This week’s decision by St. Louis County’s board of adjustment to deny a variance request for ISD 2142 is likely to have implications well beyond the district’s plans for a new school in the south.

Those implications were immediately clear to some school board members, who acknowledged that their plans for a new school in Field Township, north of Cook, may have suffered the most decisive blow from Tuesday’s decision.

In the south, the district faced a zoning requirement to limit the amount of its lot covered in impervious surfaces, such as buildings, parking lots, and sidewalks, to ten percent. The project they developed included impervious surface over 17.5 percent of the 77.5-acre lot, which made the variance necessary.

The district could modify its existing school plans, purchase more land to increase the overall size of its lot or do a combination of the two to meet the ten-percent threshold for impervious surfaces. Another option would be to locate the school at another site.

While changes at the existing south school site may allow the school district to meet the ten percent requirement, the prospect for meeting the requirement in the north appears all but impossible. That’s because the north school site is located in a more restrictive zone, which allows just two percent lot coverage, not the ten percent allowed in the south.

“I’m very concerned that the north school site won’t be approved,” said Bruns. “We’d have to buy 630 acres of land to meet the two-percent requirement.”

Bruns said if the variance is denied, it would likely force the district to search for another site for the north school, which will serve the Orr and Cook attendance areas. The problem is that many of the sites considered — including the alternative site for the north school — would have the same property restrictions, Bruns said.

Board Chair Bob Larson and board member Gary Rantala acknowledged they shared Bruns’ concerns but didn’t want to speculate on the possibility. The board is scheduled to with meet with county representatives in August on its request for a conditional use permit and variance.

In the meantime, Bruns said work on the north site should be temporarily stopped until the board knows whether the site is viable. “In my opinion, we should not spend more money there until we get an okay,” she said.

The zoning issue never surfaced in early discussions about site selection, but board members continued to express confidence in Johnson Controls’ handling of the property purchases.

“I’m not disappointed in Johnson Controls; they’ve done a very good job,” said Rantala. “Do I wish things could have gone differently with the variance? Yes, but I don’t blame Johnson Controls.”

Options in the south

While school officials expressed disappointment with the board of adjustment’s decision, they vowed to press on with their south project.

Larson’s preference is to remain at the existing school site. “We spent a good deal of time choosing sites that would meet our needs,” he said. “Moving to other areas that would accommodate the school as designed could increase travel distance for students and would not meet our goal of trying to locate the school (which will serve students from the AlBrook and Cotton attendance areas) near the center.”

Board member Gary Rantala, who also attended Tuesday’s hearing before the Board of Adjustment, would also prefer to stay with the existing site.

“These school sites were chosen by a citizens’ committee with little input from the board,” said Rantala, who is reluctant to move the school for that reason and also for the added expense and time it would take to find another location for the school.

But reducing the school’s coverage area from 17.5 acres to 7.75 acres would be a tall order. Proposals to shrink the parking lot, narrow the sidewalks and make other modifications reduced the school coverage area to 11.2 acres, but that still leaves almost four more acres to trim.

Board member Zelda Bruns, who was at Tuesday’s hearing, said she’s unsure if that will be possible. One option suggested by the Board of Adjustment was to redesign the school as a two-story structure, but Bruns said that it would be costly for the district to redesign the school and would also require the addition of an elevator to service handicapped students and staff.

Another option would be to purchase land adjacent to the school’s lot to increase the size of the lot and allow more acreage for impervious surfaces.

Larson said that he expects the board to call a special study session to deal with the variance denial. “I think we need a study session really soon so we can take a better look at our options,” he said. “Possibly as soon as next week.”

Appeal pending

At the same time, an appeal challenging a ruling to allow schools to be built in land zoned for Forest and Agricultural Management could resurface. A decision on whether to allow the appeal to proceed is expected next week.

Should that appeal prevail, it could prevent the schools from being built at the selected sites.

The Coalition for Community Schools filed an appeal with the St. Louis County Planning Department earlier this month, questioning Planning Director Barb Hayden’s authority to alter the county’s zoning ordinance unilaterally to allow for the construction of schools in areas the coalition contends don’t allow such development.

Hayden denied the appeal, saying it had been filed past the 45-day deadline and failed to include a $1,000 filing fee.

But coalition members balked, saying they had been misinformed by County Attorney Melanie Ford when asked about the appeals process. In an e-mail to Marshall Helmberger, a member of the coalition, Ford said the appeal had to be filed within 30 days, not the 45 days stated in the ordinance.

The coalition had sought clarification of Hayden’s decision in mid-April, but did not hear back on the matter from Ford until May 7. Even then, 45 days had not elapsed and the appeal could have been filed in time. Ford also neglected to inform the coalition of the filing fee.

In the same e-mail, Ford suggested that an appeal could still be filed because the district had to resubmit its request for conditional use permits for both sites. Ford stated that Hayden had indicated “that there will be another opportunity since the request will be resubmitted and she will continue to state that the school is an appropriate use.”

Ford declined any comment on the matter because it is under appeal.

Coalition members met with St. Louis County Commissioner Mike Forsman last week and explained what happened. Forsman told the group that their appeal should be accepted and told them to resubmit it. “This is a fairness issue,” said Forsman. “The coalition had its hand up that it intended to appeal and it should have been allowed to do so,” he said.

Forsman also questioned whether Hayden had the authority to alter the ordinance on her own.

Hayden’s rationale for altering the ordinance was that the county board never intended to exclude public or semi-public uses in the FAM zones. But that interpretation is flawed, said Tim Kotzian, because the ordinance was crafted in the 1970s when a number of smaller schools were closing and being consolidated in cities where infrastructure existed to support their operations. “I think they deliberately excluded schools,” said Kotzian.

In addition, Kotzian said Hayden failed to send proper notice of the change in the ordinance.

She notified another county employee, Mary Anderson, of the change by letter and Anderson relayed that information at a hearing, but no notice was mailed to townships or cities or to private property owners in the region.

“Notice wasn’t properly served, so they cannot charge we did not meet the deadline,” said Kotzian. “The clock has never started ticking.”

Regardless of what happens with the coalition’s appeal, Kotzian said more may be on the way. He is encouraging area townships, cities and private property owners to file appeals.

“They cannot run from the right that people have to appeal,” he said.

Larson, however, remains convinced that the plan developed by the district is the best option.

“We worked on this plan for a long time,” he said. “It’s a good plan for our kids, our students.”

But Bruns worries that as more obstacles emerge to the district’s plan, delays and unexpected expenses are draining the funds for building schools.

“That’s what concerns me,” said Bruns. “All this money we’re spending is less money for schools and education.”