Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-07-09 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held at 10:00 A. M., Friday, July 9, 1976, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Carl Yates, Connie Clack, David Newbern, James White, Chester House MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: None. Attorney Truman Smith, Attorney Bill Isaacs, Carol Hart, Dr. J. B. Hays, Wanda Swafford, Ralph Downs, Morton Gitelman, Dr. Hall Logan, Nelda Richter, Leo Peel, Mr. Chuck Mills, Robin Northrop, Bobbie Jones, and others. Chairman Carl Yates called the meeting to order. The public hearing was opened on Appeal No. 76-16, Ridgeview Baptist Church, for further consideration. The Board of Adjustment had tabled the application on June 21, 1976 and had requested that the Ridgeview Baptist Church revise their request to relocate the building. Attorney Truman Smith was present to represent this matter. Attorney Smith stated that they have submitted a revised plat on which they moved the proposed building 70 ft. from the North property line. Mr. and Mrs. Ken Garton have signed that drawing indicating they have approved new proposed site. We ask; at this time, that we be allowed to build 70 ft. from the North property line. Chairman Yates said that the Ordinance required 100 ft., so this would be a 30 ft. variance. Mr. Smith said he did not have the exact distance the building would be from the Garton property, but it would be less than 100 ft. and would require a variance in this setback. Chairman Yates asked if the access into the building would be from the North. Attorney Smith agreed that the access would be from the North. There were no further questions. There was no one present to oppose this request. The public hearing was concluded. APPEAL NO. 76-16 Ridgeview Baptist Church 1852 Huntsville Road The public hearing was opened on Appeal No. 76-18, APPEAL NO. 76-18 J. B. Hays and Life Styles, Inc., 1140 North College, Dr. J. B. Hays on an appeal from the administrative decision of the 1140 North College Planning Administrator. Attorney Bill Isaacs was present to represent. Chairman Yates said that the files indicate that the Planning Administrator has had contact with people from Life Styles, Inc., and others, since late 1975. She has advised them that this would require a variance from Article VII, Section 14, Code of Ordinances. Chairman Yates reviewed the previous appeal for a variance, which was denied, and commented that there was some feeling on the Board, at that time, that a variance might not,in fact, be required. Chairman Yates read Article 10, Section 4 (Powers and Duties of Board of Adjustment) into the minutes. He said the subject of "use" is not the question. We are concerned with the ruling. First of all, the Zoning Ordinance sets up certain zoning areas within the City; the area in question is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The Zoning Ordinance sets up proper uses within each zone. Up until January 6, 1976, if it was not completely clear whether a use was permitted, the Planning Administrator had to go to the Planning Commission; now, the Planning Administrator may interpret uses. Mrs. Jones had made a determination that the proposed use was, in fact, a Board of Adjustment -2- July 9, 1976 permitted use in the C-2 zone, under the terms of the Ordinance. Chairman Yates read Article VI, Use Unit 4, and Article VII, Section 14, into the minutes. Attorney Bill Isaacs said that this is not going to be a typical non-residential project, but will be a home -like atmosphere. The minimum separation in feet is really the item in question. The separation of 200 ft., is the big question. He said that they are not building a building. He said this is not to be a hosptial or a sanitarium; or a convalescent home. He quoted each of these, as well as "Retarded" from "Black's Law Dictionary." He said that the point is that these people are going to be retarded, that means that this is a relat- ively slow or backward person. These people are not suffering from mental disease. This project will be a half -way house arrangement. These people are trainable and can be employed. They pay taxes.and are not detrimental to the community. Motels, themselves, cause havoc. This is for retarded people; they don't drive, this will eliminate part of the traffic problem. They are not dangerous, criminal -minded people; they are slow people. Wanda Swafford, Ft. Smith, Arkansas, stated that she is Director of Bost School, Ft. Smith. She has worked with retarded children 17 years and she has worked with retarded adults for 15 years. Of the adults that she has worked with, many of them are holding down jobs. They are living in the community; they are working and either partially or totally supporting themselves. Some have been working at the same job for 2 or 3 years; there have been only 2 out of 15 to change jobs. They are very steady on the job and are very proud of the fact that they are employed. They want to be as near normal as possible; the only time they miss work is when they are sick. After work, they are physically worn-out; therefore, you don't have to worry about them partying or causing a disturbance. They have simple activities --they are simple people, who lead a simple life. She said that if she had her choice, she would rather choose a retarded person as=a neighbor. In Ft. Smith, the neighbors of "Independent Living" love these people. Mr. Newbern stated that what is involved is a technical situation, and he asked Ms. Swafford if it was her opinion that these people have mental afflictions. Ms. Swafford said that these people are not mentally ill in any way. Mr. House asked who would pay for the training. Ms. Swafford said that she assumes it would be a Title 20 contract; the same as they have in Ft. Smith, which goes through Social Rehabilitative Services. Mr. House asked what kind of transportation would be furnished for these people. Ms. Swafford said they walk or ride bicycles, or will be transported by house parents. She was the Administrator for the first year at "Independent Living" in Ft. Smith. She said that she specializes in working with retarded people. Attorney Bill Isaacs asked if they are prone to be alcoholic, psychotic, or have mental afflictions. Ms. Swafford said they are not any of these things. Mr. Ralph Downs, Representative of State Dept. of Rehabilitative Services, 612 North College, said that the number of clients would be 10. As far as transportation is concerned, they will be transported by the house parents, who will be reimbursed from the State for their services. We purchase services from Life Styles, Inc. We go by Title 20. Morton Gitelman, 1229 West Lakeridge Drive, stated that he lives approximately 2 blocks from the facility. In addition to being a nearby neighbor, he has expertise in the meaning and interpretation that the Board is faced with. He was the attorney representing Independent Living in Ft. Smith when it was being set up and faced opposition there. Also, he was a member of the Fayetteville Planning Commission when the present Zoning Ordinance was adopted. This is a very typical residential use that is being contemplated; it is not an institution. The people who qualify are people who can adapt to the commun- ity; these people live independently. These people are fully employable and 34. • • Board of Adjustment -3- July 9, 1976 have skills. This is to provide advise and guidance. If you will compare the contemplated use to the past use,(motel) you will agree that this is a much better use. Chairman Yates asked if this was a residential use. Mr. Gitelman said that the idea of Life Styles is independence for these people. Mr. Gerald Taylor, Vice President of Mcllroy Bank, Member of Razorback Sertoma Club, and Board Member of Life Styles, Inc., first of all, stated that there are members of the community who signed the petition opposing this, who would like to withdraw their names. We (Razorback Sertoma Club) are presently involved with the project of working with a widow who has a 55 year old mentally retarded daughter. The daughter sits and rocks in a rocking chair all day long; she is totally dependent on her mother, who is 80 years old. When her mother is no longer able to care for her, she will have to be placed in an institution and be cared for by the State. Perhaps, she could have benefitted had there been such a program as this when she was younger. This project will not be detrimental to the community. Carol Hart, Member of Board of Directors, Life Styles, Inc., formerly with Richardson Center, worked with retarded children for 6 years. She has 3 comments: (1) All of Life Styles' clients will be employed. (2) They will not be housing anyone with mental disorders. (3) There will be a house parent there for supervision at all times This will give these clients survival skills. Attorney Isaacs said that this is a good use and that it will be a benefit to Fayetteville. Mr. House asked what Title 20 was. Mr. Downs said that Title 20 comes under the Social Security Act. Ms. Swafford said that the law states that in regard to Title 20, that these things are for the Developmentally disabled, Cerebral Palsied, and Epileptics. Dr. Hays said that the property is presently being used for rental to students, and he has found out he has had felons living there. It has been rented out 90% or more of the time this year. As far as the mental capacity is concerned, the clients may be more superior than some they have had on the property, in the past. Mrs. Nelda Richter, 1149 North Washington, said that they received a letter from the Board of Adjustment (City), and that she is in opposition to granting a variance because it would allow "a hospital, sanitarium, or convalescent home for alcoholic, mental, nervous, or narcotic patients.." Dr. Hall Logan, 1149 Waneetah, said that a very distinguished attorney told him "Don't be so specific to put everything down that you need, you will forget one thing ---you cannot be all inclusive." He has no disagreement with Life'Styles, Inc. - This is commercial property ---not residential! He said this is not a desirable location for anyone to live in, even normal people. It is noisy and complex. Are they going to wander all over the place? He thinks it is a poor location for what they are trying to do. We were told there would be a supervisor, now we are told different. There is no assurance that this will be "screened", there is nothing to prevent them from taking less desirable people in. Carol Hart said they do plan recreational activities. They hope to use the V.A. Grounds, they also have their own admissions criteria. Chairman Yates asked Bobbie if a residential use would be permitted in C-2, under the Ordinance. Mrs. Jones said, no, it would not be:.permitted. There were no further questions. The public hearing was concluded. 3R • • Board of Adjustment -4- July 9, 1976 The public hearing was opened on Appeal No. 76-19, APPEAL NO. 76-19 Leo Peel, 1990 North College, on an application to vary Leo Peel the requirement for frontage on and access to a public 1990 North College street. Attorney Truman Smith was present to represent Mr. Peel. Mr. Peel was also present. Attorney Smith said that this property is located on Hwy. 71 North, directly South of Horton's Service Station, directly North of Miniature Golf; and the property that is owned by Mr. Peel is actually the frontage property. There is 100 ft. of frontage on Hwy. 71 North. Mr. Peel wants to build'a real estate office on this property. The only access to the back property (directly East) is a private road that runs East and West on South boundary line of what Mr. Peel purchased. This is a private road, not a public street; the property directly to the East is still owned by Mr. Dick Hudson, the property to the South is owned by Mr. Chuck Mills. Mr. Mills has no objections. We would like a variance. The front of the building would face the South and have access by a private road on the South. Bobbie Jones said that the property Mr. Peel wishes to use, is not the problem. The fact is that it was purchased off another piece of property that did not retain any street frontage. Mr. Peel did go to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission tabled this request and recommended that he appeal to the Board of Adjustment. He bought the property from Mr. Dick Hudson, who kept no frontage for the back portion. Mr. White wanted to know if the property had been one lot of record or two lots. Bobbie Jones said that the property was split without compliance of subdivision requirements. Chairman Yates asked if they could not dedicate the street. Mr. Peel said that if he dedicated 25 ft. to the City and if he has to setback another 50 ft. to the building, he will have virtually nothing left to build on. Mr. Peel said he bought this property in July of last year. Attorney Smith said that this could be utilized (was zoned) for commercial purposes. Mr. White asked if the building could front on Hwy. 71. Attorney Smith said that it could front on Hwy. 71, but that was not the problem. Attorney Smith said that easements can be worked out between the parties concerned. Mr. Chuck Mills, owner of the property to the South, said that he is more than willing to go along with any type of easement. There were no further questions. Chairman Yates closed the public hearing. Connie Clack moved that the request of Ridgeview Baptist Church, Appeal #76-16, be granted as revised. Mr. White seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously by a vote of 5-0. APPEAL NO. 76-16 Ridgeview Baptist Church 1852 Huntsville Road Chairman Yates said that there are 2 questions to APPEAL NO. 76-18 decide on Life Styles, Inc. and Dr. J. B. Hays: Dr. J. B. Hays Is the proposed permitted use with the C-2:zone? 1140 North College This is a .residential use, so therefore, it would not fit into this use, would it? Mr. White said that this boils down to a use situation. If you were going to limit use of structure as a motel, could you place the same limitations on the other? Mr. Newbern said that it seems to him that they are involved in interpreting the Ordinance. It is not a house for the "mentally ill," "insane," or "undesirable." He stated he had voted last time that the Board of Adjustment overrule the Planning Administrator in favor of Dr. Hays and he is still convinced that the Planning Administrator was incorrect in placing this use under that condition in the Ordinance. 38 Board of Adjustment -5- July 9, 1976 Mr. White moved that they interpret the Ordinance, that is Article VII, Section 14, to mean that the proposed use does not fall within the uses listed in that section of the Ordinance. Mr. Newbern seconded the motion. Mr. House said that he was confused; the motion is to allow Life Styles to come in and perform their operation in this location without getting a variance? Bobbie Jones said that she would welcome any interpretation the Board may make on this. This is only one of many places in the Ordinance that leaves a question, and we (in the Planning Office) have to review them and make the best interpretation we can. Chairman Yates said that he could not say "yes," he cannot see how they can reconcile a residential use to C-2 zone. If the Board makes a determination that a variance is not required, then they are free to do whatever they want to; however, based on information in an earlier request, we had asked several questions of the City Attorney. A question, asked by telephone, was "Could this Board, if so desired, place a time limit on this?" The City Attorney's immediate response was "No, I don't think you can." However, he has researched the matter and written a letter which says that we can have a time limit. I would prefer to see us grant the variance with a time limit. Mr. Newbern said that he doesn't think he would vote on a variance, temporarily or otherwise; he would be against it. **NOTE --See Page 6 -- Mrs. Clack's opinion. The motion to overrule the Planning Administrator's interpretation was passed by a vote of 3-2. Newbern, Clack, and White voting "Aye," and House and Yates voting "Nay." James White left the meeting. Connie Clack moved to deny the variance request of Leo APPEAL NO. 76-19 Peel, Appeal No. 76-19, as the property was not in accord- Leo Peel ance with the Ordinance. 1990 North College Chairman Yates asked if the former owner still owns the property to the East. Mr. Peel said yes. He was not aware that this would happen when he bought the property. The private access road that is partly on Mr. Peel's property and partly on Mr. Chuck Mill's property has been built since 1961 and was built by Mr. Hudson and Mr. Mill's father. Mr. Newbern asked what the situation would be if they deny the variance. Has Mr. Peel been denied a building permit? Attorney Smith said that they were denied a building permit, because there was no access to the property in back. Mr. Newbern said that Mr. Peel has been denied a building permit because this lot split of Mr. Hudson's did not have any frontage. Chairman Yates said that this is to be considered one parcel of land. Bobbie Jones read Article III, Section 1; Article VIII, Section 6; and the definition of "Lot'.', as contained in Article 17, into the minutes. Connie Clack withdrew her motion. Mr. Newbern said that they were actually hearing an appeal for Mr. Hudson, and this "bugs" him. Chairman Yates said that they should bring the City Attorney in on this. Bobbie Jones said that she would like to add one more comment: This is the extreme example of a violation of the Subdivision Regulations, which she has to administer before she can administer Zoning. The Subdivision Regulations not only say that a person cannot sell property (unless in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations), but it also says that the County Recorder cannot accept it for filing. 39� Board of Adjustment -6- July 9 , 1976 Chairman Yates said he would like to table this; Mr. Peel should check into other solutions. Mr. Newbern moved to table Appeal #76-19, Leo Peel. Mr. House seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously by a vote of 4-0. The minutes of the June 21, 1976 meeting were approved OTHER BUSINESS as mailed. The meeting was adjourned at 12:35 P. M. **NOTE: At the August 16, 1976 meeting of the Board of Adjustment, Mrs. Clack mentioned that she had made a statement at the last meeting (July 9, 1976), which was not included into the minutes. The statement was in the effect of: "I cannot see any essential difference in permitted use as motel between renting from students for an extended period, and members of Life Styles, Inc. " I/O