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