HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-04 Minutes (2)MINUTES 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)
Page 2
VAR 02-2.00 Variance (Crocker, pp 448)
Page 7
VAR 02-3.00: Variance (Melton, pp 450)
Page 9
VAR 02-4.00: Variance (Hanna, pp 484)
Page 13
MEMBERS PRESENT
ABSENT
Larry Perkins
Marion Orton
James Kunzelmann
Michael Andrews
Thad Hanna
Michael Green
Joanne Olszewski
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
MEMBERS
STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT
Dawn Warrick
Tim Conklin
David Whitaker
Renee Thomas
ROLL CALL• Upon the completion of roll call, all seven board members were
present.
Approval of Minutes
Perkins: Good afternoon 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 of the 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 25' 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 of the 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 of
a 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 turns 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 of the 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 of the house change any from the time it was
applied for to the time it was constructed?
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 of property 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. I just got back from a trip and my wife had laid this out, I
saw it this morning. So I thought I would go to this in order to be able to
say something here. I dont 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 off 5' of the structure or just push it
through and say AOk, 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 AYeah, just break out the
chainsaw and trim it off there a little bit.@ We haven=t actually said that
Warrick:
Mayo:
Warrick:
Mayo:
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?
Mr. Mayo, what is your address?
My mailing address is 1937 Hunt Lane.
You own the adjoining property to the west is that right?
Yes I do. I dont 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 of property and Mr. Lazenby picked it up, I dont 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
of property 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 ALook, 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 AYes, you do have a problem.@ The
net result was AWell, we can=t do anything about it, you don=t have
enough money.@ I said AWell, 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 of property, I
want to be on record to voice what I have to say about how that this
subdivision was handled.
Perkins: Ok, do you have any recommendations to be made?
Warrick: 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 of the subdivision. Of course, 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.
Perkins: Mr. Mayo, does that give you any ideas?
Mayo: Encouragement, yes it does.
Warrick: I realize it is another step.
Mayo: I dont 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 just 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
Hanna:
the property.
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.
VAR 02-2.00: Variance (Crocker, pp 448) was submitted by Daniel Dean on behalf of
Karen 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 itself currently 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.
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=11 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.
VAR 02-3.00: Variance (Melton, pp 450) was submitted by Ellis Melton for property
located at 574 Rock Cliff Road. 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' APedestrian
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 1=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 of property 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 of
property 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 AWe=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 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 of rebar 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 dont 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?
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 of a 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 encroaching the easement because I dont
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 I 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 staff recommendations 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: 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 02-3.00 was
approved by a vote of 7-0-0.
Perkins: Thank you for your time Mr. Melton.
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 of the proposed structure.
Perkins: That brings us to VAR 02-4.00 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 of the 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 western 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 of a 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 appeal?
Hanna:
Dawn covered it very well. I will answer any questions if you
have any. We only have two choices, because of the 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 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 cave 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 of the proposed
structure shall not exceed 23' as proposed by the applicant.
Kunzelmann: I=11 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 plaintiff/appellant. 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 of the opinion that you do not have the jurisdiction
to reopen a variance once you have denied a request.
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. If a 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:
Whitaker:
Andrews:
Whitaker:
Andrews:
Perkins:
Warrick:
Olszewski:
Warrick:
In layman=s terms, he did file suit?
Yes, he has filed.
You have not gotten requests for discovery, that means what?
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.
Thanks.
Is there any further business to discuss?
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 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.
Dawn, will they be offering that any other time?
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. If
we only offer one course it is not likely to be in the Fayetteville area. If
we can offer two or three then we will scatter them throughout the state a
little bit more. I 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.