed and not strictly universal for the lot. It was noted that the lot was.3731 acres.

Mr. Williams made a motion to approve to reduce the rear yard setback to 30’, with the contingency, as drawn in this diagram that we were given here on April 25, 2016. If there are other plans, we would like them to bring them back to the board. Mr. Schneider seconded the motion. Roll call vote was taken. Motion carried with 5 ayes – 0 nays.

B. Providence Bank Development – Southwest Corner of Calumet and 101st Avenue – (Petitioner: Mr. Philip Mulder) - Public Hearing

Mr. Maciejewski advised that the next item on the agenda was for Providence Bank Development for a Developmental / Technical Variance for a digital sign component.

Mr. Philip Mulder of Lagestee-Mulder Construction introduced himself, advising that he represents Providence Bank. He advised that they are present to request a Variance of Use / Special Exception, I think it is with or without a drive-up is the way it reads, plus the electronic sign for the bank, at the Southwest corner of 101st and Calumet Avenue.

Discussion ensued as to whether it was one variance or two due to the drive-up, as per St. John Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Schneider wished to make a comment that he would excuse himself from this petition, due to my relationship to the petitioner.

Mr. Kuiper clarified the variances needed; one Special Exception and one Developmental / Technical.

Mr. Mulder advised that Providence Bank was formed in 2004, and they have twelve locations in Northwest Indiana and Illinois. In 2005 they opened a facility in Dyer, Indiana which is about 500 yards to the West in a retail center. They wish to have their own facility. Mr. Mulder clarified that the other location would close once this one moved from Dyer to St. John.

Direction was drawn to the site plan, which was just discussed at the last Plan Commission Study Session. The drive through on the West side, and the proposed sign is at the Northeast corner of the development.

Mr. Maciejewski first asked for any concerns or comments from the board on the drive-up facility. Mr. Ryan advised that the Plan Commission is probably going to cover this more than we will, as far as the site plan, but it shows a future development pass-through lanes, is that supposed to be taken as a frontage road that is going to parallel Calumet Avenue south? Mr. Maciejewski stated that potentially, that could be the next lot, this particular one before us is Lot 1 and Lot 2 is to the South and there are no immediate plans for development of that. Mr. Mulder advised that he is correct, that this tonight is 1.9 acres of a 24.2-acre development. The property was split, and they have no plans at all for the south, they just really wanted it for the corner.

Mr. Mulder continued by saying there is an entrance shown there, not knowing what that future development would be, but, to work around the pipeline, and the detention and everything else that’s there. It is a preemptive plan.

Mr. Maciejewski stated that the other comment he would make, from the Plan Commission, that was talked about and is in the drawing I see in front of us. There was an overlay which showed a deceleration and turn lane and what that looks like on the plans.

Mr. Mulder stated to give them history on that, when we submitted all of our paperwork weeks ago, in the last week I received an aerial view of a preliminary plan for a turn lane light there. And so what we did was we decided to get together with the engineer and drop that on our site plan to see if that would impact our development negatively. So the purpose of that was to show that our site still fits with what their plan is, although it is still preliminary. This was all forwarded to Mr. Kil and then he distributed that to you.

Mr. Panczuk was concerned about what the road along the West edge, between the pipeline and the building, was it going to be pushed through, there is no barrier or anything divided the drive-through from the pass-through.

Mr. Maciejewski advised that it is brought up at the Plan Commission that at a minimum there is going to be a divided lane from the entrance going South. This discussion I can carry back to the Plan Commission. More discussion ensued on the pass-through lane, and it was noted that will be addressed by the Plan Commission level. General discussion ensued in regard to traffic.

Mr. Maciejewski advised that the intersection of 101st and Calumet is being studied for signalization right now, which would improve the back-up that we are referencing in discussion.

Mr. Williams asked within the scope of this meeting are we strictly talking about the sign or are we talking about the entire site plan. Mr. Maciejewski advised that we are addressing the drive-through facility which would be a Special Exception.

Mr. Kuiper interjected that a financial institution without a drive-up, or with a drive-up, both require a Special Exception in all the business districts. Then the Plan Commission would take that with Town Council blessing on your recommendation, the Plan Commission would then take that and incorporate it into the site plan to make sure that traffic and other things like that will work with that drive-up feature.

Mr. Williams asked if they could skip to the sign issue. The one comment he has is the with previous signs, the impact it has on local homeowners. This being a lit sign, we have some of our horse farmer friends that we talked to previously, kitty-corner across from that intersection there. I want to see how you would protect the light from hitting those houses, I am not sure how you would do that here.

Mr. Maciejewski said that he is not sure they should combine these, they should be separate variances, as they are getting into matters that are more for the Plan Commission. The bank institution with a drive-through would be one and then the sign issue would be a second issue. Mr. Maciejewski suggested that they take the sign issue first, take public comment and then come back.

Mr. Kuiper was asked to affirm that the public notices and proofs of publication are in order to conduct a public hearing. Mr. Kuiper advised that they were in order.

Mr. Maciejewski advised again that everyone wishing to address this board on this issue can come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed and brought back to the board.

Mr. Maciejewski reiterated that we have two (2) separate matters. One (1) will be handled as a Developmental / Technical Variance, which would be the sign itself. Then a Special Exception Variance application that would either receive a favorable, unfavorable or no recommendation from this board to the Town Council. He suggested the Special Exception first.

Mr. Williams wanted clarification that the board is just approving the “concept” that the financial institution will have a drive-up. Mr. Kuiper advised it is for “the Use”, and it still has to go to the Plan Commission for site plan approval.

Mr. Maciejewski entertained a motion after giving consideration to the matters of the Zoning Ordnance for this application for Special Exception for the use of a financial institution on this corner of 101st and Calumet, with a drive-through facility, I am noting the findings for this one:

1. That the approval will or will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the community.
2. The use and value of area adjacent to the property included in the variance will or will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
3. A need for the variance does arise from some condition particular to the property involved
4. The applicant did or did not establish that the strict application of the ordinance will constitute an unnecessary hardship
5. That Petitioner has or has not established that the approval will not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of St. John.

Mr. Maciejewski then stated that with all that being said, it is approving or disapproving with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation to the Town Council.

Mr. Ryan made a motion for a favorable recommendation to the Town Council. Mr. Williams seconded. Motion carried 4 ayes – 1 abstention.

Mr. Maciejewski advised that the remaining matter is the Developmental / Technical Variance, the sign at the northeast corner.

Mr. Ryan stated that he wished to say one more thing, and hopefully take back to the Plan Commission, the new standards of the lighting standards due to the proximity to homes, the bank is a good fit, not noisy and it is not a bad place, but the lighting is a concern.

Mr. Williams stated he is bringing it up again about the houses that are kitty-corner exactly on the northeast side of 101st and Calumet, it would be in direct view of this sign, and again just not sure how to shield the light from the sign for their residences.

Mr. Mulder asked to make a comment and was recognized. The site plan shows the sign going North and South and I think in light of the fact that we are on a corner, we actually thought about putting it in diagonal, I don’t know if it makes any difference, but given the fact that we are on a “T”, it seems to make more sense to have it at an angle.

Mr. Ryan asked about hours of operation, does it really have to be lit after 10:00 p.m. or something like that. Mr. Mulder did not know if he could speak to that on their behalf. He advised that he could find out what their regular hours are, and we have never had any complaints from anyone. This sign, other than the height and a little bit of the width, is the typical sign they have used at all their new facilities. Mr. Mulder advised that they have lowered it to 8’8”, we got the reader board at 8’ x 1’. I have read all the requirements and I heard in the first sign matter tonight, some of those, and they are well aware of those.

Mr. Panczuk asked if this was like the one in Schererville. Mr. Mulder advised that those signs are bigger, the one being proposed here is smaller.

Mr. Mulder stated that he did not know what they received, however he provided some documents to show the board the sign which is mainly used since 2004. He noted that the particular sign is 12’ high and 10’ wide. Mr. Mulder advised that they have shrunk it down. This one now is 8’3” wide and it is 8’8” to the total peak of the roof, so it is considerably less, plus they brought it down because it is on a corner.

Mr. Williams asked if it would be appropriate or possible to place some vegetation on the northeast corner to block just any residual light from crossing that corner. Mr. Mulder advised that he is sure that there will be landscape for where they are sitting with regards to the property lines and whatever happens with the turn lanes, etc.

Mr. Ryan stated that he would leave that up to the Plan Commission, but believes it is a valid concern.

Mr. Panczuk stated that with residential nearby they have given stipulations before of lights out at 10:00 p.m., and back on a 5:00 a.m. I believe that was the hours of operation, so we could stipulate that.

Mr. Williams felt that it might be helpful to defer this matter to another meeting, after you have had that conversation with Providence Bank about the stipulations that we are suggesting.

Mr. Mulder asked if that delays the other issue that has been done. Mr. Kuiper advised it does not. Mr. Mulder advised then he would rather take the matter back to them for further discussion with the comments. The 10:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m., the monochrome amber and any other programmable matters that you have already read about. The time stipulation would be for the message board only and not the overall lighting.

Mr. Kuiper and Mr. Maciejewski discussed the motion of no action. Mr. Kuiper advised that the matter would automatically deferred. General discussion ensued as to “deferral” versus “no action” and whether it goes into perpetuity.

Mr. Maciejewski entertained a motion to defer the matter, and continue the public hearing to our next scheduled meeting which is May 23, 2016.

Mr. Ryan made the motion as stated. Mr. Panczuk seconded. Motion carried with 4 ayes – 1 abstention.

With no other business before the Board, Mr. Maciejewski adjourned the meeting.

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:59 p.m.)

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L. Haluska, Recording Secretary pro-tem
St. John Board of Zoning Appeals

05-23-2016 Board of Zoning Appeals

May 23, 2016 Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes

Jim Maciejewski, President Paul Panczuk David Austgen, Board Attorney
Ken Schneider, Vice-President Jason Williams  
Tom Ryan    

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Maciejewski called to order the St. John Board of Zoning Appeals for June 27, 2016 at 7:00 p.m., and asked all to rise for the Pledge of Allegiance (recited and all took their seats).

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken by Mr. James Maciejewski, as the recording secretary was absent. Members present: James Maciejewski, Ken Schneider, Paul Panczuk and Jason Williams. Staff present: Mr. David Austgen, Board Attorney. Absent: Mr. Tom Ryan and Susan E. Wright, recording secretary.

MINUTES:

Mr. Maciejewski asked the board members have had the chance to review the January 25, 2016 BZA minutes that were distributed and was there a motion. Discussion ensued as to whether there was a section missing toward the end, decision was made to defer the minutes until they can be checked for correction.

OLD BUSINESS:

A. Providence Bank (Mr. Philip Mulder) – Variance / Continued Public Hearing

Mr. Philip Mulder of Lagestee-Mulder introduced himself. Mr. Mulder noted that at the last meeting we were okay with the suggestion that the sign be off from 10:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m., and I did check with my client (Providence Bank), and the that stipulation was fine. I believe that was the reason for holding up on the vote.

Mr. Maciejewski noted that he thought he had a question of the direction of the sign and is not aware if everyone is privy to that discussion. I know this came before the Plan Commission Study Session last Wednesday, and the site was altered.

Mr. Mulder stated that he took the site plan and handed out copies, advising he could show what is being submitted today to the Town Engineer. Mr. Mulder continued that they have turned the sign to a 45˚ angle to the street. Mr. Maciejewski asked if the board members could keep the materials that were distributed. Mr. Mulder advised yes.

Mr. Williams noted it was not the plan that was submitted today; though, he said they got a full set of plans that were shipped off to Mr. Kenn Kraus (Town Engineer) today.

Mr. Maciejewski addressed Mr. Schneider, stating that he apologized, and that he should have given him a chance to speak before we started, as you may want to renew your conflict of interest. Mr. Schneider advised that he will be abstaining from the discussion of Item 5-A on the agenda (Providence Bank), due to my relationship to the petitioner.

Mr. Maciejewski stated that we had discussed some conditions as to the hours of operation. Some of the other reader board features that we had liked to have happen. I don’t want to speak for anyone else, but we kind of went through the size of the sign. Does anyone else have anything relevant to that. Mr. Williams inquired if we found the size of the sign to be within the ordinance or was there an exception that we needed to pass, he could not remember.

Mr. Maciejewski said that the sign ordinance right now is thirty square feet overall, this sign from the fascia up to the triangle, so it’s a total of 28.19 s.f. as proposed. You you’re saying it’s a hair bigger.,. Mr. Maciejewski corrected that the proposed sign is a hair smaller than what is allowed, and that the reader board itself is 1’ x 8’, and in is inclusive of the overall square footage.

Mr. Williams inquired if the reader board was mono-chrome. Mr. Mulder advised that it is.

Mr. Panczuk stated that what he recalled is that the board all had the same similar conditions on what we put on reader boards before; the hours of operation, the content, as far as no scrolling and no flashing, and a six second delay of the message. We have already visited the hours of operation, so that was it. He thought they were good on everything else.

Mr. Williams stated he thought it was just pending the results of the public hearing, our board approval with those stipulations in the approval that Paul mentioned, just so we’re clear.

Mr. Maciejewski reminded that this was a continued public hearing from our April meeting. He asked if there was anyone present that wished to address the board that is relevant to this matter; please come forward, state your name and address clearly for the record.

Hearing none, Mr. Maciejewski closed the public hearing on Item 5 A on the agenda and returned it back to the Board. So to summarize, the sign being contemplated for approval was presented, roughly 28 s.f. inclusive of the reader board with the following conditions:

A. That it will not operate between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.
B. No scrolling, side-to-side movement, no flashing.
C. Message is to appear for a minimum of six (6) seconds before changing.
D. And that its monochrome in appearance as far as the digital portion.

Mr. Mulder stated that he believes the sign is of monochrome amber.

Mr. Maciejewski advised that with that in mind it is a Developmental/Technical Variance and as such we need to review the findings of fact with any motion. That the approval either will or will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of the community. That the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will or will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner, and that the strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance either will or will not result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. So with your motion, please reference the findings of fact, with any conditions we placed in that fact and that the petition is signed is relatively depicted on the site plan.

Mr. Panczuk stated that so after full discussion he would make the motion concerning Item 5A for Providence Bank Development at the southwest corner of Calumet Avenue and 101st being granted a developmental/technical variance for a reader board sign and I would like the approval under the conditions that it is placed as depicted on the site plan presented tonight for the record, as drawn to approximately 28 s.f., with a 1’ x 8’ reader board, monochrome amber, with the operation conditions of between 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., with no flashing or side-to-side scrolling, a six second delay between changes and that this would all be depicted on the findings of fact.

Mr. Maciejewski asked if Mr. Panczuk wanted to read the findings of fact for his motion.

Mr. Panczuk read the findings of fact for Developmental/Technical Variation Petition, the St. John Board of Zoning Appeals having given due consideration to the matters as listed in St. John Ordinance No. 433, as amended and having given due consideration to I.C. 36-7-4-918.5 and having paid reasonable regard to the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of St. John hereby make the following findings of fact:

• Approval will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community;
• The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in an substantially adverse manner.
• That strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property.

Mr. Williams seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 ayes – 1 abstained.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. 10210 Joliet Street (Petititioner: Jimmy Lopez) Garage / Accessory Structure Public Hearing

Mr. Maciejewski asked the petitioner to please come forward and state your full name and address and the nature of the petition.

Mr. Jimmy Lopez, 10210 Joliet Street. Mr. Lopez stated that he had purchased the house ago a year ago and that it was an “estate sale”. Basically nobody saw any potential in this house and I took it in to keep it in the nice condition is was in. Mr. Lopez stated that he would keep inside storage so that it would not be an eyesore. He would keep everything neat around the house and the garage that I want to build will be tucked away in the back. I have almost two acres, so basically I am just trying to keep everything inside and locked up, clean, so that it is presentable.

Mr. Maciejewski inquired as to the types of vehicles that he would be storing. Mr. Lopez advised that he has antique cars, RV(s) and items of that sort of nature that he drives.

Mr. Maciejewski inquired about the flood zone designated on the plat submitted. Mr. Lopez advised that it is way in the rear of the property. The lot is very deep and that is way back behind the tree line.

Mr. Schneider asked if any diesel mechanical work would be done on the side, at this location. Mr. Lopez advised that as a mechanic at UPS he is not allowed to handle a wrench for side work as it would cause him to lose his pension, and further added that this would be his “man cave”.

Discussion ensued between the board members and Mr. Lopez as to the size of structure in which he was seeking a Developmental / Technical variance. Options of 36’ x 40’, which is close to the 1600 s.f. usage, 40’ x 40’ or the 32’ x 50’ which is the one suggested by his contractor as the one preferred because of the trusses, would be less money and more cost effective.

Mr. Maciejewski opened the floor for the Public Hearing, after conferring with Attorney David Austgen, who noted that the legal notices and proofs of notices to adjacent property owners are in order to proceed with public comment:

Hearing none, Mr. Maciejewski closed the public hearing portion and brought the matter back to the board.

Mr. Panczuk stated that this area of town is one of rural flavor, no doubt a 2.5-acre lot. Knows several people that have 2.5 or 5 acres and they built pole barns to store antique vehicles, and their toys, it’s not an unreasonable size building for him to build a 32’ x 40’ building pretty quick. With its being a 2.5-acre lot, its five times the size of what we would consider to be a good size half-acre lot. His only concern would be to nail down the exact location for the record, but otherwise he has no objection.

Mr. Schneider noted that it looks like there is a lot of room to the West, would you be placing the structure more behind your existing home and not out in the middle. Mr. Lopez said it would be off-set, more East and behind.

Discussion ensued as to having an accurate site plan to review for placement of the garage. Mr. Austgen advised that they do not know until they have that site plan. Mr. Austgen asked the petitioner if he had a plat of survey, as it was not part of the packet given to the board members.

Mr. Maciejewski and Mr. Austgen discussed a section of the Zoning Ordinance which addressed the style and color consistent with the primary structure, being the house. Section F.2 was read, detached garages may only be allowed by approval of developmental variance by the BZA and shall be built consistent with the style and materials of the dwelling. Mr. Lopez advised that the house which brick. Mr. Maciejewski inquired if he wished to amend the petition to include a variance for that section also. Mr. Lopez advised that he did not extend to make an all brick building, would not be cost effective, but he would coordinate the colors with the house, with wainscoting and two-tone.

Mr. Panczuk asked where in relation to the large tree would the garage be built. Mr. Lopez advised that it would be between that one tree (apple tree) and the grouping of trees in the back.

Mr. Maciejewski suggested that the petitioner’s contractor prepare a better site plan showing placement of structure and driveway for better evaluation.

Mr. Schneider noted that the structure requested is a 32’ x 48’ with 14’ eave height, then it has a 10’ x 48’ lean-to on it. Mr. Lopez advised that the square footage is not included in the lean-to.

Mr. Lopez advised that it was more like a covered porch area to sit outside, not visible from the street or from the neighbor from the West.

Mr. Williams reiterated that the lean-to portion would have to be part of the total square footage calculation. Mr. Lopez stated that he would consider eliminating that from the structure.

Mr. Schneider confirmed that there will be electricity run to the building; however, plumbing would not.

Mr. Austgen read for the record the allowable square footage is 1100 s.f. either attached or detached; however, if a lot is 30,000 s.f. or larger, that an additional 540 s.f. is allowed. So it’s a total of 1640 s.f. but it an aggregate. So basically including the existing garage, and not more than 14’ in height to the peak (not the eave) of the structure.

General discussion ensued as to the height, and the size of the structure inclusive of the existing attached garage.

Mr. Lopez advised that the existing two-car garage was plumbed-out. He felt that the previous owner may have been planning an extra family room. There is a mud room existing that could be finished for extra living space currently.

Mr. Maciejewski noted that he feels it is the four items in question in the variance: detached, the area, the height and the material.

Mr. Panczuk noted that it is not in a subdivision setting, it is very rural and it would not be out of place for this type of structure to be built. He has driven by it and it is very spacious. The lean-to caught him off guard, however, the ten feet would not be suited for a car and it faces east, and he could see it being used as just “porch space”.

General discussion ensued as to the twelve foot doors and the height of the structure. Mr. Lopez advised that he measured his RV and believe that was the reason for the door size and that he needed the room for that purpose.

Mr. Williams stated that the peak of twenty feet was of concern. He feels that it is a situation where it would be towering over everything else in the immediate neighborhood.

Mr. Lopez advised that he would get with his contractor to submit the suggestions of the board and provide more detail on a site plan, including the impact of drainage on the lot.

Mr. Maciejewski asked the board for a motion to defer this matter until next month’s meeting, and continue the public so that you do not have to do any of the re-advertising again. This would give Mr. Lopez time to prepare with his contractor the suggested changes.

Mr. Williams made the motion to defer the matter of garage / accessory structure at 10210 Joliet Street, until the June 27, 2016 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting, and continue the public hearing. Mr. Panczuk seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 ayes – 0 nays.

Mr. Maciejewski suggested to Mr. Lopez that the paperwork for the next meeting be turned into the Building and Planning Office at least before the meeting for it to be distributed and reviewed by the board members.

B. 12225 West 85th Avenue (Herb and Kimberly Yekel) – Garage / Accessory Structure – Public Hearing

Mr. Maciejewski advised that item 6 (B), again a garage / accessory building for Herb and Kimberly Yekel at 12225 West 85th Avenue.

Mr. Herb Yekel introduced himself, 12225 West 85th Avenue and stated that he is asking for a variance to build a shed a little bit bigger that what is presently allowed by a general permit. I am the owner of the BX Series Tractor, the small bucket, belly mower, leaf sucker, snow removal equipment. He stated he has a lot of outside patio furniture. Was looking at a shed which is just a little bigger. So instead of going 16’ x 10’, he would like to go 16’ x 20’, and be able to keep all the items and implements in there.

Discussion ensued and Mr. Yekel reiterated that it is all his property associated with the lawn tractor that he uses on his property, which he respectfully is requesting a 16’ x 20’ to accommodate all the items he mentioned.

Mr. Maciejewski asked where was the structure being proposed on the site plan. Mr. Yekel advised that on the initial site plan the house is about five months old now. It was initially drawn as future shed and it was never constructed. He brought and showed the initial site plan of the home. Mr. Yekel advised that the concrete slab is already there and it is 16’ x 20’.

Mr. Maciejewski asked if there was anything about the construction that he could share. Mr. Yekel advised that it is not viewable from the street, and not viewable from the rear, it is not viewable from the East, and there is already an existing 6’ fence that is 25’ off the property line to the West.

Discussion ensued on the height and the dimensions on the door.

Mr. Schneider asked if the only access would be through the existing garage to the shed. Mr. Yekel advised that the garage drops off too much and he did not want to change the slope of any of the property as it is.

Mr. Schneider asked about the old shed that is there. Mr. Yekel advised that was part of the old house that was condemned and torn down in order to build the new house, and advised with permission of the new shed that the old one would be torn down.

The board members discussed for clarification that it would be a variance from the shed requirement, not a garage.

Mr. Yekel advised that it was previously 3 lots, and zoned R-1, so he is allowed two (2) accessory structures as long as he doesn’t exceed 250 square feet. Mr. Panczuk checked the requirements for sheds not being any larger than 160 s.f. and a maximum height of 14’, must be built inside the property lines from side and rear. Mr. Schneider noted that the site is also 1.23 acres.

Mr. Yekel advised the house is stone and brick, it would be metal siding, like a Morton building, with asphalt shingles. Would like to keep it low maintenance and match it to the brown, a dark brown or two-tone.

Mr. Austgen was called upon to review the proofs of publication and notices of adjacent property owners for the public hearing portion. Mr. Austgen advised that all was in order and the public hearing could proceed.

The floor was open for public comment and reminded to give name and address for the record. Hearing none, the floor was closed to public comment and brought the matter back to the board.

Mr. Schneider asked for some clarification on the specs provided, there was item 3 that he could not make out the writing. Discussion ensued and clarified as to materials and construction.

Mr. Schneider made a motion to approve the developmental / Technical variance for 12225 West 85th Avenue for garage/accessory structure, with the following conditions that the accessory building be storage only of lawn/patio furniture and equipment. The existing shed on site is to be removed in a reasonable amount of time, and the height shall stay below the 14’ maximum limit.

Mr. Schneider read the Findings of Fact, that the approval will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of the community. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner, and that the strict applications of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. Mr. Panczuk seconded the motion, and suggested that the old shed be removed within ninety (90) days of the completion of the new one. Motion amended to include that stipulation. Motion carried 4 ayes – 0 nays.

With no other business before the Board, Mr. Maciejewski adjourned the meeting.

(The meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m.)

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L. Haluska, Recording Secretary pro-tem
St. John Board of Zoning Appeals

06-27-2016 Board of Zoning Appeals

June 27, 2016 Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes

Jim Maciejewski, President Paul Panczuk Timothy Kuiper, Board Attorney
Ken Schneider, Vice-President Jason Williams  
Tom Ryan    

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Maciejewski called to order the St. John Board of Zoning Appeals for June 27, 2016 at 7:00 p.m., and asked all to rise for the Pledge of Allegiance (recited and all took their seats).

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken by Susan E. Wright, recording secretary. Members present: James Maciejewski, Ken Schneider, Tom Ryan and Jason Williams. Staff present: Mr. Timothy Kuiper, Board Attorney. Absent: Mr. Paul Panczuk.

MINUTES:

Mr. Maciejewski stated that there are no minutes presented this evening. Ms. Wright stated that they have not been submitted yet.

OLD BUSINESS:

A. 10210 Joliet Street (Mr. Jimmy Lopez) – Garage / Accessory Structure Variance

Mr. Maciejewski stated that this was an application for Garage / Accessory Structure. This is a continued public hearing from our May meeting. Petitioner is present, please step forward Mr. Lopez. Maybe run through what you have been working on. As I recall we had some questions for you last time about the building and the site plan.

Mr. Lopez approached the podium. Mr. Lopez stated that the board wanted the exact location on the property. We drew it out on there; did the measurements to the property lines to the existing location and I did get some blueprints done, which show the building size, the pitches and the type of things.

Mr. Maciejewski asked if the petitioner happened to measure the existing garage. Mr. Lopez advised that he did not, however it is a two-car attached garage. The house is only eleven hundred square feet, so it is a small house.

Mr. Williams inquired if the board could get him straight on what the code is; advising he had his notes from the last time, that this allows sixteen hundred-forty square feet, and wondered did that match their notes. Mr. Maciejewski stated that it looks like his notes have gone AWOL, so we will have to reconstruct it.

Mr. Williams advised that what he wrote down was that a one-acre parcel gets eleven hundred square feet, then the fact that the lot is very large that there is an additional five hundred forty square foot allowed. That is what he is showing in his notes; however, they are very sketchy.

Mr. Maciejewski stated that this seems in aligns with what we’ve written down, that it was 1640 s.f. Mr. Williams noted that includes the existing garage though and I thought we figured out the existing garage is somewhere around 700 s.f.

Mr. Ryan noted that the one that is being proposed is 1620 s.f., with dimensions of 30’ x 54’. Mr. Maciejewski asked if the proposed garage get larger from the last meeting.

Mr. Lopez stated that well no; however, like he said there were different configurations. A 40’ x 40’, or a 30’ x 54’, because he is just trying to keep it below the 1640 s.f. maximum.

Mr. Williams asked Mr. Maciejewski to verify the current town code of the roof height; basically the maximum to the peak. Mr. Maciejewski advised that it is 14’. Mr. Williams confirmed that the number was what he remembered from the first meeting.

Mr. Schneider noted that there were a couple of floor plans submitted where the building is the same size. However, one shows a 16’ x 8’ door on one side and a 10’ x 10’ door on the end wall. He further noted that there is another plan whereas it shows two 16’ x 8’ garage doors, one of the end wall and one on the side street.

Mr. Lopez advised that when he started doing this, they were going that the only way you are going to get a 10’ door is to change the pitch, so 2 out of the 3 show that. I would like one that will be a 10’ door. It must be taller so I can get and lift and put it in there. Plus, I also wanted to put my R.V. in there to put it away and so it would fit. Explained that he was running back-in-forth with the designers; working midnights, and then it was two long weeks to get things going. With the two (2) consultants that say that “well we can do it different”. That is when they came up with the temple roof, but it’s the same length and width; but they changed the trusses so then we are going to make different trusses, so then I don’t have to worry about the weight with the snow or anything.

Mr. Maciejewski stated that okay, so as far as the notes from Mr. Williams is correct; on Chapter 11, a residential garage is Section B. First off, the consideration of a detached garage has been here before us, to allow an additional detached garage. That’s item one (1), whether to allow a detached garage. Within that then; with the total square footage of all residential garages, whether attached or detached, shall not exceed 1,100 s.f. per residential lot or parcel. Then again, if you are over 30,000 s.f. on the lot, then you can get an additional 540 s.f., so that is where is 1640 s.f. is from. It is though supposed to be the total of both the attached and detached garages. Maximum height measured from existing grade to the roof peak of the structure is not to exceed 14’.

Mr. Williams inquired about the overhangs that were discussed at the earlier meeting, or wonder if that what no longer a part of the picture. Mr. Lopez stated that they were thinking about a 1’ or 2’ overhang, so they could put up gutters there, this is being done so that they could direct drainage water away from it.

Mr. Maciejewski noted that it seems to be 10’ 6” to the eave on a 4-12 pitch. So that is another 5’ or more accurately 5’6” right now. Mr. Maciejewski asked what the existing square footage. Mr. Williams thought it was around 600 s.f.

Mr. Ryan stated that he has 700 s.f. written down. We don’t have measurements, and we don’t know if this is correct or wrong, but that’s what was written down. Mr. Ryan further asked if this is in addition to the existing garage. Mr. Lopez answered that the exiting garage is attached.

Mr. Williams stated that he is not sure if this was made clear during the previous meeting, but the Town Code calls for the total square footage of all garages on the property not to exceed 1640 s.f. So what is being proposed right now at 1620 s.f. additional detached garage, then you are actually 700 s.f. “over” code because of your existing garage. Whatever your existing garage is, we’re assuming its around 700 s.f. Further asking to get a height variance. So right now we are 700 s.f. over on square feet, and looks like we’re 2’ over the grade to peak regulation. Looking at page 5 (as distributed to the board), it says that the grade to the peak is sixteen feet (16’). Asked if the board knows what the highest point of the house is. Mr. Lopez stated it was lower than that.

Mr. Williams further noted that the last time the board just had a sketch drawn down and you had it going kind of rotated so that most of it was to be obscured by the house, and is curious why is it now straight off the street.

Mr. Lopez advised yes, where it shows an extension in the driveway, he was going to attach a driveway to the existing driveway, so there is a clear shot to get back to it. Mr. Williams noted that from the street it probably is not that much different, it seems to be the same visibility from the street. Mr. Lopez stated it was a large lot with a lot of trees back there also.

Mr. Ryan stated that he wasn’t at the last meeting, but would like to ask what is the intended use of the garage, what are you going to do with it.

Mr. Lopez stated that he is a car enthusiast and I have toys that want to put in there. It would be like my hobby shop when I retire in a couple of years. I have a show truck, and two other show vehicles, and just bought a Camaro, so I like to buy stuff.

Mr. Williams again recalled from the last meeting that when you retire from your current job; that they explicitly forbid you from all-night maintenance, so you could not do commercial work in this facility. Mr. Lopez stated that he cannot do commercial work because he would lose his pension. He stated that if he wanted to work for some side-money, or to just pass the time then I guess I could be a used-car salesman. This garage will be a play area and I have friends who are drooling. We can put a projection television in there and watch the Bears games.

Mr. Maciejewski asked Mr. Lopez to clarify the 10’ x 10’ door that is going to face the street. Mr. Lopes said that one (1) would be on the one side, is basically just to get back through there and I thought that would be the perfect side for the lift to fit it, and I could put it way back in the corner. So when you are working you can open up the door and get a breeze and it would circulate, cause it’s too large to put air conditioning in. I don’t have the money for that.

Mr. Williams asked if during the construction if they will leave the three (3) trees in the vicinity. Mr. Lopez advised yes, it is a very deep lot and they are leaving the trees that are shown.

Discussion ensued amongst the board members as to a concrete slab and what the placement of the garage was going to be.

Mr. Schneider calculated approximately 200’ back and inquired if the neighbors are aware of what he is putting up. Mr. Lopez said yes, that he sent the required letters out to everyone on the list. At first they thought that St. John was going to place a road through there. That was their main concern. When I told them what I was putting they pretty much said “that’s all?”. They were happy that a road wasn’t going through there. Mr. Williams asked if he has personally spoken to the neighbor to the West since he would be the one most impacted. Yes, his name is Pat and he is all for it.

Mr. Schneider noted that it is still quite large, but they thought something else was going through.

Mr. Ryan asked if they were trying to get a match to the color of the house that is brick. Mr. Williams remembered that they did suggest a color match”. Mr. Lopez stated that it does not show on the drawings, but he wanted to get something closer to what the house looks like, somewhere like a “sandy color”.

Mr. Schneider asked if it was going to be two-toned with a wainscot, because otherwise it was just going to look like a pole barn.

Mr. Maciejewski called upon Mr. Timothy Kuiper, Board Attorney, that for the record to verify the notices of publication are still in order. Mr. Kuiper stated that everything was in order and it was properly continued at your last meeting for public hearing.

Mr. Maciejewski open the floor for Public Comment. Hearing none, he brought the matter back to the Board.

Mr. Maciejewski stated that it is the size he felt that was of issue and asked how he arrived at the size because it is considerably over what is allowed by ordinance.

Mr. Lopez said he looked on-line and read what was allowed and thought since I got 2.5 acres then I could get the 1640 s.f. So I thought I could get the 40’ x 40’. Mr. Maciejewski reminded Mr. Lopez that however he did not subtract off the existing garage which should have been done. Mr. Lopez advised that he didn’t read that part.

Mr. Maciejewski asked if this was reduced by some amount, would that still be usable to you. If we get closer to the square footage. Asked if there was a reason it has to be 1600 s.f. Mr. Lopez said it was just what he read and went from there. Mr. Williams stated that definitive measurements would have helped.

Mr. Lopez stated that the thing is, the house is deceiving how it is. It’s just a two-car garage and then like I said it has a thing on the side, the guy before had like a work-shop. But if you intended to finished it as part of the housing you could cause of the way it was built. The owner was a brick mason and the guy built it in 1957 and he built a sturdy home. He probably had plans to add on to the house there, and like I said I haven’t got to that point yet. I just bought the house last year and we re-modeled the whole thing, because this is our retirement home right here.

Mr. Maciejewski asked if the height was dictated by your lift, or how did he arrive at that height. He noted that the height of 14’ was in the same paragraph that he had read on-line and you should have known that the maximum was 14’; however, this is 16’ in height. Mr. Lopez thinks it’s because of the drawing with the narrow pitch, it gives me a more height, because then I will be able to put the lift in there.

Mr. Maciejewski asked about the height of the lift. Mr. Lopez said that its made to go up, and can go up to 12’, but you know will go to 12’, but you don’t have to necessarily raise it, cause its hydraulic. But, the post itself he thinks they are 10’.

Mr. Ryan inquired as to non-hydraulic or scissor jack lifts, then you wouldn’t need such a tall structure. Discussion ensued as to how much was needed, however, it was noted that the trusses would come across at 10’. Mr. Schneider stated more like 10’ 6”. Mr. Schneider also remembered that Mr. Lopez talked about storage of an R.V., so that a 10’ door would be needed as it was mentioned that it would not go through an 8’ door, as it is a full-size R.V.

Mr. Maciejewski said that he thinks he can come to terms with the height, but he did not know what he was putting in there that would require 1640 s.f., and that was the number you came up with. He asked Mr. Lopez if he did some sort of layout, where all his vehicles would fit in there. Mr. Lopez said he just guessed and asked for the 1640 s.f. because that is what he read was the largest. Mr. Maciejewski explained what is allowed as opposed to what is needed is the pertinent question. Mr. Lopez stated that I wanted whatever the max I can get.

Mr. Williams asked if what Mr. Lopez is saying, that dependent on your existing garage, that if you got the measurements and you can tell us exactly what is left for what the code allows would be sufficient. Mr. Lopez asked if he measures just where the cars park in there. Mr. Williams asked if maybe he could bring in pictures so that we know what you’re looking to be able to do here, because I sort of get it, but we needed to see it.

Mr. Lopez said the existing garage has a 16’ x 8’ door, and only two cars go in there, but off to the side, you come out of the house, through a mudroom, and then it just like a work space, he even had a petition wall.

Mr. Maciejewski announced for purposes of trying to arrive at something tonight, maybe come to some decision. Square off the 21.3’ x 22.8’, and say that is approximate for usable square footage for what the garage is. That would be only 485 s.f. That would get you down to 1155 s.f; divided by 30 to 38.5. So this is in the module of 9; so that a 30’ x 40’; so Form54 I think is what your drawing said.

Mr. Lopez said he made it narrow, so that way the trusses are less expensive. Mr. Maciejewski advised that if so we do a 30’ x 40’, we’re getting a little bit closer to the code. Mr. Williams asked if he was okay with the 16’ versus the 14’. So we don’t have to overthink the existing garage. If that all tolerable?

Mr. Schneider calculated that then you are within 45 s.f. of being within the ordinance.

Discussion ensued as to points to be made in the motion and the findings of fact for same. Mr. Kuiper advised that any motion should state that you have allowed an excess on what the code allows. Mr. Maciejewski repeated the points of the findings of fact in case a board member wished to make a motion for this Developmental / Technical Variance, please make part of your motion a Findings of Fact that the approval of this variance will or will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the community; that, the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included either will or will not be effected in a substantially adverse manner; and that the strict application of the terms of the zoning Ordinance either will or will not result in practical difficulties in the use of the property.

Mr. Williams made a motion for this detached garage at 10210 Joliet Street, referencing the Findings of Fact. The Board of Zoning Appeals, after diving due consideration to this matter, listed in Ordinance 433, as amended, and after having due consideration to I.C. 36-30-7-4.918.5, having paid reasonable regard to the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of St. John, does hereby make the following Findings of Facts for record.

1. Will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community;

2. Use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be substantially adverse in manner.

3. That the strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property.

Accordingly, the Board of Zoning Appeals approves the Developmental / technical Variance as aforesaid on the conditions listed:

(A) Placement is drawn in Surveyor’s Location Report.

(B) No Commercial use in the external garage

(C) Maximum of Thirty Feet (30’) x Forty Feet (40’) area.

(D) Sixteen feet (16’) peak, from grade to peak of garage.

(E) Two-tone color that is to match the existing house.

(F) That there will be no outside storage of the garage.

Mr. Ryan seconded the motion. Mr. Maciejewski asked for any further discussion; hearing none he entertained a vote. Motion carried 4-0-1 absent.

[Discussion in the background as to the procedure for Mr. Lopez to apply for a building permit].

With no other business before the Board, Mr. Maciejewski adjourned the meeting.

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:49 p.m.)

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L. Haluska, Recording Secretary pro-tem
St. John Board of Zoning Appeals

07-25-2016 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Canceled
08-22-2016 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Canceled
09-26-2016 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Canceled
10-24-2016 Board of Zoning Appeals

October 24, 2016 Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes

Ken Schneider, President Tom Ryan David Austgen, Town Attorney
Paul Panczuk, Vice-President John Kennedy Michael Muenich, Board Attorney
Jason Williams, Secretary   Stephen Z. Kil, Town Manager

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Schneider called to order the St. John Board of Zoning Appeals for October 24, 2016 at 7:00 p.m., and asked all to rise for the Pledge of Allegiance (recited and all took their seats).

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken by Michelle L. Haluska, recording secretary. Members present: Ken Schneider, Paul Panczuk, John Kennedy and Jason Williams. Staff present: Mr. David Austgen, Town Attorney, Mr. Michael Muenich, Board Attorney and Mr. Stephen Kil, Town Manager. Absent: Mr. Tom Ryan

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Mr. Schneider asked for a clarification in the minutes, which Mr. Williams discussed directly with Mr. Schneider. Mr. Schneider entertained a motion for the approval of the June 27, 2016 minutes. Motion made to approve minutes as submitted, motion seconded by Mr. Kennedy. Motion carried 3 ayes – 1 abstention.

ELECTION OF OFFICERS:

Mr. Schneider said he just wanted to take a minute and thank Mr. James Maciejewski for all his years of dedicated years of service to the St. John Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Schneider advised that they would need to vote now for election of officers since Mr. Maciejewski is no longer here as Chairman.

For President: Mr. Williams made a motion to elect Mr. Ken Schneider as President, motion seconded by Mr. Kennedy. Motion carried 4 ayes – 0 nays.

For Vice-President: Mr. Schneider nominated Mr. Paul Panczuk for Vice-President, seconded by Mr. Kennedy. Motion carried 4 ayes – 0 nays.

For Secretary: Mr. Kennedy nominated Mr. Jason Williams as Secretary, seconded by Mr. Panczuk. Motion carried 4 ayes – 0 nays.

OLD / NEW BUSINESS:

A. LAKE CENTRAL SALT BARN / MAINTENANCE FACILITY – Mr. Bill Ledyard – Developmental / Technical Variances – Public Hearing

Mr. Schneider advised the first item on the agenda is Lake Central / Kolling Elementary School Salt Barn and Storage Building. Mr. Schneider advised the audience that there are eight (8) variances that they will be requesting.

Mr. Schneider asked Mr. Muenich as to any special protocol in regards to the eight (8) variances. Mr. Muenich advised to make the record clear he suggested to state the petition request, ask for any remonstrance’s for or against that particular variance, and then vote on that variance by item. Mr. Muenich noted that the proofs of publication and notices are in order to proceed with the Public Hearing.

Mr. Ledyard, Lake Central Director of Construction and Dr. Larry Verracco, Superintendent, introduced themselves to the board. Mr. Ledyard advised that they have been through several Plan Commission meetings with this project, this is our first time in front of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Ledyard mentioned that as Mr. Schneider stated we are asking for eight (8) variances.

Mr. Ledyard started by talking about the two (2) buildings. They are looking to build a 40’ x 40’ Salt Storage Barn at the transportation center to store the salt needed for the entre district throughout the winter. We do not have an enclosed building right now. We are also looking to replace a dilapidated existing Maintenance Building with a new Maintenance Building, near where the old site is located.

The Salt Storage Building would go just to the West of the existing maintenance building, and the new maintenance building would be constructed to the South.

On the variances:

1. Looking to have a 50’ set-back, instead of a 60’ set-back from the right-of-way. That is for two major reasons. One being, that way we can keep the existing maintenance building, and we can build the Salt Storage Barn, and once that is complete we can then build the new maintenance building and then we would go ahead and demolish the old maintenance building. This will also help us with some tight turns for our buses in that area. So that is the two reasons we are seeking that as a variance.

Mr. Williams asked Mr. Ledyard to repeat what he said. Mr. Ledyard reiterated the matter for clarification. Mr. Ledyard repeated that they would build the new buildings around the old, and then they could move out of the old maintenance building and demolish it.

Mr. Schneider advised Mr. Ledyard to go ahead and give a comprehensive review of all the variances, and then they will work individually to work them out.

2. Regarding the next, and Mr. Muenich and Mr. Kil have talked at length at the Plan Commission that we have added an easement from the existing access on Route 41 at the Kolling property to go all the way down to the South to what we call Lot 3. This talks about the frontage road. At the Plan Commission, I think it was decided that we would plat and record this easement for future access.

This would be West of the Salt Storage facility.

Mr. Williams says that it looks fairly narrow on his map. Mr. Ledyard stated that Mr. Kil requested that it be incorporated in there. Mr. Williams stated that at the Plan Commission you said you would reconfigure those fences should that access be needed.

3. This is the Landscaping Plan requirement. We will plant around the Salt Storage and the Maintenance Building.

Mr. Williams asked why is this a variance? Mr. Ledyard advised that you have certain requirements and the site is basically all paved and hard-surfaced. We can only get in a certain number of plants. Mr. Kil advised that they cannot get the required amount of landscaping in. Mr. Williams asked then they are asking for less? Mr. Kil advised “yes”, that is correct”. Mr. Muenich advised that they are required to submit a landscaping plan, which you are seeing, but the plan does not meet the absolute standard of the ordinance. Mr. Williams asked if there is some percentage that it falls under?

Mr. Ledyard advised that they only have a certain amount of green area, because it’s all hardscaped over there; but, we will plant what we can plant. Dr. Verracco advised that we want to improve it because we are tired of looking at it also, the way it is. Mr. Ledyard further noted that there are a lot of items that are stored outside, which will be put inside the new maintenance facility and that it is not just going to be a workshop. There will be storage for mowers and other equipment that you see outside. Also, that some of that junk to the East will be cleaned up as well.

Mr. Williams stated, so forgive me, but right now there is zero landscaping? Mr. Ledyard advised that is correct. And that goes into the next variance:

4. We are seeking a lighting variance, because are not really changing anything at the entire site. We will be putting wall packs on the new buildings. We are not changing anything to the main transportation site.

Mr. Panczuk asked if they could backup to the landscaping. Mr. Panczuk asked if they have a street elevation drawing of the site. Mr. Ledyard stated that he submitted elevations to Mr. Kil to forward to all the members. Mr. Panczuk asked if there was any consideration to moving it back to shield the Bus Barn as well. Mr. Ledyard advised there is nothing there, the Bus Barn is all hardscaped. It’s beyond the fence. Discussion ensued as to type of plantings. Mr. Ledyard advised that they were considering evergreens, because they are more dense.

Discussion ensued between Mr. Schneider and Mr. Kil in regards to matching up the prepared Findings of Fact form that were prepared and the topics as they are being stated for variance. Mr. Kil advised that he would have to look at them to line up the variance request with the verbiage being used. After much discussion with Mr. Kil, Mr. Schneider and Mr. Muenich, it was decided that the landscape requirement was probably a “waiver” that was done at the Plan Commission level. Mr. Kil advised that there are eight (8) variances being sought and there are eight (8) findings of facts prepare for each specific section listed.

Mr. Ledyard stated that back to the Lighting (No. 4), they are not changing anything existing, they will be only adding the wall packs to the buildings. Mr. Panczuk advised that he supports the Town’s lighting concept, and his concern would be that wall packs project light outward so would like to bring it up to the board so they would agree to put a stipulation that any lights would be “downward pointing” and shielded, with full side shield. This then would accomplish the intent of our dark sky ordinance.

Mr. Ledyard advised that they were already going to place wall packs with downward lighting and shielded. Mr. Panczuk stated that it can be made in the motion.

5. The next one is for the Sign. We are not asking for any signage. We have an approved sign for Kolling School a couple of years ago, and we do not plan on any signage here. Mr. Ledyard advised that in the new US 41 overlay he believes there is a section that has to do with signs.

Mr. Kil stated that if you do not want a sign you do not have to have a sign.

6. Mr. Schneider mentioned it’s the building materials. These are support buildings to the main building, which is a pre-engineered metal building, metal siding; so we are asking for that. Also part of the US 41 overlay as we were talking to the Plan Commission meetings.

Mr. Kil reminded that within this corridor they are required to build all brick buildings in this corridor. They are all run together. You are required to have “x” amount of different types of exterior material, they are not going to meet that. They are not going to be able to make the all brick requirement, they are not going to meet the exterior corner requirement. What you kind of see is what you get. It is a Salt Storage Building and a Maintenance Building. So those kind of all go together. But, they are all listed separately.

Mr. Williams asked if they found the street level view of the landscaping and fencing. Mr. Panczuk reminded that he has asked for that. Mr. Kil advised that he would have to go to Google Earth to place that on the screen. Mr. Williams re-stated that he was wondering what it was going to look like from the street level. Are you seeing a fence?, are you seeing trees?, am I seeing the peak of the building?.

Mr. Ledyard advised that “yes, you will see the eave of the building”. Mr. Schneider advised he know that is in there, but is it really part of a variance?

Mr. Panczuk stated that he thinks Mr. Williams is saying that it can affect the way we view the exterior material and the other shortcuts..

Mr. Kil advised the members that he does not simply have a street view. Mr. Kil went on to say that if you are standing on U.S. 41 taking a snapshot of what you are going to see, they simply don’t have it.

Mr. Williams asked then so we are not going to see that it’s really not brick. No one is, because of the way.,. Mr. Ledyard reminded that there is a 6’ fence with slats already, and the landscaping will be between that and the building.

Mr. Kil showed the existing building on the screen. Mr. Ledyard pointed out areas that Mr. Williams was inquiring about, and it was noted that all that is hardscaped. Mr. Ledyard pointed to the exact area in which they will be able to plant any landscaping. The landscaping will go South and around, so you will only be able to see the peak of the building.

7. The next one is Public Art. Not planning anything. Mr. Williams and Mr. Ledyard discussed the fact that there are several nice art classes at Lake Central.

8. The final, as Mr. Schneider references as well, is the Bicycle and Pedestrian Sidewalk access. Currently we do not have anything along the entire East side of Route 41 on our property. We would like to keep it that way, our Kolling Elementary School is a K through 4 building, We do not have any students there who currently walk or ride a bike there. And we encourage them not to, we believe it is an unsafe way to get to school there at that busy location, so we are asking for a variance for this as well.

Mr. Williams asked if there is any concept in our long-term plan, which we have spent so much time talking about, of making U.S. 41 walkable or bikable, or pedestrian.,. Mr. Kil advised that as you know they put a sidewalk in at the high school on the West side. We put a cross-walk in, we do put in sidewalks.

Mr. Kil mentioned that when INDOT does improvements, they do try to incorporate sidewalks into their improvements now, if that answers your question.

Dr. Verracco advised that currently there are no sidewalks on the East side, so it would be a dead-end. It would be a sidewalk to really nowhere.

Mr. Williams stated that he is thinking about the entire system, not just where we are at right now, all the way up to that Speedway Gas Station, which I think is pretty close to the town limits there. I don’t know if it would make any sense to make that a walkable system.

Mr. Kil advised that he thinks that what we are concentrating on as far as Route 41 is concerned is a frontage road / access system. And you see that with all the new developments. You are going to see that with the next item which is Levin Tire, a frontage road system.

Mr. Panczuk stated that he is a real stickler for sidewalks, and so I struggled with this a little bit. It is a unique piece of property with the bridge adjacent and the railroad tracks. They are somewhat landlocked; they own all that property to the South. We are talking elementary kids, I can envision everything from 85th North being side walked, within the vicinity of Lake Central and people that will walk along U.S. 41, whether there are sidewalks or not. So I think from 85th North where the Levin and everything else is going, there should be some sort of pedestrian way, and I think the West side is more conducive, you already have Lake Central and residential right there clustered up, closer to the road. I’m not really worried about a sidewalk to nowhere, cause they gotta go somewhere eventually, but I don’t know if this is ever gonna connect to anything. And if they were ever to develop Lot 3, something would be brought in behind Kolling, you know, in that case, so. I tried to figure out a way for it to make sense and yeah, it’s really an unusual parcel.

Mr. Ledyard and Mr. Schneider confirmed that was all eight (8).

Mr. Williams wrote down: 50’ right-of-way, frontage road, landscaping, lighting, signage, building materials, public art, and bicycle/pedestrian. Mr. Ledyard advised that was all eight (8).

Mr. Kil suggested that Mr. Schneider just read each variance on the Findings of Fact, so everybody has a clear understanding of what each is.

First one, is a variance from a frontage road, setbacks and illustrations, for the lighting plan, there’s exterior building materials, because like Mr. Kil said that area was supposed to be all masonry, there is a variance for three exterior building materials, which also comes in, and then there is a variance for a minimum amount of exterior corners. If you brought in a plan for a commercial situation you have to have a minimum of eight corners or something like that.

The next one would be for public art submission. I have a variance from a bicycle / pedestrian access, and a variance from the strict requirement for access to individual tracts as outlined.

So those are the eight variances. Mr. Williams said that it is slightly different from what we worked on. Mr. Schneider said “yes”, Mr. Williams “Agreed”.

Mr. Schneider said, we will go from the first one and ask for the Frontage Road Setbacks and Illustrations, and that was basically saying that they are requesting a 50’ setback instead of a 60’ per the codes. Does anyone have any comment on the first one.

Mr. Panczuk, because there will probably never be a frontage road put in, it’s good to have the easement, I’m glad it’s there, maybe it will be a bike trail or a pedestrian trail someday, but I doubt if there will ever be vehicular traffic in front of that salt barn to that next lot. I got a feeling that would be placed behind Kolling, so I support no frontage road and the smaller setback.

Mr. Muenich advised that you are not waiving the frontage road, you are only talking about the set-back, instead of 60’, this would be 50’, this doesn’t address the road per se’.

Mr. Kil said he wanted to make it easier and gave the board members the list prepared.

Mr. Schneider Opened the Floor to Public Comment by Variance and it would take a little while, so please be patient. Mr. Williams asked if Mr. Schneider would like him to read them as posted on the screen:

1. Variance from Three Exterior Building Materials. Mr. Panczuk stated that because it is a civic or a municipal building, somewhat obscure by the bridge, it’s more of a retrofit of an existing use, I am going to be a little more lenient with this, I’m just saying that for the record, it’s generally not my way. Mr. Kennedy stated he understands why you are requesting this variance, I appreciate they are putting the money into the classrooms versus an exterior building of a storage maintenance facility, cause I understand the importance of education in this community, it’s a big draw for St. John.

Mr. Schneider stated that the first three are very similar, that they address exterior building materials. The second one was the minimum exterior corners, and then the, basically the building materials that pretty much ties into the first one. Take all three of these, basically and;

Mr. Muenich suggested again that they put them out individually, I don’t have a problem with you internally as a group. I would vote on them individually.

Mr. Schneider stated again that he was opening the floor to Public Comment, please step forward and announce your name and address. Hearing none, Mr. Schneider closed the floor to public comment in regards to the first three items of exterior building materials.

Mr. Schneider (reopened the floor – see below):

Dennis Meyers, 9500 Highland Court: I am a local builder and developer here in Town as you probably mostly know. I find the variances for all these building materials. Steve (Kil) knows what he puts all us builders through, building anything along, in this Town on that corridor. You have to use brick, you gotta do this, you gotta do that. So many items that you have to use, my only suggestion would be, that maybe because I drive up and down that street every day myself and we are trying to beautify the area, somehow work in some large pine trees, such as we’ve done on some of our job site, to hide these metal buildings from the street, since we’re gonna force every other builder to conform to the regulations, and here their gonna get a variance for everything and stick a pole barn up there, that’s exactly what it is. We all know that. So let’s find a way to get some big pine trees along there to hide these buildings which won’t cost a whole lot. I’ve used them many times.

Mr. Kil advised Mr. Meyers that unfortunately they will not be voting on that tonight. What they are going to vote on though, the Plan Commission during Site Plan Approval, that’s where the Landscaping Plan is going to be presented.

Mr. Meyers: Well they are asking for variances on all these materials…

Mr. Kil advised Mr. Meyers that it is just on the building materials. But as far as the landscaping goes, Mr. Williams and Mr. Kennedy both sit on the Plan Commission, so they can take that suggestion back to the Plan Commission members.

Mr. Schneider once again closed the floor to Public Comment on those three variances.

Mr. Schneider stated the next one is from the Frontage Road Setbacks. Mr. Muenich affirmed that it is from 60’ to 50’, that is correct. Mr. Muenich read that it is Item H is the actual frontage road itself. This particular item just so that we’re clear, it is just for the setback and the illustration which quite frankly, if you can understand, I’d like to know; because I haven’t understood the illustration yet. But setback is the primary element. Mr. Williams asked if there was an illustration. Mr. Muenich said no, but there is one in the Zoning Ordinance, that is a little on the confusing side.

Mr. Schneider opened this variance up for public comment. Hearing none he closed the floor and brought the matter back to the board.

Mr. Schneider advised the next variance is for the Lighting Plan. I ask the other members for any other comments about this.

Mr. Schneider opened the floor for public comment. Hearing none he closed the floor.

Mr. Schneider advised the next item is for Public Art. Board anything?

Public Comment? Closed, we shall move on.

Mr. Schneider, moving on, for Bicycle and Pedestrian Access. Board members? Public Comment? Closed for public comment.

Mr. Schneider advised that the last is for Strict Requirement for Access to Individual Tracts. Mr. Kil advised that they have the easement platted, but this is more for the frontage road requirement.

Mr. Williams commented to be clear, the plan is to subdivide lot 3, which is to the South. Mr. Kil advised that will be a stand-alone lot, which will provide an access easement to the parcel that they do not own. That is the key. Mr. Kennedy asked if the size a concern since it is only 20’, if you have it two lanes.

Mr. Kil explained that every parcel back there is confined by geography, there are two railroad embankments. The access will not go anywhere except to those parcels. Mr. Williams stated that essentially it’s an exaggerated driveway. Mr. Kil stated it is a private driveway for those parcels.

Mr. Muenich advised the Chairman that at this time it would be appropriate for you to jump in. As has been pointed out there are three parcels that lie to the South of the proposed subdivision, lots one, two and three. Lot 3 being the southernmost of that. The easement that is called for goes to the South end of Lot 3, clears all the way through the Lake Central property. The variances as to width, and I believe the Plan Commission approved this for Primary Approval for Subdivision at the last Plan Commission meeting, but that was contingent upon an agreement between the School Corporation and the Town, as to operation, maintenance, installation of improvements and the designees of the easement. To my knowledge there has been no conversations between the School Corporation and the Town concerning those four (4) parameters. My assumption would be at this point that the Plan Commission will not grant Final Approval to the Plat, until such time as those contingencies discussed at the Primary subdivision hearing was met. So if you proceed to approve this variance, that should be contingent upon those same negotiations and the same resolution. Now the difficulty with that is, if you are going to grant the variance at this point, you don’t know what the conditions are, so you really, I am in a little bit of a legal conundrum as to how you address this, because you would be addressing something and approving something that you didn’t hear what the conditions for it were.

[talking in background – inaudible].

Mr. Williams advised that from his notes from October 5, 2016, Mr. Muenich reiterated that items one (1) through four (4) that is at the discretion of the Planning Commission; and that items A through H, must go before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Muenich advised that is accurate, however, his concern is if you approve this variance, because you don’t know what it is you are approving because we haven’t reached an agreement as to operation, maintenance, improvements, and the designees on the easements.

Mr. Williams stated that his reply on that is that himself and Mr. Kennedy are on both boards, so there is enough of a knowledge overlap there to prevent that from becoming a serious problem.

Mr. Muenich stated that is fine, he just wanted to call that to their attention, so that you are aware of it. Also, that your approval should be contingent upon an ultimate resolution by the Plan Commission as to the parameters of that agreement for those four (4) criteria, is all he is suggesting.

Mr. Panczuk asked if they could move forward with the construction with this variance based on a contingency? Mr. Muenich advised that no, at this point they can’t because they cannot get a Final Plat of subdivision, therefore they cannot get a building permit.

Mr. Williams interjected that that need our approval so that they can come back to us, the Planning Commission, get Final Plat and then they can start construction.

Mr. Muenich stated that was accurate.

Mr. Panczuk asked, but those conditions of maintenance operation, that you just called out.

Mr. Muenich (pauses) grantees, who the easement runs to, operation, maintenance, installation and improvements, and to whom the grantees are. Mr. Muenich added that you have one parcel that is owned by the Town, one parcel, believe it or not, I believe is owned by a Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and the third parcel is owned by a Mr. and Mrs. Danger or Dinger, somewhere along those lines. Mr. Muenich stated that he did not know if he added confusion, but he just wanted to make sure you understood what was going on.

Mr. Schneider commented “Understand”. Mr. Kil advised Mr. Schneider that basically all you have to do, is once the motion’s made, I think I heard that, you are going to take each variance independently, so separately. I know that Mr. Panczuk is going to add a contingency regarding the lighting, which would be cutoff full-shielded lights, if I am not mistaken, I think that is the easiest way to say that. And then the other contingency would be to Item H, would just be the agreement negotiated and signed with the Plan Commission. The access agreement, so that would probably be a simple way to say that. Like Mr. Williams said, there is a lot of overlap, I go to all the meetings so they are definitely going to know.

Mr. Ledyard advised that he was with Ms. Cheryl Zic (Lake Central Attorney) on Friday afternoon, and she is going to be contacting you this week Mr. Muenich to discuss the four (4) parameters. Mr. Muenich advised that she will have to speak to Mr. Austgen as he is leaving for St. Augustine tomorrow. Mr. Ledyard stated that he would let her know that.

Mr. Panczuk stated that he just wanted a little more clarification on that frontage road, I listen carefully to everything. So the variance being sought, the US 41 overlay, requires a frontage road, we are allowing one not to be put in; however, we are platting an easement. Mr. Muenich stated it is not just a frontage road, it is an access corridor, absent access down this corridor, the three parcels to the South are landlocked, they have no ability, because of the intersection of the railroad tracks to get any other public access. Mr. Panczuk then asked, so their granting an easement for the access, which doesn’t even exist right now, right? Mr. Muenich replied: accurate. Mr. Panczuk asked, so the variance is because? Mr. Muenich stated: Because what they have submitted to the Plan Commission would normally have required a minimum of a thirty foot (30’) wide paved street, curb-back to curb-back, “x” numbers of inches of Indiana 53(s) and fines and blacktop and drainage, etcetera. Mr. Muenich stated that would be the normal standard that would be required for that frontage road under the framework of your ordinance; not just for the frontage road issue, but for access. It would be like that for any other subdivider that same in, you would have the 60’ right-of-way, 30’ to 30’ curb-back to curb-back, so that is what you are actually varying, because it is a combination of the Subdivision Control Ordinance requirements and it’s a requirement of the Route 41 overlay, so it’s a two-edge sword.

Mr. Panczuk stated that he answered his questions and he thinks he has a pretty good grasp on it, and I am certain of it now, so we just want to make sure that we protect these property owners basically, that’s a requirement of what we are doing here, and those contingencies and the negotiations thereof, if we approve this with those contingencies, it will take it out of the hands of the B.Z.A. and we will be handing that over to the Plan Commission, so I just want to make sure that everyone is aware of that. These are some unusual properties, but at the same time these property owners have rights and the same treatment of anyone in St. john, as far as access. So, we’re looking at 20’ instead of 30’; who knows what these properties will be used for, we look at them and think maybe nothing, but then again who knows.

Mr. Williams asked Mr. Panczuk if he trusts Mr. Kennedy and himself to get it right at the Plan Commission.

Mr. Schneider asked if he should read the entire Findings of Facts for everyone. Mr. Muenich suggested that he just need to incorporate them by reference. Mr. Kil suggested to Mr. Schneider that he only read for each motion is the actual top paragraph that sites the Section.

Mr. Schneider entertained a motion for Developmental / Technical for Three Exterior Building Materials, listed under Chapter 8, Section K.2. Mr. Williams and referencing the Findings of Fact into the motion to grant approval for Chapter 8, Section K.2 providing a variance from the Three Exterior Building Materials. Motion seconded by Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Panczuk asked if this could be discussed further, he said he is in agreement with what Mr. Kennedy said, we would rather that the schools put the money into the classroom as opposed to fancy brick buildings that they don’t even want anyone to see. I just want to make sure that is going to be in fact the case. If we are going to make this exception. Mr. Williams asked should this be contingent on landscaping reaching what elevation. (general discussion ensued about the height of the salt barn of 14’ and the maintenance facility of 20’). Mr. Williams reminded Mr. Panczuk that there is going to be an angle, so looking at it from the street, a good size tree will largely obscure your view. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Panczuk what is your proposal? Mr. Kil interjected that the Plan Commission has granted Primary plat approval contingent upon the variances from the B.Z.A., and the easement agreement as Mr. Muenich has already talked about being worked out. Mr. Muenich stated that this will all fall back under the deck of the Plan Commission as part of the Development Plan, is that correct? Mr. Kil stated that they will be asking for Final Site Plan approval, as well as Final Plat approval. The Site Plan approval, which is the Development Plan, includes all the components of landscaping and all that stuff. Mr. Panczuk asked then the Plan Commission still have some teeth, even if we hand this back over to them as far as landscaping so. Mr. Kil advised that until the Plan Commission votes “yes” on Final Plat, they always have teeth.

Mr. Kennedy asked if it is a quantity issue on the amount of landscaping, do we have any ordinance on the height, or development of the plantings. Mr. Kil advised that there is a Section in our ordinance that gives you for the US 41 overlay district things, it gives you a typical streetscape, and it does give you heights and stuff like that where the Plan Commission can use as a guide. Mr. Muenich is looking for it right now, there is an illustration in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Kennedy stated that he didn’t know how mature the plantings needed to be, or if we had anything in our ordinance that required the maturity of the plant. Mr. Kil advised that there is a guideline for that, but there again, that is up to the Plan Commission to evaluate. Again, it is in the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Muenich asked for two minutes and then he could answer his question. Mr. Muenich advised the board members that it is in Chapter 13, Page 9, Section O.3; planting adjacent to buildings along U.S. 41 Highway. Planting area equal to an area measuring 25’ in depth by the width of the building, plus 20’, plus blah-blah,., let’s see if there is anything about a height. Mr. Muenich noted that there is nothing specific about the height, there is a planting strip, planting requirements, the type of trees. Mr. Kil reminded Mr. Panczuk that the U.S. 41 overlay district does not contemplate a pole building being built, therefore you are not supposed to block the buildings, with giant trees. So what I think you ought to do is probably the Plan Commission does know this, and if by chance they don’t, I’m sure that Mr. Williams will make sure that they do. I know what Denny said (Mr. Meyers), and Mr. Williams will take that sentiment back to the Plan Commission, but I don’t know if it is something that, if you were going to make something contingent on it, the Plan Commission, it just is not going to match. I would probably just let it go.

Mr. Muenich asked the board if he could make a suggestion. Make your approval, if that be your inclination, contingent upon them submitting a front elevation drawing, which all of you seem to be interested in. In the real world, what a 15’ or 20’ tree is going to look like from several different points. Visual point, and I think that can be done fairly rapidly and that way both the Plan Commission and you aren’t voting on something in an abstract, not understanding what it is going to look like.

Mr. Panczuk stated then his contingency would be to, or to this motion would be contingent on Plan Commission approval of a street level elevation and their satisfaction with the height and the barrier that it will create to hopefully not see these metal pole barns.

• Mr. Williams stated he will amend his motion, referencing the Findings of Fact, to grant a approval for Chapter 8, Section K.2 for Three Exterior Building Materials, contingent upon a front / street elevation drawing being provided to the Planning Commission prior to Final Plat approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Kennedy. Roll call vote taken, motion carried 4 ayes – 0 nays.

Mr. Schneider advised that we will go to the next one which is minimum exterior corners, which is also in Chapter 8, Section K.3.

• Mr. Williams stated that in referencing the Findings of Fact for Chapter 8, Section K.3, I would like to make the motion to grant the variance for Minimum Exterior Corners. Mr. Panczuk seconded motion. Roll call vote taken, motion carried 4 ayes – 0 nays.

Mr. Schneider advised the next item will be Exterior Building Materials, which is Chapter 10, Sections A / B.

• Mr. Williams stated that referencing the Findings of Facts, I would like to grant a variance for Chapter 10, Sections A / B from Exterior Building Materials. Mr. Kennedy seconded motion. Roll call vote was taken, motion carried 4 ayes – 0 nays.

Mr. Schneider advised that next item is back to Chapter 8, Section F / F.1 for a variance from Frontage Road Setbacks and Illustrations.

• Mr. Williams stated that in referencing the Findings of Fact, I would like to grant a variance from Chapter 8, Section F / F.1, variance from Frontage Road Setbacks and Illustrations.

Mr. Panczuk seconded motion. Roll call vote taken, motion carried 4 ayes – 0 nays.

Mr. Schneider advised that the next is from Chapter 8, Section I, variance from the requirements for a Lighting Plan submission.

• Mr. Panczuk stated that referencing the Findings of Facts, motion for the variance of lighting submission Chapter 8, Section I, with the contingency that all fixtures used are downward and shielded lighting. Motion seconded by Mr. Kennedy. Roll call vote taken, motion carried 4 ayes – 0 nays.

Mr. Schneider advised the next is Chapter 8, Section L, variance from requirement for Public Art submission.

• Mr. Panczuk made a motion, referencing the Findings of Facts for variance of Chapter 8, Section L regarding Public Art. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. Roll call vote taken, motion carried 4 ayes – 0 nays.

Mr. Schneider advised the next is Chapter 8, Section M, variance from the requirement for a Bicycle and Pedestrian Access submission.

• Mr. Williams stated that referencing the Findings of Facts, would like to gran the variance for Chapter 8, Section M, variance from the requirement or a Bicycle and Pedestrian Access submission. Motion seconded by Mr. Panczuk. Roll call vote taken, motion carried 4 ayes – 0 nays.

Mr. Schneider entertained a motion for the final variance request for Chapter 8, Section N, variance from the strict requirement for Access to Individual Tracts as outlined in Item 2 proceeding.

• Mr. Williams stated that referencing the Findings of Facts, would like to grant a variance for Chapter 8, Section N from the strict requirement for Access to Individual Tracts as outlined in Item 2 proceeding, contingent upon the Planning Commission resolving issues related to maintenance, access, improvements, and grantees; as to whose responsibilities those four (4) items will be. Mr. Kennedy seconded the motion. Roll call vote taken, motion carried 4 ayes – 0 nays.

Mr. Muenich made a suggestion to Mr. Schneider to take the agenda out of order, as he has a strong suspicion that the great number of people in attendance are not here to listen to Mr. Levin plans at Bingo Lake, and may want to change the order of the agenda to have the item taken next. Mr. Schneider advised that he did not have a problem with that all.

B. SHAWN ENGLE – 9753 Elle Avenue - Garage / Accessory Structure Variance

Mr. Shawn Engle of 9753 Elle Avenue, introduced himself to the board members. Mr. Kil advised that he would place the plat up on the screen. Mr. Schneider advised that Mr. Engle could proceed and asked him to explain why he needs this detached two-car garage.

Mr. Engle advised that he and his family moved in about 3 years ago. He owns two (2) vans and one (1) car. He has an existing three-car garage. Then ended up raising up the garage door height in order for the van to get into the garage. He then found out that, putting in all the vehicles in the garage was not working out. He was parking just one van inside the garage, because he wanted to keep the subdivision nice. He had the other van parked outside sitting in the street.

After a year I started getting letters stating that the Homeowners Association was upset, with the van sitting outside. I first just ignored it since there was nothing that it could do and I didn’t think it would go that far, going ahead I found out the association did not have a problem with it. I spoke with Mr. Jack Slager, representing Schilling Development, who said he had no problem with the van sitting outside, so even he kept ignoring it, but there was one neighbor that is quite upset about seeing my van when he looks out his back yard. So, I just wanted to. Well, he ended up hiring an attorney and pushing the association rules, himself. So right now I have a lawsuit against me with my van right now.

So, I am at the point of what else I can possibly do to make this right, to make everyone happy in the subdivision, so we can live there. That is why I am proposing this garage. It’s going to be very expensive for this one van, but I am trying to just make things right in our subdivision. This way I can store all the vans inside a garage, it’s going to be expensive, it’s going to be about a $50,000.00 garage.

Mr. Williams inquired to the attorney, that they do not necessarily have any authority over HOA(s).

Mr. Muenich advised that you do not. Mr. Muenich advised that those are restrictive covenants that are contained solely in the covenants. Mr. Kil advised that there are two (2) specific items if Mr. Schneider would like to read the Findings of Fact; they both deal with a detached garage and then the size, you are limited to “x” amount of square footage of 1,640 s.f., and there is no detached garages allowed. So he is going to first ask for a detached garage, and then he is going to ask for a variance from the actual overall square footage of the garages. Mr. Kil clarified that it is his understanding that Mr. Engle wants to park his vehicles in the garage and get them out of the view of the neighbors. The garage is going to be like and kind to the main structure, I believe that’s the case, if it is not please correct me Mr. Engle. Mr. Kil continued to advise that he is proposing a new driveway onto Elle Avenue that will access the garage. He is also proposing a new walkway in the back from the existing patio to the back of the garage, and he is proposing that the two be connected via a roof structure to provide continuity between the detached garage and the primary structure.

Mr. Williams asked how big the existing garage is. Mr. Engle advised that the current garage is 600 s.f.

Mr. Panczuk inquired if he was looking to put just one van in the garage. Mr. Engle advised that he has two (2) vans. Mr. Schneider asked if there was a reason for the two vans. Mr. Engle advised that this is his livelihood, and that he works for electrical shops, so I do electrical work during the day and I have a company van; and then after work I do personal side-work.

Mr. Williams asked what was the total square footage of the exterior garage, the proposed garage. Mr. Schneider answered that it was 925 s.f.

Mr. Kil advised Mr. Williams that Mr. Engle is allowed 1,100 s.f. if that is what he is trying to calculate.

Mr. Engle commented that the length of the garage is because they are planning on doing a future cabana, later in life if they have more money. Mr. Engle explained that is why there are slashes on the print, and making it so big in order to put a future cabana off the back since they would like to later get a pool.

Mr. Muenich asked Mr. Schneider to address the proofs of publication and inquired as to who prepared the list of adjacent property owners within 300’ for the legal notice. Mr. Engle advised that the list was prepared by the Assessor’s Office. Discussion ensued as to the certificate of verification of the adjacent property owners. Mr. Schneider looked into the papers submitted to the Chairman and found the certificate in question.

Mr. Kennedy reiterated to Mr. Engle, that you bought the house, you had the vans, they did not fit in the garage. Mr. Engle stated we bought the house from some who lived there about a year and a half, and the vans and car would not fit, so it was needed for the van to sit outside.

Mr. Williams asked if they were okay on the side yard requirement. Mr. Panczuk noted that he is showing 15’, and the requirement is only 10’, so he is correct on that.

Mr. Schneider noted that he has a three-car garage existing and that they raised the doors in order to put the vehicles inside, is there a reason why you cannot put the two vans and the car in the garage now. Mr. Engle advised that with the stairway coming out the side of the garage, there is not enough room. Mr. Engle advised that his wife has to squeeze though the passenger side door in order to get into her car, the area is too tight. Mr. Engle noted that this is also “with a baby”.

Mr. Williams asked about the peak of the new garage. Mr. Engle said the peak will not be any higher than the existing peak on the house. Mr. Engle also stated that Jack Slager and dean Schilling had already approved the architectural review as to the approved plans. Mr. Schneider noted that he also had a conversation with the aforementioned, and that they have architectural approval of the developer.

Mr. Muenich stated that there are two (2) issues with that, and he wanted to make sure that everyone understands this. You cannot deal with restrictive covenants, which is accurate, the fact that the HOA or the architectural committee has approved it, probably is not going to make any difference either. There are individuals within the subdivision that have the authority to enforce the restrictive covenants, by themselves, and your proceeding here doesn’t impact that one way or the other. Mr. Muenich made mention of a similar incident in Schererville with a Music Center in which the Town of Schererville approved and went all through the paperwork; and an adjoining property owner enforced a restrictive covenant and the building sat. Mr. Kil advised that in that instant the Deed Restriction expired; however, it took 50 years for it to happen. Mr. Muenich noted that the restrictions and the covenants run with the land, and they are generally enforceable by anybody who owns a piece of property within the land. So, whatever you do, while it solves the issue between the Town and the applicant, probably will not solve any internal issues, within though the HOA and the architectural committee has approved it.

Mr. Williams inquired as to the height, thinking it was 14’. Mr. Kil stated that it was one-story, as it reads it is 14’ or one-story, and as long as he proposing a single story. Discussion ensued as to the definition as “14 feet or one-story”, was depending on your roof pitch. Mr. Kil noted that if you are going to build a detached garage which is like and kind to the primary structure, you don’t want to put a 4’ x 12’ pitch on the garage and have a 10’ x 12’ pitch on the house, they have to match, which is why it gives you that latitude.

Mr. Kil reminded Mr. Schneider of a written remonstrance that was received today. Mr. Schneider advised that there was a remonstrance that was addressed to the Board of Zoning Appeals from a Nick and Kathy Georgiou at 9214 Jack Drive in Crossing Creek. It basically states:

“that they are submitting our objection to the zoning variance being requested for 9753 Elle Avenue in Crossing Creek subdivision. We were drawn to this subdivision for the covenants and restrictions that we believe are consistent with other Schilling subdivisions in the area which promoted oversize lots and other architectural requirements that define this as a well planned subdivision.

Many houses, including those of Mr. Engle have 3 car garages. We find it difficult to understand why there is a need for the equivalent of a 5 car garage plus. The potential of a pool house that may never materialize would basically provide for a significant garage of over 925 square feet.

We feel this would set a bad precedence in this neighborhood that could lead to further deterioration of the nature of this subdivision.”

Mr. Schneider commented, well, basically they don’t like it.

Mr. Panczuk asked for clarification on the variance, which he believes is 1,100 s.f. in total, referencing Chapter 11, Section B.2. Discussion ensued. Mr. Kil clarified that there are two (2) developmental / technical variances being considered here tonight, including the reading of Chapter 5, Section 4.F.2 regarding detached garages, discussion amongst the board members continued.

Mr. Schneider opened the floor to Public Comment. He reminded them to please give your name and address for the record.

Kevin Hurt – 9754 Jack Drive: As you know a 3 car garage seems like a large garage, until you put your mower, your rakes and whatever else you have in there. Shawn actually lives right behind me, I see his van, and it doesn’t offend me, but I see what is going on and I think he is trying to do the right thing.

Rex Johnson – 9405 Grasselli Drive: I am building a house at 9405 Grasselli, and I believe this will be in my back yard. We are about three weeks’ ffrom moving in, and my concern, at 61 years old, this is my last home, so I probably will live there longer than Mr. Engle. And when he moves, the next guy moving in, might be a party barn, I have no idea what the use will be. So, I have a good concern about that, I would love to have a party barn in my back yard, but I am not sure I would ask for it, cause I’m not sure it’s right. We bought that property because of the restrictive covenants. We have invested heavily because of those covenants, and I would please ask the board to consider that. I don’t know Mr. Engle. It sounds like he has a lot of good reasons to do what he is trying to do, but I don’t think it should be in that subdivision. That garage would be in the back yard of three or four other homes, so just consider that.

Marty Kozak – 9843 Elle Avenue: I live next door to Shawn. I don’t have a problem with him parking his van as some people do. It’s a working man’s van; it’s a working man’s neighborhood. For him to build his garage, for him to park them in there, I think it’s the smart thing to do. It’s his money and he is investing it into the neighborhood. I think he is doing a good job, and for the people who disapprove, before you bought the lot you should have looked around. And if you wanted more space to look, you should have moved somewhere else. That’s what I think. And for the guy that wrote the letter, that couldn’t be here in person, he’s the guy who is starting all the trouble.

He’s not satisfied with the neighborhood, he should have never moved there, that what I think. Thank you for your time.

Zada Schilling – 9359 Elle Avenue: What matters to me is that he keeps, well, he invested a lot of money in a lot of landscaping lights. I think he has brought our subdivision to a higher level. He takes care of his house. He’s an electrician. Personally I think his van is ugly, but that is what he does for a living. And what I respect is that he keeps his van clean, he keeps his lawn cut and nice. Everybody that drives in, that is the first house that you see is his. He went out of his way to put beautiful landscaping and I think people in our subdivision need to look at the positive and not the negative. Because unfortunately they are going through a very bad time in their life right now and this van.,. (Mr. Schneider reminded her to speak into microphone).

Patrick Jones – 9422 Jack Drive: I share the opinion of a lot of the people that have spoken here, as far as the garage. This gentleman keeps his house up nice. He’s going to add this garage, it going to match esthetically, so it going to look nice to me, it’s only going to improve the property, it’s raise the value of it. It’s going to be a sought after property if he ever does move. People will want this place. Everybody, most men, would like to have a five car garage. It’s going to look beautiful and it’s add value to the subdivision. Furthermore, the other thing about the way his property is set up, his garage enters at the side of the house, so it’s not as it he is going to have two driveways, it’s going to have one driveway, and it going to look like almost every other house in the subdivision. It is going to be very nice. Most people are going to be jealous of his home.

Mark Nunnikhoven – 9731 Jack Drive: I am too a neighbor. I bought into the property knowing it was a good place to live. And some of that was contingent on the structures and types of building that we live in, and it’s also the people. I have come to know Shawn, and not only personally, but I have had a lot of discussion about this with him. And though I would have a hard time spending $50,000.00 on a garage, I know Shawn is doing it because he thinks it’s the right thing to do. I also do not have a problem with Shawn’s van being outside and also I would encourage him to continue to pursue that, but apparently that doesn’t seem to be a reasonable option for some of our constituents. As far as the comment about his garage becoming a party garage, I don’t think any of us need a garage to have a party, if that’s one of their concerns, I think we have other things to worry about. The neighborhood is a wide range of family types. There are younger couples with infant children, all the way up to those who are retired. I think part of that dynamic is what makes it interesting, and I don’t think Shawn’s intent is to have a party barn.

Kathryn Wilson – 9621 Oakridge Drive: Now, I don’t know the gentleman, I don’t know the neighborhood and I just look at the plan, and my minds says where the concrete block.,.

[Mr. Schneider asked the commenter to speak into microphone] .. oh, I’m sorry. I don’t know anything about construction or zoning or ordinances or any of that. But I look at the print, and there’s a concrete slab next to the existing garage, would that resolve everything if that was no longer a detached garage? The floor is already poured if there is a concrete slab. It’s not part of the patio, because the patio is at the opposite.. around the corner. I don’t know what they are using for. I imagine they have something there, whether it’s a play yard or something, but it might resolve the issue. That’s all I was thinking.

James Scollard – 9863 Elle Avenue: I am the owner, and we are currently under construction as well. I happen to be Rex Johnson’s builder as well, the Nunnikhoven, pretty much know all the folks that are here tonight. Was informed a little bit late in terms of what was going on, but I saw the sign so I did research to see what was happening. But suffice to say, I appreciate Mr. Muenich’s comments here about the restrictive covenants, because I thought they were the guiding parameter for these properties, and so that knowing those restrictive covenants are there, I always advocate to anyone who is looking at these properties that this is part and parcel to what they get when they buy. Open space, a Schilling Development, that has a standard that is esthetically that is consistent with what they will see. So it’s a little bit difficult as it relates to that understanding again, how even the board approves these things. This architectural committee, because I know I got called on the carpet for a window that is out of place. I got called on the carpet for changing,.,., and of course these are changes that have to go back to the owners, because we have to change plans, etc. etc. So having said that, um, the dynamic is we have five to six open lots in this development, I don’t own them, but, when you open this door of an 1,100 square foot total in garage, which violates even the St. John Ordinance, which is what the variance is for, am I correct for that?

Mr. Kil stated you are allowed 1,100 square foot. He is asking for 925 plus 650 s.f.

Mr. Scollard continued: So the challenge is, and again, having,., and I know all these folks, and I see them with all of their strollers, love them. Shawn out there waking with his daughter. Big guy walking with a little girl. But the challenge is, what happens after, because we have these garages with that amount of space and we don’t know what ownership will do down the road. So that’s a challenge. But again, to say that its inconsistent, it is inconsistent. I can be sensitive to the plight. I have three children, I walked the walk. When my wife was 36 years old, I had a two, five and seven-year-old, and she had cancer. I get it, Been there. So, but it still can’t change all the other people who are affected by this down the road. My property backs up to a vacant lot. Am I going to have a 7 car garage, behind me, 1,100 s.f., if we kick the door open apparently the architectural committee feels like we could. So that is a challenge. So again, as far as the view, the vehicles go, you know parked. The odd thing is you know we have covenants, and then again, I didn’t know the covenants didn’t fall under the jurisdiction of the municipality. And so, my experience is, and I’ve been in areas that have this consistent esthetic, where they say no trucks, no commercial vehicles, I lived in them. So, you comply, there’s nothing you can do.

Do I have three cars, do I have to throw some of the kids toys outside, I may have done that, so the challenges, the risk is, and I hope the board considers this, it’s not the moment in time today that we need to be concerned about. It’s what in fact those structures become at some other point, and is it consistent with the neighborhood, when you soak up that kind of space in between the buildings, no you’re gonna [inaudible]… that property that you have on the corner, show piece, and a 1,100 square feet will change the dynamic. And I think that was what we kind of heard here. So, I’ll thank you for your time.

Nick Georgiou - 9412 Jack Drive: I had submitted that letter of remonstrance, and I thought that would be succinct, but unfortunately I have heard some misstatements tonight that I just want to clarify. I moved into the subdivision because of the covenants and the restrictions that were in place that we looked at before we dug one shovel into this property. And one of those was no commercial vehicles to be outside. Mr. Engle misstated in that Jack Slager and Schilling Development issued him three violation letters for having a commercial vehicle parked outside. That was not my doing, it was my pointing it out to him, the developer and the developer manager agreed that it was a violation. That, so be it, is what caused him to finally get is van into the garage. The resolution that is being presented tonight, as I stated in my letter, I disagree that it sets a bad precedence, just much like Jim says. I thought his was a very nice subdivision and I don’t think it was intended that we have five car garages and over 1,500 square feet of garage placed there.

Unknown: One of the neighbors, I just wanted to say had asked me to deliver, at least his statement letter, it’s Mr. Viator of 9861 Jack Drive, that he is opposed. He and his wife have signed it, if you like I can deliver it to you.

Mr. Schneider asked the gentleman if he wanted to read it. Mr. Kil advised that he should read it into the record and then present it to Mr. Schneider, so then you can put it into the file.

Unknown: “Its dated October 24, 2016. To Whom it may concern, we are expressing our objection and concern to allowing a resident in the Crossing Creek subdivision to build an oversize structure to be used as an additional garage. This does not feel consistent with the architectural design and the high standards in the subdivision. Russ and Pam Viator.”

Paul Warren – 9844 Jack Drive: My personal opinion is that I would rather have Shawn be able to park his van out on the street. It’ a white work van, it not big, it’s not.,.um. He’s a working guy and I have no problem with that. It was brought up that they talked about the architectural committee approved this, and from my covenants I show that the covenants are the architectural committee appears to be defunct as of January 1,2015. In our covenants, it says an architectural committee is hereby form consisting of the stockholders of SLMD Company, Incorporated. The architectural committee shall be in effect until all lots have been erected, residential structures “or” January 1, 2015, whichever occurs first. If I read that correctly, and then it goes plans and specifications for any residence or drawings for any houses to erected on any lot must first secure the approval of an architectural committee. To me, that brings up a problem. Because, who do you submit this stuff to now.

Obviously when they started this, they thought they would be completed by 2015, well, 2008 happened. I trust Shawn to build a good looking garage, it looks a little large to me, 37’ x 25’ is a huge building on a lot that size. I understand where he’s coming from. I don’t want to lose Shawn as a neighbor. I spent 31 years as a policeman, negotiating, trying to fix problems like this, on calls on usually a weekly basis, somewhere in the town I worked. So I’m not trying to start it here, but I just think we have to consider what Mr. Johnson said, what’s coming down the line. In the future, will they have to come back to you, because there is no architectural committee. What is our recourse then? And I don’t know who the Association is, I don’t even have a record if there is an association. So, I guess my concern is. I’m 65, I came here to live and I want to sit in my back yard and see what I see now, and not something other than what the covenants currently say. Okay, so, that’s my piece.

With no further Public Comment, Mr. Schneider closed the floor, and brought the matt back to the board.

Mr. Schneider asked about the size and if there was a reason why he was seeking a two car garage. Mr. Engle stated that he thought that if he put just a single garage it would look goofy with the frontage, how the front of our house looks. Mr. Engle stated that he didn’t really want to build the garage, but that is why I am building it that way. To make it look nice. And that is why it is going to cost so much money. The only reason why this whole thing… I do not want to spend $50,000.00 on a garage. The only reason why I am doing this, is because I have one person in my subdivision that is suing me over it personally. So, Nick cannot be happy with my van outside, so what am I supposed to do? And then he made the comment to, also, somebody made the comment about well just make do and put my kids toys outside. Well I don’t want to put my kids toys outside. I want to keep our subdivision nice. I don’t want to be the hillbilly neighbor that has all the toys laying all over the place. We keep everything in the garage. That is why we are building this structure, to make things right. How am I supposed to make this right if I can’t do this?

Mr. Williams asked if there was any possibility of expanding the existing garage that would allow you to park these two vans. Discussion ensued about the side yard set-backs and that as the existing structure stands it cannot expand without going into the set-backs.

Mr. Williams noted that with the existing garage this would place it well over the 1,100 s.f. maximum of the Zoning Ordinance, at 1,525 s.f., and inquired if there was a way of reducing the size of the detached garage that he is requesting in order to get closer to conflict resolution.

Mr. Engle stated that one of the reasons he was going this large was for a future cabana; since he was having to spend this amount of money he wanted to get it right.

Mr. Panczuk asked about the vehicles in question for clarification. Mr. Engle advised there are two large vans and one SUV.

Mr. Schneider calculated that if Mr. Engle went down to a 14’ x 36’ garage it would put them at 504 s.f., which would only be 4 s.f. over the ordinance and take one variance out of the picture. Mr. Panczuk commented that size of structure is an issue, the fact that it is detached is an issue, and felt that he could expand the existing garage, keeping it within the zoning ordinance requirements and would not even need a variance, felt that he just needed the right architect to make it look right.

Mr. Schneider asked if the roof attachment (breezeway), could be considered then attached? Mr. Kil advised that is a judgement call, but as he told the petitioner if you are coming to the BZA you might as well ask for what you want. A roof would not normally constitute attachment, walls would, and with that being said he wants to build something like and kind to the home structure and the nice subdivision and making sure it does not look goofy.

Mr. Panczuk discussed the open space and the comments made by some of the surrounding property owners.

Mr. Kennedy inquired about the lawsuit that the petitioner said was pending due to having his vans parked outside. Mr. Engle advised that is correct, Mr. Georgiou is suing him on that matter. Mr. Kennedy asked if there was a time table on when a decision would be made, considering that a judge may decide that you can park your vans outside, then you would not need the garage. Mr. Engle advised that his attorney and the opposing attorney have spoken on this issue and say that it is a touchy subject when it comes to homeowners’ associations, so he was advised by his attorney to come here and build what is needed to make it right.

Discussion ensued as to attempting to make the detached garage smaller in order to come closer to the regulations. Mr. Kil reiterated for the board members that the petitioner is willing to adjust the depth, noting that the ordinance allows two accessory buildings and the cabana can be built on later. Mr. Williams suggesting that the detached garage, giving credit for the two additional structures totaling 260 s.f. Mr. Kil noted that the ordinance, he believes, says that the two accessory structures are “independent of detached garages”. Mr. Kil stated he felt they should concentrate now on the two requests that are being made. One, the detached garage, and two, he is requesting to exceed the square footage of the ordinance. Mr. Kil noted that is the board is okay with a detached garage, however, not with the square footage, that the petitioner has offered to remove 175 s.f. off the size.

Mr. Muenich made a clarification to the one point of zoning ordinance; Section D: Accessory Building Uses under R-2 District, and an issue I don’t want to address, but I don’t want someone to rely on the addition. Excluding garage structures with a primary purpose of parking “passenger vehicles”, a maximum of two accessory structures are permitted provided that the square footage all accessory buildings does not exceed 250 square feet. Mr. Muenich felt that it includes a “commercial vehicle” as you define them. Mr. Kil stated if it was an R.V., a semi-tractor trailer that’s not a passenger vehicle; however, an SUV, a pick-up, a van, a sedan, he would not debate what is a passenger vehicle and what is not and feels that is not an argument to get into.

Mr. Panczuk wished to state his thoughts by reading the zoning section R-2, F-2 Parking Requirements, detached garages may only be allowed with the approval of a developmental variance and shall be consistent with the style and materials of the dwelling and I think we can agree on that, and we have approved a few and it looks like it belonged there the whole time. And I believe that is what he is proposing, he would however like to see the size more toward the 1,100 s.f.

Mr. Muenich advised the board that they do have the option to defer this matter to allow the petitioner to prepare a different architectural layout, without approval or denying at this point. He does not believe there is a time limit, but would suggest a reasonable one be set. This is up to your and the petitioner, but he feels that everyone is looking for a compromise. Mr. Muenich reminded them that he would not have to re-publish, this would be a continuance of the public hearing to the next meeting.

After further discussion, Mr. Panczuk made a motion to defer the matter to the next regular meeting while petitioner works with his architect on other options. Motion seconded by Mr. Kennedy. Motion carried 4 ayes – 0 nays. This matter will be placed on the November 28, 2016 meeting agenda.

C. LEVIN TIRE – 8575 Wicker Avenue – Developmental and Special Exception Variance

Ms. Courtney Cash of DVG introduced herself, advising that she is representing Mr. Barry Levin. He is the owner of the parcel at 8575 Wicker Avenue, commonly known as the southeast corner of U.S. 41 and 85th Avenue by Bingo Lake.

Mr. Muenich noted that all proofs of publication and notices are in order and you are proper to proceed, further that Ms. Cash has limited Power of Attorney in this matter.

Ms. Cash proceeded, advising that she is seeking four (4) variances for the parcel. Variance One being a Special Exception to allow for an automobile service station to be a permitted use in the C-2 Highway Commercial District and the U.S. 41 Overlay District. Variance Two is a Developmental/Technical variance to allow for parking between the U.S. 41 right-of-way and the front build-to line of the principle building. Variance Three is a Developmental/Technical variance to allow for the principle building to be located between the rear building line and the right-of-way along the proposed frontage road in the rear. Variance Four is a Developmental/Technical variance to allow for parking outside of the side and/or rear of the principle building.

Discussion ensued for general clarification of the variances requested. Mr. Kil noted that the Zoning Ordinance does not allow an automobile service station; which is the only classification that this would logically fit into for Levin Tire, so she is here requesting a Special Exception from the board in which you would make a recommendation to the Town Council, either favorable or unfavorable. The other three (3) that she references are developmental variances, which the board acts upon decisively, meaning approve or deny.

Mr. Panczuk inquired if there was consideration to reverse the property to address most of the concerns, inverting the plan to have the service bays to the East, away from U.S. 41, making the front more esthetically pleasing. Ms. Cash advised that some of the bays would be drive-pull through, so you would have that either way, so you would have openings on the back as well. There are three or four of them. Mr. Panczuk was concerned about the Comprehensive Plan that is in place with the U.S. 41 overlay, trying to guide away from these types of doors facing the highway.

Mr. Williams asked about the road cuts on U.S. 41. Mr. Kil advised that they are consolidating the cuts on U.S. 41. They are going from two (2) to one (1), and right now it is a full access cut, the updated version would be right-in and right-out only and is a Plan Commission matter. Ms. Cash also noted that they have to also get INDOT approval.

Mr. Schneider asked about the extension of Kolling Road. Mr. Kil advised they would put that extension over their property, as shown, but again this would be a Plan Commission matter. Also, Mr. Meyers who has been patiently waiting here will be coming to the Plan Commission for discussion on the frontage road. Mr. Kil advised that he has had a staff meeting with both Ms. Cash and Mr. Meyers and noted that this is all Plan Commission matters.

Mr. Schneider was inquiring about what leeway they have in relation to that frontage road. Mr. Kil advised that the frontage is going where it is shown, specially due to the constraints of Bingo Lake.

Mr. Kennedy asked for clarification as to automobile service station versus the definition of gas station. Mr. Kil advised that there will be a petitioner next month on that matter, and the automobile service station is a generic term used in the ordinance used for any and all services of automobiles, and it falls in that general broad classification, which requires that they come before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Williams and Mr. Muenich discussed the definitions in order to grant the appropriate variance in regards to verbiage. After discussion it was concluded that the Special Exception would be for an “automobile repair station”, in order for no petroleum products to come in at a later date.

Mr. Panczuk brought to discussion the layout of the facility and the U.S. 41 overlay, and would prefer that the bay doors face the frontage road instead. Mr. Schneider advised that he is familiar with a nearby community that has the same ordinance, and due to the parking in the rear they have many vacancies, and he believes there are exceptions to the rule.

Mr. Kil explained that the board needs to make the simple decision whether to allow an Automobile Repair Station, by sending a favorable or unfavorable recommendation to the Town Council, that is for the Special Exception Use. Suggested that they concentrate on the use only, that the Town Council weighs heavily through this vetting process of this board and your decision is to consider if this is a proper use for this corridor or this district.

Mr. Schneider opened the floor to public comment. With no public comment, Mr. Schneider closed the floor and brought the matter back to the board.

Mr. Schneider entertained a motion for a favorable or unfavorable recommendation to the Town Council for the Special Exception of an Automobile Repair Station.

Mr. Williams made a motion to send a favorable recommendation to the Town Council for an Automobile Repair Station within the C-2 U.S. 41 Overlay District, with the condition forbidding the sale or gasoline and/or petroleum products. Mr. Kennedy seconded motion. Motion carried 3 ayes – 1 nay.

Mr. Schneider advised that they would now take up the developmental/technical variances before the board; parking between U.S. 41 and the right-of-way to the front of the building line, request for building to be relocated between rear building line and the right-of-way of the frontage road, and to allow parking outside of the side and/or rear of the building.

Mr. Panczuk reiterated that he is not actually opposed to it, but I am opposed to the current layout and believes the plan can be reversed without any hardship or difficulty.

Ms. Cash commented that if you look at surrounding businesses, most of them have parking in the front, along U.S. 41. Taco Bell, Speedway, DeYoung, the Car Wash and the Credit Union. Mr. Panczuk advised he was still opposed to the bays on the front side due to noise, esthetics, and other factors that do not conform to the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Schneider opened the floor to public comment on the last three variance requests. With no public comment, Mr. Schneider closed the floor and brought the matter back to the board.

Discussion ensued with Ms. Cash as to deferring the matter and contacting staff to discuss some of their concerns and possibly bring back a different plan. Mr. Muenich advised that is definitely an option to just continue the public hearing to their next meeting, this will allow the petitioner time to reconsider the layout without having to republish the notice.

Mr. Panczuk made a motion to defer all the Developmental/Technical variances to November 28, 2016 meeting. Motion seconded by Mr. Williams. Motion carried 4 ayes – 0 nays.

With no further business before the board the meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L. Haluska, Recording Secretary pro-tem
St. John Board of Zoning Appeals

11-28-2016 Board of Zoning Appeals

November 28, 2016 Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes

Ken Schneider, President Jason Williams David Austgen, Town Attorney
Paul Panczuk John Kennedy Stephen Z. Kil, Town Manager
Tom Ryan    

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Schneider called to order the St. John Board of Zoning Appeals for November 28, 2016 at 7:05 p.m., and asked all to rise for the Pledge of Allegiance (recited and all took their seats).

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken by Michelle L. Haluska, recording secretary. Members present: Ken Schneider, Tom Ryan, Paul Panczuk and Jason Williams. Staff present: Mr. David Austgen, Town Attorney and Mr. Stephen Kil, Town Manager. Absent: Mr. John Kennedy.

MINUTES:

Mr. Schneider inquired if the board members had a chance to review the minutes of January 25, 2016, April 25, 2016, May 23, 2016 and October 24, 2016. Mr. Panczuk made a motion, seconded by Mr. Williams to approve the minutes with two (2) typographical errors to be amended. Motion carried 4-0-0.

OLD BUSINESS:

A. LEVIN TIRE (8575 Wicker Avenue) Developmental / Technical Variances - continued Public Hearing

Mr. Schneider read a letter from the Director of Engineering, Mr. Russ Pozen of DVG Inc. requesting a deferral from tonight’s meeting. Mr. Austgen advised that this should be a continued Public Hearing with a specific date of the meeting being set. Mr. Kil advised that there was no December meeting scheduled as it is December 26, 2016, the day after Christmas. After discussion amongst the board members, Mr. Schneider entertained a motion.

Mr. Williams made a motion to defer the matter of Levin Tire for a continued Public Hearing to Monday, January 23, 2017. Motion seconded by Mr. Panczuk. Motion carried 4 ayes – 0 nays.

B. 9753 ELLE AVENUE (Mr. Shawn Engle) Developmental / Technical Variances – continued Public Hearing

Mr. Schneider asked the petitioner to come before the podium. Mr. Schneider read five (5) letters into the record from Ms. Carol Biel of 21 Century 21 Realty; James and Debbie Skowron of 9863 Elle Avenue; Russ and Pam Viator of 9861 Jack Drive; Alan and Lynn Shenker of 9460 Grasselli Avenue and Mr. Todd Yonker of 9723 Elle Avenue.

Mr. Engle had Mr. Kil display renderings of the proposed detached garage. Mr. Engle stated that he is still seeking a 24’ wide x 37’ deep, with a gable roof which is like and kind to the materials used on the house. The siding is also like and kind in that it is the siding made of concrete composite. Mr. Engle pointed to the area which will be a 6’ green space. Several angles of the rendition were displayed for review.

Mr. Engle pointed out that the new proposal would hide the utilities and meters that are on that side of the primary residence. In one rendition showing the dimensions, a small pink chair was placed as a reference to size.

Mr. Engle showed three (3) pine trees that he wishes to keep, by off-setting the driveway to accommodate this. Mr. Engle noted that it is a unique shaped lot and although not the largest in Crossing Creek, it is a very large lot and also a corner lot.

Mr. Engle was asked about any commercial use of the detached garage by Mr. Panczuk. Mr. Engle advised that he will be filling with two (2) full size van, a SUV, various “guy” items such as a tractor, snow blower, grass seed spreader, bicycles, 12’ ladder, etc.

Discussion ensued amongst the board members regarding Zoning Ordinance Chapter 5 Section D regarding accessory buildings. With no further questions from the members. Mr. Austgen reminded the board that this was a continued public hearing, all legal notices were proper and in order and you can proceed.

Mr. Schneider opened the floor for continued public hearing, advising those wishing to speak to please state your name and address for the record.

Mr. Nick Georgiou (9412 Jack Drive):
Mr. Georgiou advised that he was originally opposed and at this time he wished to withdraw his remonstrance. He is an architect and after seeing the renderings he believes it is a very nice solution and he supports it.

Mr. Patrick Jones (9422 Jack Drive):
Mr. Jones stated he agreed with the letter read from Ms. Carol Biel that it will be adding to the value of the subdivision. The lot is shaped very wide and it will look very nice. He also stated that a smaller garage would not look right.

Mr. Joseph Haasnein (9369 Elle Avenue):
Agrees with Patrick, the plus or minus of 100 square feet will be no impact to me.

Mr. Steve Horn (9420 Grasselli Drive):
Mr. Horn just wanted to give his support for this, I think it is a very professional solution and it will save a lot of neighborhood angst and it will bring a lot of value to the area.

Zorica Schilling (9359 Elle Avenue):
Ms. Schilling stated that she is in support of the garage and thinks it will make everyone happy.

Mr. Mark Nunnikhoven (9731 Jack Drive):
Mr. Nunnikhoven stated that it is his opinion that the board exists to make decisions when something does not always make it by the ordinance and he is in support of the garage rendering, and thinks anything smaller would just look silly.

Mr. Marty Kozak (9843 Elle Avenue):
Mr. Kozak stated that he just wanted to say that he was jealous.

Ms. Amanda Lisene (9430 Grasselli Avenue):
Would like to give a favorable recommendation on this, looks great, very functional.

With no further comment from the floor, Mr. Schneider brought the matter back to the board for discussion. Mr. Panczuk was noting that from the month before, it looks like the depth matches the house. Discussion ensued on contingencies and conditions that can be placed on the findings of fact. Mr. Austgen advised that any of the conditions that the board members agree upon should be noted for perpetuity for the property record.

Mr. Schneider entertained a motion from the board. Mr. Panczuk made a motion for approval of the 24’ x 37’ detached garage, noting that it is to be like and kind, and 6’ from the primary structure, a 17’ side yard and wanted the renderings to be incorporated into the record. Motion seconded by Mr. Williams. To the second variance, Mr. Williams made a motion for approval of the set-back matter, and noted conditions or contingencies that (1) no commercial activity on property (2) no additional accessory structures in addition to (3) 24’ x 37’ like and kind to existing structure (4) incorporate renderings as presented (5) 6’ from primary structure and (6) 17’ side yard, as read into the Findings of Fact. Mr. Panczuk seconded motion. Motion carried 4 ayes - 0 nays.

C. ALSIP HOME & NURSERY (10255 Wicker Avenue) Developmental / Technical Variances.

Mr. Rich Christakes introduced himself to the board members. He advised that he is coming before the board for a greenhouse addition. He advised that they are hoping to improve the shopping experience of their customers and the aisle space is really tight. They want to add selling space to the area of 6,400 square feet that is currently storing mulch and such.

Mr. Christakes advised that he will be using the Nexus Group which provided the original greenhouses that are already there. He would like to go 80’ East and 60’ North of the original greenhouse, and he believes it will be a safer environment than the asphalt that is currently there for outdoor sales. He advised that the new greenhouse would have concrete floors with drains and would go North to where the PVC fence is located. This would allow for the enclosure of more product indoors and make less outdoor sales.

Mr. Williams asked if this was more like a pole barn. Mr. Christakes advised that it is a greenhouse and submitted paper renderings of the proposal for the board to review. He further advised that it is a one-story structure; that there will be no storage above and that they have simply outgrown their current facility of 30,000 square feet of the primary facility.

During discussion between the board members on the building materials, Mr. Kil reiterated that Mr. Christakes will be coming before the Plan Commission as this project encompasses several parcels, and that there will be the requirement of re-subdivision, and several waivers will need to be sought from the commission in conjunction with the action of the board this evening. Mr. Kil displayed on the meeting room screen, showing a proposed 40’ x 170’ greenhouse, so basically he is requesting to add additional greenhouse, and he wants to build a pole barn, he has a whole host of variances he is asking for.

Discussion ensued as to the materials that will be used. Mr. Kil advised that the pole barn would be tin. Mr. Christakes advised that if necessary he would be willing to brick two sides to break it up.

Mr. Christakes advised that the biggest approval right now is the greenhouse approval because he really wanted to have them done and have them ready for use in Spring of 2017. Discussion ensued to suggest approval of the greenhouse and defer the issue of the pole barn until they provide some renderings for review.

Mr. Austgen noted that these are the most interesting public notices that he has reviewed in a long time; as he can hardly match up any of the green cards to the Assessor’s Certificate. The Township Assessor’s Certificate is cut off, so the names of the property owners are not identified, only street addresses. He further advised that he tried matching street addresses and that only worked for 3 or 4 of the fifteen (15) that are here. The newspaper notices are good. Mr. Christakes advised that most of those notices were sent to ourselves as they are the adjacent property owners on several different parcels. Mr. Austgen advised that anything they do tonight is subject to the scrutiny of further data that verifies the public hearing was properly noticed, or perhaps it wasn’t. Mr. Schneider asked what Mr. Austgen’s recommendation would be? Mr. Austgen advised that it looks like you have it more information to get for the entire proposal, so you probably have another month to figure it out.

Mr. Christakes came forward to the dais to explain some of the areas shown on the paper copy that he had brought. Mr. Panczuk and Mr. Williams both wanted to see in relation to the property lines and parking lot, the existing and the proposed (shaded areas versus slash-tagged areas). Explanation was given the proposed new greenhouse was going to the East, and shifted North. General discussion ensued between Mr. Christakes and the board members at the dais.

Mr. Panczuk requested that when they come back to the board he would like to see a street rendering of the proposed pole barn.

Mr. Williams asked if their needed to be a motion. Mr. Austgen suggested that they just continue the public hearing to the January 23, 2017 meeting, which will allow them to coordinate the alignment of the legals.

Mr. Schneider opened the floor to Public Comment, requesting those who wish to speak to please state your name and address for the record.

Mr. John Schaefer (14290 West 93rd Avenue):
Mr. Schaefer asked if the petitioner was looking to take the current space that they have a greenhouse and change that into more year-round space, or are they just adding more greenhouse. He advised he is asking due to the tax structure, and if there is a different tax rate for a greenhouse compared to regular retail.

Mr. Austgen advised that concerning tax issues he would have to go to the Township Assessor’s Office or the Lake County Assessor’s Office for that information.

Mr. Eric Schneider (9190 West 106th Avenue):
After looking through the meeting minutes of October 24, 2016, I see that Lake Central, which was a concern of mine with their new huge salt barn right along U.S. 41, and their new maintenance building, it kind of states in here that they are not going to be in compliance with the brick structures either, so I am not really sure why the pole barn which is much smaller and set farther back from U.S. 41 is such an issue with what building material is being used.

Mr. Williams advised that is an issue with Lake Central and is not visible from the street, and certainly not at the level where we’re asking for brick from Alsip. Mr. Williams continued that they have a fence around it and it will have evergreen trees surrounding it, so the building will be obscured from street level view, so we were more willing to allow them to use different building materials. General discussion ensued regarding the proposal before the board tonight and one brought before them earlier by Lake Central.

With no further comment from the floor Mr. Schneider closed the floor and brought the matter back to the board. Mr. Schneider asked Mr. Christakes to come back to the podium. Mr. Christakes advised that there could be changes made and provide renderings and hereby requests that they continue the meeting to the January 23, 2016 meeting.

Mr. Williams made a motion to continue the public hearing for Alsip Homes and Nursery to the January 23, 2017 meeting, once verifying that the legal notices are in order. Motion seconded by Mr. Panczuk. Motion carried 4 ayes – 0 nays.

Mr. Austgen reminded the chairman that Mr. Christakes should be checking in with Mr. Kil on the matter of the legal notices so that they can confirm that they have good documents and check if we had a good public hearing here or not.

ANNOUNCEMENT:
Mr. Schneider advised that it needs to be noted for the record that board member Tom Ryan left the meeting (2022 hours).

D. CIRCLE K (9301 Wicker Avenue) Special Exception Variance and Developmental Technical Variances

Mr. Jim Weiser and Mr. Austgen had a brief discussion off record (inaudible).

Mr. Austgen addressed the board that before you start Mr. Weiser would like to confer with his clients.

Mr. Weiser advised that he is representing the Circle K development and they were fully prepared to proceed this evening; however, given the nature of the project and what we believe to be the positive impact on the community, we truly believe we need a full Board of Zoning Appeals membership in attendance, that they wish to defer the matter. He advised that that this is a major project and truly believes it would be appropriate to have a full board present due to the significance of the proposal. They would feel better with a full board and would suggest a continuance to the January 23, 2017 meeting.

Mr. Austgen addressed the Chairman (Mr. Schneider) and advised that this is a normal type request when a full membership is not available.

Mr. Schneider entertained a motion to defer the Circle K request to January 23, 2017. Motion made by Mr. Panczuk and seconded by Mr. Williams.

Mr. Austgen noted for the record that all the legal notices are in order and the decision for deferral is at the discretion of the board members and the petitioner. That being said though, he advised that several persons have come to hear this issue and although you cannot go forward with public comment they should be allowed to state they name and address and note their presence for the record, so we do not have any prejudice to those folks who came out tonight on the notice of the public hearing.

Mr. Austgen advised to solicit whomever is here, as citizen, interested persons related to this application before you take your vote and defer. Mr. Weiser and Mr. Austgen noted that they will be allowed to identify themselves and that they are here for this, the public hearing hasn’t been conducted yet, but folks need to be noted on the record.

Mr. Gary Koster (9491 Eggert Drive):
We have wasted a lot of time sitting here and may not be able to get back to the January meeting, so I’m glad we get a chance to talk...

Mr. Austgen addressed the Chairman and stated that the petitioner has not made a presentation, they made a request based upon the diminution of the membership present this evening, and recognizing Mr. Koster’s is to recognize that he is here, he is interested in this; but the public hearing is not commenced. It is simply for identification purposes, for the record.

Mr. Gary Koster (continuation):
It should have been noted an hour and a half ago that this was not going to take place.,. I don’t care, you guys have to get it together., and if you are not going to have all the board members here don’t waste my time and a few of the others, that is nonsense, and now you won’t even here what we have to say. Even though it will not go into the record, you won’t even here what we have to say.

Ms. Laura Huizinga (11050 West 93rd Avenue:
Interested in this matter.

Mr. Gerald Swets (9490 Joliet Street):
(no further comment)

Mr. Erik Schneider (11130 West 93rd Avenue):
(no further comment)

Mr. Bryan Blazak (9299 Franklin Drive):
(no further comment)

Ms. Rita Berg (10351 Joliet Street):
(no further comment)

Ms. Kathryn Wilson (9621 E. Oakridge Drive):
(no further comment)

Mr. Warren Bohler (11130 West 93rd Avenue):
(no further comment)

Mr. Austgen advised that it is unusual for a member to leave during a proceeding and the like, but.,.

Mr. Panczuk asked to make a comment, that due to the situation of them waiting for so long, is there any way that we can make that we move this item to the beginning of the agenda for the next meeting, since we have the largest public turnout for this particular item. Mr. Austgen advised that the agenda is yours and you can direct that traffic.

Mr. Panczuk made a motion to make this the first and foremost item on the January 23, 2017. Seconded by Mr. Williams. Motion carried 3 ayes – 0 nays.

E. SUNRISE SOLAR (10087 Ravenswood Drive) Special Exception Variance and Developmental Technical Variances

Mr. William (Bill) Keith introduced himself to the board. Mr. Keith asked for Mr. Kil to place some materials on the meeting room screen.

Mr. Keith advised that he is looking at building a building on the one (1) vacant lot that is left on Ravenwood Drive. It is located back behind the old Auburn Plumbing Supply, now it is J & M Golf.

So, all the buildings on that street, that would complete the last open lot that backs up to the railroad tracks. Right now it is surrounded by a green fence; it was a parking lot for semi-trucks before.

There are seven variances that we are looking for. Mr. Schneider counted them off in regards to the variance request.

Mr. Schneider and Mr. Keith discussed that it falls in that U.S. 41 Overlay District, however; this was originally zoned Light Industrial, you cannot see the building from U.S. 41. Mr. Keith advised that he submitted photos of all the buildings in that area. There is some brick in there and they are proposing to do stone.

Mr. Keith advised that he is trying to maximize the usage out of that lot, that way he would not have to come back for an extra garage for something down the road, if I can build the right size in the first place.

Mr. Schneider inquired as to the use of the building being proposed. Mr. Keith advised that he invented a solar powered attic fan about 15 years ago and I have manufactured it out of Warsaw, Indiana for the last 14 years and he wants to move it here. We don’t even weld items, I have all of my components made elsewhere, like in South Bend and Warsaw, and different places around the state. We will be mostly assembling and boxing, so it is a real clean operation. No public sales, because we export around the world and so once in a while we will have a skid go out or have a container brought in, which will be filled and sent overseas. We are one of the few companies that is exporting right out of Lake County, Indiana.

Mr. Williams was asking if there was a rendering from the front elevation of the building.

Mr. Kil reminded the board members that Mr. Keith will also be going directly to the Plan Commission if he receives the variances from this board. That would be for site plan approval. Mr. Kil reminded that this was developed prior to our zoning ordinance that is in effect right now.

Mr. Keith advised he is going for the more esthetically pleasing stone front, which he likes better than just the brick all the way up to the eave, he thinks it looks nicer. There is a fence that is on the other property and he will be purchasing an additional 5’ from that owner, so it will remain at 15’. The front yard setback will be 25’ – 26’.

Discussion ensued between Mr. Williams and Mr. Panczuk with the petitioner, viewing various photos from his phone. Mr. Keith advised that whatever he builds he wants it to be the nicest looking building on the street. He also noted that there is an obscuring fence all around, which he does want to keep to the back and side portion of the building for security purposes, but would like to remove it from the front of the building and attached at the sides.

Mr. Keith noted that a lot of this he felt he would be bringing to the Plan Commission. Mr. Williams noted that Attorney Austgen and Mr. Kil were nodding at that point.

Mr. Schneider added that this was all built as Industrial, and his opinion is that he did not wish to burden Mr. Keith any further.

Mr. Keith advised that he tried to get all the documentation done before the October meeting, however he could not get it all done on time. He further noted that he is under a deadline as he has to be out of Warsaw this Spring, and I am already fighting on whether or not I can get a foundation in still this year.

General discussion ensued and it was reiterated that a good portion of the matters were going before the Plan Commission.

Mr. Schneider opened the floor to public comment.

Mr. Jack Crotty (10115 Ravenwod Drive):
I will be the next door neighbor and I think it will be very well done and look nice.

Mr. Gerald Swets (9490 Joliet Street):
He is happy that they are expanding their business to bring it to St. John. He would like the exterior to still be masonry in the U.S. 41 Overlay.

Mr. Rita Berg (10351 Joliet Street):
She thinks it is very good work and likes what Bill Keith does.

With no further comment from the floor, the matter was brought back to the board.

Mr. Schneider on Variance 1. Mr. Williams made a motion to approve the set-back variance and incorporate the findings of fact in to the motion. Motion seconded by Mr. Panczuk. Motion carried 3 ayes – 0 nays.

Mr. Schneider on Variance 2. Mr. Williams made a motion to approve the developmental/technical variance on the square footage and incorporating the Finding of Fact into the motion. Seconded by Mr. Panczuk. Motion carried 3 ayes – 0 nays.

Mr. Schneider on Variance 3. Mr. Williams made a motion to approve the developmental/technical variance on the building exterior corners and incorporating the Finding of Fact into the motion. Seconded by Mr. Panczuk. Motion carried 3 ayes – 0 nays.

Mr. Schneider on Variance 4. Mr. Panczuk made a motion to approve the developmental/technical variance on the Public Art requirement and incorporating the Finding of Fact into the motion. Seconded by Mr. Williams. Motion carried 3 ayes – 0 nays.

Mr. Schneider on Variance 5. Mr. Panczuk made a motion to approve the developmental/technical variance on the Bike / Pedestrian requirement and incorporating the Finding of Fact into the motion. Seconded by Mr. Williams. Motion carried 3 ayes – 0 nays.

Mr. Schneider on Variance 6. Mr. Panczuk made a motion to approve the developmental/technical variance on the Exterior Building Materials requirement and incorporating the Finding of Fact into the motion. Seconded by Mr. Williams. Motion carried 3 ayes – 0 nays.

Mr. Schneider on Variance 7. Mr. Panczuk made a motion to approve the Special Exception (Use) variance and incorporating the Finding of Fact into the motion, and sending a favorable recommendation to the Town Council for final action. Seconded by Mr. Williams. Motion carried 3 ayes – 0 nays.

(The meeting was adjourned at 9:11 p.m.)

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L. Haluska, Recording Secretary pro-tem
St. John Board of Zoning Appeals

Accessibility  Copyright © 2020 Town of St. John, Indiana Accessible Version  Follow us on