HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-03-15 MinutesMINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, March 15,-
1993, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West
Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gerald Boyd, Don Mills, Marion Orton, and Thad Hanna
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
PROTOCOL
Lonnie Meadows and Larry Perkins
Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, Lamar Pettus, Elmer
Chasar, John Knight, Ben Caston, and J. D. Foche
Ms. Don Mills called the meeting to order. She explained the format of the
meeting. She also noted there were only four members of a 7 -member board present
and advised the applicants they could, if they so desired, table their request
until the next meeting when more members would be present.
APPEAL NO. BA93-13 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS
ELMER CBASAR - 3510 W. YALE
The first item to be heard was a request for a setback variance on property
located at 3510 W. Yale requested by Lamar Pettus on behalf of Elmer Chasar. The
property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and the request is to allow a
20 -foot 4 -inch setback (4 -foot, 8 -inch variance) from the property line.
Mr. Conklin explained the report he would be giving covered the subject variance
request together with the following three located at 3497 West Yale, 3482 West
Yale and 3454 West Yale. He advised the properties were owned by the same
person, being worked on by the same contractor, and.all had the same variance
request. -
He explained each site was currently being developed with a single family home
within Walnut Park Subdivision, Phase II. Hestated that, when setbacks were.
measured, the builder did not measure from' the property line.-' He advised the
City had not become aware of the setback violations until staff had been
contacted by the owner/developer.
Mr. Conklin stated staff had informed the applicant a variance would have to be
requested and granted by the Hoard of Adjustment to allow for a reduced setback.
He noted staff had also informed the applicant that, if the variance were to be
denied, all portions of each structure within the required setback would have to
be removed. He explained the applicant had also been informed that the setback
was to be measured from the eve and not the foundation or wall.
He further advised all building permits stated in bold lettering that "property
lines can only be accurately determined by a survey. The street is not the front
of the property line."
Mr. Conklin explained two separate "checks" had been made to assure the setbacks
would be met: one at the time the building permit was issued (the
owner/developer is required to sign a setback guarantee included as part of the
building permit process) and again at the time of footing inspection, the
contractor was required to indicate a property line which was measured by the
building inspector and signed by the contractor.
He pointed out the stage of construction which had occurred on each lot: Lot 12
and Lot 13 - foundation installed, Lot 14 - foundation and slab installed, and
lot 16 - framed.
Board of Adjustments
March 15, 1993
Page 2
Mr. Lamar Pettus, representing the applicant, stated that on lots 12 and 13 both
the footings and blocks were installed. He advised the four tracts were at the
end of a cul-de-sac with vacant property to the west. He explained the applicant
had not had a copy of the plat, showing the right-of-way extended 9 1/2 feet and
had measured 30 feet from the curb. He also pointed out a sidewalk was not
required on the subject tracts.
He advised that, when the city inspector had inspected the footings, he had not
measured the setback but had just asked what the setbacks were. He also pointed
out the four houses would not stick out from the rest on the street because of
the slope of the terrain. He expressed his belief these houses would not detract
from the neighborhood and advised the owner/developer of the subdivision had no
objections nor did the owner of Lot 17. He also pointed out there was another
home in the subdivision that was also requesting a variance of the setbacks.
Mr. Pettus also advised the Board that the owner had immediately notified the
City when he discovered the houses were in the front setbacks. He requested they
consider granting the variance requests.
Mr. Mark Barker, owner of Lot 17, stated he had purchased the lot after the
applications for variances had been filed. He advised he had been aware the
houses were in the setbacks but did not feel it would be a hinderance to his
property.
Mr. John Knight, the contractor for the four houses, explained he had made an
honest mistake. He advised he had even gone back five feet further than he
thought was required because he did not want to be so close to the setback.
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Knight stated the only subdivision
covenant he was aware of was that the houses needed to be at least 1,200 square
feet in size. He further noted he had contacted all of the surrounding property
owners regarding the requests for variances and found none of them had any
problems with the requests. He pointed out they could not physically move the
house without pouring a new foundation.
Ms. Orton asked what the City could do so this would not happen again.
Mr. Knight stated that, while he was aware the city inspectors had a big load,
he believed they should physically measure the setbacks at the time they
inspected the foundation.
Mr. Chasar stated the inspector asked what the setbacks were and those numbers
were the ones that had been written down. He pointed out that, if the inspector
had measured at that time, they could have just moved the footings back to comply
with code.
Mr. Boyd asked about the document Mr. Chasar had signed with the building permit.
Mr. Chasar expressed his opinion the building inspector created the problem
because he had not measured the setbacks at the time of the footing inspection.
Mr. Pettus stated it would assist the contractors if they had a copy of the
plats.
Ms. Mills asked if they did not have a copy of the plat on site.
Mr. Chasar explained they constructed from plans drawn up by the architect in
Dallas. He noted there was a 25 -foot setback on the plans and that was what the
contractor had gone by; that the plans did not show the right-of-way in the front
of the property.
11g
Board of Adjustments
March 15, 1993
Page 3
Ms. Mills pointed out the building permit application noted the street was not
the property line.
Mr. Knight advised he had been unaware of the right-of-way. He pointed out the
street was not designed to go through and there would not be any development to
the west.
Mr. Boyd advised that, if the Board were going to be consistent, he did not see
how they could grant the requested variances.
Ms. Mills agreed and noted staff had "gone the extra mile" to get information to
the contractors that the street was not the property line.
Mr. Hanna noted it would cost from $5,000 to $10,000 per house to move the houses
back. He advised he believed it had been an honest mistake and it would create
an undue hardship on the owner to require the houses to be moved. He also
pointed out the houses were being built on speculation so the buyer would know
what they were getting. He stated he did not believe these houses would cause
any damage to the neighborhood.
Ms. Orton pointed out all the forms signed by the owner and contractor noted the
responsibility was theirs, not the city's, for the location of the property lines
and meeting the setbacks. She noted the city did not have an adequate number of
inspectors at the present time.
Mr. Boyd explained there was not a provision
reviewed the reasons for granting a variance.
conditions and circumstances would have to exist
structure, or building involved and which were
structures or buildings in the same district.
for hardship in the code. He
He pointed out that special
which were peculiar to the land,
not applicable to other lands,
MOTION - BA93-13: 3510 W. YALE
Mr. Boyd moved to deny the request.
Me. Mills seconded the motion.
The vote was 2-2-0 with Ms. Mills and Mr. Boyd voting "yes" and Ms. Orton and Mr.
Hanna voting "no".
MOTION - BA93-14: 3496 W. YALE
Mr. Boyd moved to deny the request.
Ms. Mills seconded the motion.
The vote was 2-2-0 with Ms. Mills and Mr. Boyd voting "yes" and Ms. Orton and Mr.
Hanna voting "no".
MOTION - BA93-15: 3482 W. YALE
Mr. Boyd moved to deny the request.
Ms. Mills seconded the motion.
The vote was 2-2-0 with Ms. Mills and Mr. Boyd voting "yes" and Ms. Orton and Mr.
Hanna voting "no".
1079
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
March 15, 1993
Page 4
MOTION - BA93-16: 3434 W. YALE
Mr. Boyd moved to deny the request.
Ms. Mills seconded the motion.
The vote was 2-2-0 with Ms. Mills and Mr. Boyd voting "yes" and Ms. Orton and Mr.
Hanna voting "no".
Mr. Pettus recommended the city inspectors do their job. He also recommended the
setback be measured from the street.
Mr. Knight stated he was aware it was his responsibility to met the setbacks but
the inspector had not measured at the time of the footing inspection.
APPEAL NO. BA93-17 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIRffiMENTS
BEN CASTON - 1635 N. SALEM RD.
The next item was a request for a variance in the amount of 6.5 feet presented
by Ben Caston for property located at 1635 N. Salem. The property is zoned R-2,
Medium Density Residential.
Mr. Conklin advised the request was to allow an 18.5 setback from the property
line (Yale Street Side). He explained the site was currently being developed
with a single family home within the Walnut Park Subdivision, Phase II. He
explained that, when setbacks had been measured, the builder had been under the
impression they were to be measured from the street. He advised the City had not
become aware of the setback violation until it was contacted by the
owner/developer.
He stated staff had informed the applicant that a variance would have to be
requested and granted by the Board of Adjustment to allow for a reduced setback.
He noted staff had also informed the applicant that, if the variance were to be
denied, all portions of the structure within the required setback would have to
be removed.
Mr. Conklin advised all building permits stated in bold lettering that "property
lines can only be accurately determined by a survey. The street is not the front
of the property line."
He further noted two separate "checks" were made to assure that setbacks would
be met. He explained that, at the time the building permit was issued, the
owner/developer signed the setback guarantee now included as part of the building
permit process. He advised that, at the time of footing inspection, the
contractor indicated a property line which was measured by the building inspector
and signed by the contractor.
Mr. Caston showed photographs of the subject house and explained the front of the
house did meet the setbacks, it was the side street where the problem occurred.
He stated this was the first time he had'constructed a house in Fayetteville and
he had not been aware the setbacks were not measured from the curb. He advised
the house was approximately 80% complete. He explained he had tried to figure
out how they could move the house but had not come up with a solution. He stated
the bathroom was on the wall that would have to be removed and there was no way
to do that without destroying the structure.
Mr. Joe Foche, superintendent for Mr. Caston, explained he had always measured
back from the curb and gone an extra 2 feet. He also advised the inspector had
not measured the setback but had just taken his word. He noted the plat did say
25 -foot setbacks but did not say from what point.
4
•
•
Board of Adjustments
March 15, 1993
Page 5
In response to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Foche explained that in Springdale
the setbacks were measured from the curb and this was the first house he had
constructed in Fayetteville. He further stated the inspector should have
measured the setbacks; that it was just as important as any of the other items
they inspected.
Ms. Mills stated the inspectors were not there to determine the setbacks.
Mr. Caston stated he had talked with the adjoining property owners and there had
been no objections to the variance.
Ms. Little pointed out word had been spreading among the builders regarding the
setback problems. She expressed her belief the builders were being educated as
to what was required. She stated the subject case had double 25 -foot setbacks
since it was a corner lot.
In response to a comment from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Foche advised the only stake on the
property had been the back corner pin when they started construction.
Mr. Hanna expressed his belief that Ms. Little had a good point with the fact
that the subject house had two 25 -foot setbacks. He pointed out the house was
almost completed and to remove the portion in the setback would destroy the
house.
Mr. Boyd stated the requests for variances got harder and harder but the Board
was called upon to administer the rules. He pointed out they had denied
variances for homes that were 80% or more complete.
MOTION
Ms. Orton moved to grant the variance.
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion failed with a vote of 2-2-0 with Ms. Orton and Mr. Hanna voting "yes"
and Me. Mills and Mr. Boyd voting "no".
MINUTES
The minutes of the February 22, 1993 and March 1, 1993 meetings were approved as
distributed.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Ms. Orton expressed dismay regarding the vagueness of the Parks Board
presentation to the City Council on the signs at the baseball and softball
fields.
Ms. Little advised the ordinance had been much more detailed than the
presentation.
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
131