HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-03-21 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held at 4:00 P.M. on Monday, March 21,
1983, in Room 107 of the Continuing Education Center, Center Street and East
Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Chairman Chester House, Robert Waldren, Larry Tompkins,
Dennis Becker, Don Mills, David Crittenden
Butch Robertson
Danny Glisson, William Sherman Horne, A. F.
Nancy Partos, Robert Womack, Clyde Hayre, E.
Betty Jo Hayre, Paul Marinoni, Jr., Russell
Bobbie Jones, Suzanne Kennedy
Schuele,
J. Glisson,
Jack,
It was moved by Don Mills and seconded by MINUTES
Dennis Becker that the Minutes of the Board
of Adjustment meeting of March 7, 1983 be approved as presented.
Larry Tompkins noted the wording used in the Minutes before and after each public
hearing, that "...the Chairman opened the public hearing..." and "...the Chairman
closed the public hearing...", and asked the Chairman if this was needed in the
Minutes before and after each appeal. Bobbie Jones said the wording of the
Minutes can be changed on page two for Appeal 83-2 where it was not stated that
the Chairman opened the hearing, if the Board so wishes. Chairman House said the
Board should decide on this question, he said they make their own rules and
regulations, as long as they stay within the letter of the law. He asked for
the opinion of the Board. David Crittenden said he thought the intent of the
Minutes is clear. There was no further discussion on the point raised by
Tompkins.
The Minutes were approved by a
vote of 5-0, with Waldren and Robertson absent.
The second item of business was to AMENDMENT TO RULES OF PROCEDURE
discuss a possible amendment to the Board
of Adjustment's Rules of Procedure to permit
action on each request at the end of the public hearing on that request.
Chairman House said the Board has been following its Rules of Procedure in holding
a public hearing on every appeal on the agenda and then going back and holding
discussion and voting on the appeals. He asked if there was a motion to change
these proceedings.
David Crittenden said Paragraph 7 of the Rules of Procedure, Conduct of Meetings,
states the appeals should be heard in this manner and that Paragraph 12, Amendment,
states the rules may be amended only after the members of the Board have been
notified in writing and by a 2/3 majority vote of the Board members. Crittenden
asked, if there is to be more than one appeal on the agenda, could the Board
dispense with one at a time, either by an amendment to the Rules or as an option.
7
•
• 6,
Board of Adjustment Minutes
March 21, 1983
Page Two
Crittenden said, if the Board desires to have this option, he would offer to write
an amendment for Bobbie Jones to send out with the agenda for the next meeting.
Robert Waldren arrived at this point in the meeting. Mrs. Mills said she thought
this change would save time for persons who have had to sit through the entire
meeting before hearing a decision on their appeal. Bobbie Jones suggested that,
since this method had always been used in the past, the Rules and Procedures may
have been written to follow the way it had always been done.
There was discussion of the statement on page 3 in the Rules of Procedure, "The
Chairman may permit variations in the order of presentation, and may permit
deliberation and decision of a particular application or appeal by the Board
prior to public hearing of other applications or appeals, in the event the
Chairman deems it expedient or otherwise Justified." Crittenden said he thought
this sentence was subject to interpretation and wished to prepare an amendment
which would clarify or add to that sentence to make the intent more clear.
With no objections expressed by Board members present, Crittenden agreed to
prepare an amendment which would make it clear in the Rules of Procedure that it
would be up to the Chairman's discretion to dispense with each individual appeal
one at a time.
Several members of the audience expressed they would be in favor of each appeal
being heard and decided upon one at a time, in the order in which they were
brought in to the office. It was explained that the agenda has always been
designed to hear appeals in the order in which they were submitted to the office.
Don Mills made a motion that David Crittenden write an amendment to change the
procedure and have it ready for a vote at the next meeting. The motion was
seconded by Larry Tompkins and passed, 6-0, with Robertson absent.
It was decided to change the procedure for this meeting and to hear and decide
on each appeal in the order in which it appears on the agenda.
The Chairman opened the public APPEAL NO. 83-3
hearing on Appeal No. 83-3 submitted by 1233 SOUTH DUNCAN AVENUE
Danny Glisson, 1233 South Duncan Avenue, DANNY GLISSON
to vary the setback of 25 feet from 12th
Street right-of-way to 20 feet. Danny Glisson and his father, E. J. Glisson,
were present.
Danny Glisson explained he wished to remodel and build an addition onto the west
side of his house in order to provide a bedroom for one of his children. He
said he planned for the walls of the addition to be in line with the existing
walls of the house which are only twenty feet from the property line.
E.J. Glisson spoke in favor of the addition and stated he owns the property next
door. Danny Glisson said the City was given additional right-of-way off his lot
in order to widen and pave 12th Street, which left him with a smaller lot.
There was no one present who spoke in opposition.
In answer to a question from Crittenden, Glisson and his father stated 12th
Street went to a dead end and had been that way for more than 25 years.
Bobbie Jones explained to Larry Tompkins that 12th Street did conform to the
Master Street Plan as a minor residential street, that there was no indication
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
March 21, 1983
Page Three
this would change in the near future. She said she did not know when the fifty
foot right-of-way was established with respect to the structures which were
there. Robert Waldren said he thought the right-of-way was established in 1957
or 1958.
Don Mills asked Mr. Glisson if he could add on to the south of his house if he
were not granted the variance. Mr. Glisson said his property line on the south
is at about the center of a shared driveway. Mills asked if he could move the
addition to the west side five feet farther away from 12th Street. Mr. Glisson
said it would be more costly for him to offset the addition.
In answer to a question from Waldren, Bobbie Jones said the setback requirements
in the late 60's would have been 15 feet from the side property line abutting
a street.
The Chairman closed the hearing and asked for discussion on the appeal.
Robert Waldren said he had no objection to granting a variance in instances where
the rules have been changed for property which had been owned for a long period
of time under older regulations. Larry Tompkins expressed agreement and said
he felt the hardship that was created was not the doing of the owner, that the
variance would not be detrimental. Dennis Becker and David Crittenden expressed
agreement.
Don Mills said she felt Glisson could meet the setbacks in building the addition,
that the hardship was a financial hardship. She stated she thought the majority
of appeals within the next several years would be financial hardship and it would
be difficult for her to vote in favor of one while denying another.
It was moved by Robert Waldren, seconded by Larry Tompkins, to grant the
variance. The motion passed, 5-1, with Don Mills opposed.
Chairman House.. opened the public APPEAL NO. 83-4
hearing on Appeal No. 83-4 submitted 108 EAST SOUTH STREET
by William Sherman Horne, 108 East WILLIAM SHERMAN HORNE
South Street, to vary the setback from
East South Street from 25 feet to 112 feet and to vary the rear setback of
25 feet to two feet. Mr. Horne was present and former owner, Mr. Schuele,
was present.
Mr. Horne explained he wished to build a house upon the original foundation of
a house which had been destroyed by fire last year. He explained the photograph
was taken from the southwest of the lot and that the garage sits on the west
property line. He told Mrs. Mills he had owned the lot for several months,
after the house had already burned. He explained to Crittenden this was the
only lot he owned in the area, that the garage had not burned in the fire.
Bobbie Jones said Mr. Horne does meet the setback requirement in an R-0 District
of being ten feet from the centerline of the alley to the east.
9
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
March 21, 1983
Page Four
Mr. Horne said he had oral permission from both adjoining property owners to
build and they had expressed no objections. The former owner of the property,
Mr. Schuele, stated the neighbors and absentee owners are very much in favor
of rebuilding.
There was some discussion as to the size of the lot, 33' x 73', having been
split off from a larger lot some time past, and Mr. Schuele explained this split
had occured in either 1945 or 1954. He said the house which had burned had
originally been moved in from several lots away and in later years had been
expanded.
There was no one present who spoke in opposition. The Chairman closed the hearing
and asked for a ruling on the appeal.
Mrs. Mills said she did not see how the owner could meet the setbacks, although
she realizes he intends to build on the original foundation. She said this was
too much of a variance.
Dennis Becker said we would have a case of blight if this variance were approved.
He said for there to be only two feet between the house and the property line
would create both a safety and an access problem.
Tompkins said he thought the square footage of the lot is quite a variance from
the amount required for residential development but stated perhaps that was not
as important in the R-0 District. He expressed concern about the traffic
situation, as South Street is heavily used and has only a twenty foot right-of-
way, and said the variance goes against the intent of zoning and against the
general plan for the area.
David Crittenden asked about a statement in the letter from Bobbie Jones to the
Board of Adjustment on this appeal that "Article IV, Sec. 2 provides that a
single family dwelling may be constructed on a lot non -conforming in width or
area if the lot has been in single ownership prior to June 29, 1970 and if they
can meet setbacks." Bobbie Jones said by single ownership she meant, if it is
not owned by the owner of a lot bordering it on any side which, in this case, it
is not.
Robert Waldren stated he had a problem in granting a variance of this magnitude.
Crittenden asked the owner if he realized the difficulties involved when he
purchased the lot from Mr. Schuele and Schuele explained he had talked with
one member of the Board of Adjustment about two years ago and was told that to
rebuild on the foundations would be no problem but to add on would be a problem.
Don Mills moved to deny the variance. The motion was seconded by Larry Tompkins
and passed, 6-0, with Butch Robertson absent.
Mr. Schuele asked where they could go from here, and Bobbie Jones said the only
appeal from a Board of Adjustment decision would have to be made in the courts.
10�
Board of Adjustment Minutes
March 21, 1983
Page Five
The Chairman opened the public hearing on APPEAL NO. 83-5
Appeal No. 83-5, Nancy S. Partos, 322 West 322 WEST MEADOW STREET
Meadow Street, to request a variance from NANCY S. PARTOS
the ten foot setback from the centerline
of alley to 9 feet, 4 inches. Nancy Partos was present.
Ms. Partos described her house as a rectangle with a block out of the northeast
corner. She explained she wishes to fill in this block with a garage below
and a room over it. She said her lot slopes to the rear, that the foundation
of the house is about 42 feet high in the rear. She said there would be room
to put the garage and a room over it which would be about three steps up from
the rest of the house Her reasons for needing the garage is that presently
the only parking she has is on Meadow Street and her car has been damaged twice,
as people park on both sides of the street. She said there is an old garage on
the rear of her lot which is unusable as a garage because it is too close to the
alley and the doors cannot be opened. She wishes to add the room so that she
and her teenage daughter can have more space in the home, that she also uses part
of her home for an office. She said the addition would be in line with the east
wall of the house, leaving her with only 6" lacking on the required setback.
She said the addition of the room would also provide her with a buffer from
the noise from the rental house across the alley. She said she has already
added a greenhouse and rockwork to the house
Larry Tompkins asked if Ms. Partos would be able to get access to the new
garage without moving the old garage structure. She said she intended to enter
the new garage from the alley and did not think there would be a problem.
There was no one present who spoke in opposition to the appeal. Chairman House
closed the public hearing, for deliberation on the appeal.
Crittenden said this is a case like others where the Board has been liberal in
granting variances of small distances; he said he did not object. Don Mills
expressed agreement on granting such a small variance.
Dennis Becker said he agrees but cautioned against using the alley for access to
the garage if she plans on only having a 9 -foot, single -width garage door.
Ms. Partos said she plans on having either a 12 or 16 -foot door facing the alley.
Tompkins said he feels this is an improvement to an already upgraded property,
not in conflict with circulation in the alley. Waldren stated he would be in
favor of the variance.
David Crittenden moved to grant the variance. The motion was seconded by Don
Mills and passed, 6-0, with Butch Robertson absent.
The Chairman opened the public hearing
on Appeal No. 83-5, Robert Womack,
2518 Elizabeth Avenue, to vary the
setback from the east side property line from
eight feet to two feet. Mr. Womack was present.
APPEAL NO. 83-5
2518::ELIZABETH.AVENUE_:
ROBERT WOMACK
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
March 21, 1983
Page Six
Mr. Womack explained he wished to add a 14' x 14' solarium with a hot tub onto
the east side of his house, that the lot slants from west to east and the only
suitable place to build which would get sun and which is low enough is on that
side, as this would allow walkout from the existing floor level to the proposed
water tub height. He said the adjoining property owner has no objections as he
owns the two vacant lots next to Womack's property and wishes to keep these lots
as a privacy buffer next to his own home. Womack said to build onto the back of
the house would necessitate major excavation and the removal of a patio and deck.
Tompkins asked if Womack had looked at smaller designs for the tub which would
allow him to observe the setback. Womack said the tub is to be 7' x 7' and there
must be a border around it.
Don Mills asked Mr. Womack if the 161 feet shown on his drawing from the house
to the east property line included the ;overhang or if it was measured from the
wall of the house. Mr. Womack said it was 161/2 feet from the wall of the house
on one end and 17feet from the wall on the other end but he was not sure as he
turned in his appeal at the last minute and did not have time to make the
measurements.
Chester House asked Womack about the possibility of obtaining ten feet off the
adjoining lot. Mr. Womack said he did not think that was possible as Dr. Riddick
was using the outer borders of his lots for landscaping.
There was no one present who spoke in opposition to the appeal and the Chairman
closed the public hearing.
L3,
0
Don Mills stated she thought the variance requested may be larger than stated
as Mr. Womack had not measured from the overhang of the house; she said anyone
doing remodeling for Mr. Womack should have known this design would not meet
the Code requirements and she did not see the hardship. Crittenden said he
was not in favor of granting this variance. Dennis Becker said since the Code
states the Board of Adjustment may authorize variances in cases where a literal
enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary
hardship, he would not be in favor of granting the variance in this case.
Tompkins said he was in sympathy with the request in that the east side is the
only logical place with special characteristics, but he is concerned about
reducing the setback to only two feet, because of access and safety. He said,
should another owner of Lot 19 wish to build a house in the future, there would
be a problem. Robert Waldren made no comment.
Don Mills moved to deny the variance. The motion was seconded by Dennis Becker
and passed, 5-0, with Robert Waldren not voting as he was out of the room during
most of the discussion, and with Robertson absent.
The Chairman opened public hearing on APPEAL NO. 83-7
Appeal No. 83-7, submitted by Clyde 1187 COUNTY ROAD 877
Hayre, 1187 County Road 877, to vary the CLYDE HAYRE
setbacks from the south property line for a
mobile home on a private lot from 100 feet to 50 feet, or, as an alternate, to
vary from 100 feet to 94 feet from the north and 94 feet from the south line.
19
Board of Adjustment Minutes
March 21, 1983
Page Seven
Mr. Hayre said when he purchased the lot from Lester Longwith he signed a contract
which allowed him to place a mobile home on the lot for at least five years. He
said it has taken 10 months for the abstract to be brought up to date and during
that time period, his lot was annexed into the City of Fayetteville and he now must
ask for a variance from the setback requirement of 100 feet. He stated he owns
the three acres required for a mobile home in an A-1 District. He said his
mobile home is 14 feet wide and if he placed it in the middle of the lot, he
would need a six foot variance on the north and south side. Mr. Hayre said he
did not find out until January about the annexation and that he was told part of
the reason for the lengthy time in bringing the abstract up to date was because
of a bankruptcy situation. Bobbie Jones said when they originally started to
subdivide the property, Lester Longwith and Ben Hunt were co-owners.
David Crittenden asked Bobbie Jones if Mr. Hayre's deal had closed out and the
mobile home been placed there before the annexation, would he have had to move
his mobile home off the lot. She said he would not.
Hayre said the alternate request for a variance from 100 feet to 50 feet would
allow him an easier way to move the mobile home out when he builds his house -
he said the mobile home would only be temporary and he intends to start building
a house after he has paid off the mobile home three years from now.
Mrs. Hayre said their real estate contract stated a 30 -day closing date and it
has been over ten months to closing. She said in the meantime they have been
offered five acres down the road if they would back out of this deal and she
feels the stalling on the closing was done in order to convince them to back
out on the deal.
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the appeal.
Paul Marinoni, Jr., resident across Highway 16 from Mr. Hayre's lot, stated he
felt the mobile home would be an eyesore to him and substandard to the neighbor-
hood. He said he was among those who voted for the annexation because they
wanted the protection of the City from things like mobile homes. He said if
Mr. Hayre would consider purchasing one of the lots farther north, it would be
obscured from view. He said he noted Mr. Hayre's contract states the offer is
contingent on the buyer's ability to place a mobile home on the lot and he said
if the variance were denied, he speculated Mr. Hayre could get his money back
,.and buy another lot. Russell Jack, another resident in the area, said he
agrees with Marinoni.
Don Mills asked Mr. Hayre if he were given a time limit, would he be willing
to sell his mobile home at the end of that time period. Hayre said in three
years he would sell his mobile home to anybody for a reasonable price so that
he can build a home. In answer to Crittenden, Marinoni said he was absolutely
sure he would be able to see the mobile home from his property.
The Chairman closed the public hearing.
Dennis Becker said he would be inclined to deny the variance because of the
objections of the neighbors.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
March 21, 1983
Page Eight
Tompkins said he did not think the City limits would remain stable and feels
in the future the lots north of Hayre will be annexed. He said he considers
a mobile home to be a single family structure but that whether or not someone
should live in one is a value question he should not be concerned with in
terms of land use. He said the intent of the ordinance is to protect safety,
health, welfare and prosperity so it should also permit reasonable development.
He said he was opposed to granting a variance to go with the land, but would
consider a temporary variance. Waldren said he thought Hayre had been trapped,
that he agreed with the property owners in the area and said he thought the
Fayetteville City Limits will expand again. He said he is inclined to agree
with Tompkins and would be in favor of placing the mobile home in the middle
of the lot, for a temporary time period of 36 to 42 months.
Crittenden said there was no assurance Mr. Hayre could sell his mobile home and
said he too would object to a mobile home across the road from a nice house
He said he thought it would please both sides to grant a temporary variance
but for one or two years only.
Don Mills said the time limit will not make .it any easier for Hayre to sell his
mobile home in one year than in twoyears, in her opinion.
Chester House said if the mobile home were allowed for only one year, it would
still take court action to remove it. Tompkins said this is because of the
problem of enforcement and asked Bobbie Jones about that aspect. Jones said
the permit for a mobile home must be renewed annually and at the time of
expiration the office would notify the owner to remove the mobile home; if it
were not removed, the case would be turned over to the Prosecutor.
The neighbors present from the area said the temporary time limit was
unacceptable to them. Tompkins pointed out, with the City limits line being
where it is in that subdivision, there could be four more mobile homes on four
other lots, whether there is opposition from the neighbors or not, that economic
values in the neighborhood don't recognize that line between the City and the
County.
David Crittenden moved to deny the variance. The motion was seconded by Dennis
Becker and passed, 4-2, with Waldren and Tompkins voting in opposition and
Robertson absent.
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:33 P.M.
1q