HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-10-07 Minutes (2)•
•
MINUTES OF A JOINT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
A special joint meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Directors and
Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, October 7, 1991, at 5:00
p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West
Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mayor Fred Vorsanger, Shell Spivey, Ann Henry,
Mike Green, Gerald Boyd, Don Mills, Robert
Davis, Larry Tompkins, Lonnie Meadows, and
Marion Orton
Bob Blackston, Dan Coody, Julie Nash, and
Dennis Becker
Scott Linebaugh, Jerry
Kevin Crosson, LaGayle
Langley
Rose, John Merrell,
McCarty, and Sharon
Mr. Tompkins welcomed the Board of Directors and thanked them for
meeting with the Board of Adjustment. He explained they had
requested the meeting with the thought that it might be of interest
to the Board of Directors to exchange ideas regarding the role of
the Board of Adjustment. He further explained the Board looked
basically at the entire concept -- they were interested in both the
individual and the community. He stated they were quite interested
in enforcement of the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Boyd pointed out the Board rarely received feedback from the
Directors, and when the Board heard lawsuits had been settled they
did not know if it was because the Directors disagreed with their
decisions.
Mr. Green explained it was basically an open loop system with not
much feedback. He expressed his belief the Directors needed to be
able to communicate policy to the Board of Adjustmentwhich in turn
needed to be able to communicate their reasons for denying
variances to the Directors.
Ms. Mills asked if it would assist the Directors to have a member
of the Board of Adjustment at the Director's agenda meetings.
Ms. Henry explained she was not sure that would solve the problem.
She.further explained the Board of Adjustment had been set up to
take the decisions out of the political arena. She explained that
in settling a lawsuit the Board acted as the jury. She asked if
there was anything the Directors could do to assist the Board of
Adjustment.
• Ms. Mills explained that there was no means of enforcement of
zoning violations. When inspectors saw violations, the only thing
eiv
Board of Adjustments
1991
Page 2
they could do was issue a stop work order. She stated the fact
that the inspectors had no clout had been a problem for years.
Ms. Henry asked if the ordinance needed to be re -written, giving
clout to the inspection department.
Mr. Boyd suggested allowing the inspectors to issue tickets.
Ms. Mills stated she often thought the Directors did not understand
the reasoning of the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Spivey asked if they knew of any cities writing violations for
zoning matters.
Mr. Tompkins stated there were many cities in both Maryland and
Connecticut issuing tickets.
Mr. Rose explained that now a violation was a misdemeanor and that
notification needed to be made to Terry Jones, City Prosecutor. He
further explained that, when an applicant filed suit appealing the
Board of Adjustment's decision, the Court ignored the Board's
decision and substituted their judgment. He stated that, as an
attorney, he had been taught that settlements were to be desired
and was not an admission of wrong.
Mr. Rose also explained that the Board of Adjustment'sy-laws were
more stringent than the statute and any lawsuit would be based on
the statute, not the by-laws.
Ms. Henry pointed out that, when a settlement is reached rather
than going to court, hopefully the cost is enough to prohibit the
violator from violating the code again.
Mr. Vorsanger stated he had reviewed city code 160.70 prior to
attending the meeting to refresh his memory. He stated he believed
the Board of Adjustment was doing a good job, that they were
following code to the letter. He stated they might be doing too
good of a job, that they appeared to be inflexible. He explained
his decision regarding the Ryan case. He stated it was helpful to
have someone from the Board of Adjustment present to answer
questions regarding a case they were considering settling.
Ms. Mills stated she still thought they needed to get back to ways
to stop a violation before it got to the point of the applicant
filing suit. She stated she believed the inspection division
needed more clout.
• Mr. Spivey stated he would appreciate a Board of Adjustment member
being at the agenda meetings when there was discussion of setting
Board of Adjustments
91
Page 3
a variance matter so they could answer any questions the Directors
might have.
Mr. Boyd stated if the criteria being used to decide cases was too
tough to stand up in court, perhaps it should be changed;
otherwise, they were wasting their time.
Mr. Rose suggested that whenever he received a settlement offer on
a variance matter he would call the chairman or his designee and
contact John Merrell.
Mr. Tompkins reminded the Board that they also ruled on
interpretation of the zoning code.
Mr. Rose stated that had not been a problem so far. He explained
that all of the recent lawsuits was because the attorneys had
figured out a lawsuit was a quick way to get the case to the Board
of Directors.
Mr. Green suggested the Board of Adjustment might be more flexible
in the way they looked at the cases.
Mr. Boyd stated the Board would appreciate a letter from Mr. Rose
after a case had been settled setting forth the concerns Mr. Rose
had in taking the case to court. He explained perhaps the Board
could then make adjustments in other cases.
Mr. Tompkins again thanked the Board of Directors for meeting with
them and stated the Board of Adjustment would forward any of their
ideas to the Board of Directors.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
•