HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-03-19 Minutessit A
•
•
MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday,
March 19, 1979, at 3:45 o'clock P.M. in the Board of Directors Room, City Admini-
stration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dr. James White, Chester House, Larry Smith and Steve Nickles.
Chairman Carl Yates, David Newbern and Mrs. Don Mills.
Gail Biswell, Harold Lieberenz, Bob Sweetser and Wade Bishop.
In the absence of Chairman Carl Yates,
Dr. James White called the meeting to order
and presided over same.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
The first item for business was the rehear-
ing of Appeal No. 78-30, Shirley Sweetser, for
property located at 101 E. 13th Street, appli-
cation to vary setbacks. Mr. Bob Sweetser, hus-
band of the petitioner, was present to represent.
Dr. White reviewed the history of this appeal,
stating that it had first been turned down in 1978 for the reason that the Board felt
the lot fronted on College Street and therefore did not have sufficient frontage
to acquire a building permit. Several years ago this lot and the lot immediately
south of it were under single ownership. The lots were sold separately, contrary
to the governing ordinance, and now neither lot met frontage requirements. It was
noted that the lots have been sold several times since the original split. The
first appeal was also turned down since the lots were under single ownership at the
time the ordinance was passed which required lots of single ownership which would
not meet individual frontage requirements to not be split.
Appellants contacted the City Attorney who, after studying the matter, wrote
an opinion stating that he felt the Sweetser lot could be considered as fronting
on Thirteenth Street, thereby meeting ordinance requirements for:sufficient front-
age. The City Attorney advised that if the Sweetsers would deed two ft. from their
lot to the lot South of them then that loth would also have sufficient frontage
and the two lots could be considered as having the minimum amount of required
frontage and building permits could be issued.
Mr. Sweetser stated that he and his wife were quite willing to deed the two
feet to the lot south of them, and having done that, they would like a setback
variance from the existing right-of-way which would allow a 22 ft. setback in lieu
of the required 30 ft. setback in order to build a duplex on their lot.
Mr. Sweetser noted that the lot had been lying vacant for many years and
was an eyesore ("weed patch"). He stated that he felt a duplex would be the best
use for the lot, but to build the duplex he would need the variance requested.
He also stated that Thirteenth Street ran only one block deep and then off -set
into Ella Street. He stated that the agenda map showing it as a "through" street
was erroneous, and that the street had only been mapped as "to be extended". He
stated that he did not feel the street would ever be widened or extended either
one since there were houses which would have to be torn down and a fire hydrant
which would have to be relocated before this could be done.
REHEARING OF
APPEAL NO. 78-30
Shirley Sweetser
101 E. 13th Street
Board of Adjustment Meeting
March 19, 1979
Page 2
Harold Lieberenz noted that the son of the property owner of the lot to the
South had been in his office questioning whether his mother would indeed receive
two additional feet from the Sweetser lot if the variance were approved. Mr.
Lieberenz stated that he had assured the man that approval would be conditioned
upon transfer of the additional frontage to his mother's lot.
After further discussion, Dr. White asked if there were any further comments
or questions by anyone present, and there being none, the public hearing was de-
clared closed on this appeal.
The next item for consideration was the
public hearing on Appeal No. 79-8, Wade Bishop,
for property located at 2932, 2934 and 2936 Sun-
ny Lane, application to vary setbacks.
Mr. Bishop was present to represent.
Mr. Bishop explained that he was request-
ing a waiver from the 25' rear setback requirement in order to allow a 20 ft.
rear setback. Mr. Bishop explained that the setback variance was being requested
since his building contractor had erroneously computed the front setback require-
ment and had therefore placed the building closer to the rear property line than
is allowed. He stated that the building (triplex) would have had sufficient front
and rear setbacks if it had been placed properly on the lot. Now that the foot-
ings have been dug and the concrete poured, he stated, it would be very expensive
to go back and move the building closer to the front of the lot.
Mr. Bishop explained that the contractor had made the error since he was
trying to keep from getting too close to the cul-de-sac in front of the lot (which
he had done on a previous job). He stated that he had admonished the builder to
stay at least 75' from the center of the cul-de-sac and the builder, wanting to
make very sure he did not violate the front setback, had overlooked the fact that
the rear setback was improper.
Mr. Bishop stated that he had asked to be allowed to begin framing of the
triplex but had not begun any framing of the storage buildings until this Board
could decide whether to allow him to build the storage rooms as planned. A dis-
cussion ensued concerning possible alternatives to relocate or redesign the stor-
age rooms in order that the rear setback requirements would not be violated.
Harold Lieberenz noted that it had also been brought to his attention that
another triplex Mr. Bishop had built at 2931, 2933 and 2935 Susan Carol did not
appear to meet the 25 ft. rear setback requirement, but that Mr. Bishop had sold
the property and was therefore no longer owner thereof. Mr. Lieberenz also stated
that a neighboring property owner, Tony Latrechia, had called and discussed the
fact that he did not object to Mr. Bishop's variance request, however, he did
want to know whether Mr. Bishop could be required to install a drainage ditch
covered with drain tile in the ditch running between his and Mr. Bishop's lots.
Mr. Liberenz stated that he had informed Mr. Latrechia that the City could not
require such an improvement unless a subdivision or large scale development was
being planned, however, he advised Mr. Latrechia to check with the City Street
Superintendent regarding whether a culvert could be installed at that location.
After further discussion, Dr. White asked if there were any further comments
or questions by anyone present, and there being none, the public hearing was
declared closed on this appeal.
PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL NO. 79-8
Wade Bishop
2932, 2934 $ 2936 Sunny Lane
•
OPS
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Meeting
March 19, 1979
Page 3
CONSIDERATIONS:
Chester House stated that he would like to
see someway for Mrs. Sweetser to build the duplex
she wanted since he knew that the lot was lying
vacant and unusuable in its present state. He
stated that he sympathized with property owners
who had to pay taxes on property and pay for upkeep
(such as mowing, etc.), but could not use the lot to build upon, thereby improving
the condition and appearance of both the lot and the neighborhood. Mr. House
therefore moved to approve the waiver request, subject to Mrs. Sweetser's deeding
an additional two feet of the lot to the adjacent lot south of it in order that
this southern lot could also meet minimum frontage requirements.
Larry Smith stated that he would like to see the lot improved also but that
the variance requested was sizable (8 feet) and that he would feel better about
voting to approve the request if he felt sure that the street would never be ex-
tended and improved. A discussion ensued concerning the possibilities of improve-
ment and extension of Thirteenth Street. Larry Smith then seconded Mr. House's
motion, which passed 3-1 with Mr. Nickles abstaining. Mr. Nickles stated that he
had not been a member of the Board at the time the first hearing on the appeal
was held and he therefore did not feel qualified to vote on the matter.
CONSIDERATION OF
REHEARING OF APPEAL
NO. 78-30
Shirley Sweetser
101 E. 13th Street
Chester House stated that he sympathized
with Mr. Bishop in that he understood the prob-
lems that could occur "when you put a man out to
do something for you and sometimes they'll do it
right and sometimes they won't." He stated that
he understood how hard it was to work with a cul-
de-sac and try to stay at least 75' from its center.
Steve Nickles stated that he felt the Board "had to look at the ordinance."
He said that nothing in either the ordinance or the enabling act permitted a vari-
ance simply because a mistake had been made. Mr. Nickles stated: "It doesn't
sway me at all that a mistake was made since the employer is ultimately responsible
for the actions of his employee." He continued, stating that the contractor work-
ing for Mr. Bishop was probably more aware of City ordinances than most people.
He also noted that a person is presumed to know the law and that "in the absence
of anything in the ordinance, I have to oppose this request."
Dr. White stated that he felt that "if worse came to worse" that the storage
rooms could be redesigned in order to meet the ordinance, and that if something
was needed for privacy a privacy screen or fence could be erected between the units
Larry Smith and Harold Lieberenz agreed. After further discussion, Steve Nickles
moved to deny the request. Larry Smith seconded the motion, which passed 3-1 with
Chester House abstaining.
CONSIDERATION OF
APPEAL NO. 79-8
Wade Bishop
2932, 2934 4 2936 Sunny Lane
The minutes of the previous meeting of March 5, 1979, were approved as mailed.
There being no further business to come before the meeting, said meeting adjourned
at 4:45 o'clock P.M.
•
83