HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-02-19 MinutesOfylig0p.t 4,1 ell
010„g �. i0,/975
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
A special meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held at 3:50 P.M. Wednesday,
February 19, 1975, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Suzanne Lighton, Connie Clack, Chairman Carl Yates,
James White, David Newbern.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OTHERS PRESENT: Claud Prewitt, Ervan Wimberly, Lynn Wade, Phil Shepherd.
Chairman Yates called the meeting to order and opned the public
hearing on Appeal No. 75-3, Helen T. Edmiston, 2133 Clover APPEAL NO. 75-3
Drive, on an application to vary setbacks. A setback of . Helen T. Edmiston
20 feet is required from the rear property line and the 2133 Clover Drive
subdivider is requesting asetback of 7 feet. The existing old farm house was
located here before the subdivision was platted out and encroaches onto a
20 foot easement platted into the subdivision.
Claud Prewitt was present to represent.
Mr. Prewitt said the house had been there for some time and they would like to
remodel the house so that it would look nicer with the subdivision and it would
provide good, economical living quarters for someone. He said that this
remodeling would not move the house any closer to the property line, and .
that this was the West line of the Clover Creek Subdivision; that the house
was fairly well centered on the lot (North and South) but they did not have much
control over the Western boundary..(The North corner of the house is about 10 feet
from the Western edge.) Mr. Prewitt said there was only one adjoining property
owner and that there was 70 or 80 feet between their property line and this
other house on that adjoining property.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said this property owner lived in Greenland,
Arkansas and had been notified.
In answer to Miss Lighton's question, Mr. Prewitt said that work on the subdivision
was started 2 or 3 years ago and that they knew the house would be a problem when
they started the subdivision.
Chairman Yates wanted to know if any of the utilities would be using this 20 foot
easement that the house encroached on.
Ervan Wimberly said only the gas company. He said in talking to Frank O'Donnell
(Arkansas Western Gas) that there wouldn't be any problems once the gas line
was in.
Mr. White asked why, after all this time, that this had come to the Board of
Adjustment.
Chairman Yates asked if it was a normal procedure for the Planning Commission
to approve a subdivision whenit had an easement that was encroached upon such
as this one.
Ervan Wimberly (Engineer) said that it was more of an oversight than anything
else. He said they were aware that this old house would be a problem but at,that
time they had other problems that were greater than this and thought they would
work this out when the got to it. He said if this house had fallen on two lots
of the subdivision, they would have torn it down.
Chairman Yates commented that if the utilities ever needed this easement for
anything they would be allowed to use it at any time. He said he would not want
to put money into this house with it like that.
Mr. White felt that it would be hard to get financing on this house in the
situation it was in,
i45
r
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment -2-
February 19, 1975
Miss Lighton felt that title insurance would not cover this; however, she felt
that this should not affect the granting of the variance.
Mr. Prewitt said they would explore into these facts more before they remodeled
the house.
Mrs. Clack asked if the house was just going to be there long enough to store
things during construction.
Mr. Prewitt said that it was going to be used for storage during construction
but that it was a salvagable house and would make good living quarters.
Chairman Yates questioned whether or not the variance could be granted under
these circumstances.
Miss Lighton and Mr. Newbern felt that the easement was an important question
but that it was not a factor in whether or not the variance could be granted.
Mr. Newbern said he did not know why, however, that the question of the easement
could not be taken into the Board of Adjustment's consideration in making their
decision.
Chairman Yates then asked if it would be possible to move the house 20 feet from
the property line.
Mr. Prewitt said this would be more costly than remodeling the house. He said
their feeling would be that it would not be worth moving it.
There was no further discussion and the public hearing was concluded.
APPEAL NO. 75
Larry Carter Construction Co.
Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on 1101 Curtis Avenue
Appeal No. 75-4, Larry Carter Construction Company, 1101 Curtis Avenue, on an
application to vary setbacks. The required setback from right-of-way of Curtis Avenue
is 25 feet and the roof overhang of the building on the East side of Curtis encroaches
approximately one foot on the setback The building wall of one of the buildings
on the West side of Curtis encroaches approximately 2 feet and 6 inches into the
setback; the roof overhang encroaches another 2 foot for a total of 41 feet.
While running a final survey of the Southmont Apartment complex for the FHA,
McClelland Engineers discovered that two of the buildings were encroaching upon
a 25 foot building setback line along Curtis Avenue. Mr. Harold Lieberenz, Building
Inspection Superintendent, stated that at the time, all the building foundations
were poured, that the street was not laid out in such a way that the City Building
Inspector could catch the violation.
Attorney Lynn Wade and Phil Shepherd were present to represent.
Mr Wade said the Southmont Apartment project had originally been owned by a
limited partnership who had financial difficulties and the bonding company had
to take over and the applicant "inherited" some problems. He said that the original
road across the site had been intended as a private drive rather than a public
road and there would not have been a setback requirement. He said Mr. Wimberly
(McClelland Engineers) coming in under the instructions of the new contract of the
bonding company re -surveyed and found the encroachments onto setback lines. He
said when the error was discovered these two buildings were already in place.
Miss Lighton asked Harold Lieberenz (Inspection Superintendent) how a building
permit could have been issued on this.
Mr.Lieberenz said he couldn't explain it except that he assumed that they had
engineers on the job that laid this out, and if it had gone as planned there would
not have been any problems. He said when his inspectors checked the footing and
framing on this there were no streets laid out to make this vivid enough for them
to catch this. He said if there had been any definite way to have checked the
property lines this would not have happened.
There was no further discussion and the public hearing was concluded.
APPEAL NO. 75-3
Miss Lighton moved to grant the variance as requested on Appeal No. 75-3 on condition
fig
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment -3-
February 19, 1975
that this would apply only to the present house in its present location.
Mrs. Clack felt that since the house was there from the beginning and it could have
been taken into consideration and some adjustment made at that time to go around it
that this variance request should not be granted.
Chairman Yates wondered if it would be better to just postpone action on the appeal
until it could be examined more thoroughly.
David Newbern felt that since this house would not conform
had been platted out that the appeal should not be granted.
certain set of plans had been drawn up that they should be
that had the house fallen ontwo.;,lots in'the subdivision it
anyway; however, since it had only fallen on one lot, they
Board of Adjustment asking for a variance to restore the ho
Miss Lighton's motion died for lack of a second.
David Newbern moved that the Board of Adjustment
Appeal No. 75-3.
James White seconded the motion; Yates, Clack, White and Newbern voted "Aye";
Miss Lighton voted "Nay".
The motion to deny the appeal was approved by a vote of 4-.1.
to the subdivision that
He said that when a
followed. He also said
'would have been torn down
were now before the
use.
deny the variance application on
APPEAL NO. 75-4
Miss Lighton moved to grant the variance request submitted.
James White seconded the motion since he felt there was no other alternative.
David Newbern was troubled by this type of situation where they bring something
in and a mistake has been made and then the Board is asked to grant a variance
to make it okay. He said since this was a minor variance that he would not be
inclined to deny it; however, had it been a larger variance that they were seeking,
he said he would have been very much opposed to it. He felt that something should
be done to avoid mistakes like this in the future. The opinion was given that
if the Board of Adjustment so desired, they could request these buildings be moved
back to meet the setback requirements.
After considerable discussion with Inspection Superintendent Harold Lieberenz, the
Board of Adjustment felt that the Inspections Office should require a survey to
be submitted to them before a building permit could be issued. They felt this would
be for the benefit of the individual that was requesting the building permit as well
as a benefit to the Planning and Inspection Office. This would supply the information
that would avoid mistakes such as this. It was suggested first of all to only request
a survey for things such as subdivisions, etc. however, it was felt by the Board
that this would be showing a sort of "favoritism". Therefore, they felt that the
survey should be submitted on all items. It was pointed out that a survey would have
to be made sometime along the line anyway expecially if it was for FHA or some other
financing organization.
Mr. Lieberenz told the Board of Adjustment that he would talk with City Manager
Don Grimes the next morning.
The motion was approved unanimously by a vote of 5-0.
James White moved to approve the minutes of the January 27, 1975 meeting.
David Newbern seconded the motion.
The minutes were approved as mailed.
There was no further discussion.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:02 P.M.
MINUTES
147