HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-08-03 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS
A meeting of the Board of Adjustment and Board of Sign Appeals was held Monday, August 3, 1998, at 3:45 p.m.,
Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Perkins, Marion Orton, Robert Nickle, and Thad Hanna
MEMBERS ABSENT: Gerald Boyd, Paul Wilhelms, and Michael Andrews
STAFF PRESENT: Tim Conklin and Debra Humphrey
1. Approval of Minutes of May 4, 1998
Minutes were approved as distributed.
2. Nomination committee
Larry Perkins was affirmed as the Chairman for the Board of Adjustment and Signs and Board of Sign
Appeals Committee for the Year 1998-1999.
Upon roll call the affirmation was unanimously approved on a vote of 4-0-0. Mr. Wilhelms, Mr. Andrews,
and Mr. Boyd were not present.
BA 98-15,00: VARIANCE (NIKE GALBRATTH)
321 EAST MAPLE STREET
This item was submitted by Mike Galbraith for property located at 321 East Maple Street. The property is zoned R-1,
Low -Density Residential, and contains approximately .27 acres. The request is to appeal the location of a combination
storage building and playhouse on the southwest corner of the lot.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed encroachments into the setbacks as shown on the site plan. The applicant
has adequate room (1,121 sf.) to relocate this structure outside of the required setbacks (Please refer to the survey
that has been annotated by staff showing the area this structure could be relocated).
STAF'F'S FINDINGS:
1. Notice has been given as required in §160.172.
2. A public hearing is scheduled for August 3, 1998.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
August 1 1998 g
Page -2-
STAFF COMMENTS:
On May 11, 1998 a complaint was filed with the Planning Commission regarding a climbing wall playhouse/storage
building. The owner of the property was notified regarding the violation of the ordinance and was asked to remove
the structure from the southwest property line.
On May 29, 1998, he stated he would remove the structure from the area. On June 12, 1998, he filed a variance
request in order to leave the structure in its current location. The requested setbacks are for a 6' setback on the side
vs. a 8' required setback and a 2' setback on the south property line vs. a 20' setback for the climbing wall.
Staff recommends denial of the encroachment. Applicant does have approximately 1,121 sf that this structure could
be relocated in order to meet the required setbacks.
Mike Galbraith appeared before the board on his behalf.
He stated his neighbors, the McCanns and Butch Weatherley, have no problem with the structure. The people who
complained cannot see the structure from their house. He built the structure for his 12 -year old son for a place to play
in the back yard. The climbing wall is attached to the storage building which contains his flammable materials. The
flammable materials used to be in his garage which burned down last year.
He put his storage building at the furtherest most point of any structure from his adjoining neighbor's property. If
he moved the structure in compliance with the required setbacks this would move the building 20 feet closer to his
home and if another fire occurred, then it would catch his house on fire. At the time he built the building he did not
know the playhouse had to be in compliance with the zoning requirements.
He stated the adjacent neighbors have no problem with the structure.
Hanna: He inquired about the neighbor on the southeast corner of the property. His concern was if they
would be able to see it from their upstairs window.
Galbraith: He stated those neighbors have a catamaran in their front yard all summer that he doesn't like. He
does not like the construction of the house because it is the only house in the neighborhood that
looks like a suburban ranch -style home. However, he feels this is their business and it doesn't
concern him.
Perkins:
Galbraith:
He stated if the neighbor in question had come to him he would probably have moved it. He spent
his Christmas break building the climbing wall for his son and his friends, and had intended to finish
it when school was out. His son had stated this was the best Christmas present he had and that was
why he did not want his son to lose his Christmas present.
He clarified the reason for placing the structure at this location is that the applicant did not want the
flammables any closer to his home.
He stated all the houses in this subject area were out of compliance. The neighbor's garage sets 1
foot on his property line and 2 feet on the neighbor's. His other neighbor's pool is 2 feet from his
property line. But those neighbors in question do not have any problem with this structure. He had
helped move the McCann's playhouse in order to get it in compliance.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
August $ 1998 $ -3
Page -3-
Nickles:
Galbraith:
Lamar Pettus,
Pettus.
Galbraith:
Hanna:
Galbraith:
Hanna:
Galbraith:
Hanna:
Galbraith:
The primary reason the temporary building is in this location is so he had a place to keep his
flammables and he needed a place to attach his climbing wall.
He expressed his appreciation for the applicant's reasoning for keeping his flammables. However,
he stated most people have to store their flammables in the garage.
He stated 95% of the houses in the Historic District have non -conforming garages at the far back
corner of their property. He further noted when his garage had burned if it had not been for the
excellent response of the fire department, it would have also burned the McCann's garage. They
were able to save the McCann's garage. With this in mind this is why he chose the location for his
storage building.
He noted his immediate neighbor to the south shares a garage with the neighbor that filed the
complaint. He noted her house sits two feet from the driveway property line.
who represents Mrs. Woods who filed the complaint, addressed the board.
He stated Mr. Galbraith had talked with Mr. Pettus after the filing of the complaint. They discussed
the location of the playhouse. He stated the board needs to be aware of the fact that there were two
playhouses out of compliance when they made the initial filing. They withdrew their complaint
against Mr. McCann because their playhouse had been there longer than Mr. Galbraith's. He stated
if Mr. Galbraith says you can't see it from Mrs. Wood's property he would take his word for it.
However, he feels you could see the top of the playhouse from Mrs. Wood's back yard. (He noted
the position of Mrs. Woods is that the applicant should comply with the city codes.)
He further noted, if you were moving the structure 20 feet further from his home, then it would be
20 feet closer to someone else's home. Therefore, his client requests the applicant comply with the
city codes.
He stated at the present time his structure sits 50 feet from his home. If he were to move it 20 feet
in, then it would be 30 feet from his home. If his home had been 30 feet when the previous fire had
happened, his home would have caught on fire also.
He noted that the building did not look like it had been finished.
He stated he had planned to finish it when school was out. However, he was prohibited to do any
more work until this issue was settled.
He inquired what were the plans for finishing the climbing wall
He stated he planned to install a shingled composition roof like his home, siding on it similar to his
home.
He noted the home that Mr. Galbraith had moved into in 1991 was pretty run down.
He stated he had purchased it for $37,000 and the County reassessed it for $120,000. He stated he
was very interested in the neighborhood. He stated what he felt precipitated this complaint was the
McCanns had removed their privacy fence and a person could see through both of their backyards
from Lafayette Street. Three days later they put up their new privacy fence.
•
Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
August 0, 1998
Page -4-
Hanna: He inquired if the structure was finished, if it would look better.
Galbraith: He responded yes, it would. He stated he teaches building trades at West Campus and was a builder
for years. He did not want the structure to look half -finished. He stated this was not intended to
be something to be there forever. He stated when his son turned 16 this playhouse would be taken
down.
BOARD'S FINDINGS:
Hanna:
He stated he had parked and walked up on his backyard and knocked on his back door. Right now
it is unsightly but it is unfinished. He stated he had gone around the Historic District and lost count
of the number of homes that had sheds or portable sheds on the rear property line. So he wondered
if they would be sending a letter and fine everyone who was out of compliance or only when a
complaint was filed.
Nickles: He inquired what would happen if he went to Lowe's and purchased a storage building to put on
concrete blocks and set it on his back yard property line.
Conklin: He stated if it was over 80 sf it would require a building permit.
Nickles: But what if the building was a 6x10 building to put his lawnmower.
• Conklin: He stated they would still be required to meet the setbacks. Violations are investigated on a
complaint basis. Staff does not drive around and check for violations.
•
Nickles:
Conklin:
Orton:
Hanna:
Nickle:
Hanna:
He inquired if it was the desire to grant a variance for a specific time frame was allowable.
He stated they could put conditions on the variance request.
She stated the concern should be how it would fit in with the neighborhood and whether the non-
conformity would be detrimental to the neighborhood. She stated she had to drive around in order
to see the structure.
He stated if there was a time frame put on this variance request then he may consider the variance.
If it was in the front yard and unsightly then he would not vote for it. However, when you have
to drive up to the backyard to find the violation then it may be taking it a little too far.
He inquired if this structure should be finished.
He felt the structure should be finished. He noted the applicant had taken the home on Maple Street
and restored it and made it a very nice addition to the neighborhood.
Pettus: He stated his client does not drive up the driveway to see it. She is in her backyard when she sees
the building.
Hanna: He stated he had parked on Willow which was next to the McCann's home and was not able to see
the structure from the street.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
August 0, 1998
Page -5-
Galbraith: He noted Mrs. Wood's home, that was nearest to his home, was her garage and this was the only
window that faces his home. The rest of the windows face away from his home.
Mr. Hanna moved to grant the variance stipulating that the climbing structure remain only for 3 years and that
the structure be completed within sixty (60) days.
Mr. Nickle seconded said motion.
The roll was called and said motion carried unanimously on a vote of 4-0-0. Mr. Wilhelms, Mr. Andrews, and
Mr. Boyd were not present.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
August ., 1998 3 -%g)
Page -6-
BA 98-18.00: VARIANCE (MARK SUGG)
1015 MORN NGSIDE DRIVE
This item was submitted by Mark Sugg for property located at 1015 Morningside Drive. The property is zoned R-2,
Medium -Density Residential and contains approximately 0.35 acres. The request is to reduce the required rear setback
for a second principle structure on a lot of record.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed encroachment into the setback as shown on the site plan. The applicant has
adequate room (2,400 sf) to design a duplex that is outside of the required setbacks (Please refer to the survey that
has been annotated by staff showing the area where the duplex could be built).
STAFF'S FINDINGS:
Notice of public hearing shall be given as in §160.172.
A public hearing is scheduled for August 3, 1998
Mark Sugg appeared before the board on his behalf.
STAFF'S COMMENTS:
This lot was split in May of 1997. It consists of two single family homes. This lot fronts on Morningside and
Quinton. The applicant has requested a variance for 11' setback which is a 14' variance. Page 2.7 reflects a site plan
which shows the duplex he wishes to construct on this lot.
Staff has calculated the buildable area meeting the setbacks. He could have 2,400 sf of buildable area. One of the
findings the board has to make in granting the variance is that the applicant could not cause the conditions needed for
the variance. The applicant has designed the structure which would encroach into the setback. Therefore, staff
recommends denial for this rear setback variance and the applicant redesign the project to meet the required setbacks.
Perkins:
Conklin:
Sugg:
He inquired about the dimensions of the lot which would be built upon.
He further noted that each board member should have a copy of the petition which was submitted
by some of the area residents.
He noted there was 182 feet along McClinton and 83 feet of frontage on Morningside which
amounts to about 1/3 of an acre.
He introduced his mother, Ms. Ann Sugg. He stated they had purchased the property a couple
months ago and it is an over -sized lot. There is currently a single family home on the lot and it is
zoned R-2. The applicant's intent is to build a multi -family unit on the property.
He showed the design and layout of the duplex with 3 bedrooms and containing a little over 1,000
sf each. The applicant has requested the variance because they used the L-shaped floor plan
reducing the frontage on McClinton Street. If they were to build per the staff's recommendation
this would take away from the design and structure of their proposed structure.
Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
• Augusta, 1998 g -3-9r
Page -7-
•
•
He noted this lot was considered as a corner lot then the setback to construct the building on the
north side would be 8' for the entire length of the property. The applicant proposes to conform
with the neighborhood as much as possible.
Ms. Sugg stated if they did use the footprint per staff's recommendation it would be less expensive to build. From
the business standpoint that would be a preference. But Mark prefers the style to the cost.
Conklin: He clarified staff was not recommending the rectangle building. Staff pointed out the applicant had
approximately 2,400 square feet of buildable area. The applicant could design the structure as long
as it met the required setbacks.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Kate Conway, 1015 Morningside Drive, appeared before the board.
She stated she had lived in her home for 20 years They are concerned about what would be built on the back yard
next to their yard. She noted most of the homes in the neighborhood were single family homes. If the variance was
granted then this would put the building 11 feet from her back yard. This would increase the noise level as well as
other concerns. She stated her property value has increased and feels with the duplex it would lower their property
value. She noted with the other duplex which was further down on Morningside Drive were children which play on
the street. She noted with this duplex there would be no yard for the children to play and they too would be playing
in the street, which would raise a safety concern.
Hanna: He clarified the applicant "by right" may build a duplex on this lot. The variance would not
address the duplex.
Conway:
Nickles:
She stated she was now just realizing they would be able to build the duplex. However, she stated
every home in this area was a single family home.
He clarified the only question the board could address would be the variance for the setback to the
rear of their property line
He further noted the design which would encroach into the setback would actually be the bedrooms.
This may make it a little bit quieter part of the duplex. If he were living in this area he would
prefer a single -story building next to him vs. a two-story building hovering over the Conway's
backyard. Technically, the applicant could build 2 to 4 townhouse -style buildings as opposed to the
duplex.
He suggested it would be preferable for the neighborhood to decide what they would prefer the
applicant build.
Sugg: He stated the existing home was approximately 1,200 sf with the one -car garage included.
Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
• August3, 1998 8-3-9K
Page -8-
•
•
Ralph Nissen, 1007 Morningside Drive, appeared before the board.
He wanted to relay two important issues that need to be considered. 1) They do not want a duplex or any other
structure close to their backyard. They enjoy their backyard as part of the quality of living there with single family
dwellings and neighbors who are there for the long run. The more rental units coming in this development would
make it less stable. According to the neighbors there are children playing in the street who live at the other duplex
because they have no place to play. 2) When they purchased their home 20 years ago for $16,200, it was a modest
home and is now valued $80,000 because of the improvements which were made. All the neighbors have the same
commitment to improving their neighborhood. With more rental units, the Tess the quality of life will be.
Therefore, if the duplex were built on this site, they would sell because they would not want this type of structure next
door. He encourages the applicants to consider building a single family dwelling. With quality construction the
applicant could make money by selling to someone who wanted a stable neighborhood.
There was some discussion regarding the setbacks if the structure was added on to as a single family dwelling.
Angie Johnson appeared before the board.
She stated they had recently purchased their home in this neighborhood. Some of the reasons they purchased their
home was because the homes in this area were well-maintained with big yards. She stated the children have been
playing out on the street and there was a 25 mile per hour zone and police sit next to her home because some of the
cars come by at rates of 60 mph sometimes.
She also noted they would be on the south side of this proposed location and their home would face Morningside.
They park off McClinton and off Morningside and her concern was where would the tenants park and their company.
If they parked on McClinton this would block the view of traffic more. She understands the applicant could build a
duplex on this site. However, in order to conform with the neighborhood she felt it would be better to build a home
or add on to the home to make money.
Currently, they are remodeling their home and wanting to improve their neighborhood. They moved away from
rentals and wanted to have a home in a neighborhood and not near rentals.
Sugg: He stated parking would be on McClinton Street.
Ross McGinnis at 650 McClinton Street appeared before the board.
He has lived in this neighborhood for 40 years. He stated the duplex was built beside him and it was rented to people
with children. He sits out on his front porch everyday and the children come across the street with their bikes and
cars have to completely stop to keep from hitting them.
He has an orchard at the end of his property containing apple and pear trees. Last year he had to run the children out
in order to save his fruit. He went down and told the mother the other day the first time he caught any of the children
in his orchard he would call the police.
Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
• August, , 1998 tg-3—gQ
Page -9-
•
•
BOARD'S FINDINGS:
Orton: She stated according to the ordinances the applicant has the right to build the duplex, but it needs
to be smaller or redesigned.
Nickles: He complimented Mr. Sugg on his design. However, the neighbors are against the building of the
duplex.
Orton: She stated it looks like there needs to be a recreational area for the children in this location.
Sugg: She stated the duplex on McClinton does have a big backyard. She felt the children were playing
with the children in the neighborhood which precipitated the children playing in the street.
Hanna:
He expressed his appreciation to the neighbors for what they were trying to do for the
neighborhood. However, the applicant does have the right to build a duplex. He inquired if
building a single family dwelling would be out of the question for the applicants.
Sugg: She stated this was not originally their intention and noted there was a need for affordable housing.
That was the purpose for building the duplex.
Sugg:
He stated they intended to build the duplex to maintain itself over time. They recently built a duplex
on 7 11 Street which was two blocks east by Jefferson which was more in keeping with this proposed
project.
Perkins: He reiterated what the board needs to consider regarding R-2 zoning and also noted the comments
of the neighbors.
Nickles:
He stated the building was well-designed but was reluctant to vote for the variance with the
opposition of the neighborhood. He reiterated the applicant has the right to build more units larger
ones.
He stated if this variance was denied, the applicant could build a building not quite as nice and with
more units and wanted the neighbors to understand this.
Nickles: He inquired if the board denied this variance, could the applicant request another variance.
Conklin: He responded, yes, the applicant could come back.
Hanna: He inquired if the board tabled the variance and allowed the Suggs to meet with the neighbors, then
the applicant would not have to make another application.
Conklin: He responded, yes, this would be fine. He emphasized whatever motion the board makes, if they
were basing it on the elevations presented, be sure to include this in the motion.
Hanna: He stated the board could either deny the variance or table the variance and allow the applicant the
ability to meet with the neighbors.
There was some discussion regarding the variance request.
Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
Augusta 1998 8'- 3 -9e
Page -10-
Nickles:
He stated if they granted the variance they would make it conditional that it meet the elevations.
He noted the overhangs are 2' on either side which could be eliminated. However, this would be
a design consideration. He stated he would either deny the request or table it to allow the applicants
and neighbors to visit and negotiate the design of the building.
Ms. Orton moved to table the variance request.
Hanna: He inquired of the applicant whether they would prefer the request be denied or tabled.
Sugg: He inquired when the next meeting would be scheduled.
Conklin: He stated there was a called meeting for the Board of Adjustment for August 17, 1998.
Sugg: She stated they would prefer to table the request as opposed to the denial of the request.
She inquired if they did meet with the neighbors would the neighbors have to sign a petition stating
they were in agreement with the duplex.
Perkins: He stated at this point in time the board would need to deny the request and go back and redesign
the building. Or the other option would be to table the item and discuss this with the neighbors.
Orton:
She inquired from staff if the applicant came back with changes of variances after discussion with
the neighbors, could that adjustment be brought to the next meeting or would they have to make
another application.
Conklin: He stated normally staff has to advertise the variance setback requested at least 10 days prior to the
meeting.
Sugg: He inquired if the petition was in opposition of the variance or the duplex.
Perkins: He clarified the petition was for the variance of the rear setback for the second principle structure
on Morningside Drive.
Johnson: She wanted to clarify that some of the people who signed the petition had stated they did not want
the duplex.
Mr. Nickles seconded the said motion.
The roll was called and said motion carried unanimously on a vote of 4-0-0. Mr. Wilhelm, Mr. Andrews, and
Mr. Boyd were not present.
Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
• August $, 1998 te -3 -9 r
Page -11-
BA 98-19.00: VARIANCE (JOHN & LESLEY GREEN)
2394 BIG OAKS DRIVE
This item was submitted by the applicant for property located at 2394 Big Oaks Drive. The property is zoned R-1,
Low -Density Residential and contains approximately 0.32 acres. The request is to reduce the required north setback
from 25' to 21' and the required south setback from 8' to 7'.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow the encroachments into the front and side setback as
shown on the survey dated 7/15/98.
STAFF'S FINDINGS:
1. This house was built ten years ago and was sold several times before the setback violations were discovered.
The current owner of the house was unaware of the violation because there was no requirement for a survey
when they purchased the house. Many banks and title companies still do not require a survey and realtors
are not advising their clients to have a survey done before buying a house.
2. The applicant would like to resolve this issue and be able to sell the house.
3. The house has been sold several times over the last ten years
4. The applicant should be able to sell the house without having to alter the house to meet the setbacks.
5. No nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same district, and no permitted
• or nonconforming use of lands, structures, or buildings in other districts were considered grounds for the
issuance of this variance.
6. Notice has been given as required in §160.172.
7. A public hearing is scheduled for August 3, 1998.
8. The reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance, and the variance is the minimum
variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, buildings, or structure.
9. Granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter, and will not
be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
STAFF'S COMMENTS:
This request is the result of structures being built approximately 10 years ago. There was a survey required after it
was built when the owners were selling the home. The encroachment is approximately 115.73 sf. Staff does
recommend approval. It was also discovered on the survey the south setback was not the required 8' but was 7.9'.
Therefore, staff recommends approval for the 1 foot setback.
John Green, the applicant came before the board on his behalf.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Dan Broyles, representing the buyer, addressed the board. He stated the buyers want to proceed with the transaction
and this would be pending upon the variance being approved.
Conklin: He stated there were also some utility easement vacations which have to go before the Planning
Commission.
• Ms. Orton moved to approve the variance request.
Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
• Augusta 1998 g-3.--9 f
Page -12-
•
•
Mr. Hanna seconded said motion.
Upon roll call the motion was approved on a vote of 4-0-0. Mr. Wilhehns, Mr. Andrews, and Mr. Boyd were
not present.
Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
• August 1998 8
Page -13-
BA 98-20.00: VARIANCE (NICHOLSON1
2911 BIRDIE DRIVE
This item was submitted by the applicant for property located at 2911 Birdie Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low -
Density Residential and contains approximately 0.34 acres. The request is to reduce the required east side setback
(adjacent to Crossover Road) from 25' to 18'.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow the encroachments into the front and side setback as
shown on the survey dated 7/21/98.
STAFF'S FINDINGS:
1. This house was built in 1991 and was financed two times before the setback violation was discovered. The
current owner of the house was unaware of the violation because there was no requirement for a survey when
they purchased the house. Many banks and title companies still do not require a survey and realtors are not
advising their clients to have a survey done before buying a house.
2. The applicant would like to resolve this issue and be able to sell the house.
3. The applicant did not build the house.
4. The applicant should be able to sell the house without having to alter the house to meet setbacks.
5. No non -conforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district, and no permitted
• or non -conforming use of lands, structures, or buildings in other districts were considered grounds for the
issuance of this variance.
6. Notice has been given as required in §160.172.
7. A public hearing is scheduled for August 3, 1998.
8. The reasons set forth in the applicant justify the granting of the variance, and that the variance is the
minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure.
9. Granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter, and will not
be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
•
STAFF'S COMMENTS:
This is a corner lot where the building is encroaching on a front setback on Hwy 265. When the applicant decided
to sell the house the encroachment was discovered during the survey. Staff supports the variance request of
approximately 72.3 sf encroachment. Also, the applicant does have to go before the Planning Commission for a utility
easement vacation.
The applicant stated the home was basically built prior to them purchasing the home.
Applicant does have a buyer for the property and the sale is pending approval of the variance request.
Mr. Hanna moved to approve the variance request.
Mr. Nickle seconded said motion.
Upon roll call the motion was unanimously approved on a vote of 4-0-0. Mr. Wilhelms, Mr. Andrews, and Mr.
Boyd were not present.
Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
• August 3, 1998 $-3-CJ'y
Page -14-
•
•
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:02 p.m.
•
•
PETITION TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
jU' 3 1990
Y PLAN@iNG t c"PT
We the undersigned residents of Fayetteville ask that the
Board of Adjustment of the City Planning office of Fayetteville
deny the request of Mark Sugg who is seeking a variance on a
rear setback for a second principle structure on the lot at 1015
Morningside Drive. The variance is requesting 11 feet of setback
rather than the required 25 feet.
Date
Name
Signature
Address
Phone
7•Z7•'£S
7-27 - 99'
1
NI' (A 4n.
84167
VI7
73 7
3% 47
397
'6V
4059
2-36c5
-327
ya co9
F2 says
roa3.
. 19953!
-ogi5
995-6-
451,
'.c
r -YS 4'
»t-tnR. 37,/7 >7t C Cedenrdril
�.
. _ •_..
ass�/
L%.
.I.: e., sal •
FSI -e �%C1fa_a
..t._
7
ca
nig
. Sir_.-- 1 0scC Z54/ W440450//r stf' £2-j-.
''
mtr el.?
V•
7 z , , ,
1J�_',
..,_
•�
, - - 3-
ft
\�
F him
����</
lina at
•t
•2._ / /ice .rug.
2
.
,_
*~
82
or '_ •
.
1-7
7•Z7•'£S
7-27 - 99'
1
NI' (A 4n.
84167
VI7
73 7
3% 47
397
'6V
4059
2-36c5
-327
ya co9
F2 says
roa3.
. 19953!
-ogi5
995-6-
451,
'.c
r -YS 4'
»t-tnR. 37,/7 >7t C Cedenrdril
�.
. _ •_..
otitillORNir G //
7 -f -fl' .,fit
. Sir_.-- 1 0scC Z54/ W440450//r stf' £2-j-.
''
V•
set
_
ft
F him
•t
•2._ / /ice .rug.
•
•
•
•
PETITION TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RECEIVED
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
JUL 3 1 1998
Dirt PLANNING
DEPT,
We the undersigned residents of Fayetteville ask that the
Board of Adjustment of the City Planning office of Fayetteville
deny the request of Mark Sugg who is seeking a variance on a
rear setback for a second principle structure on the lot at 1015
Morningside Drive. The variance is requesting 11 feet of setback
rather than the required 25 feet.
Date
7
Name
Signature Address
1
• • /a- Ill i tel• _l I
7� G • ,rishfra
t_A
Phone
2-i 0 L,)occl /y
.I . / / r i i
Riff
r
rMarn' nitrnriWkI !��iV47!'�1 is
0
1
ASO
LI
K •
9137
95b
Li-oat
•
•
•
•
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND SIGN APPEALS
AUGUST 3, 1998
t/
Qifbfrevri trete(
BA 98-15
Galbraith
BA 98-18
Sugg
BA 98-19
Green
BA 98-20
Nicholson
MOTION
4,44014-)
G.^i
14a�
SECOND
7f41/4
Cc
/4-Z, .ra
44-4.4.)
T.
T. Hanna
r/
✓
,/
r/
L. Perkins
✓
!✓
y/
✓
1 i het fiW
M. Orton
✓
✓
r/
r✓
'R. Nickle
,/
a/
✓
✓
40 —O
Z% O—O
W --a•<-)
1/-0-0
t/
Qifbfrevri trete(