| Jim Maciejewski | Attorney Tim Kuiper |
| Ken Schneider | Steve Kil |
| Peter Monix | Greg Volk |
| Steve Hastings | |
| Tom Ryan |
(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)
Mr. Tom Ryan nominated Ken Schneider for the position of Vice-President for the year of 2011; Mr. Monix seconded the motion. There were no other nominations. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (4/0).
Mr. Ken Schneider nominated Peter Monix for the position of Secretary for the year of 2011; Mr. Ryan seconded the motion. There were no other nominations. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (4/0).
Mr. Schneider asked why there was a need for a second shed. Mr. Koza replied that he needed extra storage for his riding lawn mower, lawn furniture, snow blower and other items. He stated his existing shed is overcrowded. Mr. Ryan asked the Petitioner if there was a home located behind him. Mr. Koza stated there is no home behind him. He stated there are two homes located to the east and to the west of his property; one is approximately 30 feet away and the other approximately 80 feet away.
Mr. Maciejewski provided a drawing and he asked the Petitioner to point out on the drawing where he planned to build the proposed shed. Mr. Koza indicated on the drawing.
(General discussion ensued.)
Mr. Schneider noted that the paperwork for the variance stated that the proposed shed was to be 10x10. Mr. Koza stated that the proposed shed he is requesting is 10x16. Mr. Kil noted that the Petitioner is allowed two accessory structures with a maximum of 250 square feet. He stated that the maximum allowable size for a shed is 160 square feet, and the Petitioner currently has an existing 160 square foot shed.
Attorney Kuiper informed the Board that all notices and publications for the public hearing were in order.
Mr. Maciejewski opened the floor for a public hearing. He called for any comments from the public to address the Board relative to the matter of the proposed shed. There were no comments from the public. Mr. Maciejewski closed the public hearing and brought the matter back before the Board for discussion. Mr. Schneider asked if there would be electricity to the shed. Mr. Koza stated there would be no electric run to the shed. There was no further discussion by the Board.
Mr. Maciejewski stated he would entertain a motion to approve/deny the request for the technical variance as proposed. He stated that if there were any contingencies or attachments to the motion they should be indicated with the motion.
Mr. Ryan made a motion to approve the developmental technical variance requested by Mr. Ken Koza at 13515 92nd Court with the dimensions listed, a 10x16 shed. Mr. Monix seconded the motion. Mr. Ryan – yes. Mr. Monix – yes. Ken Schneider - yes. Jim Maciejewski – yes. The motion was unanimously approved by roll call vote (4/0).
Mrs. Santoianni had no paperwork to submit. Mr. Schneider asked what type of fence would be erected. Mrs. Santoianni stated the fence would be wrought iron/picket type fencing made of aluminum. Mr. Monix asked about the height of the fence. Ms. Santoianni stated the fence would be six feet high. Mr. Schneider asked if the fence would run up on the berm. Mrs. Santoianni explained that the fence stops before the berm. She explained the configuration of the fence to the Board. Mr. Maciejewski asked why the fence was not at the building line. Petitioner stated that they wanted the proposed fence to come up to the garage door to make it easier to let out her grandchild and/or the family pet.
Attorney Kuiper informed the Board that all notices and publications were in order for a public hearing.
Mr. Maciejewski opened the floor for a public hearing. He called for any comments from the public to address the Board relative to the matter of the proposed fence. There were no comments from the public. Mr. Maciejewski closed the public hearing and brought the matter back before the Board for discussion. There was no further discussion by the Board.
Mr. Maciejewski stated he would entertain a motion to approve/deny the request for the developmental technical variance for the construction of the fence beyond the building line. He stated that if there were any contingencies or attachments to the motion they should be indicated with the motion. Mr. Schneider made a motion to approve the developmental technical variance for the construction of a fence beyond the building line at 8488 Christopher Drive, ensuring that the entire fence is six foot, aluminum picket fence with the dimensions shown. Mr. Monix seconded the motion. Mr. Maciejewski requested a roll call vote. Mr. Schneider – yes. Mr. Monix – yes. Mr. Ryan – no. Mr. Maciejewski – yes. The motion was passed by roll call vote (3/1).
Mrs. Gurley stated that the Petitioners are requesting the addition of a pool house that will connect to the back of the garage for storage and for shade. Mrs. Gurley explained to the Board that there are no neighbors behind them, the street runs along one side of their residence and they own the lot on the other side of their residence.
Mr. Maciejewski asked if the pool house would be occupied. Mrs. Gurley stated that the back yard is in full sun and the addition of the pool house would allow her three children to come in out of the sun to rest, eat and use the bath room. The pool house would also be used for storage of pool accessories.
Mr. Maciejewski asked how far Petitioner would be over on lot coverage if the proposed pool house is built. Mr. Kil stated that different requirements have to be considered. The zoning is R2-PUD. As far as building coverage it would probably be a little over five percent, which would put the Petitioner over the allowable lot coverage for structures.
(General discussion ensued.)
Mr. Kil stated there would have to be a variance on the setbacks and the lot coverage. He explained about the fictitious rear yard building line in the Gates of St. John. He stated he did not understand why V3 placed this building line because there are no building lines in the rear yards. Mr. Kil stated Petitioner is encroaching in the rear yard, over allowable lot coverage and square footage.
Mr. Maciejewski asked the Petitioner if they planned on selling the empty lot. Mrs. Gurley informed the Board that the lot is used for green space and they have no intention of selling it.
(General discussion ensued.)
Attorney Kuiper informed the Board that all notices and publications were in order for a public hearing.
Mr. Maciejewski opened the floor for a public hearing. He called for any comments from the public to address the Board relative to the matter of the proposed pool house. There were no comments from the public. Mr. Maciejewski closed the public hearing and brought the matter back before the Board for discussion. There was no further discussion by the Board.
Mr. Maciejewski stated he would entertain a motion to approve or deny the request for the pool house with the three developmental technical variances as discussed above with the pool house as reflected on the plat of survey submitted. He stated if there were any contingencies or attachments to the motion to indicate the same in the motion.
Mr. Schneider asked the Petitioner if there was a plan for the Board to review. A plan was submitted for the Board’s review.
(General discussion ensued.)
Mr. Ryan made a motion to deny the three developmental technical variances at 8685 West 105th as follows: lot coverage which is approximately five percent over the allowable lot coverage, the rear yard setback overage (10 feet), and the increase in square footage of the pool house. There was no second to the motion. The motion failed. Mr. Maciejewski stated he would entertain another motion.
Mr. Maciejewski asked Mr. Ryan if he had any comments or concerns to share. Mr. Ryan stated he had none. Mr. Schneider commented that the location is “kind of an island to themselves with the corner, the pond, and the lot next to them.” He also stated his other concern is that the Petitioner(s) are “really pushing the limits on something here.” Mr. Schneider asked Mr. Ryan if his decision would be affected knowing that nothing would ever be built next door. Mr. Ryan responded there is no way guarantee this. Mr. Ryan asked if it would be possible to shrink the structure.
(General discussion ensued.)
Mr. Maciejewski then stated he would take the issues, one by one, for the benefit of Mr. Ryan and Mr. Schneider. The first issue was the rear yard setbacks. Mr. Ryan and Mr. Schneider stated that the set back was part of their concern. He asked if they were more opposed to the size of the pool house, the lot coverage or the set back. Mr. Schneider stated his concern was with the rear yard and the lot coverage. Mr. Maciejewski noted nothing will ever be built behind the home.
(General discussion ensued.)
Mr. Schneider made a motion to approve the developmental technical variances at 8685 West 105th as follows: for the construction of a pool house greater than 250 square foot and beyond the allowable lot coverage as shown in the plans submitted to the Board, and over the rear yard building line. Mr. Monix seconded the motion.
Mr. Maciejewski requested a roll call vote. Mr. Schneider – yes. Peter Monix – yes. Tom Ryan – no. Jim Maciejewski – yes. The motion passed by roll call vote (3/1).
(General discussion ensued.)
Mr. Monix stated he talked with the operator of the business and stated there is some misunderstanding with the size of the fence. The Board directed Mr. Kil to have Attorney Kuiper send a letter to the operator of the business regarding their non-compliance with the fence.
Mr. Maciejewski asked Mr. Kil for an update on the lighting of the Schilling sign. Mr. Kil informed the Board that he has addressed this issue on several occasions with Mr. Muenich. He reminded the Board that they also spoke to Mr. Muenich about sign compliance. Mr. Kil stated he forwarded a copy of the minutes to Mr. Dean Schilling and he has had no response. Mr. Kil stated that he would direct Attorney Kuiper to send Schilling a letter regarding non-compliance with the sign.
(The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.)
A TRUE COPY
_______________________________________________
Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary
St. John Board of Zoning Appeals
| Jim Maciejewski | Attorney Tim Kuiper |
| Ken Schneider | Steve Kil |
| Peter Monix | Greg Volk |
| Steve Hastings | |
| Tom Ryan |
(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)
(General discussion ensued.)
Mr. Schneider asked what type of fence the Petitioner was proposing. Mr. Albert told him it would be six foot high, picketed PVC fencing. Petitioner stated there would be gates placed on the north and the south side of the house facing west. The south side of the fence would line up with the neighbor’s fence. Mr. Alpert stated that his neighbor has no objection to him tying into his fence. Mr. Alpert stated he was granted permission to erect a fence from the developer and the Homeowners Association.
(General discussion ensued.)
Attorney Kuiper informed the Board that all notices and publications for the public hearing were in order.
Mr. Maciejewski opened the floor for a public hearing. He called for any comments from the public relative to the matter of the proposed fence. There were no comments from the public. Mr. Maciejewski closed the public hearing and brought the matter back before the Board for discussion.
Mr. Maciejewski stated he would entertain a motion to approve/deny the request for the technical variance to build a fence over the building line extending approximately 18 feet from the building line to the north, as indicated in the diagram. Mr. Schneider asked how permanent the play set was. Petitioner stated that the play set could be taken apart if need be. Mr. Schneider asked if Petitioner had considered placing the fence five (5) feet from the sidewalk instead of two (2) feet from the sidewalk. He informed the Board that he would have to check and see if this would interfere with the play set. Mr. Schneider remarked that a solid fence such as this is a “little too overwhelming when you get it close to the sidewalk”. He stated five (5) feet from the sidewalk and some landscaping would “soften it up a little.” Mr. Alpert stated three (3) feet would be acceptable, but two (2) feet from the sidewalk ideally.
(General discussion ensued.)
Mr. Maciejewski stated he would amend Petitioner’s request to place the fence three (3) feet from the sidewalk on the north edge. Petitioner concurred. Mr. Schneider made a motion to approve the developmental technical variance for a fence beyond the building line at 9001 Teal Place to be placed three (3) feet from the sidewalk. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion. Mr. Maciejewski requested a roll call vote. Mr. Schneider – yes. Mr. Hastings – yes. Mr. Monix – yes. Mr. Ryan – yes. Mr. Maciejewski – yes. The motion was unanimously carried by roll call vote (5/0).
(Petitioner indicates on photographs.)
Petitioner stated he did not understand why he needed to place fence where the hedge row was. Mr. Maciejewski stated that the fencing was an “agreed upon condition to have the greenhouse.” Mr. Volk asked Mr. Buikema if he could submit a plat. Petitioner submitted a plat of survey to the Board.
Mr. Maciejewski stated he recalled a number of people that were against the addition of the greenhouse to the site. Mr. Buikema explained that the trees are basically right on Gerlach Court. He stated he would have to erect the fence right on Gerlach Court, or alternatively, place the fence on the other side of the hedge row where it will not be seen. Mr. Maciejewski noted that the hedge row goes only part of the distance.
Mr. Buikema asked the Board’s permission to plant hedges to keep the look the same rather than tearing out the hedge row and installing fence. Mr. Buikema proposed planting five arborvitae which would act as a fence in lieu of the agreed upon fence. Mr. Maciejewski asked if the proposed hedges would be as big and as dense as the existing hedge row. Mr. Buikema stated he would plant “four, five, six foot trees.” He stated the proposed trees would be dense in a few years.
Mr. Maciejewski asked if there was space between the greenhouse and the hedge row to run a fence through. Mr. Buikema concurred that there is space for the fence, but the fence would not be seen. Mr. Buikema stated he would prefer to plant hedges to keep “that look the same…” Mr. Maciejewski stated that the Board was explicit on their directives for a fence, a year went by with non-compliance even though there was a deadline.
Mr. Maciejewski noted that the fence that was erected did not go up until after the deadline was past. Mr. Buikema maintained “the majority of that fence was up by July 24.” Mr. Buikema stated in order to come into compliance with the Board’s directives he would have to add over one hundred (100) feet of fence. Mr. Buikema stated that eighty (80) percent of the proposed fence line is “covered by a nice hedge line.” He asked the Board’s permission to plant a few new trees rather than the fencing that was ordered. Mr. Buikema noted that Gerlach Court is rarely used.
Mr. Maciejewski stated Petitioner’s non-compliance seemed to him to be a total disregard for what the Board had asked for in order to gain the approval to place the greenhouse.
(General discussion ensued.)
Mr. Maciejewski asked Attorney Kuiper what the consequences would be if the developmental technical variance was revoked. Attorney Kuiper stated that Petitioner would lose their ability to have the accessory structure (greenhouse) and it would have to be taken down.
Mr. Buikema stated he would have to add another one hundred twenty (120) feet of fence to bring it up to Gerlach Court, most of which would be hidden. He proposed adding additional fence up to the hedge row, adding approximately five arborvitae to match the existing trees. Mr. Maciejewski stated that the fencing could be run to the hedge row, start again at the tree, and run it the rest of the way to the front.
(Petitioner and Board referring to photographs.)
(General discussion ensued.)
The Board discussed the time frame to get fence erected. The Board concurred in allotting the Petitioner 15 days to add the additional twenty (20) feet of fencing, and forty-five (45) days to complete the entire fence.
Mr. Buikema brought up the truck route to the Board. He stated that the truck route is not safe. Mr. Buikema stated that many deliveries he makes are to the east of his business. He stated he has a very difficult time negotiating his trucks from Hack Street back onto 93rd Avenue, and he is afraid he is going to have an accident. He noted he sees the Town’s trucks outside of the truck route. Mr. Maciejewski stated that the BZA did not establish the truck route and it’s not a matter for the Board to consider. Mr. Volk concurred with Mr. Maciejewski, and stated that the truck route was established by Chief Frego. Mr. Volk stated that this would be a matter to be brought before the Police Department and/or the Town Council. Mr. Volk recommended that Mr. Buikema send a formal request to the Town regarding the truck route to have it reviewed and placed on the Town Council agenda.
(General discussion ensued.)
The discussion returned back to the fence issue. Mr. Maciejewski placed Petitioner’s photograph(s) into the record. Mr. Maciejewski drew on the photograph the layout of the fencing.
Mr. Ryan made a motion to amend the previously granted variance dated May 24, 2010, and alter the configuration of the fence by extending the existing section of fence line running south to meet up with the hedge row and to be completed within fifteen (15) days from today’s date, and then extend the section of fence from the hedge row north of the tree to a point even with the south edge of the green house which is to be completed within a total of forty-five (45) days from today’s date. Mr. Schneider seconded the motion. Mr. Maciejewski requested a roll call vote. Mr. Ryan – yes. Mr. Schneider – yes. Mr. Monix – yes. Mr. Hastings – yes. Mr. Maciejewski – yes. The motion was unanimously carried by roll call vote (5/0).
(The meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m.)
A TRUE COPY
_______________________________________________
Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary
St. John Board of Zoning Appeals
| Jim Maciejewski | Attorney Tim Kuiper |
| Ken Schneider | Steve Kil |
| Peter Monix | Greg Volk |
| Steve Hastings | |
| Tom Ryan |
(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)
Mr. Kil announced that Mr. Steve Hastings was appointed as a Town councilman and had tendered his letter of resignation to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
(General discussion ensued)
The Petitioner stated that they would take the fence to the property line. The fence was not properly reflected on the sketch that submitted. Mr. Schneider drew and submitted a sketch that accurately depicted the proposed fencing for placement in the file.
Attorney Kuiper stated all notices and publications were in order for a public hearing. Mr. Maciejewski opened the floor to 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 for consideration of a motion for a variance to allow the extension of the proposed fence to meet up with the existing developer-installed fence on the north property line.
Mr. Schneider made a motion to approve the developmental technical variance at 9319 Renaissance Drive, to allow the fence to exceed the building line and tie on to the existing fence installed by the developer. Mr. Monix seconded the motion. Mr. Maciejewski requested a roll call vote. Mr. Schneider – yes. Mr. Monix – yes. Mr. Maciejewski – yes. The motion unanimously carried by roll call vote (3/0).
Ms. Goad appeared before the Board seeking approval to exceed the allowable square footage of an accessory building with her proposed pool house/covered patio of 32x24. Ms. Goad informed the Board that she is proposing to build a 10x24 covered patio, a 10x24 enclosed room, and a 22x24 storage area. Petitioner stated that the rooms would have 9 foot ceilings and the roof would be 6/12 pitch. Ms. Goad also stated that the enclosed room would possibly contain a double-sided fireplace.
Ms. Goad submitted pictures of her proposed accessory building. She stated that the fence that is currently enclosing the rear of the pool would be taken down and the pool would be incorporated into the structure so that the pool area would be secured. She also stated that the portable shed would be coming down.
(General discussion ensued.)
The foundation was discussed. Mr. Kil stated that Mr. Tom Redar, the building inspector, would need to review the Petitioner’s plan. Mr. Kil noted that the accessory building was “pretty big”. Mr. Kil again recommended that the Petitioner(s) meet with Mr. Tom Redar and review the proposed building plans.
Mr. Maciejewski asked if there would be any automobile parking in the storage building. The Petitioner stated that the storage area would be strictly for storage of pool accessories and lawn equipment. Mr. Schneider recommended that the storage area should have a few windows on the back. Ms. Goad stated that the finished room would contain two sliding glass doors, and possibly a service door. Mr. Kil remarked that a couple of windows would go a long way in breaking up the long, flat expanse of wall.
Mr. Kil recommended that the Petitioner obtain a detailed construction plan to review with the building inspector, Tom Redar, especially with a building of this size. Mr. Maciejewski noted that both area and height were issues. The Board concurred that the size of the proposed accessory building was very large.
(General discussion ensued.)
Attorney Kuiper stated that all notices and publications were in order for the public hearing. Mr. Maciejewski opened the floor to 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 for comments, questions or consideration of a motion for a variance for a developmental technical for increased allowable area of an accessory structure and an increase in the height.
Mr. Schneider stated that the size of the proposed accessory structure seems excessive. He suggested that the Petitioner “gingerbread it up a little bit” in order to make the proposed accessory building as aesthetically pleasing as possible.
Mr. Schneider made a motion to approve the developmental technical variance at 9161 Olcott Avenue for exceeding the allowable square footage and height for an accessory building with the following contingencies, no vehicle storage in the proposed accessory building, Petitioner to add at least a couple of windows to the north elevation of the garage/storage area, and no plumbing in the accessory structure. Mr. Schneider further noted that the height of the proposed accessory building exceeds the allowable height for an accessory structure by approximately one to two feet. The aforementioned contingencies including the height and square footage are all to be reviewed by the building inspector, Tom Redar. Mr. Schneider further noted that the Board was authorizing Mr. Kil to grant architectural approval for the exterior of the building. Mr. Monix seconded the motion. Mr. Maciejewski requested a roll call vote. Mr. Monix – yes. Mr. Schneider – yes. Mr. Maciejewski – yes. The motion was unanimously carried by roll call vote (3/0).
Mr. Monix stated that the fence at the garden center has been completed.
(The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.)
A TRUE COPY
_______________________________________________
Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary
St. John Board of Zoning Appeals
| Jim Maciejewski | Attorney Tim Kuiper |
| Ken Schneider | Steve Kil |
| Peter Monix | Greg Volk |
| Tom Ryan |
(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)
(General discussion ensued.)
Attorney Kuiper stated all notices and publications were in order for a public hearing. Mr. Maciejewski opened the floor to 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 for consideration of a motion for a developmental technical variance to allow the construction of a shed over the allowable square footage.
Mr. Schneider made a motion to grant the developmental technical variance for the construction of the oversized shed (14x18 dimension, 14’6” in height) at 12361 West 94th Avenue. Mr. Monix seconded the motion. Mr. Maciejewski requested a roll call vote. Mr. Schneider – yes. Mr. Monix – yes. Mr. Maciejewski – yes. The motion unanimously carried by roll call vote (3/0).
(General discussion ensued.)
The Petitioner stated that he does not intend to erect a building for at least the first year. He stated that he is currently in negotiations with Mr. Buchanan to lease/purchase or land contract the property. Mr. Monix asked the Petitioner if he intended to erect a fence. The Petitioner stated that a six foot, chain link fence would be erected around the equipment on the site, which would consist of a couple of trucks. There would be no fuel stored on the site. A mobile crane would be rented on occasion to move railroad cars. The business hours for the proposed operation would likely be 7:00 or 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., though not every day, and on an occasional Sunday.
(General discussion ensued.)
An eventual subdivision of the property was discussed. The Board concurred that a portable toilet would be required.
(General discussion ensued.)
Attorney Kuiper stated all notices and publications were in order for a public hearing. Mr. Maciejewski opened the floor to 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.
The Board advised the Petitioner(s) that they would continue this matter to the September meeting to allow Petitioner(s) time to provide a detailed site plan reflecting the yard/work area, fencing, access points, turn around area, etc.
Mr. Schneider made a motion to table the variance of use for Midwest Companies to the September meeting to allow the Petitioner to present a more complete plan to the Board; Mr. Monix seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (3/0). The public hearing was continued to the September meeting.
(The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.)
A TRUE COPY
_______________________________________________
Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary
St. John Board of Zoning Appeals
| Jim Maciejewski | Attorney Tim Kuiper |
| Ken Schneider | Steve Kil |
| Peter Monix | Greg Volk |
| Tom Ryan |
(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)
Mr. Novosel showed the Board where the property will be fenced. Mr. Novosel stated that old fencing on the property will also be replaced by new fencing. He stated that the main entrance will be just short of the tracks. He stated that Norfolk & Southern would also most likely install a cable and chain lock for access. Mr. Novosel stated that these plans are for the first year. Mr. Novosel showed the Board where the equipment will be parked.
Mr. Novosel stated that plastic half drums (55 gallon drums) would be used to capture oil and fluids when working on rail road equipment. Mr. Novosel showed the Board where the 20 ton crane would be stored on the property.
Mr. Monix asked Petitioner about the wet lands.
(General discussion ensued.)
Mr. Maciejewski remarked that his understanding was that the Petitioner would present a printed site plan at this meeting for the Board’s perusal reflecting Petitioner’s immediate plans as well as long term plans.
Mr. Novosel stated that Mr. Buchanan was amenable to leasing any amount of property that the Petitioner wanted. Mr. Novosel stated it would not be possible for him to project business two or three years down the road. He stated that this is a new company and they are hoping it will be successful. Mr. Novosel stated that the business is a no impact operation.
Mr. Maciejewski asked Petitioner to describe for him how a semi-truck with a piece of equipment would navigate on the property and turn around. Mr. Novosel explained how the truck would set down a piece of equipment and be able to turn around. Mr. Novosel stated that there would be “plenty of room to turn a truck around.” Mr. Novosel stated there would be no fencing on the east side.
Mr. Maciejewski asked Petitioner if there was a written agreement to use the Norfolk & Southern property. Petitioner stated that they do not currently possess an agreement but will obtain on contingent upon the Board approving their operation. Mr. Schnieder asked about storage. Petitioner explained that the equipment will either be on the rail or stored in the equipment graveyard. Mr. Maciejewski asked again about the half drums for catching oils. Mr. Novosel stated that a half barrel would be placed under the equipment undergoing repair to catch the fluids/oils. Mr. Novosel stated that there would be a barrel on site to empty the half drums into and the oil would then be transported to a hazardous waste disposal.
(General discussion ensued.)
Mr. Monix asked where painting would be done on the premises. Mr. Novosel stated any painting would be done by hand, or in some cases an electric sprayer. He stated that the Petitioner does not plan on doing a lot of painting.
Mr. Schneider remarked that he worried that the property might turn into a junk yard. Mr. Novosel stated that he understood the Board’s concern. He stated that Petitioner’s intention is to receive the equipment, make it functional and sell it off. He does not plan on long term storage of equipment. Mr. Novosel stated, “it won’t turn into a junk yard; you have my word on that.”
Mr. Maciejewski asked how many pieces of equipment the Petitioner plans on storing. Mr. Novosel stated that at any one time there may be six to 10 pieces of equipment on the site. Mr. Schneider asked how equipment would be shipped. Mr. Novosel stated most equipment would probably leave by truck.
(General discussion ensued.)
Mr. Monix asked about the number of employees. Mr. Novosel stated there would be two to three including himself. Mr. Schneider asked about the hours of the business. Mr. Novosel stated it depends on the weather, but the business is a spring to fall operation.
Mr. Maciejewski stated he was having a hard time seeing the overall picture. Mr. Novosel stated that not much more would be going on at the business than what he has already presented to the Board.
(General discussion ensued.)
Mr. Maciejewski asked the Petitioner if the entire site should be enclosed and secure as a matter of public safety. Mr. Novosel stated that the site would be secured by the fence he puts up and a cable and padlock. Mr. Novosel stated that any parts they need for repairs could be obtained from manufacturers and/or fabricated by his shop in Schererville.
Attorney Kuiper stated that the public hearing had been continued properly from last month. Mr. Maciejewski opened the floor to public comment.
Mr. Richard Lytle - Mr. Lytle stated he was a resident of Hammond. He stated he is president of the Historical Society of Hammond, and treasurer for Northwest Indiana Railroad Preservation Society. He stated that he has known the Petitioner for quite some time. He stated that he understood the Board’s concerns. He stated that the economy is questionable and that is the reason the Petitioner is having difficulty in projecting his business for the next couple of years. Mr. Lytle stated that the Petitioner would like to get the business up and running. He stated that the start-up is a gamble in this economy.
Mr. Maciejewski called for additional public comment. There was no further public comment. Mr. Maciejewski closed the meeting and brought the matter back before the Board.
Attorney Kuiper explained to the Board that they have three options, a favorable recommendation to the Town Council, an unfavorable recommendation to the Town Council, or no recommendation. He explained that the business would best be classified as an outside repair of rail road equipment, a unique use. Attorney Kuiper made a few recommendations to the Board: in the event of a favorable recommendation, it could be limited to one year with a re-evaluation of the business after the year, limit the pieces of equipment on the site.
(General discussion ensued.)
Mr. Novosel informed the Board that mail for this business would be delivered to his corporate business post office box in Merrillville, Indiana. Mr. Novosel reiterated that the business would be in repairing of rail road equipment with the intent of selling or leasing the equipment.
Mr. Maciejewski stated that without a site plan it was difficult for him to quantify things. He stated that the site should be enclosed. He stated there is no real mechanism for oil containment. Mr. Maciejewski stated encroachment on the rail road easement is not acceptable. He stated he did not believe a semi-truck has enough room on the proposed site to maneuver a turn-around. Mr. Maciejewski stated that these are some of the things he would like to have seen on a printed site plan.
(General discussion ensued.)
Mr. Volk stated that the Petitioner would need to have a site plan drawn and reviewed to calculate drainage. Attorney Kuiper concurred in that the parcel needs an engineering review, a drawing reflecting boundaries and improvements that could be placed in the file. Mr. Novosel explained that the Petitioner is trying to work with what currently exists on the site.
Mr. Lytle stated that there was no reason that the oil containment proposed by the Petitioner would not work. Mr. Maciejewski stated that this method of oil containment that Petitioner is proposing is not defined and not planned. There were no further comments from the Board.
Mr. Maciejewski stated he would entertain a favorable/unfavorable/no motion. Mr. Schneider made a motion to send and unfavorable recommendation to the Town Council for Midwest Companies at the Joliet Street rail road tracks for repair/storage of rail road equipment. Mr. Monix seconded the motion. Mr. Maciejewski requested a roll call vote. Mr. Schneider – yes. Mr. Monix – yes. Mr. Maciejewski – yes. The motion to send an unfavorable recommendation to the Town Council was unanimously carried by roll call vote (3/0). Attorney Kuiper informed the Petitioner that this recommendation would be on the Town Council agenda in the second week of November, 2011.
Mr. Monix asked about the car dealership in Town that had gone out of business. Attorney Kuiper explained that there could be no other car dealership in this lot without the individual coming before the Board of Zoning Appeals.
(The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.)
A TRUE COPY
_______________________________________________
Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary
St. John Board of Zoning Appeals
| Jim Maciejewski | Attorney Tim Kuiper |
| Ken Schneider | Steve Kil |
| Peter Monix | Greg Volk |
| Tom Ryan |
(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)
Mr. Maciejewski stated that this was a special use. He stated the Board, in the past, has not allowed washing or servicing of vehicles at the site. He stated that there was a contingency on signs and fencing that has been corrected. Mr. Maciejewski stated that there would need to be designated a minimum of six 10x20 parking stalls for customer parking. He stated that the remaining site could be used to park used vehicles as long as circulation lanes are designated in accordance with the zoning ordinance regulations and do not impede sight ingress and egress. No parking of vehicles shall be permitted on the decelaration ramp of U.S. Highway Route 41. Mr. Maciejewski stated that all other requirements of the zoning ordinance must be met and the granting of this special exception was personal to the Petitioner.
Mr. Maciejewski asked the Petitioner if he was going to run the business. The Petitioner stated he would be running the used car business. Mr. Maciejewski asked the Petitioner what makes his used car business any different than the other used car lots previously located at this site. The Petitioner stated that he has had a lot of success in the used car business in Illinois and he wished to branch out into Indiana.
(General discussion ensued.)
Attorney Kuiper stated that all notices and publications for the public hearing were in order, properly continued from last month. Mr. Maciejewski opened the floor to public hearing. Mr. Maciejewski called for public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Maciejewski closed the public hearing and brought the matter back before the Board for consideration.
Mr. Monix made a motion to send a favorable recommendation to the Town Council to grant a special exception at 9225 Wicker Avenue, with contingencies. Mr. Maciejewski reiterated the contingencies for the record as follows: no washing or servicing of vehicles at the site; designation of a minimum of six 10x20 parking stalls for customer/employee parking; remaining site can be used for parking used vehicles so long as circulation lanes are designated in accordance with zoning ordinance regulations and do not impede sight ingress/egress; no vehicles shall be permitted to park in the deceleration ramp at U.S. Highway Route 41; all requirements of the Town’s zoning ordinances are to be met. Mr. Schneider seconded the motion. Mr. Maciejewski requested a roll call vote. Peter Monix –yes. Ken Schneider – yes. Tom Ryan – yes. Jim Maciejewski – yes. The motion was unanimously carried by roll call vote (4/0).
Mr. Muenich explained to the Board the history of the fence erected at 9484 Olcott Avenue. He stated that the Smolinskis had determined that they wanted to install a small stretch of privacy fence in their back yard at 9484 Olcott Avenue, Candlelight, Unit One. Attorney Muenich stated that the contract called for six foot high, privacy fence, 78 lineal feet. Attorney Muenich stated that the Lowe’s contract(dated June 14, 2010) included the Town’s building permit fee of $25.00. Lowe’s refunded the $25.00 permit fee to the Smolinskis on August 20, 2010, after encountering difficulties with the fence.
Mr. Muenich stated that the building permit was filed with the Town on July 12, 2010. The general contractor was True Line Fence. Mr. Muenich stated that this contractor was represented to the Smolinskis as being an approved contractor in the Town of St. John in accordance with the installation contract. Mr. Muenich noted that his understanding was that True Line Fence has never held a contractor’s license within the Town of St. John. He stated that for several months Lowe’s claimed that this contractor was licensed in St. John, but the contractor was never able to produce the license. Mr. Muenich noted that the contractor’s registration form was clearly filed with the Town of St. John, but there is no record of what transpired with this contractors registration form, whether it was accepted or rejected.
Attorney Muenich moved on to the facsimile sheet from Schererville Lowe’s. He notes in the upper left-hand corner there is a date of July 29, 2010, at approximately 6:00 p.m. reflecting that Mrs. Smolinski faxed documents to the St. John Building Department from Fred Ganz of Lowe’s reflecting “drawing is on survey of placement of fence. If any questions call # 219-689-1957. Installer is True Line Fence, Inc.” signed by Fred Ganz, the authorized representative of Lowe’s. Attorney Muenich also pointed out the Plat of Survey contained the notation “No over building line 12 foot max.” He stated he has does not know what the “12 foot max” makes reference to.
Attorney Muenich moved on to the St. John Police incident report. He stated that Mr. Thomas Redar and other members of the Town appeared on the fencing project on or around August 4, 2010, alleging that there was no building permit for the fence being installed at 9484 Olcott Avenue. The Petitioner was further advised that the fence was in violation due to the fence going 18 feet from the structure when the ordinance only allows 12 feet from the structure. Attorney Muenich pointed out that there is no such ordinance; he stated that this ordinance does not exist in the Town. He stated fences are not regulated by distance from the building; they are regulated by the building line and the zoning ordinance of the Town.
Attorney Muenich moved on to the a series faxed transmissions with notations on the left indicating telephone calls, but no indication of the subject of the call. Attorney Muenich stated that he spoke with homeowner, Barbara Smolinski, who advised him that the Lowe’s Store had applied for the building permit. Mrs. Smolinski maintains that she thought Lowe’s and the contractors had every taken care of through the Town Building and Planning Department. Mr. Muenich stated he advised Mrs. Smolinski to take up the matter with Town Building and Planning, at which time one of them applied for a variance.
Attorney Muenich submitted the Town’s handout concerning fences. Mr. Muenich referred to the fourth paragraph under Restrictions. Refer to the covenant agreement with your deed for any special rules that may apply to your subdivision. These rules are enforced by your Developer or Homeowners Associations and are separate from the Towns requirements.” Attorney Muenich stated that this clause is an accurate statement of the law. He stated that the Town of St. John, to his knowledge, has never enforced restrictive covenants that apply to the homeowners, but that they defer to the rules in a particular addition. Attorney Muenich also stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals cannot grant a variance from a restrictive covenant that runs with the real estate. He stated that if there were a problem with a restrictive covenant between the Smolinskis and a resident from the First Addition then it is a matter between the Smolinskis and the resident in the First Addition. He reiterated that the Town does not have the authority to vary a private restrictive covenant that runs with the land.
Attorney Michael Muenich next referred to Definitions from Chapter 19, Page 15, of the Town’s 2009 Zoning Ordinances, which he previously submitted. “Fence. A structure partially or completely surrounding a part of or the whole of a zoning lot which is intended to prevent intrusion from without and straying from within the area controlled, but not including a hedge or other natural growth.” He further referred to Chapter 5, Page 2, Section E.3 Area and Width Regulations. SubItem c.) Side Yards. There shall be two (2) side yards of not less than ten (10) feet and any side yards abutting a street shall be twenty-five (25) feet.” Mr. explained the layout of the streets in Town as follows: a sixty foot right of way, a thirty foot road paved curb back to curb back, presumably, halfway or in the middle of the road right of way. Next, he stated there is then a fifteen foot parkway behind each one of the curbs, and theoretically, ten feet of green space and five feet of sidewalk equaling fifteen feet. He stated that the next twenty five feet takes one to the zoning building line which equals forty feet. He stated that is the building line defined per the Town’s zoning ordinance for this fence. Mr. Muenich stated that the fence would have to be located, in this particular case, 40 from the back of the curb.
Mr. Muenich next moved to the photographs he had submitted to the Board earlier. He stated that the photographs depict the fence from varying directions. He stated that this fence is located on a corner lot, in a rear yard and does not impact or involve the actual intersection or sight distances at the intersection of Olcott and 95th Street. He stated that the fence has not adversely impacted anyone, and the Town has done nothing to move or remove the fence. Mr. Muenich stated that the fence is placed and it does exist. Mr. Muenich noted a photograph depicting the measurements of the fence and where it sits 38’ 6 3/4” from the back of the curb. He stated that the variance requested is not seven feet, but 1’5”.
Mr. Muenich stated what happened after August 4, 2010, is that St. John’s Code Enforcement began to cite the Smolinskis with ordinance citation violations. He stated that why the Town decided to cite the Smolinskis instead of Lowe’s is not comprehensible. He stated that the Smolinskis received three violations per ticket totaling between 24 and 30 violations. He stated that the violations are currently pending in the Lake County court system.
Mr. Muenich stated that the Smolinskis have endured a hardship not of their own fault. They entered into a contract with a reputable company who represented to them that they had a license to do business in St. John. He stated that a setback violation does exist but it is 1’5” violation and not a seven (7) foot violation. Mr. Muenich respectfully requested that the Board grant the variance so that the Smolinskis can clear the pending citations in the Lake County courts and get on with their lives.
(General discussion ensued.)
Attorney Kuiper explained to the Board that the Town enforces what the Town has in place, which is the zoning ordinance. Mr. Kil added that the placement of the fence is not an issue with him. Mr. Kil stated that the fence does not obstruct the street. The Board discussed the fence and setbacks with Attorney Muenich. Mr. Maciejewski asked Attorney Kuiper if the 30 foot building line had any bearing in the discussion. Attorney Kuiper stated that the 30 foot building line had no bearing in the discussion except for a point of reference on the plat. Attorney Muenich stated that the building line is only enforceable by the residents of Candlelight, Unit One. Attorney Kuiper stated that the only issue the Board would be able to enforce was the 25 foot building line. Attorney Muenich concurred and stated that a 1’5” variance was being requested.
Attorney Kuiper remarked that a 1’5” variance is required along and an “after-the-fact” permit is required.
(General discussion ensued.)
Attorney Kuiper informed the Board that the notices and publications were in order for a public hearing to be held. 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 for discussion.
There was no further discussion by the Board. Mr. Maciejewski stated he would entertain a motion to approve or deny the request for a variance and approval or denial of the fence as it is installed.
Mr. Schneider made a motion to approve the variance at the Smolinski residence at 9484 Olcott Avenue for the privacy fence granted “as built”. Mr. Monix seconded the motion. Mr. Maciejewski requested a roll call vote. Mr. Schneider – yes. Mr. Monix – yes. Mr. Ryan – yes. Mr. Maciejewski – yes. The motion was unanimously carried by roll call vote (4/0).
(General discussion ensued.)
Attorney Kuiper stated his recommendation would be that as long as the lights are kept off on the sign in question no enforcement action will be taken. The Board was in consensus with Attorney Kuiper’s recommendation.
MARY BROAD -9186 OLCOTT AVENUE – PUBLIC HEARING CONSTRUCTION OF SHED BEYOND ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOT AND NUMBER OF SHEDS ALLOWED
Ms. Mary Broad appeared before the Board seeking approval for construction of a shed beyond the allowable square footage. She explained to the Board that she lives on a half-acre lot. She stated she lives in an older subdivision in a small home without a basement. She stated she currently has a shed and she is proposing to add another 10x12 shed right next to the existing shed. She stated that she needs the storage. Mr. Maciejewski noted from the photos submitted that the Petitioner currently has a full garage, a garage attached to the house, and a shed. She stated that the garage is referred to as a “structure” and was built in 1997. Mr. Maciejewski noted it would be a third outbuilding.
(General discussion ensued.)
The Petitioner stated that the proposed shed would be blocked and it would not be seen from the road. Mr. Kil stated he talked with Petitioner’s spouse and was informed that they have no room to park cars in the existing garages. Storage in the proposed garage was discussed. Mr. Maciejewski asked if she was going to be joined to the existing shed. The Petitioner explained that the sheds would be as close together as possible to make it appear as one shed. Mr. Ryan remarked that the shed should look aesthetically pleasing instead of two sheds side by side. Mr. Ryan stated he, personally, was not in favor of two sheds. There was no further discussion from the Board.
Attorney Kuiper informed the Board that the notices and publications were in order for the public hearing; he noted there were no persons left in the audience to make public comment. Mr. Maciejewski opened the public hearing for comment. He called for public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Maciejewski closed the public hearing and brought the matter back before the Board for consideration.
Mr. Maciejewski stated he would entertain a motion for or against a building a shed over the square footage allowed and the number of sheds allowed. Mr. Tom Ryan made a motion to deny the variance for two separate structures (sheds) at 9186 Olcott but to allow Petitioner to increase the square footage of the existing shed (allowing for one accessory structure) to a maximum of 240 square feet, like and kind to the main residence. Mr. Schneider seconded the motion. Mr. Maciejewski requested a roll call vote. Tom Ryan – yes. Ken Schneider – yes. Peter Monix – yes. Jim Maciejewski – yes. The motion was unanimously carried by roll call vote (4/0).
Mr. Volk stated he would contact Attorney Austen and authorize a letter be sent to Schilling Lumber regarding the lights and sign as it was discussed tonight.
(The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.)
A TRUE COPY
_______________________________________________
Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary
St. John Board of Zoning Appeals
