St. John Indiana - Founded 1837
Return to Menu

June 22, 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, June 22, 2015, at 7:03 p.m.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)

ROLL CALL:


Mr. Maciejewski took roll with the following members present: Ken Schneider, Paul Panczuk and Jim Maciejewski. Steve Hastings was absent. Attorney Kuiper was present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:


APRIL 27, 2015, REGULAR MEETING.

Mr. Maciejewski noted the first order of business before the Board was the consideration of the minutes of the April 27, 2015, regular meeting. Mr. Maciejewski stated that the minutes don’t reflect that there was a change on the order of matters heard on the agenda. He stated that the minutes should reflect this change. Mr. Maciejewski stated that the monument sign at the high school should be reflected as “Item B” and the Kolling School sign should be labeled “Item A.”

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Maciejewski stated with the aforementioned amendment to the minutes, he would entertain a motion to approve the same. Mr. Panczuk made a motion to approve the minutes from April 27, 2015, amended to correct the chronological order of the meeting. Mr. Schneider seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (3/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

OLD BUSINESS:


A. LAKE CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL --- LED SIGN/MONUMENT SIGN --- CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM THE APRIL 27, 2015, MEETING --- DEVELOPMENTAL VARIANCE --- CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING.

Mr. Maciejewski stated that the Lake Central High School was back before the Board with a continued public hearing. He asked Attorney Kuiper to briefly explain where the Board sits with this matter.

Attorney Kuiper stated that this matter was originally held in April. He stated the matter was supposed to be continued to May but the Petitioner was unable to submit the requested documentation, a traffic study. Attorney Kuiper informed the Board that the Petitioner has submitted the requested documentation related to the Board’s concern with the public safety issues on Route 41 and the entrance to Lake Central High School.

Attorney Kuiper stated that the Town Engineer, Mr. Kenn Kraus, also issued an opinion letter that seems to have conflicting information in it based upon the documentation provided by the engineer hired by Lake Central. Based upon this, and in talking with the school’s attorney it was determined it would be best to continue this matter tonight so that the Town Engineer has an opportunity to further review documentation and meet with the engineer hired by Lake Central. Attorney Kuiper stated for these reasons, he recommended that this matter be deferred tonight to the regularly scheduled meeting on July 27, 2015.

Mr. Maciejewski stated understanding that this information was provided relative to the sign’s current location; he requested that a message be conveyed to Lake Central’s counsel that alternative locations were discussed. Mr. Maciejewski stated he did not see anything presented on alternative locations. He asked that the monument sign location issue be conveyed back. Attorney Kuiper concurred.

Attorney Kuiper stated that the message he received was that based upon Lake Central’s traffic engineer maintaining that the current location of the monument sign is okay, Petitioner did not pursue alternative locations much further. Attorney Kuiper stated that based upon fact that the two engineers will most likely meet within the next couple of weeks, he would “reconvey” this information again.

Mr. Maciejewski asked if there was any further discussion. There was no further discussion.

Mr. Maciejewski stated he would entertain a motion to defer the matter to the July 27, 2015, regularly scheduled BZA meeting. Mr. Schneider made a motion to defer the Lake Central High School monument sign developmental variance until the July 27, 2015 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Mr. Panczuk seconded the motion. The motion was carried (3/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

NEW BUSINESS:


A. LAKE FEDERAL 10865 PARRISH AVENUE --- MESSAGE CENTER --- DEVELOPMENTAL VARIANCE

Mr. Maciejewski stated the first item under New Business is Lake Federal bank, 10865 Parrish Avenue, seeking a developmental variance for a message center.

Mr. Gerald. R. Skrabala, President, Lake Federal Bank, FSB, and resident of Schererville, Indiana, appeared before the Board seeking a developmental variance for a message center at Lake Federal. Ms. Nancy Williams, branch manager, and Mr. Stephen Davenport, CFO, were also present. An Affordable Sign representative, Mr. Ray Thomas, was also present.

Mr. Skrabala thanked the Board for the opportunity to present their request for an LED message sign at 10865 Parrish Avenue, the northwest corner of Parrish Avenue and 109th Avenue. He stated that Lake Federal has been operating at this location since June of 2008. Mr. Skrabala opined that for as long as Lake Federal has operated in St. John, they have been a good neighbor and taxpayer and wish to continue in this manner.

Mr. Skrabala stated a traffic signal has been installed at 109th Avenue and Parrish Avenue for east/west traffic. He stated Lake Federal’s request for a message sign stems from a number of reasons, one being to allow for better community involvement by allowing the bank to publicize the Town’s community events and two, the message sign will signal customers of their presence.

Mr. Skrabala stated that the Town’s sign ordinance has been reviewed by Lake Federal. He stated that Lake Federal would abide by all of the rules and restrictions set forth in the Town’s sign ordinance. Mr. Skrabala stated that the bank currently has a monument sign that is lit, and it faces east and west.

Mr. Skrabala stated that the Board was provided with a color copy of the bank’s proposed sign. He stated that Lake Federal is currently in discussions with LRH Landscaping for a proposal on the landscaping around the sign.

Mr. Skrabala called Mr. Ray Thomas from Affordable Signs to explain what will be placed in the existing sign. Mr. Raymond Thomas, resident of Crown Point, and Vice-President of Affordable Sign Company appeared before the Board with a sign presentation.

Mr. Thomas stated he installed the LED message centers at St. John Evangelist Church and the Hands-On Car Wash sign. He stated Lake Federal’s sign is basically the same thing but with a little bit less square footage.

Mr. Thomas stated Lake Federal’s proposed sign is a full color EMC. He stated the proposed sign would not change the square footage of the existing sign whatsoever but will all be contained within the existing square footage. Mr. Thomas stated he and Mr. Skrabala discussed the operation of the sign.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Maciejewski stated the sign as it sits now (12x10) is much larger than what is permitted by ordinance. He stated he vaguely recalls when Lake Federal’s sign was originally presented. Mr. Maciejewski stated he believes there was a trade-off on the size of the monument sign; the sign was allowed to go larger because an LED center was not allowed originally.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Maciejewski asked what types of message would be displayed on the sign. Mr. Skrabala stated Lake Federal would display announcements from the Town, mortgage rates, savings rates, certificate rates and any specials the bank may be running at the time.

Mr. Maciejewski asked if there was any reason the sign had to be a full color sign. Mr. Skrabala stated Lake Federal felt the full color sign was a better choice. Mr. Panczuk commented that the Board prefers monochromatic signs.

Mr. Davenport stated that the bank’s current sign just does not grab a lot of attention. He opined that the proposed LED message center will be more likely to get the public’s attention.

Mr. Maciejewski asked what the primary reason of the message board will be. Mr. Skrabala stated it would primarily be to get their corporate identity more visible in Town and for bank advertising.

(General discussion ensued.)

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

Attorney Kuiper stated, for the record, that the information he was about to relay would apply to all three petitions presented to the Board tonight. He noted that there are only three BZA members present tonight so any decision made by the Board would have to be unanimous. He stated that if the Board cannot make a unanimous decision then the matter would have to be deferred until the following month when the absent Board member is present.

Attorney Kuiper stated he believed that this is one of four Petitioners that were denied LED signs on Route 231, including Citizens ( now known by another name) St. Anthony’s, and another business which is now a dentist’s office. He believed these four Petitioners were all before the BZA within a 12-month period of time.

Mr. Maciejewski opened the public hearing and invited public comment relative to the proposed LED message center for Lake Federal bank.

P U B L I C H E A R I N G

Nancy Williams:
Ms. Williams informed the Board that she is the branch manager at Lake Federal in St. John. She opined that Lake Federal has done an excellent job in making a very tasteful corner at the intersection. She stated the intersection has a very “monochromatic look.” She stated that Lake Federal is not one of the great, big, bright banks where garish colors are used to gain attention.

Ms. Williams stated that it will be very helpful to put in the proposed sign because the corner is such a quiet, nice corner. She stated that there is vegetation growing along Route 231 which obscures a lot of their current sign. Ms. Williams stated that the sign is a muted tan color which is another reason it does not stand out. She stated the proposed sign would be used to promote the Town and really embrace the Gates of St. John.

Mr. Thomas:
Mr. Thomas that a 2x10 sign from a car distance is not going to look like a big sign at all. He stated anything, when looked at up close, is going to appear to be large.

Mr. Thomas stated he has installed 27 LED message centers. He stated every one of the businesses, starting from nine years ago, is still in business today. He stated he has never had one customer express regret to him over their purchase of the message center.

Mr. Thomas stated the message centers do make a difference. He stated it is a fact that the message signs work and will always work. He stated more people would have them if they were more affordable and the towns would allow them.

Mr. Thomas stated that he understands the ‘Vegas concept” too; the Town does not want their thoroughfares looking like Vegas. He stated that this was a concern in the Town of Merrillville too; he opined there’s no place in Merrillville that looks like Vegas.

Mr. Thomas stated there was also concern expressed over the signs causing accidents. He stated that there is a traffic signal by the bank now; he opined safety is not going to be an issue here.

Mr. Schneider asked Mr. Thomas what other size signs are considered standard in these types of signs. Mr. Thomas stated it depends on the size of the cabinet and the square footage. Mr. Thomas stated that the 2x10 cabinet is sufficient for the size. He stated that the proposed message center will not look too large. Mr. Thomas stated if you just consider the size of the sign itself, it’s really not that big.

Mr. Panczuk stated the sign would still be a 60 square foot sign, which would be double what the Town ordinance allows. He noted that Petitioner is also asking for a 20 square foot LED sign, which would be two-thirds of the allowable square footage of a normal sign which is way oversized.

Mr. Panczuk also commented that he could not see allowing for anything other than a monochromatic sign. Mr. Panczuk stated if it’s full color enabled, it will display full color. He stated that the Town has had issues with the full color enabled signs before. Mr. Panczuk opined that monochromatic is more tasteful and easier to read. He reiterated that a monochromatic sign is the only sign he would be willing to consider.

Mr. Schneider asked about letter sizing. Mr. Thomas stated in the 2x10 sign, you could have four rows of five inch letters or two rows of ten inch letters. Mr. Thomas stated a 2x10 sign utilizing two rows of ten inch letters would be more than sufficient.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Maciejewski asked the Petitioner if it would be worth it for Lake Federal to use a monochromatic sign. Mr. Davenport replied that the coloring helps. He stated there would be a difference in the visual appearance of the LED message center compared to what Lake Federal has now.

Mr. Schneider stated he would agree with a one color background and one color lettering, no mixed color. He stated that the Lake Federal sign is “quite large, a “pretty whooping big sign.”

Mr. Davenport responded that the St. John Evangelist sign is 3x6, 18 square feet. He stated the Lake Federal sign, if considered from a square foot ratio, is only 20 square feet. Mr. Maciejewski concurred, but added that the overall sign is “so far beyond the ordinance for monument signs.”

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Maciejewski stated, based on what he is hearing, the Board is not at a consensus. He asked the Petitioner if they would consider amending their application for a monochromatic sign. Mr. Skrabala asked for information on the Board’s vote. Attorney Kuiper explained the Board’s voting process to Mr. Skrabala.

Attorney Kuiper noted that it appeared that the Board would not have a unanimous vote at this point in time. He asked if the Petitioner would like some time to cogitate on the monochromatic sign decision. Mr. Skrabala stated that the Petitioner would like time to consider this matter and come back before the Board at a later date.

Mr. Skrabala stated he would like to bring up an issue that was bothering him. He stated that there is a ditch all around the bank’s lot, and the ditch has weeds that obscure Lake Federal’s sign. Mr. Skrabala stated that before the lot was purchased, he was told it was the developer’s responsibility and “it was all supposed to be smoothed out.” He stated that he once received an e-mail from the Town Manager that stated that the Bank “never be held to make that smooth.” Mr. Skrabala stated he was informed that the smoothing should have been done before the parcel was bought.

Mr. Skrabala asked if the Petitioner could amend their application for a 2x10 color enabled LED message center in a new and smaller sign. Mr. Maciejewski stated, “Possibly.” He reminded the Petitioner that the Board was down one member and one member was absent so it could change the debate.

Mr. Skrabala requested that the Petitioner be able to come back before the Board at the next regular meeting.

Mr. Skrabala noted that Lake Federal’s sign is at 120 square feet, and by ordinance, only 30 square feet was allowed in 2008. He stated he was present when the bank was asking for the sign in 2008, but he truly doesn’t remember much of the proceedings. Mr. Maciejewski stated they would try and locate the minutes from that date in order to review them.

Mr. Maciejewski stated, barring any further discussion, he would entertain a motion to defer the Lake Federal developmental variance for an LED message center sign to the July 27, 2015, BZA meeting. Mr. Panczuk made a motion to defer the matter to July 27, 2015. Mr. Schneider seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (3/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

B. GREG SCHILLING, 10133 EAST WELLINGTON COURT --- DEVELOPMENTAL VARIANCE --- CHAPTER 5, PAGE 3, SECTION F2.

Mr. Maciejewski moved on to Item B, a developmental variance from Chapter 5, Page 3, Section F2, being requested by Mr. Gregg Schilling.

Mr. Greg Schilling appeared before the Board seeking a developmental variance for 10133 East Wellington Court.

(Board members reviewing documents.)

Mr. Schilling stated he was proposing a full masonry, detached, two car garage. He stated that the proposed garage would abide by the covenants of the Estates of Wellington. Mr. Schilling stated he hand-drew the elevations if the Board had any questions.

Mr. Schilling stated, with the out lot, his lot is approximately three acres. He stated that the parcel that the house sits on is closer to two acres. Mr. Schilling submitted pictures for the Board’s review. He stated it would be a full footing basement, 30/36” deep footings. Mr. Schilling stated the proposed garage would not be on a slab so it will not move.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Maciejewski asked what the new distance from the corner of the proposed garage to the property line is. Mr. Schilling stated the proposed garage would be 32 feet from the property line.

Mr. Maciejewski asked the Petitioner if the proposed garage was just to park additional cars. Mr. Schilling concurred.

Mr. Schilling stated the proposed garage(s) do not face the street, they would be side loading. He stated the proposed garage would be approximately 1550-1600 square feet.

Mr. Panczuk noted the proposed garage is consistent with the quality of the house and the neighborhood. He stated the garage will appear to be attached when viewed from most angles.

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

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

Mr. Maciejewski asked if there were any further questions or comments. The Board had no further questions or comments.

Mr. Maciejewski stated he would entertain a motion on the developmental technical variance, incorporating the findings of fact, by reference. Mr. Schneider made a motion to approve the developmental technical variance at 10133 East Wellington Court, as presented, and incorporating the findings of fact by reference. Mr. Panczuk seconded the motion. Mr. Maciejewski did a roll call vote. Mr. Schneider --- yes. Mr. Panczuk --- yes. Mr. Maciejewski --- yes. The motion was carried by roll call vote (3/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

C. GET CAR FIT --- 10802 JOLIET STREET --- INSIDE SHOWROOM AND CAR DETAIL --- CONDITIONAL SPECIAL USE --- RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL --- MICHAEL A. SENA.

Mr. Maciejewski noted Get Car Fit, 10802 Joliet Street, an inside showroom and car detailing business was the next item on the agenda, and Petitioner was seeking a conditional special use. He stated that in this matter the Board would send a favorable or unfavorable recommendation to the Town Council for their consideration. He noted the normal findings of fact apply in addition to the three that he stated in a previous petition would apply to this petition.

Mr. Maciejewski noted that the Petitioner added a hardship “variance request or conditional use arises from some condition peculiar to the property involved, and Petitioner has established that the approval does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town. Mr. Maciejewski invited the Petitioner up to the podium to state his case.

Mr. Michael A. Sena appeared before the Board seeking a conditional special use for the Get Car Fit. He stated Joseph Decesar, his partner, was also present. Mr. Sena stated his partner has over 15 years of experience in the automobile industry. He stated he came up with a concept that they thought would be favorable to St. John, an indoor showroom.

Mr. Sena stated all of their cars would be featured in an indoor showroom. He explained that this is a new concept around the country, called a white room showroom. He stated instead of having just an open, used, pre-owned car lot, they would feature their automobiles indoors.

Mr. Sena stated that Petitioner is presently licensed as an automobile wholesaler, but they have applied to the State for a retail license. He stated the facility can hold approximately 15-18 cars. Mr. Sena stated all of the construction, approximately $25,000.00 worth, has been done already. He stated Petitioner is subleasing approximately 3,750 square feet. Mr. Sena stated that Youzsas is the actual tenant of the building. He stated that the Petitioner only has indoor signage. Mr. Sena stated they planned to put a vinyl sign on the garage door.

Mr. Sena stated that they missed the last meeting. He stated that it’s now holding Petitioner up from being able to apply for the State license. Mr. Sena explained that the State is cracking down on wholesalers and retailers. He stated that they have to have a designated space and meet all of the State’s compliance criteria, which Get Car Fit now has. Mr. Sena stated the missing part, at the present time, is the variance that they’re seeking tonight.

Mr. Schneider asked if the cars were custom cars. Mr. Sena stated that the vehicles would be standard automobiles. He stated Petitioner is licensed to go to auctions nationwide.

Mr. Schneider asked about the detailing end of the Petitioner’s business. Mr. Sena stated that at the present time, Petitioner would be detailing their own cars to get them ready for the market place.

Mr. Panczuk asked Petitioner if they had any other pictures to submit. Mr. Sena stated the only other pictures he had were on his cell phone.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Sena stated the Petitioner may put three or four cars out in front of their business during the day but no banners or pricing. He said the area would be kept “very classy.” He stated the cars would be stored indoors at night.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Panczuk asked about parking spaces. Mr. Sena stated that there are lines out front for four parking spaces. He stated Petitioner wants to give their customers a “unique buying experience indoors.”

Mr. Sena stated they have been doing no business as they just finished construction. Attorney Kuiper stated if all of the cars are inside, it is a permitted use for automobile sales. Attorney Kuiper stated it is the used car lot that which allows sales outside in a parking lot; he stated whether it’s one or three or twenty cars, it requires a designation. Attorney Kuiper stated that the gist of what the Board’s recommendation to the Town Council would be the conditional special use variance.

Mr. Sena stated that their goal is to sell about twenty cars a month. He reiterated that Petitioner can house 15-18 cars at a time. He stated, historically, the industry does about 40% of sales with drive-by traffic, and 60% on the internet. He stated Petitioner needs to be able to open the garage door during the day and park few cars outside. He stated they will be doing on-line marketing to drive people to the store.

Mr. Maciejewski asked where Petitioner would park the cars outside. Mr. Sena pointed out on the documents where they would be parking their cars.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Sena reiterated that the Petitioner’s goal is to sell approximately 20 cars a month or one car every one to two days. He stated Petitioner’s concept is unique as there will be full transparency of their invoices. Mr. Sena stated the Petitioner will offer the consumer with a unique buying experience. He stated the Get Car Fit is niche in the business somewhere between a CarMax and the rest of the car dealers out there.

Mr. Schneider asked for the hours of operation. Mr. Sena stated, by state law, with a retail license, the business would have to be open a minimum of 30 hours. He proposed the following hours for Get Car Fit: Monday and Wednesday, 12:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Tuesday and Thursday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., and Saturday 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Panczuk stated he had a few concerns. He stated they had to make sure there was no encroachment on the neighbor’s property; he wanted a stipulation as to the number of cars Petitioners could have parked outside, possibly put more lines in the parking lot to designate parking stalls and ensure that the St. John Fire Department has access to the building.

Mr. Sena stated the size of the front overhead door is 13 feet high by 12 feet wide; he stated no car will impinge into that 12 foot width as it is a straight drive through for traffic.

Mr. Panczuk asked how the vehicles would be parked. Mr. Sena stated the vehicles would stay very much in line with regular parking stalls, facing in towards the driveway so that they can be seen by people coming from both directions.

Mr. Sena stated it is his understanding that if Petitioner adheres a vinyl sign to the garage door, no permit is needed. Attorney Kuiper explained that a permit is not needed, but Petitioner would have to comply with the sizing requirements. Attorney Kuiper recommended that Mr. Sena consult with the Building and Planning Department about the sign.

Mr. Maciejewski asked Petitioner how many vehicles they are requesting to be parked outside. Mr. Sena stated Petitioner would like to park three to five vehicles outside. Mr. Panczuk pointed out a possible encroachment behind the building line; he stated four vehicles would be a better fit. The Board agreed that a four vehicle maximum for outdoor parking.

Mr. Sena informed the Board that he owns a business called Pro Fit in Dyer, Indiana, across from the hospital. He stated he has been there since October of 2011. Mr. Sena stated that he has worked very closely with the Town of Dyer. He stated he has been one hundred percent compliant with the rules and regulations in Dyer. He stated Mr. Eberle would be his reference.

Mr. Maciejewski stated, thus far, some of the conditions he has heard are no more than four vehicles outdoor parking along the western property line, no encroaching onto the adjacdent property, reserving the parking spaces in the front of the business for customers and employee parking will be in the rear. Mr. Schneider and Mr. Panczuk concurred.

Mr. Panczuk made a motion to send a favorable recommendation to the Town Council for Get Car Fit, 10802 Joliet Street, with the following contingencies: no more than four vehicles displayed “for sale” in the outdoor parking area on the western property line, customer parking is reserved in the front of the business, employee parking will be in the back and no encroachment on the neighbor’s property (plumbing business). Mr. Schneider seconded the motion.

Mr. Maciejewski did a roll call vote. Mr. Panczuk --- yes. Mr. Schneider --- yes. Mr. Maciejewski --- yes. The motion was carried by roll call vote (3/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

Mr. Maciejewski noted a favorable recommendation would go to the Town Council at their August 25, 2015, meeting. Attorney Kuiper directed Mr. Sena to call the Town Manager to ensure that the matter is placed on the Town Council’s agenda for August 25, 2015.

D. MR. DAVID WALKER --- 9173 WEST 96TH AVENUE, CORNER LOT FENCE --- DEVELOPMENTAL VARIANCE.

Mr. Maciejewski noted the last item under New Business, was a developmental variance being requested by Mr. David Walker, 9173 West 96th Avenue for a corner lot fence.

Mr. David Walker, 9173 West 96th Avenue, appeared before the Board seeking a developmental variance on a fence. He showed the Board on a drawing reflecting what he was requesting. He submitted documents and photographs to the Board.

Mr. Walker stated he has a 30 foot build line. He showed the Board the locations of the double gate and a single gate.

Mr. Panczuk asked how many feet would be left to the curb. Mr. Walker stated there would be 15 feet to the curb. Mr. Panczuk asked about the location of the sidewalk. Mr. Walker stated that from the sidewalk to the house is 30 feet; Mr. Walker stated that there will be 15 feet from the fence to the sidewalk.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Maciejewski asked if the notices and publications are in order for the public hearing. Attorney Kuiper stated that the notices and publications were in order so that a public hearing could be properly conducted tonight.

Mr. Maciejewski opened the public hearing. He called to public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Maciejewski closed the public hearing and brought the matter back before the Board.

Mr. Panczuk asked Petitioner if he planned to put landscaping on the outside of the fence. Mr. Walker stated he was not sure if he would put landscaping in or not.

Mr. Maciejewski stated he would entertain a motion on the developmental technical variance to extend the fence 15 feet into the eastern side yard of the lot at 9173 West 96th Avenue. Mr. Schneider made a motion to approve the developmental variance at 9173 West 96th Avenue for construction of a fence 15 feet into the eastern side yard and incorporating the findings of fact by reference. Mr. Panczuk seconded the motion. Mr. Maciejewski did a roll call vote. Mr. Schneider --- yes. Mr. Panczuk --- yes. Mr. Maciejewski --- yes. The motion was carried by roll call vote (3/0). 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 adjourned the meeting. (The meeting was adjourned at 8:38 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

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