HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-04 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, February 4, 2002 at 3:45 p.m. in
Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN
Approval of minutes from the December 3, 2001 meeting Approved
Page 2
VAR 02-1.00: Variance (Lazenby, pp 609) Approved
Page 2
VAR 02-2.00 Variance (Crocker, pp 448) Approved
Page 7
Approved
Approved
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Larry Perkins
Marton Orton
Jame Kunzelmann
Mich el Andrews
Thad anna
Michael Green
Joanne Olszewski
VAR 02-3.00: Variance (Melton, pp 450)
Page 9
VAR 02-4.00: Variance (Hanna, pp 484)
Pag
3
STAFF PRESENT
Dawn Warrick
David Whitaker
STAFF ABSENT
Tim Conklin
Renee Thomas
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
February 4, 2002
Page 2
ROLL CALL: Upon the completion of roll call, all seven board members were present.
Approval of Minutes
Perkins: Good aftemoon everybody, it is 3:45 and that means it is time to start the February 4th
meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustments. The first item of business would be to
approve the minutes ofthe December 3rd meeting. Are there any corrections or changes
to be made to that? Please enter those minutes into the record.
VAR 02-1.00: Variance (Lazenby, pp 609) was submitted by William Lazenby for property located at
1659 Tally Ho Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately
0.18 acres The requirement is a 15' front setback. The request is for a 20' front setback (a 5' variance).
Perkins: That brings us to our first appeal of the day. That is VAR 02-1.00 submitted by William
Lazenby for property located at 1659 Tally Ho Drive. The request is for a 20' front
setback (a 5' variance) by the zoning. Does staff have background on this appeal please?
Warrick: Yes Sir. This project is located in the Hunt Club subdivision. It is a subdivision that is
currently being built out. In fact, this structure was permitted in May of 2001 and finaled
in December of this past year. It is a relatively new structure. The applicant, when he
applied for a building permit, did submit a site plan that was accurate to the extent that it
indicated that it would meet the required setbacks ofthe R-1 zoning district. After the
project was completed and a survey was conducted in order to sell the property, it
revealed that there is an encroachment into the front setback area. This property is on kind
of an unusual configuration ofa street. It is at the turn of the street, Tally Ho Drive. You
can see on pages 1.9 and a little bit on 1.10 but 1.9 is probably the best indicator. There
are tums in this street where the right of way and the street itself, kind of bubbles out a little
bit in order to create, in this case, a turn from the north -south direction to the east - west
direction. That right of way curvature affects the front property line of this lot, which of
course, follows that public right of way. In this particular case, the encroachment, as you
can see on the survey on page 1.8, is into that 25' front setback requirement. There is a
20' utility easement however, the structure itself, including overhangs, is clear ofthe utility
easement. I did verify that this survey indicates dimensions from overhangs and not from
walls. Staff is recommending approval of the request.
Hanna: Dawn, did the plan ofthe house change any from the time it was applied for to the time it
was constructed?
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
February 4, 2002
Page 3
Warrick. It really didn't. In looking at the site plan that was submitted on page 1.7 this is the site
plan that was submitted with the building permit application. Then, comparing it to the
survey on the next page, the actual footprint didn't seem to change very much. I think that
there was an error in the drafting of the original site plan in that it just didn't reflect the
exact dimensions properly. The building probably shifted a little bit from what it was
originally proposed to do.
Perkins: Basically, it is just the corner of the garage right here is all that is in the setback right?
Warrick. Yes Sir, that is correct. The front corner and overhang of that garage, I guess it is the
northeast corner of the garage.
Perkins: Is Mr. Lazenby present?
Mayo: I am not Mr. Lazenby, my name is Mr. Mayo. I happen to have property that lies just to
the west of this piece ofproperty and I don't have any particular objections to the shuffling
through of this mistake but I would like to point out that there is another problem with this
particular subdivision and that is that on the drive that Tally Ho comes into which is called
Steeple Chase Drive is cut off where it hits my property line. There is no accommodation
for the amount of water that drains down through there. If a big rain comes it pours into
the pasture. It is putting debris and an unusual amount of water because of the way that
the street was designed and the fact that no storm drain was put in that section of the
subdivision. Ijust got back from a trip and my wife had laid this out, I saw it this moming.
So I thought I would go to this in order to be able to say something here. I don't know
how you go about moving a structure like this after the mistake is made but it will be
interesting to see how you deal with it because obviously, it is a little late at the gate, it is
there. You either have to say you have to tear off5' of the structure or just push it through
and say "Ok, it is fine."
Perkins: Generally, it has been my experience when this board reviews cul-de-sacs, are we back
on the cul-de-sac now?; because of the, for the lack of a better word, burden it puts on
lots and so forth we tend to view them very favorably. Now had this been on a straight
street, there was nothing with terrain, it was an oversite by a contractor that has a history
of making oversites such as this then we tend to say "Yeah,just break out the chainsaw
and trim it off there a little bit." We haven't actually said that but it has been
recommended. On the cul-de-sacs, yes, we tend to be favorable in considering it because
of the hardships it does put on the land owner through no fault of their own or action of
their own. On the water problem, Dawn, do you have any recommendations for this
gentleman so he may pursue direct action for that?
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
February 4, 2002
Page 4
Warrick: Mr. Mayo, what is your address?
Mayo: My mailing address is 1937 Hunt Lane.
Warrick: You own the adjoining property to the west is that right?
Mayo: Yes I do I don't want to take up the time on this so I won't go into all the details but one
of the things that happened here is that this particular piece ofproperty and Mr. Lazenby
picked it up, I don't know if it was on the courthouse steps or in an auction, but he took
over and started building. His position was that it had been laid out and that he was just
simply a property owner and building on something that the city had already accepted. It
was a long drawn out affair in order to have this piece ofproperty developed. It is a 10
acre piece and there are almost 30 houses on it. They are quite tight. Yes, this sits next
to the cul-de-sac, however, the property that this particular house is sitting on is not on a
cul-de-sac, the cul-de-sac goes right along beside it. I have gone to the Engineering
Department and said "Look, when it rains it is just incredible, the amount of water that
comes through." I took photographs of it when the water was running through and they
said "Yes, you do have a problem." The net result was "Well, we can't do anything about
it, you don't have enough money." I said "Well, that doesn't seem like the issue here." It
is what was done and the results of what was done and what they are doing to me. I
would like to see a solution to it and I suggested a solution that I thought would solve the
problem. It has been just laying. I would not come down to this meeting and talk about
another piece ofproperty, I want to be on record to voice what I have to say about how
that this subdivision was handled.
Perkins:
Warrick:
Ok, do you have any recommendations to be made?
My first recommendation certainly would have been to contact the Engineering Division
and Mr. Mayo has taken it upon himself to do that. What I can do is follow up. His
recollection of the development of this property is exact. It did take a very long time for
Hunt Club to go from a Preliminary Plat to a Final Plat to actually being built out. In fact,
somewhere in the process of all of that, the original developer passed away. I don't know
what ordinances were in effect at the time that the Preliminary Plat was approved but that
would have been the situation or the ordinances that would have had to have been
followed for the development ofthe subdivision. Ofcourse, the grading and drainage and
storm water ordinances are handled by our Engineering Division. I am not overly familiar
with those requirements but I will certainly get information on this issue to our Public
Works Director and ask him to pursue it.
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
February 4, 2002
Page 5
Perkins: Mr. Mayo, does that give you any ideas?
Mayo: Encouragement, yes it does.
Warrick: I realize it is another step.
Mayo: I don't know what, are you suggesting something for me? I know that you were speaking
with them. Unfortunately, I have turned a little hard of hearing.
Warrick: What I will do is discuss your problems and the issues that you brought up with regard to
drainage and storm water runoff with our Public Works Director. Mr. Boettcher oversees
the Engineering Division. He should be at least made aware of it, if he hasn't been already.
I will be glad to discuss it with him and ask him to contact you with any information that he
has.
Mayo: Thank you.
• Perkins: Mr. Lazenby, we started on your appeal. It has been discussed and recommended by
City staff that it be approved. Do you have any comment or anything to add?
•
Lazenby: Nothing, other than to tell you that we made a mistake on the footprint.
Perkins: Ok, it is dust that northeast corner of the garage that encroaches right?
Lazenby: Right.
Perkins: Is there any further discussion or any questions? Does anyone else present have anything
to say about this?
Andrews: Is this the first violation for Lazenby Construction?
Warrick: It is the first one that we have on record.
Motion:
Green: Mr. Chairman, I move that the variance request be approved with the staff's stipulation
that it only apply to the existing structure and any future additions or alterations shall
comply with the required setbacks for the property.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
February 4, 2002
Page 6
Hanna: I will second.
Perkins: We have a motion and a second, is there any further discussion? Would you call the roll
please?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 02-1.00 was approved by
a vote of 7-0-0.
Perkins: Thank you for your time Mr. Lazenby.
Lazenby: Thank you, have a good day.
Board of Adjustment Minutes
February 4, 2002
Page 7
VAR 02-2.00: Variance (Crocker, pp 448) was submitted by Daniel Dean on behalfofKaren Crocker
for property located at 951 Pembroke Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and
contains approximately 0.80 acres. The requirement is a 25' front setback. The request is for 21' front
setback for a garage overhang (a 4' variance).
Perkins: That brings us to our next appeal. That is VAR 02-2.00 submitted by Daniel Dean on
behalf of Karen Crocker for property located at 951 Pembroke. This is a request for a
21' front setback for a garage overhang which amounts to a 4' variance. Staff, do you
have background on this please?
Warrick: Yes Sir. The Crockers I believe are quite fortunate to own an historic home. It was built
in 1964, this was a home that was designed by Faye Jones and is very indicative of his
residential architectural design. The structure itselfcurrently does not have a garage which
is something that the applicants wish to incorporate into their property. The site is relatively
large. It is located at the corner of Applebury and Pembroke. You can see on pages 2.7
and 2.8, just to give you an indication as to the location. The way that the house sits on
the property and the topography of the property are two inherited constraints that the
property owner is dealing with. This house kind of steps down the hillside and it is very
long, linear and sits basically, squarely side ways in the middle of the lot. In order to
incorporate a garage they have consulted Maurice Jennings and his architecture firm who
have designed a garage, I believe you have drawings in your packet, elevations as well as
a site plan. Their attempt is to maintain the integrity of the structural design and to make
this garage addition that looks like it was not an addition to the home but looks like it was
a part of the original structure. In order to do that they need to incorporate the wide
overhangs that are characteristic of this type of design. In placing it on the property they
were unable to do that without having the overhang of the garage encroaching the front
setback adjacent to Applebury Drive. Due to the constraints on the property, staff is
recommending in favor of this request. The encroachment is shown on the site plan that
they have submitted which is a lose plan towards the back that was incorporated into your
paperwork. It is slightly shaded, I believe it came out to about 40 sq. ft. according to the
applicant and it is on an angle, so it is kind of hard to tell exactly. All of the encroachment
is overhang, it is not part of the wall or structure itself. For those reasons, staff is
recommending in favor of the request. This has not been constructed yet This is a request
before the fact.
Perkins: Mr. Dean, are you present? Sir, do you have anything to add to this?
Dean: No, the Crockers are also here.
Board of Adjustment Minutes
February 4, 2002
Page 8
Crocker: I wanted to introduce Glenn Sowder who is from Jennings the Architectural Review
Committee for the subdivision that came down especially for this We had begun looking
at enclosing the car port and we did talk to Maurice Jennings about this and he did not
recommend that. Partly because he said that the way that we would have to enclose it
would be a problem for us. We went through that process and then he asked that we
could get a survey of the property so we did and we knew from the beginning that there
was a 25' setback. We did get the survey and everything. We feel that we are trying to
do the best we can with the house and we hope that this won't be a problem.
Warrick: This project has been before the neighborhood's Architectural Review Committee.
Perkins: Are there any questions?
Orton: The committee approved it is that right?
Warrick: Yes, I believe that is why Mr. Sowder is here to verify that fact.
Motion:
Orton: I see, I assumed that. I see no problem. I move that we grant the variance for this
recommendation, under the conditions for this particular project.
Perkins: That condition is that the variance shall apply only to the proposed garage addition
overhang and any future alterations or additions to this structure shall comply with the
zoning.
Hanna: I'll second.
Perkins: We have a motion and a second, is there any further discussion? None having been heard,
please call the roll.
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 02-2.00 was approved by
a vote of 7-0-0.
Perkins: Thank you very much for your time.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
February 4, 2002
Page 9
VAR 02-3.00: Variance (Melton, pp 450) was submitted by Ellis Melton for property located at 574
Rock CliffRoad. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.34
acres. The requirement is for an 8' side setback. The request is for a 0' setback (an 8' variance) and to
encroach on a 15' "Pedestrian Pathway" easement by 3' for a free standing garage on the property.
Perkins: The next item of business is VAR 02-3.00 submitted by Ellis Melton for property located
at 574 Rock Cliff Road. This is a request for a 0' setback or an 8' variance and a request
to encroach into a pedestrian pathway by 3'. Staff, do you have background on this one?
Warrick: I do. This is a pretty unique situation. I believe, Mr. Melton, you can correct me if I'm
wrong, but I believe that we are going to drop the request for the encroachment, is that
correct?
Melton: No, I am going to accept the staff recommendation with a smile.
Warrick: Ok. Mr. Melton owns two pieces ofproperty in the Hyland Park Subdivision Phase 6.
Those lots, lot 28 and a part of lot 29 are divided by a dedicated pedestrian pathway.
When Hyland Park was developed, long ago, the developer at the time, in the late 70s,
offered to create pathways and a trail system through Hyland Park in exchange for
constructing sidewalks along the street in accordance with street standards at the time.
Those requests were granted and there were various easements and common areas,
pedestrian pathways, through Hyland Park that were dedicated with the various plats for
the phases of the subdivision as they built out. This particular pedestrian pathway is
between the two pieces ofproperty that Mr. Melton owns. The property owner prior to
Mr. Melton who owned lot 28 and the property owner who owned lot 30 on the other
side, requested a split and each purchased half of lot 29 so that there would not be a house
in between them. That was so that they could have a bit of distance between the
properties. The folks who owned lot 30, there was probably no problem whatsoever, that
gave them more room to build and more room to have. Mr. Melton, and this property
with the pedestrian pathway intervening, his lot line doesn't really move over. We still have
a lot line on the edge of the pedestrian pathway for lot 28 which in this particular case,
because of the topography of the site, which is fairly steep running from street down
towards the back of the lot, leaves little room for changes or additions. In this case, the
proposal is for a two car garage addition with a hobby room. We have that constraint.
After the staff report was drafted, he called me and he said "We've staked the lot and it
looks like we may not encroach the easement as it is dedicated, but, just so you know, the
pathway, as constructed, was built mostly on my property and not in the easement
anyway." The pathway is not in great shape, it is there. There are some railroad ties, there
is some rebar, you can tell that there is a pathway that was in there. I don't believe that
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
February 4, 2002
Page 10
it is highly used. Mr. Melton will probably tell you that nobody uses it ever. I walked it
once just looking at the property so that I was familiar with what we were dealing with.
Obviously, after it was staked it looks like in order to follow the topography down the hill,
whoever constructed the pathway really didn't do it within the easement that was
dedicated. Again, after having the property staked, it looks like Mr. Melton's project will
be able to be built with staff's recommendation as it stands, that a 0' setback be granted
because he does own property on the other side of the pathway and because of the
topography of the lot and that we not consider an encroachment into the easement. Staff
doesn't really have the authority to grant it. The Board of Adjustment really doesn't have
the authority to grant an encroachment into that easement. That is why I made the
recommendation that I did, that we deny the encroachment but grant the variance as it was
requested for a 0' setback from the western lot line of lot 28.
Perkins: Mr. Melton, on that path that is there, there is a piece ofrebar with orange engineering
tape on it, is that where the path should've been located?
Melton: That is the line between the pathway and lot 28. If you have been out there to see it then
you know it is right in the middle.
Perkins: It is sticking that far into the pathway.
Melton: There is a variance. At one point the pathway is 100% on lot 28, up at the top it is about
half on lot 28 and right where I want the garage it is about 3' to 4' on lot 28.
Perkins: If it would have been located as it should've been then this 32' garage wouldn't have had
to alter its size at all then right?
Melton: It turns out that I am not going to have to alter it. I am just going to use, unfortunately,
some of the built walkway which is on lot 28.
Warrick: Yes, it is going to cause the walk way to be narrowed in that location.
Perkins: If the narrowing is ok then they will have to move it over to lot 29?
Warrick: I don't know that it is really possible to do that. The topography and the construction
would be pretty difficult unless the whole pathway were to be reconstructed I think.
Perkins: They would take the ties up and the gravel and then move it over?
Board of Adjustment Minutes
February 4, 2002
Page 11
Melton: There is also a major drainage through there.
Warrick: You're right, there is There is a culvert that kind of dumps down the hill at right about that
point.
Perkins: It is ok to go to the property line which will narrow the pathway down?
Warrick: He owns to the property line so therefore, he does own really that part of the pathway that
was constructed on his land.
Melton: If we ever reinstate those pathways, and I will be first in line to help do that project, it
would be a simple matter of having that on the other side. It is not a ditch yet over there,
we could go around the garage.
Perkins: There were people walking in your neighborhood and nobody was using those paths, they
were all walking down the streets.
Warrick: I've been encouraged lately by the Hyland Park neighborhood, they have kind of rallied,
there is a development that is being proposed in that general area and the neighborhood
is getting together and talking more. There is one home owner in the area who is really
interested in making this a usable path system again or trail system again. I did mention to
Mr. Melton that that may be something that he is contacted about in the future because I
think that this gentleman is serious about it and I think it would benefit the whole
neighborhood.
Kunzelmann: Does this trail system have any linking to the trails in the rest of Fayetteville or is it just in
Hyland Park?
Warrick. I don't believe it does link into the city trail system. However, it is something that could
and probably should, if it is rehabilitated to that point.
Perkins: Is there any further discussion?
Green: I was very confused as to how you could grant the 8' variance and still not encroach into
the pathway. I guess since the pathway is really not there then it is sort ofa moot point
anyway right?
Warrick: We can't encroach the easement that was dedicated on the plat but we can encroach the
built part of the path because it encroaches Mr. Melton's property. I won't recommend
Board of Adjustment Minutes
February 4, 2002
Page 12
encroaching the easement because I don't think that is something that we have the authority
to do but we can give him a 0' setback from that easement line, which is the property line
on lot 28. I think, in this case, staff feels it is appropriate because of the buffer of his
adjoining property.
Melton: I assumed the pathway was not on lot 28 until 1 had it checked out, I wouldn't have even
asked for the 3'.
Warrick: The survey and the staking of it revealed more information after we had already started the
process.
Green: Ok, that clears it up. I was a little confused there.
Perkins: Do we have a motion or any more discussion?
Motion:
Andrews: I will move that we pass the variance with staffrecommendations of an 8' variance to allow
construction of the garage on the western side of the existing family residence and that it
will only apply to that garage.
Green: I will second.
Perkins:
Roll Call:
Perkins:
We have a motion and a second, is there any further discussion? Would you call the roll
please?
Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 02-3.00 was approved by
a vote of 7-0-0.
Thank you for your time Mr. Melton.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
February 4, 2002
Page 13
VAR 02-4.00: Variance (Hanna, pp 484) was submitted by Thad Hanna for property located at 328
W. Maple. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential and contains approximately 0.22 acres.
The request is for a 5' side setback (a 3' variance) on the west due to the height ofthe proposed structure.
Perkins: That brings us to VAR 02400 submitted by Thad Hanna for property located at 328 W.
Maple. This is a request for a 5' side setback or a 3' variance on the west due to the
height of the proposed structure. Staff, do you have background on this appeal please?
Warrick: I do and I believe Mr. Hanna has indicated his recusal on this particular item. This project
is located on Maple Street. It is just north of the University Baptist Church, east of
Vandeventer Avenue. For those of you who know where Mr. Hanna lives, it is directly
south of his current property, current single family home. Access to the property is from
Maple Street. There was previously an active ally in the rear that was vacated a while
back. The applicant is proposing, on this R-3 zoned property, to build one single family
home. The design ofthe home has been worked up. Mr. Hanna consulted a contractor
and they have done some preliminary studies as to where would be best to locate the
house on the site. Because of their desire to not have a garage facing the street, to have
a side entry garage, access from the side and rear of the structure, the location of the
structure itself is placed towards the westem property line. The height of the structure is
proposed to be 23' and that is with a crawl space which is the preferred building process,
construction type that the applicant would like. With the crawl space of course, it brings
it up above the 20' height regulation for the R-3 zoning district which requires that for every
foot in height above 20' you have an additional 1' setback from the side property line. The
applicant is proposing the standard 8' setback and that will work. If the building truly does
meet the 23' that is expected the side setback would need to be 11' to increase to match
that height addition. I think that is the general information on it. This is a multi -family
zoning district and with this size lot higher density of course, would be possible. The single
family home is relatively in keeping with the neighborhood. There is kind ofa mix of uses
in this particular area. There are mostly single family homes on the north side of Maple.
There are a few other things that are kind of mixed in there with it but I think that generally
describes the proposal I believe the applicant is here and can answer any questions you
may have
Perkins: Mr. Hanna, do you have anything to add to this appeal9
Hanna: Dawn covered it very well. I will answer any questions if you have any. We only have
two choices, because ofthe sewer line that comes down Maple Street, we could build it
down lower and have a pump up the sewer, we don't really want to do that. We could
bring in about 30 dump truck loads of red dirt and build it up even to lot 7 and build it on
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
February 4, 2002
Page 14
a concrete pad which would in effect make the structure the same height anyway so your
sewer would run down to the main sewer line on Maple Street or we could build it on a
crawl space which will keep the earth pretty much the way it is right now but we will just
have approximately a 36" crawl space and the height of the structure is about 20' which
would make it 23' from the ground to the eave on the west side. That is our preferred
building method. It is a single family home, narrow lot with a side entry access on the east
side in the back. The front of the house is very much in keeping with the historical
neighborhood.
Perkins: Thank you very much. Are there any further questions of the appellate on this project?
Motion:
Green: Mr. Chairman, I move that VAR 02-4.00 be approved with the stipulation made by staff
that the maximum height ofthe proposed structure shall not exceed 23' as proposed by the
applicant.
Kunzelmann: I'll second.
Perkins: We have a motion and a second, is there any further discussion? Would you call the roll
please?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 02-4.00 was approved by
a vote of 6-0-1, with Mr. Hanna abstaining.
Perkins: Good luck with your project Mr. Hanna. In the way of old business do you have any
update on the lawsuit?
Whitaker: We have filed a response and an appearance in the case. We have yet to see any requests
for discovery from the plaintif lappellant. Just a note on something that came up peripheral
to that whole thing. Before filing, Mr. Scarbrough had sent a letter around requesting
reconsideration. I have done some research and the body of the law appears to say unless
you are reconvening to make clerical corrections on a decision, it would be improper to
reconvene and reconsider once a final vote had been made on a request. You also would
fall in the same basic category as the Planning Commission does if you had a substantial
change of conditions; if a reapplication was made under substantially different
circumstances. That was not the case with Mr. Scarbrough. We would now, if such a
thing were to arise again, be ofthe opinion that you do not have the jurisdiction to reopen
a variance once you have denied a request.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
February 4, 2002
Page 15
Perkins: That is true on the Board of Adjustment, but on Sign Appeal it is rather silent on that.
Whitaker: For the limited purpose of the Board of Adjustments on bulk and area variances.
Perkins: Once decided that is pretty well it.
Whitaker: You may reopen to correct clerical mistakes on the record. Ifa materially incorrect fact
were submitted and it was discovered after the fact, it could be reopened to review it in
light of changed facts. There is no reopening it just to reopen it and reconsider. Once you
voted, that is it, that is a final administrative determination and Mr. Scarbrough or anyone
else aggrieved, then finds his remedy in court. I will let you know as we know more.
These things tend to take a while as you know.
Andrews: In layman's terms, he did file suit?
Whitaker: Yes, he has filed.
Andrews: You have not gotten requests for discovery, that means what?
Whitaker: Suit has been joined, he filed his Notice of Appeal which is proper. Basically, what
happens is it is treated procedurally in Arkansas, the same way an appeal for Municipal
or District Court would be. It is a de novo hearing which means that the Judge will sit as
a one person Board of Adjustment basically. We entered our appearance and basically
responded to a second count which was a Petition For A Declaratory Judgment. That was
basically declaring certain definitions not to have applied to his building. Again, the facts
haven't been argued. We have had the preliminary pleadings exchanged, we have not
entered discovery at this point. He filed and we answered, that is where we are right now.
Andrews: Thanks.
Perkins: Is there any further business to discuss?
Warrick: I do have one item. It is just an informational item for you to keep in mind and mark on
your calendar if you are interested. The Arkansas chapter of the American Planning
Association in conjunction with Arkansas Public Administration Consortium has compiled
or is in the process of compiling a training program for Board of Adjustment members
Our debut of this program will be in Hot Springs April 5th. It is the first Friday in April of
this year. I will certainly get you more information on that for anyone who is interested in
attending I would encourage you to do so. The program for Planning Commissioners is
Board of Adjustment Minutes
February 4, 2002
Page 16
something that we have put together and have been presenting for a couple of years now.
It seems to be very beneficial. People seem to respond very positively to it. It would also
give everyone an opportunity to meet other members of Boards of Adjustment throughout
the state and just kind of commiserate and discuss issues that you may have or have come
up against. That is something that I will provide more information on just as soon as I have
it.
Olszewski: Dawn, will they be offering that any other time?
Warrick: Not this calendar year. There will be a new schedule starting, I said this calendar year, that
is incorrect, their year goes from October to October. There will be a new schedule
starting in October and there will be an offering of that course, at least somewhere through
out the state, in the year 2003. We try to offer both of those courses at least once, it is
centrally located usually throughout the October to October year. That is their fiscal year.
Orton: It is not likely to be in Fayetteville then?
Warrick: It hasn't been decided. We try to move them around to some degree. Ifwe only offer one
course it is not likely to be in the Fayetteville area Ifwe can offer two or three then we
will scatter them throughout the state a little bit more. 1 do know for a fact that this one is
in April in Hot Springs and that is about all I know right now.
Perkins: Is there any further discussion? If not, we stand adjourned.
•
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ITEMS -2002
FEBRUARY 4, 2002
VAR 02-1.00: Variance (Lazenby, pp 609)
VAR 02-2.00 Variance (Crocker, pp 448)
VAR 02-3.00: Variance (Melton, pp 450)
VAR 02-4.00: Variance (Hanna, pp 484)
MARCH 4, 2002
VAR 02-5.00: Variance (Alpha Delta Pi, pp 444)
VAR 02-6.00: Variance (Renegar, pp 447)
VAR 02-7.00: Variance
(Washington County Sales Co. Inc , pp 562)
APRIL 1, 2002
VAR 02-8.00: Variance (Wilson, pp 444)
VAR 02-9.00: Variance (Barber, pp 254)
VAR 02-10.00: Variance (Lloyd, pp 484)
SNA 02-1.00: Sign Appeal (WRMS Medical Park, pp 250)
MAY 6, 2002
VAR 02-11.00: Variance (Crider, pp 485)
VAR 02-2.00: Variance (LaGrone, pp 99)
JUNE 3, 2002
VAR 02-13.00: Variance (Archer, pp 481)
VAR 02-14.00: Variance (Zimmerman, pp 447)
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
JULY 1, 2002
VAR 02-15.00: Variance (Merry -Ship, pp 447)
VAR 02-17.00. Variance (Scholzen, pp 445)
AUGUST 5, 2002
VAR 02-18.00: Variance (Keating, pp 290)
VAR 02-19.00: Variance (Smith, pp 446)
VAR 02-20.00: Variance (Millennium LLC, pp 177)
VAR 02-21.00: Variance (Morris, pp 446)
VAR 02-22.00: Variance (Jones, pp 447)
September 3, 2002
. VAR 02-23.00: Variance (Blackwell, pp 445)
VAR 02-24.00. Variance (Nickle, pp 440)
ADM 02-31.00: Administrative Item
(Appeal of City Planner's Interpretation)
October 7, 2002
VAR 02-25.00: Variance (Hartsfield, pp 610)
November 4, 2002
VAR 02-27.00 (1014): Variance (Pendleton, pp 486)
VAR 02-28.00 (1035): Variance (Kohler, pp 443)
VAR 02-29.00 (1036): Variance (Norbash, pp 291)
VAR 02-30.00 (1037): Variance (Charlton, pp 484)
VAR 02-31.00 (1038): Variance (Allen, pp 484)
December 2, 2002
VAR 02-29.00 (1036): Variance (Norbash, pp 291)
Approved
Tabled
Approved
Approved
Approved
Tabled
Approved
Approved
Approved
Denied
Partial Approval
Approved
Approved
Tabled
Approved
Approved
Approved