Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-09-20 Minutesprr c u • U i, MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held at 3:45 P.M. on Monday, September 20, 1982, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Chester House, Dennis Becker, Butch Robertson, Mrs. Don Mills, Larry Tompkins and David Crittenden MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Waldren Exie Hardy, Phillip Colwell, Bobbie Jones and Suzanne Kennedy It was moved by Larry Tompkins, seconded by Don Mills and passed, 6-0, that the Minutes of the last meeting be approved as mailed. MINUTES Chairman Chester House opened the public APPEAL NO. 82-14 hearing on Appeal No. 82-14, Exie Hardy, 573 EXIE HARDY N. Walnut Avenue, application to vary setbacks. 573 N. WALNUT AVENUE Ms. Hardy was present. Ms. Hardy stated that some of the Board of Adjustment members may be familiar with her case, as she had been heard before. She said she was presently parking on a concrete pad in front of her house and wishes to build a carport over it to accommodate her car which is about 17 feet long. Ms. Hardy stated some of the setbacks on her property differently from Lg those shown on the map in the agenda She stated she had seven feet from the Lry side of the proposed carport to her property line. She stated it was 18 feet C3from the street curb to her property line and another 8 feet to the property line au from the edge of the carport. Ms. Hardy stated she needs the carport on the front because she is crippled and it is hard for her to walk on ice to the car. Larry Tompkins asked where Ms. Hardy's tenants park who reside in the dwelling at the rear of her property. She stated they park at the side of their house on the north side. David Crittenden asked if the carport would cover either Ms. Hardy's steps . or be adjacent to them. Ms. Hardy said she intended to build the carport so Othat she could step off her porch right onto it. David Crittenden asked Ms. Hardy how long she had lived in the house. She stated she had lived there since it was built in 1950. Ms. Hardy stated she had appealed to the Board of Adjustment several times for permission to build the carport, but that she thought they didn't really realize how badly she needs one. She said that there was more room in the front of her property than appears on the map, that there is 18 feet from her property line to the street plus another 8 feet to the front of the carport. She said there is 28 feet from the carport to the street and the 25 feet from the house as shown on the map is really 43 feet from the house to the curb. Dennis Becker said if the sides of the carport were open, he did not think Ms. Hardy would have that much protection from the ice, and was wondering if the carport would not just be a false sense of security. Ms. Hardy stated she would rather have a garage if one was permitted. ion • Board of Adjustment Meeting September 20, 1982 Page Two There was some discussion on the type of carport Ms. Hardy intended to have. Dennis Becker stated that you cannot see a lot through Ms. Hardy's fence so he is not too sure how much of the carport would be seen anyway. Ms. Hardy said she intends to build a carport as nice looking as the house. Phillip Colwell, adjoining property owner, said he had attended the last meeting and registered his comments at that time. He said he wished to add that, in the back of Ms. Hardy's property, there is a higher elevation and there would have to be more steps if she had to go out the back way. He said Ms. Hardy had a front porch cover which, when tied in to the carport, would give her additional protection. He also told the Board that there is a large oak tree which has been dripping sap on Ms. Hardy's car and that a carport would help her protect the paint on her car. He said Ms. Hardy had confronted the property owner to the south and that person had voiced no objection. She had considered the idea of trying to purchase some of this person's property in order to build the carport, but had decided this idea was not feasible. As adjoining property owner to the north, Mr. Colwell stated he had no objection to Ms. Hardy's appeal. David Crittenden asked Mr. Colwell what the distance was between his house and the shared property line_ to the south of his house. Mr. Colwell said there was 24' between the houses and, from a pin which appears on Ms. Hardy's property on the fence corner, there is ten feet between her house and the shared property line, of which the fence takes up two feet. Larry Tompkins said he felt, with the frame residence in the rear of the property and an area between the front and the rear house, and with the elimination of the fence and a tree, the property could be used in conformance with present regulations with no problem and he is inclined to disapprove the appeal Exie Hardy said she can't drive in the back without running over Mr. Colwell's fence, and that she is not able to turn in and back out. She confirmed for Larry Tompkins that her lot was fifty feet wide. Dennis Becker stated it was his feeling that approval of the carport should either be so temporary that upon Ms. Hardy's demise it would disappear or it should not be approved at all. He pointed out that there is a way that it could be built in the back with a way for her to turn around. He said he wishes to help Ms. Hardy because of ice conditions, but he thinks if Mrs. Hardy really wants protection she should build a garage on the rear of her property rather than this in-between situation which is a sense of falsesecurity and leads to trouble in establishing a precedent. Exie Hardy said it couldn't be built in the back because she has a deck and steps that the weather gets on and those things will be slick with ice and then she would have to back around there. She said it is easy for her to back out and get in where she is parking right now. Chester House said most of the Board of Adjustment members had been out to the property in question and it was his opinion that it would scare him more to back out from where she is parking now than it wouldbe to try to navigate around in a different area. Larry Tompkins moved the petition be denied as submitted. The motion was seconded by Don Mills and passed, 6-0. 10� Board of Adjustment Meeting September 20, 1982 Page Three Although it was not on today's agenda, OTHER BUSINESS it was decided to consider approval of an amendment to the Rules of Procedure, as AMENDMENT TO this item was brought up at the last RULES OF PROCEDURE meeting and could not be voted on at that time for lack of a majority of five members present. It was agreed that all members had received a copy of the proposed amendments which had been discussed at the last meeting. Bobbie Jones said she had been asked at the last meeting to check with City Attorney Jim McCord to see if the proposed amendments were in any way contradictory to the Rules as they now exist. She said Jim McCord had stated the proposed amendments looked okay. She stated the rules may be amended only after the members have been notified in writing, which they have, and if at least 2/3 of them are present to vote, which is the case today. Bobbie Jones was asked to read the sections from the Rules containing the amended portions, which sections were sent to all members on August 4th and which were discussed at the meeting on August 16. Bobbie read from page one under number 5, Quorum, where the following (in quotes) would be added after the first sentence - "An abstention shall not be construed as a vote." and she read from page two, under number 7, Conduct of Meetings, where the amendment (in quotes) to be added following the second sentence would read - "Any member who intends to abstain when the vote is taken shall make this fact known when the Chairman announces the public hearing on a request and shall not participate in any aspect related to that request." Any "other" member of the Board may question any person who has spoken during the public hearing. There was some discussion about a potential problem developing where a minimum quorum is present and one member abstains. Bobbie Jones stated the majority of members present have to vote in favor in order for a motion to pass, and since an abstention would not count as a vote there would have to be a majority voting in the affirmative. There was a further discussion on this question and David Crittenden said he felt it would be appropriate as an informal gesture for the Chairman to ask if there are abstentions between items on the agenda, and it was generally agreed that anyone wishing to abstain should declare themselves ahead of time. David Crittenden moved to accept the two amendments to the Rules of Procedure. The motion was seconded by Larry Tompkins and passed, 6-0. Bobbie Jones said she would send each member a copy of the Amended Rules of Procedure. With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:40 P.M. 103