Mr. Kennedy declared the presence of a quorum.
Mr. Sheeran made a motion to approve the December 23, 2019, Meeting Minutes, which Mr. Panczuk confirmed are accurate; Mr. Popovic seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Popovic nominated John Kennedy as Vice-Chairperson; Mr. Sheeran seconded the nomination. Nomination carried unanimously.
Recording Secretary: Mr. Popovic nominated Margaret Abernathy to be appointed as the Recording Secretary; Mr. Sheeran seconded the nomination. Nomination carried unanimously.
Mr. Eberly advised that all items are in order for this Public Hearing to proceed. He explained that Mr. Velasco applied for a 6-foot, vinyl privacy fence to enclose his backyard; the application showed the fence to be built on the building line; but the contractor erroneously built it out 10 feet farther than the building line, so the petitioner is here tonight seeking a variance for that constructed fence.
Mr. Eberly noted that there are no remonstrances oral or written that have been submitted against this petition.
Mr. Velasco stated that his contractor sent him a letter stating it was his mistake for posting the fence out farther than allowed. Mr. Velasco provided a copy of the letter and the photos to the Board.
Mr. Kennedy read the letter from the contractor into the record.
(Said letter is attached hereto and made a part thereof as Exhibit No. 2020-02-24-BZA.)
Mr. Kennedy asked if any plans or drawings are available, depicting where the fence would be located. Mr. Eberly provided the Board a copy of the plat of survey with the markings for the fence to review.
Mr. Kennedy asked if the petitioner has discussed with the contractor what would happen if the variance was not granted. Mr. Velasco stated that the contractor told him that if it does not get accepted, then they will have to adjust the fence line. Mr. Kennedy asked if the contractor was agreeable to that. Mr. Velasco responded that he kind of sounded like he has to agree with it because he set it incorrectly.
Mr. Kennedy asked if this is the first offense for Fence Masters. Mr. Eberly responded that it is and noted that the fence does not cause a line of sight issue.
Mr. Popovic asked if the plat of survey was available during the installation of the fence. Mr. Velasco responded in the affirmative. Mr. Popovic asked if Mr. Velasco checked during the installation of the fence for accuracy. Mr. Velasco stated that he was not able to interpret all the numbers surrounding the survey, so he trusted the contractor with that.
Mr. Kennedy opened the floor for Public Hearing; having no one coming forward to speak, Mr. Kennedy closed Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board.
Mr. Kennedy advised the board members to consider that this variance would run with the property if approved. He further advised that he did not see a line of sight issue upon inspection, and the neighbors have not expressed any concern with the fence, but it is the Board's decision.
Mr. Sheeran stated that the reliable contractor who was paid to install the fence messed up, and that contractor should fix it. Mr. Sheeran assured Mr. Velasco that it is not his fault and stated that the rule is the rule.
Mr. Kennedy asked if Mr. Velasco has that the contractor would pay in writing. Mr. Velasco responded that he does not have it in writing, it was an email back and forth, and he did not specify in writing that he would cover the cost of the correction. Mr. Panczuk stated that the contractor should have been able to read the survey markings properly.
Mr. Popovic made a motion to deny the side-yard setback variance, including the Findings of Fact:
Mr. Sheeran seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. The Board stipulated that the corrections to the fence be completed within three months.
Mr. Eberly advised that all items are in order for this Public Hearing to proceed. Their home, located in Renaissance, Unit 1,.is angled on their property.
Mr. Green stated that the building line is about 30 feet from the sidewalk and that the fence would come out parallel with the front of the house to the sidewalk and then run to the back, meeting the neighbor's fence. Mrs. Green explained that they want to fence in the yard because they have two young children and two dogs.
Mr. Kennedy asked Mr. Panczuk how close to a sidewalk the Board has allowed a fence to be in the past. Mr. Panczuk responded that the closest he recalls is 3 feet off of the sidewalk.
Mr. Kennedy asked Mr. Sheeran how far off of the tree line does the fence need to be. Mr. Sheeran responded that it needs to be kept outside of the drip line. Mr. Sheeran stated that if they were to cut the fence back like they are supposed to, it would look silly.
The Greens stated that they would like to keep the tree within the fenced area of the backyard.
Mr. Sheeran asked if they are trying to do a fence like the neighbor's fence. Mrs. Green stated that they would put up whatever fence the Board will approve. Mr. Green stated that they would like a 6-foot privacy fence.
Discussion ensued regarding fence styles and location of the fence. Mr. Eberly explained to the petitioners that if they were to have a fence like the neighbor's fence, it is allowed in a front yard because it is 4 feet or less in height and is an open fence. Mr. Eberly further explained that the only reason the petitioners need a variance is because they want a 6-foot privacy fence.
After further discussion, the petitioners decided that they would install a 4-foot open fence in the side yard; therefore, no variance was required. Mr. Eberly informed the petitioners that all they need is a permit for the fence.
Mr. Eberly and Attorney Decker lead a training session. Highlights of the training include:
Attorney Decker commented that the BZA must find all 3 of the findings of fact when approving a variance from the development standards. Attorney Decker stated that there are examples of what some other communities determined to be practical difficulties in the handout he provided them.
Mr. Panczuk stated that development standards variances are the majority of matters that the BZA will hear. Mr. Panczuk gave some examples of some of the developmental standards variances that have arisen in the past.
Mr. Eberly ran through various scenarios to enforce various rules and regulations with brief interventions from time to time to elaborate on a topic.
Attorney Decker stated that if the Board finds that a condition is not met, it may be good to state why it does not meet the criteria in terms of defending the decision. The burden is on the petitioner to present evidence as to why a petition would not be injurious.
Mr. Eberly commented that Mr. Kennedy mentioned earlier that we don't have an executive secretary on the agenda; however, the findings of fact are supposed to be signed by the president and the secretary. The recording secretary would not be the one to sign that, so the Board should elect an executive secretary.
Mr. Popovic nominated Nancy Woodland as the executive secretary. Mr. Sheeran seconded the nomination. Nomination carried unanimously.
Mr. Eberly advised that oftentimes an engineer will represent a petitioner at a meeting, and the petitioner is typically at the meeting as well, so a power of attorney is not needed. Attorney Decker stated that, generally speaking, an engineer or attorney can represent a petitioner before the Board without having a power of attorney.
Mr. Eberly stated that the Rules and Regulations state that the meetings will be held on the fourth Monday of every month. That changes to the third Monday starting in March.
A short QA session took place.
Mr. Panczuk mentioned the possibility of changing the advertising requirement from 15 days to 10 days to mirror the state statute. Mr. Eberly advised that we went to the 15 days to allow time for the mailings; sometimes, it takes a while to get the proofs of publication back from the newspapers. Mr. Eberly feels that advertising in one newspaper would be sufficient. Mr. Kennedy stated that we need to make sure we still have extra comfort time in place to ensure all the public notices are in order.
Mr. Panczuk thanked the members of the Board for stepping up to do their positions.
Respectfully submitted;
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Board of Zoning Appeals
A quorum was attained.
Mr. Eberly advised that all items are in order for this Public Hearing to proceed and that he has received no remonstrances against this petition.
Mr. Lareau asked Mr. Sluiter to state his petition to the board. Mr. Sluiter explained that he would like to build a 1-1/2 story home with an attached garage of 1233 square feet to store recreational vehicles, a boat, and other items, additionally, he cannot have a shed or any ancillary buildings due to the subdivision covenants. He affirmed that he has HOA approval for the home plans with an oversized attached garage. The garage will have three stalls, with an extended third stall. Mr. Kennedy asked if Mr. Sluiter knew the requirements before closing on his home. Mr. Sluiter responded in the affirmative and stated that he proceeded to close on the lot only after receiving his design approval.
Mr. Kennedy asked if there were any larger garage requests like this previously in Three Springs. Mr. Eberly responded in the negative. Mr. Panczuk responded that the BZA has approved petitions like this for residents living in other subdivisions in St. John.
Mr. Panczuk asked Mr. Eberly if there is a process for generating the maximum space of an attached garage. Mr. Eberly responded in the negative and stated that other communities do give additional square footage for larger sized lots, such as Dyer.
Mr. Eberly stated that the house and garage combined square footage is restricted to 30 percent of the square footage of the lot, and Mr. Sluiter’s plans aren’t even close to that percentage. Additionally, no special setbacks are required to accommodate his request.
A brief discussion ensued regarding accessory buildings wherein Mr. Eberly advised that, per the Zoning Ordinance, two accessory structures are allowed on a lot with no more than one shed per lot, no more than 250 square feet of accessory structures per lot, and a 160-square-foot maximum limit for the one shed.
Mr. Lareau opened the floor for Public Hearing. Having no one come forward to speak, Mr. Lareau closed Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the board.
Ms. Wohland made a motion to grant the variance for a 1233 square-foot attached garage at 10040 Spring Lake Road, including the Findings of Fact:
Mr. Popovic seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted;
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Board of Zoning Appeals
Absent: John Kennedy, Vice Chairman; and Brendan Sheeran.
Mr. Popovic Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Lareau Aye
Mr. Eberly advised that all items are in order for this Public Hearing to proceed. David Maclean is representing the petitioner, has the power of attorney to represent the petitioner, and will be building the garage if approved. Any detached garage requires a variance, regardless of size. The property is 1.7 acres, and the detached garage is under the max square footage; however, the height of the proposed garage exceeds the 14-foot maximum at 16 feet in height.
Mr. Eberly noted that he had not received any remonstrances in his office. One neighbor inquired about the petition but did not remonstrate.
Mr. Lareau asked Mr. Maclean to explain the petition to the Board. Mr. Maclean explained that the petitioner would like to tear down the existing detached garage and build a new detached garage with a height of 16 feet to accommodate a vehicle lift to work on his personal vehicles. Mr. Maclean noted that his client is a mechanic. Mr. Eberly explained that the petitioner is aware that no business may take place out of the garage.
Mr. Maclean advised that the garage will likely be hidden by the height of the house, which is 30 feet at the peak.
Mr. Lareau opened the floor for Public Hearing. Having no one come forward to speak, Mr. Lareau closed Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board.
Mr. Panczuk advised that the Board may want to ask what the materials might be. Mr. Eberly explained that he instructed the petitioner that pole barns are not allowed in a residential area. Mr. Maclean commented that the garage is to be a pole barn. Mr. Lareau noted that the materials are to be similar to that of the house.
Mr. Maclean stated that he built a pole barn in that area a couple of years ago. Discussion ensued.
Mr. Eberly checked the notice that was put in the paper. Ms. Wohland and Mr. Lareau noted that the building permit application lists the structure as a pole building with metal roofing material.
Mr. Popovic asked if this is similar to the neighbor who had a pole barn built a couple of years ago. Mr. Maclean responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Eberly advised that it is on the building permit application, but it is not listed in the notice, which is what was sent out to the adjacent property owners. Mr. Popovic stated that he felt the fact that it is a pole barn should have been in the notice for the neighbors to be fully informed.
Mr. Eberly noted that the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 10 § A contains language restricting metal buildings and stated that the legal notice would have had to include Chapter 10, § A, in order to allow a variance request for a metal building at this meeting.
Attorney Decker advised that the Board may choose to defer the petition and address all three variances at one time or grant an approval with a contingency at this meeting. The members noted their preference to defer the matter and hear everything at the same time.
Ms. Wohland made a motion to defer this matter to the July meeting for a Public Hearing for the variance at 10170 Joliet Street; Mr. Popovic seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote:
Mr. Popovic Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Lareau Aye
Mr. Eberly advised Mr. Maclean that he only needs to advertise for the new variance as the other items have already been advertised and are covered under the deferral.
Mr. Popovic Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Lareau Aye
Respectfully submitted;
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Board of Zoning Appeals
Mr. Eberly advised that all items are in order for this petition to proceed. He further advised that Mr. Tritchler had a representative at last month’s; however, the metal pole building was not allowed to be discussed as it was not publicly noticed. That has been properly noticed for this meeting, so Mr. Tritchler is back to seek all three variances. Mr. Eberly noted that any detached garage requires a variance, regardless of size, and the detached garage is under the max square footage; however, the height of the proposed garage exceeds the 14-foot maximum at 16 feet. The lot size is approximately 1.7 acres.
Mr. Tritchler informed the Board that the structure he wants to build is like his neighbor’s, that the color will match the color of his home, that the structure would be built such that it really won’t be able to be seen from the road or from the neighboring property to the east, and that his lot is 1.78 acres in size.
Mr. Lareau opened the floor for Public Hearing. Having no one wishing to speak, Mr. Lareau closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the board.
Mr. Sheeran made a motion to approve variances for the property located at 10170 Joliet Street granting relief from Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5 § F.2 to allow a detached garage and Chapter 11 § B.3 to allow a height variance for a garage height of 16 feet and a metal pole barn, including the Findings of Fact:
Ms. Wohland seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Eberly advised that all items are in order for this petition to proceed. The petitioners own a corner lot, and to cross the side building line on a corner lot with a privacy fence, regardless of the height, requires a variance. They wish to extend the fence to where it is 3 feet from the sidewalk and run it from the back of their house towards the back of their property.
Ms. Salas informed the board that she would like to install a white, 6-foot vinyl privacy fence because she has small children, and they do not want to lose use of a good portion of their yard by leaving out the side-yard area. They would like to install a pool in the future and use the fence for privacy and safety purposes for the use of that pool.
Mr. Lareau opened the floor for Public Hearing. Having no one wishing to speak, Mr. Lareau closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the board.
Mr. Sheeran made a motion to approve the variance request for the property located at 10688 Fairview Place granting relief from Zoning Ordinance Chapter 13, § F5cii2b, to build a privacy fence that would cross the side-yard setback on the corner side of the lot, including the Findings of Fact:
Ms. Wohland seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Eberly stated that Mr. Lenting owns two lots that he could build two legal-non-conforming homes on, but he would like to request a lot-size variance to go in front of the Plan Commission and replat this as a one-lot subdivision to build one larger home.
Mr. Sheeran asked what the lot size would be. Mr. Lenting responded that it would be 13,535.
Mr. Lareau opened the floor for Public Hearing.
Ken Kaiser (10813 Schneider Place): I live right across the street. Previous to him owning it, that was a single-family home built across the two lots, like what he’s proposing to do. And I’d rather see it to one lot to where he could build a nice home, and that would help the whole neighborhood, instead of two tiny houses that’s not going to do us any good in that area. All right. Thanks.
Harold Yorke (10802 Schneider Place): I’m the guy in Lot 14 and 15. And like Ken said, okay, there was a single-family dwelling there for many years before it was taken down. And to fit in with the rest of the neighborhood, I personally would rather see one single-family dwelling there than two. Okay. This is a nice, mature subdivision. People, I don't think there’s anybody in there that hasn’t’ been in there for at least fifteen years or more. In fact, my family’s been in that house since 1961, and in keeping with, you know, the subdivision, I think that that would be preferable, you know, than to have two homes in there.
And the only other thing I would like to see is that something, if – whatever’s going to built kind of fits in with the subdivision. This is – like I say, this is an old subdivision that was built back in the ‘50s. The house I’m in was built in “58. And they’re all prairie-style homes, and stuff like that. And just so, you know, you don’t have something sticking out, you know, like a sore thumb, you know. This may not be the place for that, for that discussion, but as far as the lot’s concerned, I – I would much rather see one home there than two. Thank you.
Having no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Lareau closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the board.
Ms. Wohland made a motion to approve the variance request for the property located at 10810 Schneider Place granting relief from the 15,000 square-foot minimum lot-size requirement in an R-2 zoning district, including the Findings of Fact:
Mr. Sheeran seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
The Board discussed the possibility of requiring fence inspections in the future.
Respectfully submitted;
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Board of Zoning Appeals
Absent: Brendan Sheeran.
Mr. Eberly advised that the building permit paperwork for the Haubenreiser residence at 10691 Glendale Avenue was buried in paperwork in the Clerk-Treasurer’s Office. The survey showing the proposed fence location shows that the fence was intended to be installed beyond the side-yard setback. Mr. Eberly stated that he does not personally fault the homeowner in this issue; it lies somewhere between the contractor and the Town.
After a brief discussion by the Board, Mr. Lareau opened the floor for Public Hearing. Having no one wishing to speak, Mr. Lareau closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Kennedy made a motion to approve a variance for Nate Haubenreiser for the property located at 10691 Glendale Avenue, granting relief from Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 13 § F5Cii2b to allow an after-the-fact side-yard setback line variance on a corner lot contingent that the fence, or any future fence, does not encroach any farther into the side-yard setback beyond the current location, including the Findings of Fact:
The Board briefly discussed those changes, and Attorney Decker agreed to prepare a resolution for action at the next BZA meeting.
Respectfully submitted;
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Board of Zoning Appeals
Also present: Craig Phillips, Town Manager; Adam Decker, Board Attorney; and Paul Panczuk, Town Council Liaison.
Absent: Drago Popovic and Brendan Sheeran.
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Lareau Aye
Mr. Cabellero was present with Attorney Morgan Gerolimos, Burke, Costanza, and Carberry, to present the variance requests. Attorney Gerolimos iterated the variances being sought, noting that the home is on an R-1 lot and wishes to build a second garage at this residence for normal residential garage usage. The proposed structure will be semiattached by way of a trellis and pergola, built with style and materials consistent with the existing residence, and will be to the side of the residence instead of in the rear yard. She noted that the garage height is unknown at this time. The interior height will be 20 feet, in an A-frame style, with the side walls at 10 feet.
Mr. Kennedy advised that the Board needs an absolute height. Discussion ensued.
Attorney Gerolimos referenced some letters of support from neighbors Christian Jorgensen, Marina DiSanto, and Sam and Connie Litwiak that she provided to the Board Members.
Mr. Phillips asked and Attorney Decker confirmed that this petition may proceed with its public hearing.
Mr. Lareau opened the floor for Public Hearing.
Jim Maurer (10152 W. Wellington Court) supported the petition.
Having no one wishing to speak, Mr. Lareau closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board.
Mr. Kennedy made a motion to approve a variance to construct a detached garage of similar materials and design to the current residence at 10120 W. Wellington Court with the contingencies that it shall be only for residential use and that there may be no additional accessory structures allowed on the property, including the Findings of Fact:
Ms. Wohland seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Lareau Aye
Mr. Kennedy made a motion to defer the garage height variance request; Ms. Wohland seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Lareau Aye
Mr. Kennedy made a motion to approve a variance to allow an internal garage height to exceed10 feet at 10120 W. Wellington Court, including the Findings of Fact:
Ms. Wohland seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Lareau Aye
Mr. Phillips advised that the petitioner was not present. The Board briefly discussed the matter. Mr. Phillips noted that the codification chapter and section numbers differ from the Master Zoning Ordinance, and he is unsure which version is the correct version to reference and that he would be discussing that with Attorney Decker.
Mr. Kennedy made a motion to defer; Ms. Wohland seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Lareau Aye
The Board discussed the need to clarify the setback determination for future development.
Mr. Kennedy made a motion to defer; Ms. Wohland seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Lareau Aye
Respectfully submitted;
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Board of Zoning Appeals
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Lareau Aye
Attorney Morgan Gerolimos, Burke, Costanza, and Carberry, present on behalf of the petitioner, stated that the public hearing was initially held at the November meeting and that the exterior height of the garage was deferred to this meeting. The contractor has confirmed that the rough elevation would be 28 feet, which aligns with the existing structure on the property.
The floor for public comment for this public hearing was closed at the Public Hearing November meeting.
Mr. Kennedy made a motion to approve the height variance for relief from §11.B.3 to allow the exterior height of the detached garage at 10120 W. Wellington Court not to exceed 28 feet in height, which shall match the existing structure height, including the Findings of Fact:
Ms. Wohland seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Lareau Aye
Mr. John Stuart Allen, Torrenga Engineering, present on behalf of the petitioner, noted that the side-yard setback for this subdivision is 8 feet. The plat submitted for the permit, which was approved, had a 7.47-foot side-yard setback instead. When the foundation location was completed, the issue became known.
The floor for public comment for this public hearing was closed at the Public Hearing November meeting.
Mr. Kennedy inquired as to whether or not this has happened before with this engineering firm. He was ensured that it had not.
Mr. Kennedy made a motion to approve the 7.5-foot side-yard setback variance for the residence at 8350 Larkspur Terrace, including the Findings of Fact:
Ms. Wohland seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Lareau Aye
Mr. Kennedy made a motion to defer; Ms. Wohland seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Lareau Aye
Respectfully submitted;
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Board of Zoning Appeals
01-27-2020 Board of Zoning Appeals
02-24-2020 Board of Zoning Appeals
03-16-2020 Board of Zoning Appeals
06-15-2020 Board of Zoning Appeals
07-20-2020 Board of Zoning Appeals
09-21-2020 Borad of Zoning Appeals
11-16-2020 Board of Zoning Appeals
12-21-2020 Board of Zoning Appeals
