Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-08-15 MinutesMINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held at 3:45 P. M., Monday, August 15, 1977, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. • MEMBERS PRESENT: James White, David Newbern, Mrs. Don Mills, Chester House, Richard Osborne, Larry Smith. MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Carl Yates. OTHERS PRESENT: Bobbie Jones, Angie Medlock, Gerald Salsbury, Thomas W. Jones, Phil Colwell, and other unidentified persons. In the absence of Chairman Carl Yates, Vice -Chairman James White called the meeting to order. The first item for consideration was a public hearing on Appeal No. 77-19, Gerald Salsbury, 3125 Pawnee Court, onan application to vary setbacks, or more specifically, he is asking for a front yatd setback of 19 feet from the North is 25 feet. Gerald Salsbury was present to represent. Mr. Salsbury said one corner of his garage, where the lot sits on the cul-de-sac does not meet the requirement. He said there is a steep bank to the back of the house, so he would not be able to move the house back. He said he would have to cut the house down in size if he is not granted the variance. Gerald Salsbury said he had measured from the front and did not measure from the curve on the cul-de-sac, which made the garage out into the required setback. He said everything is in conformance with the requirement except this one part of the garage (27 square feet) where he measured wrong. David Newbern asked if he could make this change and Gerald Salsbury said he could but he would have to redesign the whole house, and make it smaller. He would also have to replumb the house. Mrs. Mills asked if he could cut the garage off where the setback should be and he said he could cut it off and make it a one -car garage but he would have to repour the footing. He also stated that no one would want a one -car garage. James White asked if the 19 feet was to the overhang" or wall. Mr. Salsbury said it is to the wall --there is an 18 inch overhang; therefore, the setback would be 17 1/2 feet. No one was present in opposition. The public hearing was concluded. APPEAL NUMBER 77-19 Gerald Salsbury 3125 Pawnee Court property line and the required The second item for consideration was a public hearing on Appeal No. 77-20, Thomas W. Jones, 2557 Stanton Avenue, on an application to vary setbacks, or more specifically, he is a view obstructing fence on the North 9 1/2 feet from the curb for a 6 foot street right-of-way. He is also asking for a front yard setback (East) from Stanton Avenue of 12 feet from the property line for a 4 feet high fence, and the required is 25 feet from the street right-of-way. Thomas Jones was present to represent. Mr. Jones said there is an existing chain link fence on adjoining property to the south and he would like to bring a wooden fence 4 feet high from the corner of his garage APPEAL NUMBER 77-20 Thomas W. Jones 2557 Stanton Ave. asking to have property line (Woodbrook Drive) and approximately high fence, and the required is 25 feet from the 0.1 4 • • • • • • Board of Adjustment Meeting August 15, 1977 -2- parallel to his driveway and turn south to tie into the chain link fence. The fence on the North is proposed to be 6 feet high. He said on the fence running parallel to Woodbrook, there is a large tree there he wants to bring inside the fenced area. He said there would be no vision.obstruction for cars. He.stated that the major purpose of the fence is to keep his small children from running mento the street On the north side of his house, it would enable them to utilize the area much more efficiently since it is a corner lot. On the northwest corner of the lot, there is a wooded area running down the side property line which serves as a natural buffer. David Newbern asked Bobbie Jones if the problem here is that the fence is view -obscuring. Bobbie Jones said "yes" --a chain link fence would not require a variance. Dr. White questioned if the view obscuring part of the ordinance was for traffic safety only and Bobbie Jones said she felt this was the intent of the Ordinance. Mr. Jones said he has discussed this with his neighbors and they don't object. He noted that there was a letter from Phil Colwell who said he doesn't object to the fence. Phil Colwell said he had talked with several of the neighbors and there are no objections. He said Mr. Grimes and Mr. Baum don't have any objections whatsoever. No one was present in opposition. . The public hearing was concluded. David Newbern said it seems there are two APPEAL NUMBER 77-19 requests here which are both convenience requests. Gerald Salsbury He said Mr. Salsbury's would result in some financial 3125 Pawnee Court hardship but Mr. Salsbury did make it clear that he can utilize his property without a variance. He said in view of the fact he can use the property as he intends to use it and there are no hardships caused by the lay of the land he feels the Board should uphold the Ordinance. David Newbern noted that Mr. Jones' request is a cosmetic thing only. He said he doesn't feel it is the Board of Adjustment's job to handle that kind of request. David Newbern made a motion to deny Appeal No 77-19, Gerald Salsbury. Mrs. Mills seconded the motion. Richard Osborne asked if Mr. Salsbury is too close to the street and Mr. Salsbury said "yes". He said he would have to shorten the house and re -do it. He said he wouldn't put a one -car garage on it. The vote was 4-1-1, with White, Newbern, Mills, and Smith voting "Aye", Osborne voting "Nay", and House abstaining. David Newbern made a motion to deny Appeal No. 77-20, APPEAL NUMBER 77-20 Thomas W. Jones. Thomas W. Jones Don Mills seconded the motion. 2557 Stanton Ave. Thomas Jones said he realizes his request is a cosmetic request but feels the neighborhood they are in and the location as a corner lot, a chain link fence wouldn't provide the privacy that a wooden fence would. He stated that he doesn't see where the wooden fence would obscure anyone's vision from anything that would be worthwhile to be seen. He said a wooden fence is much more appealing than a chain link fence. David Newbern said he is in sympathy with Mr. Jones, but the Board of Adjustment is required to uphold the Ordinance unless there is some particular hardship caused by the lay of the land which would keep them from using the property. The motion to deny the request, made by David Newbern and seconded by Mrs.Mills failed to pass 3-3, with Newbern, Mills, and White voting "Aye" and Smith, House, and Osborne voting "Nay". Board of Adjustment Meeting August 15, 1977 -3- Richard Osborne moved to table this until the next meeting. David Newbern seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mrs. Mills made a motion to approve the minutes of MINUTES the August 1, 1977 meeting as mailed. Chester House seconded the motion, which passed 5-0-1, with Osborne abstaining since he was absent at the last meeting. The Board indicated their desire to meet again on Monday, August 29, 1977 to further consider Appeal No. 77-20 and any new appeals pending since the next regular meeting date, September 5, 1977, is Labor Day. The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 P. M. 123