St. John Indiana - Founded 1837
Return to Menu

April 27, 2015 Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes

Jim Maciejewski, PresidentAttorney Tim Kuiper
Ken Schneider, Vice-PresidentSteve Kil
Steve Hastings, Secretary 
Tom Ryan 
Paul Panczuk 

CALL TO ORDER:


Mr. Jim Maciejewski called to order the meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals for Monday, April 27, 2015, at 7:01 p.m.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)

ROLL CALL:


Roll call was taken by Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary, with the following members present: Jim Maciejewski, Ken Schneider, Steve Hastings and Paul Panczuk. Steve Kil was absent. The Board’s attorney, Tim Kuiper, was present.

Mr. Maciejewski asked the Board if they would consider the reversal of the order on the agenda under New Business. He stated that he would like to consider Item B first. There were no objections.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:


MARCH 23, 2015, REGULAR MEETING.

Mr. Maciejewski noted the first item for the Board’s review and action were the minutes of the March 23, 2015, regular meeting. He stated he would entertain a motion to approve the minutes if there were no amendments or revisions. There were no amendments or revisions.

“So moved,” by Mr. Hastings. Mr. Schneider seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (4/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

NEW BUSINESS:


A. LAKE CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL --- LED SIGN --- MONUMENT HEIGHT AND SIZE --- DEVELOPMENTAL VARIANCE.

Mr. Maciejewski stated the next item for the Board to address was the developmental variance requested by Lake Central High School, for the LED sign, monument height and size.

Attorney Cheryl Zic appeared before the Board and on behalf Lake Central School Corporation. Superintendent, Mr. Larry Veracco, Lake Central School Corporation and Duane Dart, project architect, were also present.

Attorney Zic noted the height of the Lake Central monument sign is 12’4”, so Petitioner is requesting an exception for the height of the sign. She stated the LED screen is 9’3”x4’1 3/8”. She stated the sign would be used for the same type of applications that were talked about for the Kolling Elementary sign.

Mr. Maciejewski asked why the height of the sign 12’4” is so locked in on when the sign could have easily been adjusted to be 10’ or less. He stated that the overall geometry of the sign is fine, but opined that the sign could have been adjusted to have been 10’ or less and still achieve the desired architectural elements. He stated the proposed sign is “a pretty big sign.”

Attorney Zic stated she believed the sign’s height was because of “the look.” Mr. Dart remarked that the idea was to design a sign to complement the building. He cited one of the Town’s sign ordinances wherein it states that every sign should be “designed as an integral architectural element” of the building. Mr. Dart showed a rendering to the Board and pointed out how the masonry sign matches the building’s masonry. He explained that when you start shrinking the signage down, it does not look like the building.

The sign’s dimensions were discussed.

Mr. Maciejewski remarked that the sign did not have to exceed the height ordinance in order to achieve its desired effect. Mr. Veracco commented that the sign looked like a piece of the wall from the school building, and downsizing it would have defeated that purpose.

Attorney Zic stated that there was a lot of discussion at the Plan Commission about this “mimicking look.” Mr. Maciejewski wondered if there was any regard paid to constructing a sign that would have adhered to the Town’s sign ordinance. He stated that the Board is looking at a sign that is already built, which puts them at a disadvantage.

Attorney Zic stated that there was discussion with Mr. Kil and he approved the Petitioner putting up the sign during spring break, when there was less student traffic. She stated that Mr. Kil indicated that the Petitioner would be erecting the sign with the understanding that the Petitioner is at risk without BZA approval. Attorney Zic stated that the Town gave approval to put the monument in knowing that if the BZA did not approve it, the Petitioner would be taking the sign down.

Mr. Maciejewski asked if this “approval” should be a part of his and the Board’s consideration on the height issue. Attorney Zic reiterated that the sign was designed with the intent to achieve a certain look.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Maciejewski stated he understands what the Petitioner was trying to achieve; however, the digital display and the sign are 400% of the Town’s ordinance. He remarked that this is a pretty big increase and it seems that there was no regard in trying to rein in any overage.

Mr. Maciejewski wondered about the position of the sign. He asked if it had been studied for sight lines. He wondered if it would create such a visual impediment to drivers (looking to the left) that are lined up to leave and catch the light out of the school parking lot.

Mr. Maciejewski asked how far from the stop light the front of the sign sits back. Mr. Dart stated the sign is back behind the right of way, probably 25’ to 30’ back from the edge of the highway. Mr. Maciejewski noted this was approximately one car length from the stop line. Mr. Maciejewski remarked that the first car in line will be able to see to the left, but everyone behind them will be blocked from seeing to the left.

Mr. Panczuk remarked that he concurred with most everything that Mr. Maciejewski just stated. He opined that the sign could have complemented the school on a smaller scale. Mr. Panczuk stated he has a concern with the entire size of the sign, especially the LED portion. He stated the sign is quite a distraction at a traffic point of entry.

Mr. Schneider commented on the location of the sign; he stated the sign is located right at the biggest congestion point at Lake Central High School. Mr. Panczuk noted the sign is on the boulevard; he stated the sign does not belong here at all.

The sight line and sign location was discussed. Mr. Maciejewski asked if any thought had been given to the distraction the sign will cause to drivers’ sitting at the traffic light. Mr. Veracco stated the location is not unlike high schools that he has been to where the sign is located at the entrance/exit of the school.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Panczuk remarked that the location of the sign is very unusual in that it is not near the entrance, but “in the entrance, pretty much in the middle of the road.” He stated he thinks it would be appropriate if the Petitioner scaled back the monument sign to comply with the Town’s ordinance. Mr. Panczuk stated a smaller sign would not block sight lines and would still get the job done. He stated this sign will be used for a lot more than just telling people where to turn. Mr. Panczuk stated that the school is large and most people know where it is located.

The green space where the sign is located was discussed. It was stated that the median where the sign is located is 10’ wide. Mr. Schneider stated if one pulled up next to the sign in a vehicle you can almost reach out and touch it.

Mr. Maciejewski asked if Petitioner had a reason for appearing before the Board in April, 2015, when the drawings submittal was back in December. He asked if any thought was given to an earlier discussion. Mr. Veracco stated he did not have the answer to this question.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Maciejewski asked if the proofs of publication for a public hearing were in order. Attorney Kuiper noted the notices and publications for the public hearing were in order for a public hearing to be properly conducted tonight.

Mr. Maciejewski opened the public hearing for public comment related to the developmental variance being requested for an LED sign in addition to the monument sign height and size at Lake Central High School.

PUBLIC HEARING

Carolyn Nowacki, 8535 Kelly Court
Ms. Nowacki stated that her house actually touches the freshman sign, she lines right up with it. She states that she had three children that went through the school. Ms. Nowacki stated she was one of the first homes in the subdivision. She stated that she bought her house knowing her kids would be involved in school activities and would have a way to get to school.

Ms. Nowacki stated she wanted to inform the Board what types of things she is subjected to on a daily basis. She said she knew what she was getting into living next to a school. Lights. Alarms and more lights. Flashing lights that woke her up at 2:00 a.m. Buses coming and going and dropping kids off. Equipment noise, fans running and belts squeaking. Ms. Nowacki stated she knew and expected some of this activity. She said adding an LED sign to the noise…would be a mistake.

Ms. Nowacki stated she lives off of Ventura. She said she wanted to talk about traffic; she stated every day at 7:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. there is traffic. Ms. Nowacki stated she has called the police department several times about cars zipping down her street. She stated she can’t get in and she can’t get out. Ms. Nowacki stated she has had cars come around on her right side into Ventura Estates. She said the cars will cut her off just to get into Ventura Estates.

Ms. Nowacki reiterated, now Lake Central wants to add a sign. She stated that there is double parking on both the east and west sides of the street. She stated that there are cars whipping back and forth east and west.

Ms. Nowacki stated that there is an ordinance on her street because the residents didn’t want school kids parking on their street. She said now there are cars going back and forth, uncontrolled, due to the school system.

Ms. Nowacki acknowledged that it is the digital age. She stated putting up a marquee sign is not going to make that big of a difference. She stated she receives her information via text message. Ms. Nowacki stated that the LED sign is nothing more than a big text message. She stated there is an “all call system” out to the schools, and the schools can call the parents to let them know what’s going on or put the information on their website.

Ms. Nowacki stated she wanted to talk about the intersection. She stated for as long as she has lived here, there are accidents coming in and out on Route 41 on a weekly basis. Ms. Nowacki stated these accidents happen at the light and right where Petitioner is proposing to put the marquee. She stated there are now kids coming in and out of the school and going east and west on her street, fast, very fast.

Ms. Nowacki stated that the school is now adding another nuisance by putting in the sign at this location. She opined the sign would be a distraction. Ms. Nowacki stated she has called the cops, taken down license plate numbers of kids who have done these things to her. She stated that the comments she hears is, “It’s not our problem.” Ms. Nowacki stated, yes, it is our problem; it’s all of our problem. She stated that these are our children, our grandchildren. Ms. Nowacki stated that the problem is not being addressed. She stated she does not know where to go to next, the Town or the school.

Ms. Nowacki stated the traffic is a nuisance for people to see, and a nuisance for people in her subdivision to have to deal with. She stated if the school cannot control these little things, where is the trust? Ms. Nowacki reiterated that there are accidents all of the time where the sign is located. She asked if the sign could have been located somewhere else, she maintains the sign could have been placed somewhere else.

Ms. Nowacki stated we are talking about teenage kids who drive irresponsibly to try and get out ahead of the buses. She said she sees it every day. Ms. Nowacki stated that there are no cops there, and no school officials there.

Ms. Nowacki agreed that it is the digital age and she is all for it. She stated this sign proposal should be looked into a little bit more. Ms. Nowacki stated that just putting a sign in is not the answer; there are other things to consider.

Ms. Nowacki stated that a child does not need to have his picture plastered all over the LED sign. She stated if something is really important it can be put up on the website where it belongs. Ms. Nowacki also stated that if something is really important, an “all call system” can be used, and it will get the information around.

Jay Rizzo, 8388 Heron Lake Road
Mr. Rizzo stated he saw the sign going up, and he wanted to get more information on the sign’s size so he attended the meeting tonight. He stated he has learned a lot from sitting in on the meeting. Mr. Rizzo asked the Board if it was not somewhat irresponsible for the construction company to construct a sign knowing that the sign did not adhere with the current restrictions/ordinances and without seeking approval from the appropriate board.

Mr. Rizzo asked who would be responsible for the cost of moving or dismantling the sign in the event the Board does not approve it. He asked if the taxpayers who paid for the school bond would be responsible for this. Mr. Rizzo stated that if the Board orders the sign to be taken down he would not blame them; but, again, he does not think the costs should be borne by the taxpayers.

Carolyn Nowacki, 8535 Kelly Court
Ms. Nowacki stated that Highland School on Kennedy Avenue has a small marquee sign much like what Lake Central had in the beginning. She started their digital sign is back and set off the main road. Ms. Nowacki stated this is a small digital sign that does one message at a time.

Attorney Kuiper read a letter of in favor of the sign submitted by Mr. Dean Schilling.

Mr. Maciejewski called for additional public comment. There was no further public comment. Mr. Maciejewski closed the public hearing and brought the matter back before the Board.

Mr. Maciejewski stated he isn’t quite sure how to resolve the height and width variances

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Panczuk stated that the sign is quite large and he does not believe a digital sign, of any size, belongs in this location. Mr. Panczuk stated one option is to move the digital billboard back into the campus. He stated that this entrance and this particular area of Route 41 does not need another distraction.

Mr. Panczuk noted that a monument sign allowed by the Town via ordinance would be sufficient.

Mr. Schneider concurred. He stated this is a very large sign, especially for this location with the traffic.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Maciejewski stated he is still of the mindset that the Petitioner could have achieved a scaled down version of this particular sign.

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Kuiper noted it does not appear that the Board is anywhere near a consensus. He stated the Board should consider tabling this matter until more information could be obtained.

Mr. Maciejewski asked if any study had been provided by a traffic engineer. Mr. Dart stated that a traffic engineer had done a study on the intersection, but not specifically the location of the sign.

Mr. Maciejewski stated that a suggestion had been made to defer action on the sign until the Board receives feedback on this issue.

Attorney Kuiper stated that the sign was basically a 12’x20’ wall. He stated much concern has been voiced about its location.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Maciejewski stated it would be a good idea to have some feedback from a traffic engineer on this issue.

Mr. Panczuk stated he wanted to make it clear that he was opposed to the size of the sign, regardless of public safety. He opined Lake Central is a beautiful school. Mr. Panczuk stated the largeness of the sign right at the road is unnecessary, and he didn’t see that it served any purpose. He stated that the sign could have been integrated into the school’s design, but not at this scale.

Mr. Panczuk stated even with taking the vision obstruction out of the equation, there is the distraction of the text when entering and exiting the school. He recommended moving the sign back into the campus and placing screens on the entry walls coming into the school and everyone would be able to see it. Mr. Panczuk also stated that the sign could be scaled down and the Petitioner would still be able to accomplish getting their messages out.

Mr. Schneider opined the sign is way oversized. He noted the students already get all of the information that is placed on the sign. Mr. Schneider stated the messages are more likely intended for the parents. Mr. Schneider stated he does not agree with the location of the sign of the sign in a “very small median.”

Mr. Schneider agreed with Mr. Maciejewski’s recommendation that a traffic study related to a line of sight is appropriate. He stated that a traffic study may lead to either redesigning the sign, downsizing the sign or relocating the sign. Mr. Schneider noted the Board is pretty much in agreement that the sign is too big, but how much too big has not yet been determined.

Attorney Kuiper, to clarify, stated that the traffic engineer would evaluate the location and a sight line for the sign.

Mr. Hastings asked the Board if the “Lake Central High School and Indian LC” Indian, the feathers” could be downsized and place the LED sign underneath. He stated this was one option. Mr. Panczuk responded “And move it out of the median?”

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Panczuk stated that the Kolling Elementary sign is “a lot more palatable for me from many aspects.” Attorney Zic suggested that the Kolling Elementary sign is significantly different than the high school and the high school sign should be on a larger scale. She noted the elementary school sign “is on par with other signs at other elementary schools in the district.” She stated the Lake Central sign would be unique because of the size of the campus and the size of the school.

Mr. Maciejewski opined that overall, the sign is too large. He stated he may feel differently if the sign were placed somewhere else. Mr. Maciejewski stated the size of the campus may suggest that this sign is the appropriate size, but this sized sign at this location may be his particular hang-up with the sign.

Mr. Maciejewski acknowledged the size of the sign as far as the sign representing the school and the school being the focal point of the community. Mr. Panczuk noted the size of the LED sign is really large; he stated it appears to him as if the LED sign was an add-on as it really sticks out. He stated if the entire sign was moved out of the median it would become more acceptable.

Mr. Maciejewski stated information he would like to see presented to the Board to better evaluate the sign is a site plan, landscaping plan, and a traffic engineer’s evaluation for a sight line. Mr. Panczuk stated he would like to see the sign in context with the front of the school.

Attorney Zic presented a rendering and showed the Board the location of the blue banding and the masonry. She stated it is the masonry and the blue band that exceeds 10’.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Maciejewski suggested this matter be tabled until the Board’s May meeting and until other options could be explored and more information obtained. Mr. Maciejewski stated he was also requesting a rendering of what the sign would look like if it was scaled back, if the Petitioner would be willing to do this.

Mr. Maciejewski stated he would entertain a motion to table this matter. Mr. Panczuk made a motion to table the Lake Central LED sign matter to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Mr. Schneider seconded the motion.

Mr. Maciejewski requested a roll call vote. Mr. Schneider --- yes. Mr. Hastings --- yes. Mr. Panczuk --- yes. Mr. Maciejewski --- yes. The motion was carried by roll call vote. Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

B. KOLLING ELEMENTARY --- LED SIGN --- MONUMENT HEIGHT AND SIZE --- DEVELOPMENTAL VARIANCE.

Mr. Maciejewski addressed, Kolling Elementary School for a developmental variance at Kolling Elementary for an LED sign along with the height and size of the sign. He stated that this issue would be heard before the Lake Central LED sign.

Attorney Cheryl Zic appeared before the Board and on behalf Lake Central School Corporation. Superintendent, Mr. Larry Veracco, Lake Central School Corporation and Duane Dart, project architect, were also present.

Attorney Zic stated the Board had a rendering of the proposed sign before them. The Petitioner was seeking a developmental variance related to the size of the sign and an LED function.

Attorney Zic stated the sign will be used to provide information on school activities to parents and the community as they are passing or entering the property. She stated Petitioner believes the sign is consistent with other signs in the community. Attorney Zic stated the Petitioner would answer any questions from the Board.

Mr. Maciejewski stated the Board, when considering LED signs, usually adds contingencies as to how the LED signs can be used, i.e., the length of time a message appears, no side to side scrolling, no flashing and hours of operation to name a few. He asked if the school corporation had any concerns about the contingencies. Attorney Zic commented that Schilling Lumber has a sign that contains moving messages that change and flash.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Panczuk commented that the Schilling sign is an example of the extreme that the Board would like to avoid. He remarked the intent of the contingencies is to prevent LED signs from being a distraction and a driving hazard.

The parameters of the sign use were discussed in detail.

Mr. Panczuk stated the Board would like to avoid the appearance of an LED sign that looks like a large screen television. He stated the Board would like to stay away from the “bill board kind of look.” Mr. Panczuk stated if the sign was to be used for messages that are informational in nature it is best to keep it simple, for example, monochrome.

Mr. Panczuk stated that he would be opposed to anything other than a single color sign and was also in favor of all of the other contingencies previously discussed being put in place. Mr. Panczuk stated the sign is quite large. He stated since the messages can be changed, there is no reason to put multiple messages on the LED sign.

Attorney Zic stated that the actual display space on the LED portion of the sign is 2’5” by 6’10”. She stated the sign will be viewed parallel to the road. The lines of text were discussed. Mr. Panczuk stated that six lines of text were possible with this proposed sign size. Attorney Zic stated that it is anticipated that large letters with short messages will be used. Mr. Panczuk noted that documents specified 5” letters would be used, which would make six lines of text possible. He opined this seems “quite busy.”

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Maciejewski stated that the overall size of the proposed sign was approximately 34 square feet from the concrete up. It was noted the proposed sign, including the monument would be approximately 51 square feet.

Attorney Zic showed the Board a rendering of the sign. She stated that the Petitioner could possibly adhere to the letter sizing and sign use contingencies, but the Petitioner would like to stay with the sign they submitted if at all possible. Mr. Veracco stated that the 2x10 sign was presented as an option from the sign company as a “standard size.”

Attorney Zic asked if messaging could be done in blue, and then another message in red; she asked if this method would satisfy the monochrome requirements. Mr. Panczuk opined that “monochrome is the key.” He stated a monochrome lettering would lend more class and character to the sign.

Mr. Schneider asked if Kolling intended to put graphics on the sign. Attorney Zic stated that the school mascot may come up on a sign, but "90 percent plus is anticipated to be school events, and perhaps a message that accolades to a student"

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Hastings stated he liked the overall design of the sign, and didn’t think it “was that far over.”

Mr. Maciejewski asked if the notices and publications were in order. Attorney Kuiper noted the notices and publications for the public hearing were in order for a public hearing to be properly conducted tonight.

Mr. Maciejewski opened the public hearing for public comment related to the developmental variance being requested for an LED sign in addition to the monument sign height and size at Kolling Elementary.

PUBLIC HEARING

Rich Nowacki, St. John, Indiana
Mr. Nowacki stated he’s been in St. John for over 18 years. He opined that for the difference of color, the color red is not a color that most people would recognize if they have a problem with their eyesight. He stated most of the time when the color red is used it isn’t at all helpful for those who have color recognition problems. Mr. Nowacki suggested that the color black or would be a better choice.

Mr. Nowacki asked about the Lake Central signage. Mr. Maciejewski explained there would be a separate presentation and a separate public hearing on the Lake Central High School signage. Mr. Maciejewski pointed out that the proposed LED screen is black, therefore, the lettering could not be black.

Mr. Nowacki stated that the colors should really be reviewed to determine which colors are the best choice for someone who has sight problems.

Carolyn Nowacki, 8535 Kelly Court
Ms. Nowacki stated that she is not in favor of the sign proposed for Kolling Elementary for several reasons. She stated that there is a huge traffic problem in this area with cars speeding. Ms. Nowacki stated that adding a digital sign in this area is going to add more confusion to this area going down Route 41.

Ms. Nowacki stated she passes Kolling Elementary on the way to her daughter’s house. She stated every day at 7:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. she has cars speeding past and cutting her off when she has two small children in the back seat of her vehicle. Ms. Nowacki stated she has called the police department and the Lake Central school system. She stated she was told by the school superintendent’s secretary that “it is not our problem, that I need to come to the Town on it.”

Ms. Nowacki stated she lives right by the school she will be able to see the flashing lights from both directions. She stated she called the superintendent and was not able to get through. She stated the secretary stated “that the Lake Central High School is not part of St. John, it’s Schererville.” She stated this is a little bit of a problem that needs to be corrected.

Ms. Nowacki stated that in the area of Kolling Elementary there are buses dropping kids off in and cars zooming past. She stated there are cops there all of the time. Ms. Nowacki stated she has called with license plate numbers of people who have cut her off. She opined that adding more confusion to this area is not good.

Ms. Nowacki stated she had additional comments for the high school presentation.

Mr. Maciejewski called for additional public comment. There was no further public comment. Mr. Maciejewski closed the public hearing and brought the matter back before the Board.

Mr. Maciejewski asked if there were any further comments or questions from the Board.

Mr. Schneider asked if there was an existing sign at Kolling Elementary. Mr. Veracco stated there is an old, marquee type sign.

Mr. Panczuk commented that “this is the modern age.” He stated his kids have smart phones and they know what’s going on at school and he knows what’s going on at school. Mr. Panczuk stated he also gets the superintendent’s messages via e-mail and text message. He stated the importance of the school signs is becoming less; he stated he is a little bit afraid to put in a sign that’s “going to be overdone and not necessary.”

Mr. Panczuk stated that for these reasons, he is somewhat reluctant to bypass the ordinance for something that he feels does not pose a hardship for the school and is not really necessary. Mr. Panczuk stated that he has also taken into consideration the public comment.

Mr. Panczuk stated he also has reservations about the size of the sign. He stated, as the Board has learned, there are multiple “standard sizes.” Mr. Panczuk stated it is a decent looking sign, but the LED portion is somewhat large.

Mr. Veracco stated many parents have approached him for years about upgrading the Kolling Elementary sign. He stated that the sign was not replaced until it could be done right. Mr. Veracco stated the sign will allow the celebration of school successes and recognition of outstanding teachers. He opined the sign would benefit the community. Mr. Veracco stated that the sign’s targets are parents, visitors and the community.

(General discussion ensued.)

The Board discussed the sign contingencies and the sign’s capabilities in detail.

The sign’s dimming/brightening and color and text capabilities were discussed. The programming of the sign was discussed.

The size of the sign was discussed.

Mr. Veracco stated that the school should be allowed to use multiple colors on more than just the school logo. He stated that to restrict the sign to one color does not make sense to him. Mr. Veracco stated there may be some messages that show up better without being restricted to a black background. He stated he is not interested in limiting the capability of the LED screen.

Attorney Kuiper addressed audience members, informed them that the Petitioner had the floor, and they would have an opportunity to talk at the public hearing for the Lake Central LED sign.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Veracco stated that advertising could not be sold for the sign.

Mr. Maciejewski summarized the contingencies that the Petitioner was willing to accept as follows: hours of operation from 6:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., no side to side motion, no flashing, auto dimming function to be utilized, minimum of a six second message and text/graphics on a black background only.

Mr. Maciejewski stated he would entertain a motion with the six criteria he just cited for the Kolling Elementary LED sign, and the monument sign size and height. Mr. Schneider made a motion to approve the developmental variance for the Kolling Elementary LED sign including the six items as follows: hours of operation from 6:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., no side to side motion, no flashing, auto dimming function to be utilized, minimum appearance of a message at six seconds, and text/graphics to be displayed on a black background only, and incorporating the findings of fact by reference. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion.

Mr. Maciejewski requested a roll call vote. Mr. Schneider --- yes. Mr. Hastings --- yes. Mr. Panczuk --- yes. Mr. Maciejewski --- yes. The motion was carried by roll call vote. Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

OPEN TO THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:


Mr. Maciejewski opened the floor for public comment. He called for public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Maciejewski closed the floor to public comment.

ADJOURNMENT:


Mr. Maciejewski asked for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Schneider made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (4/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none. (The meeting was adjourned at 8:56 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

_______________________________________________Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary
St. John Board of Zoning Appeals