Schererville BZA approves variances to legalize two 16‑unit buildings on Morningside Drive

The Schererville Board of Zoning Appeals on Tuesday approved a package of variances to legalize two existing 16‑unit apartment buildings in the Harvest Manor subdivision, clearing a hurdle for the current owner’s planned sale.

Petitioners representing Morningside LLC said the buildings at 2601 and 2633 Morningside Drive predate the town’s R‑3 zoning standards and currently exist as legal nonconforming multifamily structures. "My name is James Huss with DVG Team," the petitioner told the board, introducing attorneys and owners who were present. Attorney Jared Talber told the board a buyer had previously backed out after learning of the nonconforming status and said the owner is now under contract with a buyer contingent on approval of the variances.

Talber provided a revenue rationale: "The current taxes on both buildings are around $18,000 a year," he said, and estimated that if the sale and resulting investments proceed taxes could increase by "between $20,000 and $60,000 a year," per building. Petitioners said the variances would not change the multifamily use of the properties. "We're not changing the use," Talber said. "It's just more apartments." A board member cited Title 21, section 5(e) of the town ordinance, which restricts changing legal nonconforming uses; Talber responded the request recognizes existing unit counts rather than converting the use.

The relief approved included a use/recognition variance and development variances addressing side‑yard setbacks (petitioners requested 0‑foot side yards), lot coverage (approximately 35% vs. the R‑3 30% maximum), elimination of required 2‑ft green strips where pavement abuts the lot line, larger accessory garage area (several thousand square feet above the prescriptive limit but equating to approximately one garage per unit), a one‑space off‑street parking deficiency at 2601 (31 provided vs. 32 required), allowances for existing non‑shielded pedestrian lights, and exceptions for visible dumpsters. Petitioners said both buildings would remain at 16 units and no additional units were proposed.

Board members pressed petitioners on screening and site safety. A commissioner asked whether the dumpster could be fenced with double gates and whether cracked sidewalks would be repaired; the owner confirmed willingness to screen the dumpsters and to repair the sidewalk when asked to state that commitment on the record. For the second property (2633), petitioners acknowledged the building is five parking spaces short and that its garages would exceed ordinance allowances by about 3,700 square feet; the petitioner said the two sites share dumpster locations and both would need screening.

Votes and conditions All variance items (BZA cases 26‑1‑1 through 26‑1‑16) were moved by Bill Jarvis, seconded, and approved individually on roll call. Multiple motions included a finding of hardship tied to the buildings’ pre‑existing construction and included the standard statement that approvals be subject to applicable state, local and federal regulations and current fees. Several approvals explicitly incorporated the owner’s on‑record commitments to screen dumpsters and repair sidewalks; the motion for item p (26‑1‑16) required a second‑lot dumpster screening, which the owner confirmed he would "take care of."

What happens next The board issued favorable recommendations/approvals at the BZA level and cited the need to keep fees current and comply with regulations; some approvals were framed as recommendations to town council where applicable. Petitioners and the owner said the approvals are intended to remove barriers to sale and future investment; no physical expansions were proposed. If the buyer and owner proceed with transfer and investments, petitioners estimated increased property tax revenue to the town over coming years.

Key quotes "We are representing Morningside LLC" — James Huss, DVG Team, introducing the petition. "We're not changing the use... It's just more apartments." — Jared Talber, attorney for petitioners. "I do. I'll take care of that also." — Owner Steve Rusich, confirming on‑record commitment to screen the second lot dumpster.

Clarifying details and figures cited in the hearing - Units: each building holds 16 units; no additional units are proposed. (speaker: James Huss/Jared Talber) - Current property taxes: cited as around $18,000 per building per year; projected increases of $20,000–$60,000 per year per building if sale and improvements occur (speaker: Jared Talber). - Lot coverage: requested up to about 35% vs. R‑3 maximum 30% (speaker: James Huss). - Parking: 2601 provides 31 spaces (1 short of the 32 required); 2633 is deficient by 5 spaces (speaker: James Huss). - Garage exceedances: petitioners stated 2601 accessory buildings exceed allowable garage square footage by about 4,800 sq ft; 2633 garages exceed allowances by about 3,700 sq ft (speaker: James Huss).

Limits of the decision The approvals legalize existing conditions and provide variances; they do not authorize an increase in the number of dwelling units as presented. The board’s approvals included conditions (dumpster screening, sidewalk repairs) recorded on the public record; any future rebuilding after catastrophic damage may be constrained by nonconforming‑use rules in Title 21 §5(e), which a board member cited during questioning.

The board closed the hearing portion of the agenda after completing the variances and moved into routine commission business.