Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St John Town Board of Zoning Appeals approves four variances and a sign variance; corner‑lot fence tied to 10‑foot setback
Summary
The St John Town Board of Zoning Appeals on April 1 approved four development variances and a sign variance by 3‑0 votes. Key actions included permission for two privacy fences (one with a 10‑foot setback), approval of a reduced rear‑yard setback for a new house, and authorization of an added digital sign at a Family Express location.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The St John Town Board of Zoning Appeals voted 3‑0 April 1 to approve four development variances and one sign variance, including a conditional approval that requires a corner‑lot privacy fence be set back 10 feet from the sidewalk.
Board action and context: The board approved a variance allowing a property owner to enclose an outlot with a privacy fence at 13867 West 105th Place where the parcel does not contain a primary structure. The applicant, identified in the record as James Soregon, told the board he has maintained the parcel since 2017 and plans only to replace a 4‑foot wooden fence with a vinyl privacy fence encompassing roughly 0.2 acres. Staff advised the variance was needed because the acquired parcel remains legally separate from the lot with the primary structure; the motion passed 3‑0 after a member read findings of fact into the record.
A reduced rear‑yard setback at 10800 Forestdale Street also cleared the board. The applicant, Chris McAllister, sought to reduce the town’s 40‑foot rear‑yard requirement to 28 feet so a single‑family house can be built on a constraining lot that shares legal descriptions across two tax parcels. Neighbor Dina Furman, who said she owns the house to the south, raised concerns about site fill and runoff after describing recent soil imports near the property: “Where is that water gonna go now? ... It’s, like, this high now.” McAllister and his team responded that the house will be supported on screw‑type piles, that the design meets flood‑elevation requirements, and that drainage swales and existing easements will manage runoff. After discussion the board approved the setback reduction 3‑0.
On a separate fence matter at 12043 West 105th Street, staff told the board it had concerns that replacing a 6‑foot privacy fence directly adjacent to the sidewalk could violate accessibility guidelines and that the original 2005 permit included no survey or inspections. Staff recommended denying the request or, at minimum, moving the fence back; the board instead approved the variance on the condition that the fence be set back at least 10 feet from the sidewalk. Applicant Chris Tapkus said he could remove landscaping and meet the 10‑foot condition. The motion to approve with the 10‑foot setback passed 3‑0.
Family Express sign variance: Patrick Lip, general counsel for Family Express, asked the board to allow enlargement of the existing monument sign at 10902 Parrish Avenue from about 75 square feet to roughly 103.2 square feet and to add a second electronic message board of about 28.17 square feet. Lip said the proposed digital display cycles images every 60 to 90 seconds, contains no flashing or animation and can be dimmed at night: “There is no flashing, there’s no animation, there’s no movement on any of the text there.” He also noted coordination with INDOT because of a nearby roundabout project. The board closed public comment and approved the sign variance 3‑0.
Procedural notes and next steps: The board appointed a temporary chair at the start of the meeting and approved the March 4, 2026 minutes. No further public hearings were recorded and the board adjourned after the last vote. Any appeals or permit conditions referenced in the approvals will follow usual town procedures for building permits and inspections.
Authority and record: The board referenced town code sections on development variances (multiple STJMC references appear in the record) during deliberations; each motion included a statement of findings of fact as required by the town’s variance procedure. The meeting record shows all four contested items and the sign variance were approved by the same 3‑0 tally.

