HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-01-21 MinutesA meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, January 21,
1985 at 3:45 P.K. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building,
113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chester House, David Crittenden, Don Mills, Larry
Tompkins and Dennis Becker
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Waldren and "Butch" Robertson
OTHERS PRESENT: Mary King and Robert & Paula Johnson
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Adjustment was called
to order by Chairman House and the minutes of the January 7 meeting
were approved as distributed by a motion from Tompkins, seconded by
Crittenden.
PUBLICHEARING
MARY KING THE JOHNSONS
416 WREN CIRCLE AT GREGG
The second item on the agenda was a Public Hearing on appeal 85-3
submitted by Mary King for Foursome Northwest Enterprises on property
located at 416 Wren Circle.
King stated that the loan company will not approve a loan on this
property unless the Board of Adjustment grants a variance on the house,
one corner of which has been placed 3.5 feet into the building setback.
She explained that the house had been moved to its present location
by the Foursome Enterprises in 1979.
Tompkins asked who inspected this house before it was placed and Jones
replied that a site plan had been presented which met the setbacks
and Inspector Freeman Wood said he had questioned the submitted measure-
ments and had been assured by the movers that the measurements were
correct. Tompkins asked if the City had erred.
Becker said that he drove by and didn't see any safety problem in
terms of visibility and that he would be in favor of granting the
variance because it would be difficult to alter due to the fact that
the encroachment is a corner of the house.
0
• Board of Adjustment
January 21, 1985
Page 2
In answer to Crittenden's question, King said she thought that the
house was set this way originally because the drive had to open on
Wren and it would have been difficult to set it straight. Jones explained
that the drive had to be 40 feet from the Gregg Street intersection.
Jones said that she has spoken with the City Attorney about the violation
of the setback and it was his opinion that there was no statute of
limitations because each day was a continuing violation unless the
City had been informed and took no action against it.
Tompkins said that if it weren't for this being a hardship case, it
would make an interesting court case to begin to enforce City ordinances
in that the responsible party would need to correct the violation
to meet the code. Jones noted that a building in Dallas recently
had to be torn down for a similar reason. Tompkins said if this Board
was to be continually met with this type of case to get people out
of a problem situation, then it was time to meet with the developers
to make a point that the City is serious in its enforcement policy.
Jones said that the ordinance does not require that an engineer or
surveyor set the foundation for the building but it does say that
• if the building inspector feels there is a need for a survey, he may
require one.
Tompkins said his biggest concern was that a variance for the setback
on this property would apply to the entire length of Gregg Street
and added that he could probably approve of it for this particular
structure as it would improve its longevity.
l'Ly"W1
Crittenden made a motion to approve this appeal; seconded by Becker
the motion to approve passed 3-2-0 with Tompkins and House voting
nMyn
Tompkins said he would like to have this Board advise the City Manager's
Office or the Planning Commission of the concern over this kind of
laxity.
House noted that he felt the Building Inspector had been lied to in
this case and Tompkins said he didn't want anyones word to be taken
on matters such as this.
Jones said that if there is any question, the Building Inspector has
the right to ask to be shown the property pins and House replied that
• in many instances the builder will move said pins to suit themselves
and replace them when necessary.
0
• Board of Adjustment
January 21, 1985
Page 3
House said it is a difficult job even when all the property pins are
in the proper place and Mills replied that it can't be any more difficult
than the Board trying to determine, five years down the line, what
should be done and that the inspector should have done something at
the time if there had been any question. She said she felt that if
this type of appeal continues to crop up, the Board should get together
and decide if its enough of a problem to require whole buildings moved.
Crittenden said he felt that the City should admonish the Inspection
Department. Becker said, in fairness to the Inspection Department,
that it is ultimately the builder or developers responsibility because
it is impossible to catch everything that is in error.
Mills said that perhaps a fine or penalty should be charged against
builders or developers after one violation. She said that these errors
need to be caught in the Planning and Inspection Office and Jones
replied that site plans are checked very closely.
Tompkins and Jones both cited cases in which builders where asked
to correct their errors that encroached on setbacks and House noted
that there have been many VA and FHA loans turned down for violation
• of building setbacks.
Mills asked how this could be brought back against the builder and
House advised that the Board would have had to deny the request and
ask the City to bring suit against the builder.
Becker said he felt that in higher density areas a court would back
the City but Jones said that in this area, if there is any doubt,
the benefit of the doubt goes to the property owners.
Becker said it seems to him that issues have been constantly pushed
to the lowest common demoninator. He cited examples of Board policy
in San Diego and Los Angeles County where there is a six week plan
delay because things are set up in an organized situation where businesses
are set up to help a developer obtain a permit for a price.
Mills said she would like some input on which way to go in cases such
as this in the future. She said there are some builders the Board
has seen more than once on this issue and she was more prone to be
lenient the first time than the third time. Tompkins said he would
be more "hard—nosed".
Jones advised that Thad Kelley, a previous petitioner to this Board
have removed the building he had requested a variance for on West
Lafayette; the Board left this case tabled.
• There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 by
a motion from Crittenden and a second by Mills.
1,0