Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-02-01 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held at 3:45 P.M., Feb. 1, 1982, in the City Manager's Office, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Chester House, Bob Waldren, Larry Thompkins, Dennis Becker, Dr. David Crittenden, Wayne Ball. MEMBERS ABSENT: Don Mills. OTHERS PRESENT: Vernon Sisemore, Bobbie Jones, Cynthia Stewart, and others. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 3:45 P.M. Upon a motion by Larry Thompkins and a second by Dr. Crittenden, the minutes of the January 4, 1982 meeting of the Board of Adjustment were approved (6-0). MINUTES APPEAL NO. 81-22 R $ P ELECTROPLATING The next item of business 2000 EAST PUMP STATION ROAD was the Appeal No. 81-22, R F, P Electroplating, 2000 East Pump Station Road, application to vary setbacks. There was no one present to represent. This item was placed on the December 7, 1981 agenda, and there was no one present to represent at that meeting. Bobbie Jones explained that she had been requested by the Appellant to place this item on the agenda for this meeting and had been assured that there would be a representative present. There followed some discussion about the nature of the appeal. The__ appellants are being requested to monitor their waste for EPA purposes, the structure for which the variance is being requested would house the monitoring equipment. There being no one present to represent, the Chairman suggested moving on to the next item of business. The next item for consideration APPEAL NO. 82-1 was the Appeal No. 82-1, Vernon Sisemore, _VERNON_SISEMORE 1639 West Stone Street, application to vary 1639 WEST STONE STREET setbacks. Vernon Sisemore was present to represent. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked Mr. Sisemore to describe.. the nature of his appeal. Sisemore addressed the Board. He stated he wishes to obtain a variance in order to construct an addition to his house Wade Bishop addressed the Board in favor of the request. Mr. Bishop stated that a situation exists on this lot that is very hard to explain. He said there is quite a bit of property between Mr. Sisemore's house and Lewis Street, about 40 ft. The street does not appear to be constructed in the right L 56 J Board of Adjustment Meeting February 1, 1982 Page 2 of way. It puts the house 40 ft. from the curb, and the right of way is only supposed to be 40 ft. However, by description, a variance is for. Also, Mr. Sisemore is requesting a variance on the East side of property so that he may extend the South side of his house fliush with side. for Lewis called his the East Bobbie Jones asked if there had ever been a survey of the property. She asked if it was possible that the house was actually on Lot 2. Mr. Sisemore stated no, that his father-in-law lives on Lot 2. Bobbie Jones stated that in an aerial photograph of Lewis, it appears' that it does veer to the West. Lewis was built with Community Development funds. Larry Thompkins suggested the petitioner take action to vacate the easement that is not used for street purposes. Thompkins said the only reason a variance is needed for the extension 10 ft. South is for the East side yard, there is ample room in the South. yard. Crittenden asked how Mr. Sisemore was going to "side" the new additions. Sisemore said they would be covered with rock. Crittenden asked why the house was not centered in the lot. Bobbie Jones stated it had been there since 1947. Mr. Sisemore said his father-in-law built the house. The Chairman asked if there were further comments. There being no further discussion, the Chairman closed the public hearing on Appeal No. 82-1, and opened it to comments from the Board. House stated this lot would be classified as a corner lot and would require two front yards and two side yards. Bobbie Jones stated it actually has three front yards because it fronts on Lewis, Neptune and Stone. Waldren said it appears that every ordinance on the books works against this lot. Crittenden said the Board had been fairly liberal with granting variances on lots of this type, especially in the South part of town where the lots are so much smaller. He felt people were trying to upgrade their property. He felt the additions proposed for this house would make it more attractive.and help the neighborhood. He felt there was no reason not to grant the variance. Becker felt there were definite extenuating circumstances associated with this appeal. Becker said the City should clarify its street easement on Lewis. He did not feel the granting of the appeal would create an access problem or visual problem and that he would be inclined to go along with the requests. Wayne Ball stated he felt it would be in everyone'sinterest to see what is going on with the street easement. He felt the addition of the vacated easement would make Mr. Sisemore's property much more desirable. Ball stated he did not feel the granting of the variances would be any problem. Thompkins felt the proposal by Mr. Sisemore would improve the neighborhood. He was bothered about perpetuating the 3-1/2 ft. setback on the East side. Bob Waldren moved that the variances be granted as requested. Wayne Ball seconded. The Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. There being no further discussion, the Board voted on the motion to approve and it passed (5-0-1) with Chester House abstaining. Crittenden asked about the street right-of-way. Waldren said it would probably be to Mr. Sisemore's benefit to pursue the vacation of it. Bobbie Jones felt a survey was in order. 5-7 • • a n "CO Board of Adjustment February 1, 1982 Page 3 U' e.3 U ere t Bob Waldren moved that Appeal No. APPEAL NO. 81-22 81-22 be tabled. Chester House expressed dissatisfaction in that he felt something more stern should be done about this appeal as this was the second time the Board had considered the appeal and there had been no representation. He felt the need for the monitoring equipment required by the EPA should be installed at the site. Waldren agreed. Crittenden seconded Waldren's motion to table. House wondered what other pressure could be placed on the appellants. Wayne Ball suggested dismissing the appeal. He said this way, the appellants would not have to wait,a year to reapply, but they would be subject to another fee. Waldren agreed with that type of action and withdrew his motion. Crittenden withdrew his second. Wayne Ball moved the application for Appeal 81-22 be dismissed. Dennis Becker seconded. The motion passed (6-0). There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 P.M. 58