St. John Indiana - Founded 1837
Return to Menu

January 23, 2017 Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes

Ken Schneider, PresidentDavid Austgen, Town Attorney
Paul PanczukRick Eberly, Building & Planning Director
Tom Ryan 
Jason Williams 
John Kennedy 

CALL TO ORDER:


Mr. Schneider called to order the St. John Board of Zoning Appeals for January 23, 2017 at 7:01 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, John Kennedy and Jason Williams. Staff present: Mr. David Austgen, Town Attorney and Mr. Rick Eberly, Building & Planning Director.

MINUTES:

Mr. Schneider advised that they have just seen the minutes this evening and entertained a motion to defer them to the next meeting in order for the board members to have a chance to review. Motion made by Mr. Panczuk and seconded by Mr. Williams. Motion carried 5 ayes – 0 nays.

ELECTION OF OFFICERS:

Mr. Schneider entertained a nomination for Chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals for 2017. Mr. Kennedy nominated Mr. Ken Schneider as Chairman. Motion seconded by Mr. Williams. Motion carried 5 ayes – 0 nays.

Mr. Williams nominated Mr. Paul Panczuk for Vice Chairman. Motion seconded by Mr. Kennedy. Motion carried 5 ayes – 0 nays.

Mr. Kennedy nominated Jason William for Executive Secretary. Motion seconded by Mr. Panczuk. Motion carried 5 ayes – 0 nays.

Mr. Kennedy nominated Ms. Michelle Haluska for Recording Secretary. Motion seconded by Mr. Panczuk. Motion carried 5 ayes – 0 nays.

NEW / OLD BUSINESS:


A. CIRCLE K (9300 Wicker Avenue) - Developmental / Technical and Special Exception Variances (Mr. Jim Wieser)

Mr. Schneider advised that those of you in attendance for the Circle K portion of this meeting; we received a facsimile from their attorney, asking that they would like the Board to remove from the agenda for tonight. It stated that they would come back at another time.

Mr. Schneider stated that there were some things that have to be worked out. I am sure you are aware that it is a very complicated situation on the corner. They will have to get that squared away and have another meeting.

Mr. Austgen stated that as a supplement to your record, substantial discussion was had today in preparation for this meeting and public hearing item. And there is some incompleteness to the application for purposes of your consideration of a Special Exception, with the variances and items that are required under our Zoning Ordinance. So, rather than go through this several times, they acknowledged the incompleteness, and requested this deferral.

Mr. Austgen advised Mr. Schneider that he would want to solicit a motion to do so, and make a record of this please.

Mr. Schneider advised he would like to entertain a motion to defer the Circle K variances and parts of the agenda for tonight, to a future meeting. Motion made by Mr. Williams. Seconded by Mr. Panczuk. Motion carried 5 ayes – 0 nays.

Mr. Austgen further advised Mr. Schneider and the board members that their record should reflect that re-advertising will be required, based upon the nature of this request and the incompleteness identified.

B. LEVIN TIRE (8575 Wicker Avenue) Developmental / Technical Variances - Automobile Service Station – Continued Public Hearing (Mr. Jeff Ban and Mr. Barry Levin)

Mr. Jeff Ban, President of DVG at 11065 Broadway Street, in Crown Point. Mr. Ban advised that the board may recall in October 2016, we were before you and had a public hearing on a Special Exception on an Automobile Repair Facility at the northeast corner of 85th Avenue and U.S. 41. We also had three (3) petitions for Developmental Standard Variances before you.

Mr. Ban advised the Special Exception was approved by this Board and the Town Council; and we had requested to defer action on the other variances, so that we could do some additional homework as you had requested.

Mr. Ban advised that the Developmental Standards Variances that we are asking to (1) allow parking between the U.S. 41 right-of-way and the front building line of the parcel (2) a rear yard setback variance (3) and allow outside parking spaces to be located in other than the rear and side yards.

Mr. Ban reminded that the site is located at the northeast corner of what is known as Bingo Lake and U.S. 41, just north of 85th Avenue. It is a very odd, irregular shaped parcel that is 3.5 acres, and on the northern half, this property we have a 50’ wide Trans Canada oil pipeline; which makes development of this site even more difficult.

With many meetings that we have had with the Town in terms of circulation and connecting neighborhoods, we have been asked to account for a future road that would run along the West side of Bingo Lake, between our development site and have that go from 85th Avenue North to Mr. Meyers development that is north of us. Which again, make more hardships for the development of this parcel, as it would narrow it even further.

On the site plan, we proposed to you, on the North property line of the lot, which was the southerly lot that we are thinking of developing, you will see the distance between U.S. 41 and that roadway that I am referencing; that is only 155’ in depth. If you were to go to the South property line, there we’re at about 260’ in depth. So, you have an angular shaped lot on the East side that causes a real problem in terms of trying to fit “any building”, no less Mr. Levin’s Tire Store building.

Mr. Ban advised that our hardship is that it does not meet any of the developmental standards, because of its shape; configuration and anything that would go on this site would need these variances. If you are to impose on this parcel, the strict adherence to your developmental standards, nothing could be developed on this site. Mr. Ban advised that is why we are back before you again tonight. The last time we were before this Board, you had asked us to take a look at maybe pushing the building as far as close to U.S. 41, and putting the main entryway and the parking on the East side.

Mr. Ban advised that they did that; and it was circulated through the Goodyear system, and the franchise said that would not work for us, it has never worked that way before and we don’t have another one of our stores like that in the country, and they will not let Mr. Levin to build the site like that here. They said that it is very important to have the front door visible throughout U.S. 41 to run through the economics of his business. To put the door on the back side of the building would be problematic, and he would most likely fail is the opinion of Goodyear.

Mr. Ban stated that they talked to staff, and they suggested we come back to you to explain the exercise that we have gone through in terms of developing an alternative to what you’ve requested and report back to the findings, and particular to Mr. Levin who is taking all the risk here in developing this site.

Mr. Ban advised so, we are here asking for the variances as it was originally presented. If you have any questions for myself, or Mr. Levin who is here on my right, to answer any questions that you might have concerning his operation. Mr. Ban advised they have provided some visuals of the Valparaiso store; which is right in the heart of the shopping districts near Silavy Road and Route 2. Mr. Ban stated that it fits well in the environment and the architecture to the neighborhood. Like the Valparaiso store, it was done with a lot of brick, masonry and done very tastefully.

Mr. Eberly asked if he could interrupt for just one second, he is trying to figure out why the projector is not working, so I can show your plans. They are used to being able to see what it is that we are discussing here, and for some reason the projector just went blank. Maybe Mickey knows the answer to what it is. (Project system was rebooted and started up again)

Mr. Eberly advised the board members that they can continue with their questions as the system is re-booted.

Mr. Kennedy asked if there were any overhead doors on the East side of the building, he thought there were doors in both East and West. Mr. Ban advised that they are not drive-through, only drive in and back out; in the center of the building where mechanics will have their diagnostics equipment for analyzing vehicle and using tools. He advised all these are shared in the center, they go from work station to the next.

Mr. Kennedy further asked about landscaping around the building. Mr. Ban advised that they are not asking for a variance on the landscaping, as they will be supplying same to the Plan Commission to comply with the U.S. 41 Overlay Plan.

(Screen back down and operating)

Mr. Schneider asked about the parking spaces. Mr. Eberly answered that it more than meets our ordinance, and noted that the parking on the South side is more than enough to satisfy the ordinance, but it may not be enough to serve your client’s needs. Mr. Ban advised that is correct.

Mr. Ban showed on the screen, that there is a driveway coming out to U.S. 41, maybe we can make this a little more green space, removing 3 to 4 parking spaces, and then relocated them for the employees. Mr. Schneider advised that he would like a little more green space.

Mr. Kennedy advised for the dimensions of the parking spaces. Mr. Ban advised they are 10’ x 20’.

Mr. Williams asked Mr. Austgen to help him with what are the schedule of uses for an Automobile Service Station per Chapter 3 (E). Mr. Williams then read from the petitioner’s application of the specific variance request, and then noted that it was approved by the BZA and the Town Council, so we don’t have to do anything on that matter. Mr. Austgen and Mr. Eberly reminded Mr. Williams that was done. Mr. Eberly reminded that they are just dealing with the three (3) developmental standards this evening.

Mr. Kennedy asked how many parking spaces they have in Valparaiso, as a comparison to the one proposed. Mr. Ban and Mr. Levin advised they do not have that information, however; that is something they can check. Mr. Kennedy asked if the parking in Valparaiso is ample for their business. Mr. Levin advised for the most part it is.

Mr. Panczuk addressed the petitioner and stated that they know that he voted no on the Special Exception, and stated he almost voted yes, but he was reluctant due to traffic factors. He further commented that he is looking at a picture of your Valparaiso store, and the blueprint is of the Highland store with the parking in front. Mr. Panczuk advised that he does not see anything that attempts to meet the U.S. 41 Overlay Standards. Mr. Panczuk further stated that he asked if they could flip the building, reconfigure, have a mirror image to the plans. Mr. Panczuk stated he is also concerned about the neighbors that they will have; and right across the street you have a funeral home, so he felt there would be a noise issue.

Mr. Williams commented that he feels that you are missing a real opportunity to give your customers who are in your waiting room a view of beautiful Bingo Lake, as opposed to U.S. 41.

Mr. Ban and Mr. Levin both stated that activity breeds activity; that is why they left it turned toward the U.S. 41 corridor. If they see a lot of traffic to a business, they will want to go to that business, the activity is the incentive. Mr. Ban reiterated that Mr. Panczuk’s request of flipping the building was not well received by Goodyear Corporate.

Mr. Panczuk commented on the noise issue of the business. Mr. Ban stated that measuring the decibel levels of shop noise are lower than the vehicle decibel noise that is generated from U.S. 41 traffic. Mr. Levin advised that his stores in Crown Point and Valparaiso are in residential areas, and in the five (5) years of their operation, there has not been one complaint about noise at either facility. Mr. Levin advised the noise is not a factor and feels that the noise from U.S. 41 itself is louder than the levels that they generate, and he feels it is not an issue.

Mr. Schneider reminded that they need overhead door access from each side of the building. Mr. Ban said that is correct; it is six (6) and four (4).

General discussion ensued with the board members and the petitioner on an East-West direction of the building to a North-South.

Mr. Eberly advised that he read the minutes of the last meeting, and asked Mr. Levin how critical it is to have a U.S. 41 “address” as opposed to a U.S. 41 “location”. Mr. Eberly advised that if they have an 85th Avenue address; which would change West-East issues to “side yards”, thus allowing more parking spaces on those side and North, possibly shifting it further to 85th Avenue. Mr. Ban commented that they have only 260’ from property line to property line.

Mr. Ban stated that regardless of how they position the building on the site, they will need variances, and most likely the same ones, whether the building runs North-South or East-West.

Mr. Austgen commented that this is a question of degree (of variances). Mr. Ban advised that is exactly right.

Mr. Ban and Mr. Levin discussed a sketch that Mr. Panczuk drew at the dais. General discussion ensued; and after lengthy interaction between the board members and the Petitioner it was decided by Mr. Levin and Mr. Ban to take the issue, with a new configuration to Goodyear Corporate.

Mr. Eberly advised that he has had discussion with Mr. Austgen about the “intent” of the Overlay District is to bring the buildings up to the front property line, and in the very same paragraph is says “but, you shall defer to the set-backs in the underlying Zoning District”; which is C-2, and that is what forces the sixty foot (60’) front yard set-back. In reiterating that portion of the Overlay District, Mr. Eberly stated that it contradicts itself.

Mr. Panczuk stated that he disagrees that it contradicts itself, that it only does it in an unusually small lot like this. Mr. Austgen stated that it seems that every petition you have before the Board, is a unique piece of property.

Mr. Ban wanted to remind the Board that anything that goes on this site, whether it is Mr. Levin’s building, or something else, they will be asking for the same things, because of the uniqueness.

Mr. Kennedy asked if the building was shifted, would it even need some of the variances. Mr. Eberly advised that Chapter C (3) (m), that is for specialty regulations, and that is specific to an Automotive Service Center; it says that “parking shall not be in other than a side or rear yard”, so again it depends on where he “addresses” the building. If he turns it East-West, and addresses it on 85th Avenue, then U.S. 41 becomes a side yard, where you can park. The frontage road becomes a side yard, where you can have parking. In addition, the North side of the building becomes a rear yard, where you are encouraged to put your parking. Mr. Eberly advised the board that the “address” determines where your setbacks are.

(General discussion ensued amongst the board members simultaneously)

Mr. Ban advised again that they would like to look into great detail what has been sketched out and see how it fits; and we will present to you an alternative once he have taken back to Goodyear Corporate. This will also give us a chance to see if the variances in our petition are intact.

Mr. Ban stated that something that we have yet to address is the minimum building size, which is 15,000 square feet, and this building will be in the 8,000 to 9,000 square foot range. Therefore, we will most likely have to file another petition and have another public hearing, and possible get done before the next meeting date. The minimum tract size according to your ordinance is two (2) acres; and our tract in its totality is 3.5 acres.

Mr. Williams asked about the bicycle/pedestrian path. Mr. Ban advised that there is a huge ditch that runs underneath U.S. 41, then to our site, runs along the front yard and then along 85th to get to Bingo Lake. Mr. Eberly advised that was already addressed at the previous meeting of not wanting bicycle / pedestrian paths along U.S. 41.

Mr. Austgen advised that this is a deferred public hearing and you can solicit public comment. Mr. Schneider advised that he would prefer to wait. Mr. Austgen re-stated that they are going to have to re-advertise, because there are items here that have not been advertised; it would be an incomplete progress. Mr. Austgen stated that you will have a public hearing, and the public will have their right, and they should have their right, but at this point you do not have a project that is “The Project”, if you will.

Mr. Schneider entertained a motion to defer the application of Levin Tire to a future meeting. Motion made by Mr. Williams. Motion seconded by Mr. Panczuk. Motion carried 5 ayes – 0 nays.

C. ALSIP NURSERY (10255 Wicker Avenue) Developmental / Technical Variances for Greenhouse Addition (Mr. Rich Christakes)

Mr. Schneider advised the next item is Alsip Nursery for a Greenhouse Addition, and called the Petitioner to the podium and directed him to please state your name and address for the record.

Mr. Rich Christakes, Co-Owner of Alsip Home and Nursery, 14967 West 145th, Cedar Lake, Indiana. The business address is 10255 Wicker Avenue in St. John, Indiana. Mr. Christakes advised if Mr. Eberly received his e-mail from this afternoon. Mr. Eberly advised no.

Mr. Eberly reminded the members that there was concern that we did not have a complete property owners list from the St. John Township Assessor’s Office, half of the list was cut off. Mr. Austgen was unable to determine whether there was proper notification. Mr. Christakes provided the corrected notice form and I was able to check that, but there are still four to five property owners for which I have not received a green card back, and I do not have any of the “white receipt cards”. If memory serves it is Nipsco, the Railroad, Hunters Run Homeowners Association, M & M Development, and Ravenswood Development Lot 7. Not at all unusual for Nipsco and the Railroad not to sign the green cards and get them back.

Mr. Austgen advised that from this listing, however, although I agree with Mr. Eberly that the substantial compliance has been met; “technical compliance” has not been met, and we will know if the mailings have occurred when we get the “white mailing slips”, and perhaps the green cards if they have gone unclaimed and they are sitting at the Post Office or wherever. Any action you take tonight should be expressly contingent upon the receipt of verification, and all actions should be subject to that by your Staff. If you do not receive the white mailing certification of at least the mailing action; then this action would be moot.

Mr. Christakes stated that he did mail to everyone on that list and he thought he turned those slips in. Mr. Williams and Mr. Schneider asked Mr. Austgen to repeat his comment on the mailing. Mr. Austgen advised that the white mailing slips; with the Post marking, verifying that mailing was made, and the green card return receipts that acknowledge receipt by the intended addressee. Mr. Eberly advised that the white slips verify that the effort was made on the part of the Petitioner to get the mailing to party. If the party never signs the green cards, it is beyond their control, but they would have returned the envelope to the Petitioner. Mr. Christakes stated that he may have some of this at his office. Mr. Austgen stated that if you do not have the white mailing slips, then this meeting and public hearing should probably not be held.

Mr. Christakes asked, if I have those can I bring them tomorrow and still be heard tonight. Mr. Austgen advised it is up the Board members. Mr. Austgen repeated that any action you take should be subject to, and expressly contingent upon, receipt of the white mailing slips from the Post Office mailing action and the green card return receipts, either claimed or unclaimed.

Mr. Eberly asked if this original petition was in November 2016 to appear before the BZA. Mr. Christakes said yes.

Mr. Eberly asked the board members if they received the summary that he prepared. He wanted to direct their attention to Item # 6, because he has seen it on other BZA petitions, and that is that we have fallen into the habit of considering in the U.S. 41 Overlay District, Public Art submittal variance. Mr. Eberly read the restrictions and in his opinion we do not require Public Art. We have one sentence that addresses Public Art in all three (3) Overlay Districts and it just says “If a development plan includes Public Art, must make sure that the public art is visually accessible from U.S. 41”, that is all it says. It does not say that it is required, but if you have it, if it is part of your plan, then it must be visually accessible from U.S. 41, so in my opinion it is not a requirement in the district in any case.

Mr. Schneider asked for Mr. Eberly and Austgen to back up and reiterate that we do not.,.,. Mr. Austgen advised no, you can conduct the public hearing, expressly contingent upon the items that we talked about. Proof that there was proper notice given. If there wasn’t, then this is an exercise in a practice.

Mr. Christakes stated that in October when he did the mailing, that he brought the white copies back to the Town Hall, I thought I might have given them to Michelle or um. I think I tried to give them to you (Michelle Haluska), and you sent me to Sue (Sue Zerante, Building & Planning Department). Mr. Christakes requested to go forward, and figure out the rest from here if that is okay with the board.

Mr. Christakes advised that there are two different plans that they are seeking approval for: the first one is the Greenhouse Expansion and the other a Landscape Supply Sales Office. Mr. Christakes reminded the board members of items discussed back in November 2015 and had a staff member distribute hard copies of computer generated drawings on possible proposals.

[Numerous discussions ensued to as the distribution of eight (8) options for the Board of Zoning Appeals to look at, ask questions and Mr. Christakes asking for the members to recommendation an Option that they prefer. It should be noted for the record that what followed was internal discussions of the Board members and Mr. Christakes with none of the “exhibits” marked or identifiable from one another].

Mr. Austgen commented that the Petitioners has put you in the position of all the different ways of how he presented his application tonight. It is not your fault (the BZA) of how he presented it.

At this time Mr. Schneider opened the floor to public comment, advising those coming to the podium to please state your name and address for the record.

Joe Hero (11723 South Oakridge Drive): I’ve watched three (3) issues here tonight. The first one was the gas station, (Mr. Williams asked if this was about Alsip Nursery) I know it was, this is a public hearing and you can’t control by speech. I am going to make my comment and my argument. You listen, that’s you job. You let these guys off the hook, because they weren’t ready, twice. Then we went to the next one and you left them off the hook, because they weren’t ready. And what they are doing is prejudicing you to do it this way or that way. Now we have a presentation of like six or eight possibilities, and the public, all of this stuff should be done ahead of time. The legal notices should be on the table. Yeah, they are there or no, they are not there. You got the green cards, yes you do or no you don’t. Okay, you can not do the engineering for these people. I have nothing against Alsip, it’s a nice place. But as I listen as a member of the public, how can you intelligently comment when there are six or eight things. Nothing is shown on the screen, everybody’s got little pieces of paper, that you are handling around. You cannot intelligently have a public hearing. You need to get this thing organized better. So that when somebody comes in, the paperwork is on public record, in the Town, where people who see the legal notice, can come and look at it ahead of the meeting. You cannot negotiate every little increment, “let’s move it here”, “let’s move it there”. So, I am not objecting to anything that Alsip’s got. I am objecting to the way you are conducting this meeting. Its not a fair hearing, if it’s a public hearing, if you haven’t done your homework. If the legal notices haven’t been certified as proper and that sort of thing. So I am not objecting to these guys; I am objecting to the way you are conducting these meetings. I think you gotta take a step back, and get organized and do it the right way. Because it is not a true public hearing when you say it is a contingent, you bring these cards in. Well, if I wanted to remonstrate against these guys. How would I ever know if they brought the cards in. You got to get your act together. That’s my comment. Thank you.

Gerry Swets (9490 Joliet Street): In listening to the Board and their actions this evening, I would just like to say that I have been disappointed with the same thing that Mr. Hero brought up. But I have also been encouraged by your desire to follow the plans and the guidelines in the ordinances that are written up in the Town, and I appreciate that. I think it is important that we keep the 41 corridor looking, based on the research and study and the decisions that were made in the Comprehensive Plan and in the Overlay District, in order to keep businesses looking nice. I like the idea of keeping the brick look, like you were talking about on this one. Those are the things that I am looking for gentlemen; outta you guy, because it is your job to make sure all the expansion gets done in a beautiful manner, and in an orderly manner to keep this Town moving forward and keep this Town looking good. So for that I want to say thank you.

Bryan Blazak (9299 Franklin Drive): I’d like to echo what Gerry said and that’s basically that you guys are starting to put it together and you are starting to think about the Town. And that is what we’re here for. We are not here to criticize. We are just here to try and do what’s best for this Town. And basically you are the line of first and last defense. If you don’t cover our citizens tails, then the Town goes to hell, and nobody is responsible but you. So basically that. I’d like to ask a question of the Board. And that is simply this. Levin Tire is going to put a very large building on that property at Bingo Lake. If gentlemen have lived here for any number of years like I have. You have watched the property owner, before Levin Tire bought it per se. Filling in that property in for years and years. They have been pushing dirt in there, pushing dirt in there, pushing dirt in there. Now, are there going to be engineering samples done, to see if they are going to have to drive pilings in to put that building on. They are going to be sitting on dirt that has been there for five years, ten years, twelve or fifteen years. Is that solid enough to put a building on. And, I didn’t hear that questions come up. Now is that the engineer’s job; when it goes to the Plan Commission.

Rita Berg (10351 Joliet Street): I’ve been listening to you gentlemen and I have to agree with the speakers before me. The only thing I am concerned about is like, Bingo Lake, if there’s a heck of a good rain, is this building gonna go floating away. And, I have no objections to Levin Tire being around, because it is a different type of business than what we have. But there are other areas on the 41 corridor, like the Schilling spot right over the bridge, which would be a perfect spot for them, and they are trying to sell it. And that would be a good spot to put the Levin Tire building. So, I would like to hear some other suggestions to these people, where it is a little sounder for them to put their buildings, and make it more comfortable for the rest of us too. And keep the corridor safe, and um, well when we get around to the Circle K, I’ve got some suggestions about that too, but it’s not ready yet, so, okay thank you, that’s all.

With no further comments, Mr. Schneider closed the floor to public comment and bring it back to the board.

Mr. Christakes said he had a question for Attorney Austgen, are you saying that you got some of the white cards or none of the white cards. Mr. Eberly and Mr. Austgen stated “no white cards”. Mr. Eberly advised that the folders that he inherited had no white cards, just green cards. Mr. Christakes again stated that he was pretty sure he brought them into Mickey (Michelle Haluska), and she sent me down to Sue (Sue Zerante, Building & Planning Department). And I know I mailed them to the entire list that the Assessor provided to me.

Mr. Austgen asked to address the Chairman: We are working on the Rules of Procedure for this Board. You won’t have a draft tonight, it is nearly ready for you. We are going to address all this. You are not going to be coming to meetings and have your Staff not be able to tell you the things that we have talked about here tonight. That has gone on way too long. And the comments made by your citizens are “spot on” about this. We should not be wondering where these green cards are or where the white mailing slips are, or whether the publication is come back from the newspaper; much less with you having a Staff Report and a recommendation. It is all changing, that that is coming. Mr. Schneider thanked Mr. Austgen.

Mr. Williams stated in recognition of that fact, he would like to make a motion to defer. Mr. Panczuk seconded the motion.

Mr. Austgen stated that I the white slips may be lost and you (Mr. Christakes) will be in trouble if they are. Mr. Christakes asked if he would have to do the mailing again. Mr. Austgen advised that you will have to start over, because this would have been a defective public hearing, and folks that were supposed to have been noticed would not have been, it is how it work. It is a law procedure. You can’t do anything about it to change it. That is how it works. So people have notice.

Mr. Austgen: “May I suggest that you direct the Petitioner to bring in and visit with your Staff, and bring in “exactly”; what it is that they are applying for. And identify specifically the Overlay District, variances and exceptions being sought, and the reason for same. You got a lot of nice pictures here tonight. Renderings. But you are thumbing through them up there, as it goes; it is like a card game almost”.

Mr. Schneider told Mr. Christakes that the Board is going to defer this, for him to come with “a plan”, for the building, with the elevation that we requested. And to meet with Staff and to get these variances squared away.

Mr. Eberly advised that would require further review and a meeting with the Petitioner, and it will be outlined and noted for the board members before they appear again before the board.

(Discussion ensued in regards to frontage roads, access to other tracts). Mr. Austgen commented that this is an un-subdivided parcel, when it initially developed it was not required to go through a subdivision process, for either a one or two lot. There are various parcels here that have not been combined into a unified platted development.

Mr. Austgen reiterated that if they had the application before them, they would understand why this needs to go back for a Staff meeting and more discussion.

Mr. Christakes advised that in numerous discussions with the Town Manager, Steve Kil, that they have contacted their attorney as to looking to subdivide the property and dedicate that portion that would extend Earl Drive.

Again, Mr. Williams advises that he is making a motion to defer. Mr. Panczuk again seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 ayes – 0 nays.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

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

Mr. Schneider entertained a motion to adjourn. Mr. Williams made a motion to adjourn. Motion seconded by Mr. Kennedy. Motion carried 5 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