HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970-08-03 Minutes`f V,, 3/,/970
MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
824 �
• The Fayetteville Board of Adjustment met at 10:00 A.M.,
Monday, August 3, 1970, in the Directors Room of the City
Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Members Present: Roy Clinton, Suzanne Lighton, J. F. Palmer
J. F. Robinson.
Members Absent: Carl Yates.
Others Present: Dewey Dark, Buster Carson, Tom Holt., John
Lineberger, Cora V. Elkins, and numerous
members of Trinity United Methodist Church.
Chairman J. F. Robinson called the meeting to order.
Mrs. Cora Elkins' application was considered first, so that
she could get to work by 11:00 A.M. Mrs. Elkins is appealing
for a group housing variance under Ordinance No. 1239, A MRS. CORA V. ELKINS
house on her property burned in February. She had begun to 1310 Cato Springs R
remove the remains of this house and rebuild without a permit.
Two problems were faced. Another house on the property would
have prevented rebuilding this second house and under the new
zoning ordinance, dwellings are not permitted in the I-1,
Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial District. Since the
removing and rebuilding was begun prior to the adoption of
Ordinance No. 1747 on June 29, 1970, Mrs. Elkins is appealing
under Ordinance No. 1239. The problem was discussed and how
it would relate differently to the two ordinances. No
opposition was present. The public hearing was closed.
The next case before the Board of Adjustment was the TRINITY UNITED METHODIST
continuing application of Trinity United Methodist Church CHURCH
for a variance to permit building closer to a side property
line than permitted in ordinance. This application was filed
under Ordinance No. 1239 at the time it was in effect, but the
hearings have been protracted. Mr. Robinson read from Ordinance
No. 1239 the powers and duties of the Board. Rev. Dark stated
the need for a variance was not the result of poor planning
on the part of the applicant. They are following a building
program which was begun under Ordinance No. 1002 which required
only a 5 foot side setback. To move the addition to the North
would throw everything out of balance. Changes in zoning laws
have caused the problem. If the variance is not granted, it
would be necessary to relocate the church. Under the present
zoning, the Church could not be rebuilt if it is more than
50% destroyed.
John Lineberger, Attorney for John Holt, stated. Mr. Holt's
lot is only 70 feet wide. Having the building only 7 feet from
the property line would work a hardship on him. He would not
object to anything that came no closer than 25 feet to the
• property line. He is concerned that in the future they might
want to build still further to the West,
8-3-70 -2-
�383-2--�
A Church member said this was the end of the building program.
There is a considerable investment here. The present building
is over 100 feet from the back of Mr. Holtes house. The use
he is making of the back portion of his lot now is a dog kennel.
He did not see how a Church could hurt a dog kennel.
There were no further questions and the public hearing was closed,
Roy Clinton moved that the Board grant the application of Mrs. Elkins
to permit her to rebuild the burned house. Miss Lighton seconded MRS. CORA ELKINS
the motion. It was approved unanimously,
A discussion followed concerning the Trinity United Methodist
Church application. Mr, Lieberenz noted that under Ordinance No. 1747
churches are permissible in residential districts on appeal to
the Planning Commission. At the last meeting, some of the Planning
Commission members felt that if a variance was necessary the Board
of Adjustment would still have to consider the case unless it was
a large scale development. Mr. Palmer said he could see no
damages to Mr. Holt. Mr. Robinson said he could see some
damages if Mr. Holt wanted to build on the back portion of
his lot at some future date. Mr. Clinton said he felt there;
was an element of special consideration due to the Church TRINITY UNITED METHODIST
because the original planning called for an addition at some CHURCH
future date. When this planning was done, the setbacks on
side yards was only 5 Peet and it would not have been
non -conforming. They have more than one acre; they could go
• to the Planning Commission under the large scale development
plan and get a variance. Also, this is R-2, Medium Density
Residential, and apartment buildings can be constructed in
this district as close as 8 feet to the property line.
Roy Clinton moved that the request for a variance to build
7 feet from the South property line in line with the present:
building and to enable a canopy over the driveway at the North
side of the building which would be closer to the street than
permitted in the ordinance be granted on the basis that 11. ., the
strict application of the provisions of this ordinance would
result in exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional
hardship upon the owner of such property; provided that such
relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose
of this ordinance. . ." because they conformed to the City's
ordinances at the time they made their long range plans. Article VIII,
Section 5, 3 of Ordinance 1239 was the basis for the motion.
Mr. Clinton stated he thought this would work an impracticable
and undue hardship on the Church to adhere to the ordinance
setbacks and that he did not think this relief would result in
a substantial detriment to the public good, J. F. Palmer seconded
the motion. It was approved unanimously, and the variance was
granted.
Mr. Clinton said he felt existing churches which need variances
• should be handled by the Board of Adjustment; new buildings which
need variances should go before the Planning Commission.
The minutes of July 27 were approved as mailed, and the meeting
adjourned at 11:10 A.M.