Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-11-06 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, November 6, 1978, at 3:45 P.M., in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Carl Yates, Dr. James White, David Newbern, Mrs. Don Mills, Chester House and Richard Osborne. MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Smith. OTHERS PRESENT: Bobbie Jones, Gail Biswell, George Faucette, Jr., and Mr. and Mrs. Gus Ostmeyer. Chairman Carl Yates called the meeting to order. The only item for consideration was the public hearing on Appeal No. 78-23, Richard Rogers (George Faucette, Jr., Agent); Located 1,051 feet North of Township Road and South of Rosewood Estates; Zoning District R-1, Low Density Residential; Application to waive requirement that lot have frontage on a public street. PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL NO. 78-23 Richard Rogers N. of Township Rd. and S. of Rosewood Estates Chairman Carl Yates explained that the petitioner, Richard Rogers (represented by George Faucette, Jr.,), was requesting that his 4 -acre lot, located 1,051 feet from the public street with a 24 -feet wide easement to a public.street, be exempted from the requirement that a lot be 70 feet in width with a minimum of 56 feet frontage on an improved public street, or from the requirement that a tandem lot have 25 feet frontage on an improved public street (with Planning Commission approval). George Faucette, Jr. explained that approximately 5 or 6 years ago, Major Richard Rogers (petitioner herein) bought this property from Gus Ost- meyer and at the time of his purchase, obtained the aforesaid 24 -feet ease- ment, with the understanding that this easement would solve access require- ments. Mr. Faucette stated that Mrs. Jones had recently told him that she remembered when Mr. Rogers and Mr. Ostmeyer had come to her office at the time they were negotiating the sale of the property, and she had explained to them that she could never issue a building permit on the property be- cause of the lack of access requirements. Mr. Rogers informed Mr. Faucette, however, that he had understood at the time he bought the property that the 24 -feet easement would satisfy the requirements and that he evidently had misunderstood. Mr. Faucette explained that Mr. Rogers now had a possible buyer for the property and would like to sell, except the proposed buyer will not agree to close the sale without being sure he can get a building Board of Adjustment Minutes November 6, 1978 Page 2 permit to build a residence on the property. Mr. Faucette further stated that the proposed buyer owns property adjacent to this 4 -acre lot and Mr Faucette said he felt sure that in the future a different access could be had to the property, although for the time being, for several reasons, Mr. Rogers' buyer needed to be able to start construction of a residence right away and the 24 -feet easement is the only possible temporary access. Mr. Gus Ostmeyer (a previousowner of the property) stated that he had given Mr. Rogers the 24 -feet easement with the intention that the ease- ment would revert back to him upon completion of any street or other access to the property and with the agreement that, during the time the easement was being used, he could maintain a gate at each end of the easement. Mr. Ostmeyer said he is presently maintaining gates and that anyone building on the 4 -acre property would have to open and shut them each time they entered or left the property and that he didn't understand why the proposed buyer would want to do all this gate maneuvering when he owned property adjacent thereto and could have a street or roadway cut across his other property for an access. Mr. Yates asked if the sale of this property is contingent upon granting of this waiver and Mr. Faucette replied that it is. Mr. Yates then stated that he had seen several requests like this lately and that he didn't favor granting the waiver since he felt that Mr. Rogers had "gotten himself into the situation," possibly even under- standing at the beginning that his chances of building on the property were slim. Mrs. Mills asked if there wouldn't be a better chance of getting into the property from the West, or some other direction. Mr. Faucette stated that Mr. Rogers would not have purchased the property if he had understood the ordinances and realized that he could not obtain a building permit. Mr. Yates stated that the proposed buyer could probably meet the terms of the ordinance (by combining his existing property with this prop- erty) without even coming to the Board and he, therefore, was against granting this request. Mr. White questioned Mrs. Jones whether, if Mr. Rogers came to her office for a buildingermit at this time, she would issue one. Mrs. Jones replied that she couldfnot. She stated that if the proposed buyer wanted a permit, one could probably be issued if he would combine some of his other property and make a tandem lot. She said that a permit could probably be issued if, after combining his property, the existing house could still meet sideyard setback requirements. Mr. Osborne asked whether the existing easement could be considered part of the required 25 feet for tandem lot frontage, and Mr. Yates replied that it could not for the reason that the proposed buyer would not own the 25 feet (the tandem lot ordinance requires the 25 feet to be owned by the proposed builder, not just available to him with use of an easement). Mrs. Mills questioned whether water and sewer would be available. Mr. Faucette replied that he thought they could be taken down the 24 feet easement, or maybe across from Meadowcliff, but that would be the proposed tis A • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes November 6, 1978 Page 3 buyer's problem, not Mr. Rogers'. Mr. Faucette stated that this property was virtually worthless to anyone other than the proposed buyer, or to Mr. Ostmeyer if he would buy it back Mr. Faucette said he felt certain that in time another access to the property would be had from a different direction, but that for the present, the proposed buyer needed to be able to build very soon, and needed this waiver in order to obtain a building permit. Mr. Faucette said the proposed buyer (Mr. Pickell) did not want to open and shut gates forever, either, but that this was presently the easiest access for him. Mrs. Jones noted that the property to the West was being developed as•a Planned Unit Development and that access from that direction was un- likely. She stated that Rosewood Estates blocks access from the North and that left the only other access to be from across Mr. Pickell's property to the east. Mr. Osborne stated that there was a cliff to the east and Mrs. Jones replied that the access would have to run at an angle to the south-east. After a pause in discussion, Chairman Yates stated that the public hearing was concluded. CONSIDERATION: Mrs. Mills stated that she felt there were just too many problems with the situation to allow the waiver, even though she had great sympathy for a person who had land he could not use. Mr. Osborne commented that he, too, had sympathy with the owner, and further felt that the cliff to the east should be considered a "hardship." He said he felt that "hardship" should be grounds for allowing the waiver. Mr. Yates stated that he was not in favor of granting the waiver. However, he said that if the person wanting to build the house (the proposed buyer) •had come to the Board as the petitioner, he would probably have taken a different view of the problem. Mr. Osborne countered that he did not think it mattered who the petitioner was, since the proposed buyer probably couldn't meet the setbacks anyway, and so they were right back to where they started. David Newbern stated that this Board was seeing more and more of these requests and that he felt someone should decide whether easements could fulfill the requirement of fee simple ownership of the 25 feet frontage required by the tandem lot ordinance. He stated that if it is a good idea to allow easements to take the place of ownership, the ordinance should be changed. David Newbern moved to deny the request for waiver of the frontage requirements. Mrs. Don Mills seconded the motion. The motion to deny the variance passed 4-2, with Yates, Mills, Newbern and White voting "Aye", and Osborne and House voting "Nay." Richard Osborne asked Mrs. Jones if she felt the question of whether unrestricted easements should be allowed in lieu of fee simple ownership (according to the tandem lot ordinance) should be brought before the Planning • • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes November 6, 1978 Page 4 Commission for clarification or perhaps for consideration of recommending to the Board of Directors for amendment of the ordinance. Mrs. Jones said she would add this question to the next Planning Commission agenda and Mr. Osborne agreed to be present at that meeting as the Board of Adjustment's spokesman on the matter. The minutes of the previous meeting of October 2, 1978, were approved as mailed. The meeting adjourned at 4:38 P.M.