Loading...
1998-09-08 - Agendas - Final-Fe q`t,3 Board of Adjustment September 8, 1998 Page -3- BA 98-26.00: Appeal (Sunset Drive) 817 Sunset Drive This item was submitted by Susan Raley for property located a '817 Sunsiuns :et:_D_rivjD The property is zoned R-i, Low Density Residential. The request is to appeal the Planning Director's decision of Violation #C98-26 regarding the non -conforming use status of the duplex at 817 Sunset Drive. Susan Raley and Steve Parker, attorney for Ms. Raley, appeared before the board. STAFF'S COMMENTS: Little: The building at 817 Sunset Drive is a legal but non -conforming use. The house contains two separate dwelling units, thereby constituting its use as a duplex. Since one of the kitchens was never removed, the structure maintains its use as a duplex. Boyd: How many water bills come to the address? Conklin: There is one water bill. Hanna: Are there tw6 gas meters? • Conklin: Yes, there are two separate gas meters. Little: When examining whether or not a house is a single family structure or a duplex, the planning department looks for separate cooking facilities --an additional kitchen, but when the inspections department sees separate meters, they generally notify the planning department to examine the structure's potential duplex use. Perkins: Is there an issue of the number of occupants? Little: City ordinance requires one parking space per bedroom, and this structure meets that requirement. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Raley: According to her interpretation of zoning code ordinance § 160.139 E, since this house has been a single family dwelling for ten years, it has lost its nonconforming use status. (Note: § 160.139 E states: "When a nonconforming use of a structure, or structure and premises in combination, is discontinued or abandoned for six consecutive months or for 18 months during any three-year period (except where government action impedes access to the premises), the structure or structure and premises in combination, shall not thereafter be used except in conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is located;") Parker: He has done some research, and § 160.135 (Intent and Nonconforming lots of record] has been superseded by § 164.07 in the new Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Little: The UDO was simply a restructured version of the Code of Ordinances, the information in them is the same. • Board of Adjusnnent September 8, 1998 Page -5- Ranai Trulley addressed the board. Trulley: A complaint was made last fall which was never followed up on_ The property was sold quickly the last two times it was put on the market; there was never even a sign in the yard advertising the property. When she bought her house, the property in question was being used as a single family dwelling, so she had no idea that a duplex would be an issue. The college renters have disturbed and upset the neighborhood. Little: The Planning Department did respond to the complaint, made in the fall of 1997. Nickle: He asked the planning staff hypothetically if Mr. Schwartzman had come to the planning office before purchasing his property and asked about the nature of its use as a duplex what staff s recommendation would have been. Little: Mr. Schwartzman would have been advised that his property was a legal but nonconforming use. He would be entitled to seek a conditional use from the Planning Commission for extra security, but that step would merely be a precaution, not a y necessity. Parker: His interpretation of the UDO is that since the property was not used as a duplex, it loses its nonconforming use status. isLittle: Mr. Parker is confusing his terms of "use" and 'occupancy". The definition of a two family dwelling (duplex) is "A detached residential building containing two dwelling units, designed for occupancy by not more than two families.". A dwelling unit is defined by "...containing independent cooking and sleeping facilities." The house at 817 Sunset has two kitchens. Since the second kitchen was not removed during the ten year period in question, it remains a duplex and retains its nonconforming use status. Eugene J. Holmes addressed the board. Holmes: He has lived next door to the property at 817 Sunset for many years. One of the previous owners was a good friend of his. He has seen the house suffer greatly as a rental property in his opinion. John Watkins addressed the board. Watkins: He lives at 935 Sunset. He agrees with Mr. Parker's interpretation of discontinued use. The building was not used as a duplex for ten years. The city's records say that the property at 817 Sunset has been a duplex since 1966. His research indicates that in 1961, the second zoning ordinance for the city of Fayetteville was passed zoning the area in question R=1, Low Density Residential, which would eliminate the duplex's existence. Prior to that, the first zoning ordinance was passed in 1952, which distinguished between a residential zone and a 2-family or duplex zone. It falls to the property owners to prove nonconforming use, which he doesn't believe they have done. He doesn't feel that this structure should be "grandfathered" into the R-I zone since the property owners cannot prove that it was a duplex prior to 1966. He is the vice president of the Sunset Woods property owners association, and they have amended their covenants to exclude any multi -family dwellings, anticipating problems like these. l 171 Board of Adjustmeru September 8, 1998 Page -7- inclusive. He mentioned the covenants only as an example that their neighborhood will not tolerate a similar situation and has taken steps to prevent that occurrence. Nickle: He has sympathy for both sides, but the neighbors seem to have a baseline issue with the house being rental property. The neighbors need to understand that if noisy and unruly renters are their concern, turning the home into a single family dwelling will intensify that problem. The potential that three "college kids" could move in together is highly likely, and that scenario would create more problems for the neighborhood than the duplex use. He sees that the real estate listing showed the house to be a duplex, and the planning staff has stated that if Mr. Schwartzman had asked about the nature of.the house before purchasing it, the staff would have supported duplex use. Boyd: The arbitrary nature of the renters is unfortunate, but that is reality in any rental situation. Orton: In her estimation. the definition of a duplex is separate utility meters. She has encountered several houses with separate kitchen facilities that she wouldn't consider duplexes. She thinks that a "duplex" should be more narrowly defined. Conklin: The definitions are clear and specific. Hanna: During the tell year period of single family use, was there ever a door connecting the two halves of the structure? Conklin: There is no evidence that there is now or ever has been internal access. Eddie Bradford addressed the board. Bradford: The house was never designated as a duplex. Watkins: The duplex was not a valid use before zoning was adopted. Parker: The burden of proof for "use" falls to the property owner. In his opinion, the property owners have proven nothing., Andrews: This duplex is a valid nonconforming use. Boyd: The Board of Adjusunent is not the legal end for these sorts of decisions. They are not attorneys, merely board members. Perkins: The*zoning code they have available for review dates back to 1970. Watkins: There is no evidence of when the second kitchen was constructed. He wants the issue tabled until the next meeting to give the board time to review the issue with the City Attorney. Little: The planning department uses the zoning code daily and makes decisions accordingly. The ordinances are black and white, and there is no need to review them with an attorney who will more than likely not take definitive action anyway. Perkins: What is Mr. Schwartzman's assessment of the possibility of tabling this item? Board of Adjusnnent September 8, 1998 Page -9- and the Planning Director has no idea about regulations before 1970. He wants the issue reviewed by another attorney before a decision is made. Wilhelms: This board is not made up of attorneys, nor do they have the need to be legal experts. Perkins: The item can follow the normal course of legal action from here. If the board votes to deny the appeal, the petitioners can appeal through the court system. Mr. Boyd moved to uphold the Planning Director's decision that the house at S17 Sunset Drive retrain a legal but nonconforming use as a duplex. Mr. Wilhelms seconded said motion. The motion was approved with a vote of 7-0-0. kIf IN THE CIR CiJ1T COURT OF WASHINQTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS LAINTIFF SUSAN RALEY No. CN 98- ---) T-rpV T .LE ARKANSAS THE FAYET� LN E BOARD bF ADSZ'�ENT DEFENDANTS T,aEAnd Ira & Sharon Schwartzman �s � rn Y'►'1 c C-c�u�. to co Q xC/) �- cn c> j r� N eals from a decision of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment Plaintiff hereby a PP tr' the clerk of this Court a rendered September 8th, 1998, and have tim ely filed wi roceedings before the Board, or an affidavit relating to same, as record of the P provided by Ark. Code Ann. Sec. 14-56-�425 and Rule 9 of the Inferior Court Rules. In support of their appeal, plaintiffs allege the following: Venue and jurisdiction in this Court are proper under Ark, Code Ann. l . Ven 3 . Sec. 14-56-425. residing at 2. Plaintiff Susan Raley is a citizen of Fayetteville, Arkansas, 826 Sunset Drive . She filed the original complaint that lies at the heart of this action. t City of Fayetteville is a municipal corporation organic-ed 3. Defendan ty " under the laws Of the State of Arkansas; Defendant Fayetteville Board of 1 Adjustment is an instrumentality of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, created pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. Sec. 14-56-416(b). 4. Defendants Ira & Sharon Schwartzman are citizens of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and are owners of a house located at 817 Sunset Drive, across the street �l from plaintiff 00 C- of Fa etteville zoned 5. Sunset Drive is located w ttan an area of the uty y f - for low density, single-family dwellings. Duplexes are permissible in?No � R 1 � e only as a conditional use upon approval by the Planning Commissich zone y � 10 approval has been sought for the house at 817 Sunset Drive. 6. On or about June 23, 1996, plaintiff Susan Raley made a complaint with the Planning Department of the City of Fayetteville concerning use of the house at 817 Sunset Drive as a duplex. In response to this complaint, City Planner Alett Little determined that use of the house as a duplex is a lawful nonconforazing use �y✓ under the Fayetteville zoning ordinance. 7. Plaintiff Raley appealed Nis. Little's decision to the Board of 1r- -- s sAe' Raley, along with several other homeowners from the Sunset Adjustment. Plaintiff k before the Board on September 8, 1998. Drive area, were in attendance at a hearing At the conclusion of that hearing, the Board voted to affirm Ms. Littie's decision. 91 Use of the house at 817 Sunset Drive as a duplex is not a la E nonconforming use. By ordinance, a nonconforming use may continue, even though or restricted under existing law, only if it was "lawful before it would be prohibited this chapter was passed or amended." Fayetteville Code § 160.I35 (A). Because the Sunset Drive. area was limited to single-family residences prior to adoption of the 1 t zoning ordinance in 1970, use of the house as a duplex was not lawful current z g 9 before enactment of the present ordinance and is not a lawful non�cozorming use pursuant to that ordinance.t 3 �4L�s �, ,,,, -� �► S 1 � g Even if the house at 817 Sunset Drive was once a lawful nonconforming tiv d t s�dence use, it lost that status when it was d for ten ears as , A r `; ^ . f {' CV-,,ae., r..�.��;;..1��-�— 'C'�'1�(r"G`rt `�.t.,..k-t.?,..— ��lc.- a...z�-r €�.r+-�`-«-L v�.n.►s.-.. c�..6-L- lt„/r"'.•'�'" use of a structure rs "discontinued or abandoned for six When a nonconforming �- �' consecutive months or for 18 months during any three-year period,,, the structure r used except in conformity with the regulations of the district (� shall not thereafter be in which it is located. !-Fayetteville Code Sec.160.139(B �. Ruth Anne Grisso owned and occupied the house from August, 1987 to July 31, 1997, and did not VAAk during that period rent the second unit. WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Court it�..4u-- t.,.��..__s �► ,,,� " •1on this matter; . Take jurisdiction of and convene a hearing �J, 2. Reverse the decision of the Fayetteville Board of Adjusimen � �?� ��C � aa� (4 V\ {�ii1p r declare that use of the house at 817 Sunset Drive as a duplex is unlawful and illeglS r a rq66 .,c-c'�-GLr-�...c.�-� ..-." rc:�w.-e_• G� .vim AP C ,: Imo-) �,,rC-c'' •1f�YLL.f2-!��" ,-�,c�.Z.a..0 .s.. ... t..P,x4; i-�G�''« `•" ` _ _ �'1" F: 7:l.:rl•}c,.1V '�`_ V Lr-`-' �! ,�-" WL✓ti`z.• �r 1� • Y+Mrwr'.. 3. Issue such orders, binding on the various defendants, so that the subject residence at 817 Sunset Drive is hereafter used only as a single-family residence; and 4. _ Grant plaintiffs their costs, legal fees and any other relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, Susan Raley, Plaintiff Steve Parker Attorney for Plaintiff 70 N. College Avenue, Suite 12 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Bar 995-023 (501) 521-8899. FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Mayor's Office FROM: Alett Little, City Planner DATE: September 10, 1998 SUBJECT: FOIA Request from John Watkins 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: 501-575-8264 Fax:501-575-8316 Attached is an FOIA request from John Watkins regarding BA 98-26, a case heard before the Board of Adjustments on Tuesday, September 8, 1998, The FOIA request asks for three items: 1. The audio recording of the meeting. The tape is being used to prepare minutes of the meeting and is available in the City Clerk's office. 2. Materials distributed to the Board of Adjustment members, The staff report is included in the project file. 3. All records on BA 98-26. The project file is attached. Please notify Mr. Watkins that these materials are available for inspection and copying. JOHN J. WATKINS ATTORNEY AT LAW 935 SUNSET DRIVE FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72701 (501)521-5675 September 9, 1998 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Alett Little Planning Director City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 Dear Ms. Little: Pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 25-19-101 et seq., I ask to inspect and copy the following public records; 1. The audio reco-rding of the Board of Adjustment meeting held on Tuesday, September 8, 1998. 2. All materials provided to members of the Board of Adjustment relating to BA 98-26, i.e., the duplex at 817 Sunset Drive. 3. All records of the city planning department, including but not limited to notes, correspondence, and photographs, relating to BA 98-26, i.e., the duplex at 817 Sunset Drive. Please advise me of the date and time, within three working days of this request, that these records will be available for inspection and copying. See Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(e). Sincerely you{rss, John J. Watkins cc: Jerry Rose, Esq., City Attorney 0 40 FAYETTEVIULjjr�j 1kiE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLB, A1tKA.NSAS 113 W. Mountain St.Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: 501-575-8264 Fax: 501-575-8316 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE October 7, 1998 TO WHOM 1T MAY CONCERN: The attached is a true and correct copy of the materials on file for BA98-26.00, 817 Sunset .Drive, Fayetteville, AR. ett Little City Planner aC'KNOWLE1) ME�NT STATE OF ARY ANSAS )SS COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) Now on this 7th day of October, 1998, came before me, the undersigned Notary Public within and for the aforesaid County and State, Alett Little, known to me to be the Planning municipal corporation, and stated that she had Director for the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, a therein mentioned and set executed the foregoing instrument for the consideration and purposes forth. Witness my hand and seal this 7th day of October, 1998. `\ ��,+mot. M.• � f� tf �'Pires: My_Com ° R V .t ; 0 0 Case'No, BA98-26'00 FAYETTEVILLE 113 W Mountain St. Telephone: 501-575-8265 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Fax: 501-575-$316 PLANNING DIVIS! CORRESPaNDENCE Fayetteville, AR 72701 Fayetteville Board of Adjustment FROM. Alett Little, City Planner FROM: September 8, 1999 PATE: Susan Raley for property located at qq3) was submitted by request is to appeal BA 98-26- Appeal {Sunset Drive pp zoned R-1, Low. Density Residential. The use status regarding the non -conforming 817 Sunset Drive. Theproperty erIs interpretation of Violation ##C98-26 the City Plane ' of the duplex at 817 Sunset Drive - BACKGROUND Raley asked if the structure at 8 that Sunset structure ilwas considered a d as a On June 22, 1998, Mrs- Susan dated jiine 23, 1998 tha )mpTaint form revious owner stating that duplex. She stated in thcc and would provide a statement from the p duplex for the last ten years it was not used as a duplex. Staff has not received this statement as of this ate• units. The ' address. The Planning Division did The site is developed with a structure, constructed in 19505 that contains two dwelling city has no building permit records for this scan ct SWEPC(�) and found that two electric meters y tember 2, 1998 and check with Southwest Electric Power Company meters, two front doors, a paved his address on March 15, 1966. Staff did visit the site on SeP were tested at t separate, independent two ga did note that the structure did have two electric meters, Internal doors between the two area that can accommodate more thanfuthaut an y two sep parking separated cooking and sleeping facilities physically areas. oom The house was listed to the real estate multi -list book in June ofri a doorway toohave ra four - plus a one bedroom apartment with kitchen and bath, could ape bedroom home- Great mother-in-law setup.' ter to permit these t not to encourag Under § 160.135 Intent, the ordinance states e their survival." "it is , but intent of this chapter nonconformities to continue until they are movedly dwelling Bets and has appeared to meet the defintiaof a he structurtwo-fe has never been This structure currently m Furthermore, it appears therefore; it is my interpretation that the use of the since 1966 {Please see attached definitions). resent, by renovated into a single family home and, units have been p le family structure as a duplex was never discontinued• ur two dwelling d converting utilities to stru since 1966 and the structure has never been kitchen aan into a sing recorded documents, sinuse. 1t is unit by removing the interior wall, removing the ex but nonconforming dwelling that the structure is a legal that the presence of a second a single service, it is my judgment does not determine use, presence further my judgment that occupancy utility meters establish use. The p kitchen, no access between the land o units and separate of a duplex establishes 11 § 160.139 Nonconforming uses of structures or of structures and premises in combination. if lawful use involving individual structures with a replacement cost of $1.000.00 or more, or of structure and premises in combination, exists at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this chapter, that would not be allowed in the district under the terms of this chapter, the lawful use may be continued as long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions: (A) No existing structure devoted to a use not permitted by this chapter in the district in which it is located shall be enlarged, extended, constructed, reconstructed, moved or structurally altered except in changing the use of the structure to a use permitted in the district in which it is located or as required by other ordinances; (B) Any nonconforming use may be extended throughout any parts of building which were manifestly arranged or designed for such use at the time of adoption or amendment of this chapter, but no such use shall be extended to occupy any land outside such building. (C) If no structural alterations are made, any nonconforming use of a structure, or structure and premises, may as a conditional use be changed to another nonconforming use provided that the planning commission, either by general rule or by making findings in the specific case, shall find that the proposed use is equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than the existing nonconforming use. In permitting such change, the planning commission may require appropriate conditions and safeguards in accord with the provisions of this chapter. (D) Any structure, or structure and land in combination, in or on which a nonconforming use is superseded by a permitted use, shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the district, and the nonconforming use may not thereafter be resumed; (E) When a nonconforming use of a structure, or structure and premises in combination, is discontinued or abandoned for six consecutive months or for 18 months during any three -Year period (except where government action impedes access to the premises), the structure or structure and premises in combination, shall not thereafter be used except in conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is located; (F) Where nonconforming use status applies to a structure and premises in combination, removal or destruction of the structure shall eliminate the nonconforming status of the land. Destruction for the purpose of this division is defined as damage to an extent of more than 50% (or other figure) of the replacement cost at time of destruction; I What is the definition of family? Family. One or more persons occupying a single dwelling unit, provided that unless all members are related by blood or marriage, no such family shall contain over three persons, but further provided that domestic servants employed on the premises may be housed on the premises without being counted as a family or families. What is the definition of a dwelling unit? Dwelling unit. One room or rooms connected together, constituting a separate, independent housekeeping establishment for owner occupancy, or rental or lease on a weekly, monthly, or longer basis, and physically separated from any other rooms or dwelling units which may be in the same structure, and containing independent cooking and sleeping facilities. What is the definition of a single family dwelling? Dwelling, single-family, A detached residential dwelling unit other than a mobile home, designed for and occupied by one family only. What is the definition of a two family dwelling? Dwelling, two-family. A detached residential building containing two dwelling units, designed for occupancy by not more than two families. ,A98.00-26.00 *Sunset Drive - C 9 ow 5o N 100 0 100 Feet a NO ■ ■❑ F1 i Board of Adjustment September 8, 1998 Page -3- BA 98 26 00 Appeai (Sunset Drive 817 Sunset Drive ve. The roperty is This item was submitted by Susan Raley for prof Plana ng pirec$tor's decision 17 Sunset Ulof Violation #C98-26orega ding the Density Residential. The request is pp eal non -conforming use status of the duplex at 817 Sunset Drive. Susan Raley and Steve Parker, attorney for Ms. Raley, appeared before the board. STAFFS COMMENTS: Little: The building at 817 Sunset Drive is a legal but non -conforming use. The house contains . two separate dwelling units, thereby constituting its use as a duplex. Since one of the kitchens was never removed, the structure maintains its use as a duplex. Boyd: How many water bills come to the address? Conklin: There is one water bill. Hanna: Are there two gas meters? Conklin: Yes, there are two separate gas meters. Little: When examining whether or not a house is a single family structure or a duplex, the planning department looks for separate cooking facilities--an ddi ti tion l kitchen,but when the inspections department sees separate meters, they generally department to examine the structure's potential duplex use. Perkins: is there an issue of the number of occupants? Little: City ordinance requires one parking space per bedroom, and this structure meets that requirement. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Raley: According to her interpretation of zoning code ordinance § 160.139 E, since this house has been a single family dwelling for ten years, it has lost its nonconforming use status. ing use of a structure, or structure {Note: § 160. ombstates: "When a nonconform premises to ation, isdiscontinued or abandoned for six consecutive months ord for 1$ months during any three-year period {except where government action impe es access to the premises}, the structure or structure and premises in combination, shall not thereafter be used except in conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is located;") Parker: He has done some research, and §ow Un 1"sed[Intent Development Ord nancelots {UDO}record] has been superseded by § 164.07 in the n Little: The UDO was simply a restructured version of the Code of Ordinances, the information in them is the same. Board of Adjustment September 8, 1998 Page -4- Conklin: He has reviewed the information in both code books, and the information is the same. § 164.07 cites the ordinance on nonconforming uses and structures. He has a letter from Ruth Ann Grisso, a former property owner, and it states that there was a ten-year period Parker: of non -exercise of use since the building was used as a single family dwelling. He cited the precedent of Anderson vs. The City of Paragould. He wanted to know whether the property at 817 Sunset is classified as a conditional use or a nonconforming use. In the UDO, the structure could lose nonconforming use status if it has been "structurally altered". He has pictures of dryvrall work that has been done to that property. In § 160.04, the house would be permitted as a conditional use under Unit 8, and he wants to know if a conditional use has been granted. Little: There has been no conditional use granted for that property, The Planning Commission decides conditional use, not the.Board of Adjustment, so there is no point in discussing conditional use before this board. The structure is classified as a legal but nonconforming use. Wilhelms: The real estate ad that was used to sell the house indicates that the house was marketed as a two bedroom home plus a one bedroom apartment with kitchen and bath that could be opened up to create a four bedroom home. Regardless of its use as a single family dwelling, the house was sold as a duplex. Little: She wanted to clarify Mr. Parker's citation of § 160.138 on page 151 of the Code of Ordinances regarding nonconforming structures. Under § 160.139, Nonconforming uses of structures or of structures and premises in combination, the structure at 817 Sunset Drive retains its lawful use status. Wilhelms: What about the condition of the repairs that Mr. Parker mentioned? Has the structure been changed or altered in any way. Conklin: There is no evidence that there has ever been a doorway between the two halves of the building. There is currently no internal access between the units and both sides are rented. The drywall work is aesthetic in nature and not a structural alteration. Ira and Sharon Schwartzman addressed the board. Mr. Schwartzman: They bought the property at 817 Sunset from Dr. and Mrs. Pesnell who rented out both sides during the time they owned the property. The house was listed by Century 21 as a duplex, and he and his wife bought the house for use as an income property. If they were to rent the house as a single family dwelling, the residents would be noisier than the ones that are there now. The current renters are quiet, well-mannered people who make excellent neighbors, and he isn't sure what the problem is. Had it not been for the city's notice of public hearing, he and his wife wouldn't have known there was a problem at all. Mrs. Schwartzman: They bought this house as a duplex, they haven't altered the building in any way, and their intent is to preserve the neighborhood, not to disturb it. Nickle: He questions the timing of this complaint. Why didn't the neighbors come forward with their concerns during the time that this house was sold twice instead of letting Mr. Schwartzman enter into this situation unaware of any problem. l C� Board of Adjustment September 8, 1998 page -5- ro erty was sold Ranai Truitey addressed the board. on. The p p n in the yard A comp put on the market; there was never even estion was being saint was made last fall which was never followed up Trultey: q the last two times Wh n he bought her house, the property in q quickly lex would be an issue. The advertising the property. so she had no idea that a up used as a single family dwelling, set the neighborhood. college renters have disturbed and up laint, made in the fall of 1997- The Planning Department did respond to the comp planning Little: staff hypothetically if Mr. Schwartzman had came to the He asked the planning and asked about the nature Of its use as a duplex N fickle: Office before purchasing his property what staff's recommendation would have been. property was a legal but Mr. Schwartzman would have been advised that his c p be a precaution, not a Little: nonconforming use. He would be entitled to seek conditional use from the planning Commission for extra security, but that step would necessity. was not used as a duplex, it lases His interpretation of the UDO is that since the property Parker; its nonconforming use status. `use" and "occupancy". The definition of a two his terms of ` containing two dwelling Mr. Parker is confusing is -A detached residential budding dwelling unit is defined Little: family dwelling (duplex) units, designed far or by not more than two families.',. The house at 817 Sunset by ...containing independent cooking and sleeping facilities. the ten year period to and retains its nonconforming use status. has two kitchens. Since the econd kitchen was not removed during question, it remains a duplex ro ert at $17 Sunset for many years. One Of the previous Eugene J. Holmes addressed the board- earl as a rental property He has lived next door to the p p Y Holmes: Owners was a good friend of his. He has seen the house suffer greatly in his opinion. agrees with Mr. Parker's interpretation of discontinued use. Jahn Watkins addressed the board• 's records say that the He lives at 935 Sunset. He agr ears, The city Watkins: The building was not used as a duplex for ten y the area in if o since 1966• His research indicates that in 19 of payetteville was passed zoning property at $17 Sunset has been a duplex duplex, existence• the second zoning ordinance far the city distinguished between Residential, which would eliminate the dup ordinance was passed in 1952, which rove question R-1, Low Density ro erty owners to p prior to that, the first zoning 2-fa or duplex zone. It falls to the property a residential zone anwh chheldoesn't believe they have done. p doesn't feel that this use, property owners cannot nonconforming resident of the Sunset Woods structure should be "grandfathered" into the R-1 zone since the p p prove that it was a duplex prior to 1966. He is the vice p owners association, and they have amended their covenants to exclude any property anticipating problems like these. multi -family dwellings, Board of Adjustment September 8, 1998 Page -6- Little: This house has been a duplex for at least 32 years. Does Mr. Watkins consider "use" the same as "occupancy"? The second kitchen defines the structure as a duplex regardless of occupancy. Charles Scharlaa addressed the board. Scharlaa: He lives in a planned unit development in a house that has two kitchens and two front doors but isn't a duplex in his opinion. He is using it as a single family dwelling. Little: The UDO defines a dwelling unit as "One room or rooms connected together, constituting a separate, independent housekeeping establishment for owner occupancy, or rental or lease on a weekly, monthly or longer basis, and physically separated from any other rooms or dwelling units which may be in the same structure, and containing independent cooking and sleeping facilities." Therefore, the design of the structure defines the use, not the occupancy. Parker: He has cited only one case as a precedent. He can give examples of other cases. Little: The cases he has cited at this meeting are invalid for use as precedents because they have little or no similarity to the current case. Martha Dale addressed the board. Dale: She agrees with Mr. Watkins on the timing of the beginning of the zoning ordinances. Since no one can prove that the house was a duplex before the first zoning ordinance was passed in 1952, she thinks the house should conform to the single family dwelling R-I zone. Mary Margaret Warren addressed the board. She was a resident of the neighborhood in 1950 when John and Tranney White, the original owners of the property, built the house. Mr. White traveled frequently, and his wife was hesitant to stay alone in the house. Mr. White built a separate living facility which was rented to females at the University. Warren: Watkins: When was the kitchen built? If the kitchen were added later than the 1952 zoning ordinance, the house would be illegally zoned. Eldon Jansen addressed the board. Jansen: He thought that the property owner at 817 Sunset would live in the house. His concern about having rowdy renters centers around the house being rental property. Wilhelms: The situation is complicated, but the duplex hasn't changed since its construction. Perkins: Mr. Watkins mentioned covenants in his neighborhood. Are there any stipulations for property maintenance in the covenants that might pacify the property owners who have concerns about the upkeep of the property? Watkins: His neighborhood with covenants in place is adjacent to the property in question but not Board of Adjustment September 8, 1998 Page -7- inclusive. He mentioned the covenants only as an example that their neighborhood will not tolerate a similar situation and has taken steps to prevent that occurrence. Nickle: He has sympathy for both sides, but the neighbors seem to have a baseline issue with the house being rental property. The neighbors need to understand that if noisy and unruly renters are their concern, turning the home into a single family dwelling will intensify that problem. The potential that three "college kids" could move in together is highly likely, and that scenario would create more problems for the neighborhood than the duplex use. He sees that the real estate listing showed the house to be a duplex, and the planning staff has stated that if Mr. Schwartzman had asked about the nature of the house before purchasing it, the staff would have supported duplex use. Boyd: The arbitrary nature of the renters is unfortunate, but that is reality in any rental situation. Orton: In her estimation, the definition of a duplex is separate utility meters. She has encountered several houses with separate kitchen facilities that she wouldn't consider duplexes. She thinks that a "duplex" should be more narrowly defined. Conklin: The definitions are clear and specific. Hanna: During the ten year period of single family use, was there ever a door connecting the two halves of the structure? Conklin: There is no evidence that there is now or ever has been internal access. Eddie Bradford addressed the board. Bradford: The house was never designated as a duplex. Watkins: The duplex was not a valid use before zoning was adopted. Parker: The burden of proof for "use" falls to the property owner. In his opinion, the property owners have proven nothing. Andrews: This duplex is a valid nonconforming use. Boyd: The Board of Adjustment is not the legal end for these sorts of decisions. They are not attorneys, merely board members. Perkins: The zoning code they have available for review dates back to 1970. Watkins: There is no evidence of when the second kitchen was constructed. He wants the issue tabled until the next meeting to give the board time to review the issue with the City Attorney. Little: The planning department uses the zoning code daily and makes decisions accordingly. The ordinances are black and white, and there is no need to review them with an attorney who will more than likely not take definitive action anyway. Perkins: What is Mr. Schwartzman's assessment of the possibility of tabling this item? Board of Adjustment September 8, 1998 Page -8- Schwartzman: He bought this property based on the fact that it is a duplex. He and his wife are doing his as they live close to that area, they are neighbors also. best to enhance the neighborhood, He has a renter waiting to move in pending a decision from the board at today's meeting. He asks that the board make a decision today and not table the issue. How does the planning staff feel about the pre-existing ordinances (prior to 1970)? Andrews: Little: The planning office doesn't recognize, nor does it feel the need to recognize any -of are not available. They have ordinance prior to 1970. Copies the prior ordinances 1970 as a reference point. There is good evidence that this property always used the code has been a duplex for at least 32 years. There would be no gain by tabling or postponing this item. Does Mrs. Little ever encounter a reference to older codes prior to 1970? Perkins: She has no access to prior codes. She can't say definitively whether there is reference or Little: not, but the office does not deal with anything prior to 1970. There is no need for the board to rule on the legality of a property prior to 1952. Perkins: Parker: That is why he is requesting a review by the City Attorney. He doesn't see the need for that action. The board can vote on this item, and there are Boyd: other avenues for appeal if the complainants choose to do so. By voting without consulting the City Attorney, the board ties the neighbors' hands and Watkins: forces them to incur the legal expenses associated with the appeals process. Hanna: How would Mr. Watkins feel about the hypothetical possibility of the disgruntled the property from Mr. Schwartzman and neighbors combining their resources to purchase family unit? That would solve the problem. turning the house into a single Watkins: He sees no need to do that. There are too many variables to speak to that issue anyway. real estate listing is $109,000. Assuming that the The list price on the last available with ten people contributing ten thousand dollars each, he as complainants could come up a lawyer could fight a legal battle for basically free. Ruth Cohoon addressed the board. Cohoon: She is a former resident of 817 Sunset. She lived in the home from 1966-75 and was familiar with the original builders and owners, John and Tranney White. They built the house for the purpose of being a duplex. She knew the lady who rented the side she rented, and that lady lived there at least one year before she moved into the duplex. The home was built in the middle to late 1950s. She thinks the house ought to remain a duplex. Hanna: He confirmed with Ms. Cohoon that she had lived in one side of the duplex and that the home was built as a duplex to the best of her knowledge. Parker: There is no evidence that the home was built legally, since it is a duplex in an R-1 zone, Board of Adjustment September 8, 1998 Page -9- and the Planning Director has no idea about regulations before 1970. He wants the issue reviewed by another attorney before a decision is made. Wilhelms: This board is not made up of attorneys, nor do they have the need to be legal experts. Perkins: The item can follow the normal course of legal action from here. If the board votes to deny the appeal, the petitioners can appeal through the court system. Mr. Boyd moved to uphold the Planning Director's decision that the house at 817 Sunset Drive remain a legal but nonconforming use as a duplex. Mr. Wilhelms seconded said motion. The motion was approved with a vote of 7-0-0. 0 Susan Raley 826 Sunset Dr., Fay. 571-1088 571-3668 (Concerning Sunset Drive, Fayetteville and keeping it a single dwelling area. --No. duplexes.) 1. I called Perry Franklin (575-8228) in the fall of 1997, to complain about problem parking on Sunset St. The home at 817 Sunset had 4 young men living together and they and their friends would park on both sides of the street, in front of their home. Traffic had to slow to one lane. The men would also have a "youth meeting" every Thursday night from about 7:00 till 10:30 P.M, again, the kids would park on both sides of the street. I told Perry Franklin about this meeting and that it often involved loud music and girls screaming while being chased around the front yard until 10:30 at night. He said he would tell the Fayetteville Police Department to monitor the situation on Thursday night and issue parking tickets. I have not noticed any police patrol nor have I seen any tickets on cars that were illegally�b;n the east side of the street. 2. Parking is a problem especially since parking is legal only on the West side of the street. (I live on the East side.) When the cars are lined up in front of 817 Sunset, it is very difficult to pull out of my drive secondary to the cars parked across from my driveway. I am also going to have a 16 year old child who will start driving in August 1998, this parking situation will make her backing out of my driveway very difficult. Mr. and Mrs. Heck who live at 814 sunset stated to me that they really have problems backing out of their drive with people parked on the West side of the street (they are both elderly.) I know parking is legal on the west side, I also understand the city law states that each home must have room for 2 cars for each home. If this is home at 817 Sunset is used as a duplex, they would need 4 parking places. At this point, they have a 2 car garage at the end of a narrow one lane driveway. They would have to park 1-2 cars -on the street. 3. Rania Trulley at 901 Sunset Dr. ( the home to the north of 817 Sunset.) filed a complaint with the City of Fayetteville on 10/6/97. In this complaint, she states that 4 (college) young men were living at 817 Sunset --in an R-1 situation, only 3 people from different families can live in a home together. Nothing was done to decrease the population in the 817 Sunset home to the legal 3 person limit. 4. Please note the attached letter from Justus Harris on 10/21/97 and note he states the property was grandfathered in to the zoning law in 1970. He states that the property can continue to operate as a grandfathered in property until "any such usesMU ay continue tq orate as non-cor►forming uses until they are discontinued for a period of six months." Rania Trulley is obtaining a signed document stating the home was a single family dwelling from the women who lived in the home for more than 10 years. This women sold the home in about July of 1997. Susan Raley 826 Sunset Drive; Fay 571-1088 5. I also wanted to add that I did talk to the one of the 4 young men in the fall of 1997. He stated to me that the "four of us are living together" in the home. He stated to me and I observed the living areas were shared by all four men on a consistent basis until the end of the 1998 school year. PicH 119 D► C►osed 08/01/97 CAS List Price $1099500 Q8 SIS 06107197 PND Sale Price $109,500 L�SI AgylAgl 15 _ \`Days 6h- 60 Finc- CONV Sale AgYIA 1 1548 MCM ( a Liv Ft 1870 .�c • , ;., � � ; . ,:.;/; ' Levels 1 .k�,•, ,• `� .L:�, ` dll.l• v�qw 11• {�.�::' .. gyp• h.. W•1 tiro r/ qyb ..,C C: f':�Ni �� S�'�S ,~}•. .,�f:�'�' J• .•• A G 1950 - w5 MN .y y y]Y�AirwMN�F ♦ _ ,'t.,l: :.l',• - Lot Size 75X176 5 .:.2:..awAz•:1: -..:. yi J './.: .H A... S•TYJ K YY'• •A'.Vj /K Taxes 810 . !t,-. .,/"�yv� Y E Y:.;.. , .,�•^••_; •I,r:'4T.t:Ci:�1!f- \ MORTG AssumY I IN(X 1 /. r..w .23:: � ` N J /r. .ty /: 'ri •;••Sr iki-w.....:/J.•. � -.W:•r..,�} •::�::'.•:, ..: is i-Y'. �i;i. / .i,N� '(• hrl.!'i:':. u. rlh!..�li !�(.AA��L . ��qy,��•. u';r::t'i•�-.,•.. .....:. _�:.. •.�.,� ..J, :n • M1•JA•:YriiyJl.v. �.! 5�'.r AMf-IIIj50G'rri5.!C�-:•I'i:...•::.i':•... . n J. �/I'(�l i>'1f k11A�:•!r .J •. YJ.i 11�,..�:.. � I FHA VA /IL"^):- ':�-%i`j!/�i .�i.t.:j.�:}� :(I-•....::r:J, ;�.: ':5...t nI': '.i' .a Y' �C-a :.. v{}�.: {:ri•: ! w•; :. ,. }'!N1-•: /M•• ii f.• Fixed Adj ,�•: i•:-.:!'.)�.•'s6i}f?vNl�;��}�:(w:FPir{}!i?`;"1:iC1 }':.iiil: � •YJiis• .. / r livnY .@'• y:•�;'r.:•.: aA:::• ' raj-j• .. v::.• \..:' 6 r•a:' r ' .v/: /�. ;�.C{_(;A�{..-.�.-. r.}r.;-. /.f }:'. 1. .,i.4;5:ii}5N' S.: v;!:4riZ'%'�::i!_ f_/!•11.y../i -, .4. _ y.}JA- ' - r V•! AIr 5, I ,' l j V:A\.....'A' l J 'Iti/I�VJI. 1; • I \!ys / J t / YY lJ 1V ). II V/Yt SJtl:iiv-�4 L' N /.. ! l \i.{ R 1 ` t/: ,.t twt-{• v/ er...y.�'�•e: l y 4!5 J.;:.(.; :,.: :•:.pT rr(",,J�['• a ° r-.J v... ,:• av Jt. t.v }}.�'.:7 IJ...��..... f:i•Y5y {ay{ ,- • (•.513�;5CjLy,li!1P "wx��y;.}:kr,:/i'/yw:rY'`:a.71:'.::•(�.;{t.illi:::jLi�:l1biu.4_';:'•,"•i-:••v:::'.tiJ.va.,YA•...•a.•. ]J�,';t-V;iti•i3 .wr•7�. �e °l � .Av..Y'. .: VY"- '�1'i :.'I.: :�:•: J1 •. /:.�;.' A I.`.. 5'• ": •!�1 y ..:.`.. 1':l'j::A .• .M n Pl: l.n. %. i', iris. 1,%:A}\Af}%V; •- •l��•:/.{Y•Y.f Yx9..'i'Iry; �J� '.\1�. ..\ y •-'/,-;{•:-'I.):!•i'.:ti id•.-:.:: f ,t P r. v : t� / •�y: •{%n•:i:I:'4 ir�iv i iiJ.. - • Y `hlRW _ l J 5� ,. . M •. ::'.::.: •: ::Y J, !.i i'/5t / 511.-. '•.....'V: 1:•J. .• .. n '!`�. ,.y�J �'��� v . 11/r. 1 {:Y!Jy� • `• - Y �1':T Y�"�Q{ Ar. •vw15.11ANi J�A. 5 �i ;'Jj'`/•. jyj}1 r� Y(!X•.v y JN^ rwY�•3�\�• ;j!j��fyy�\5 h.:f'yii'r! .�.K /71.. Yt � -"� �. , � w, t.vJJA.w, .-b'"w•i ii'FM �!�'7Giy ?`J\tY. Pa ry a f+w w.y-• ..� �; ....:. .5....re•.`;YA �i:':.';A^v.•.triS('. M'A:{A„lYlli••tti.-9i. FAY Address 017 SUNSET Le I; PT, NW SE 8.16.30 . Directions: OFF CLEVELAND Subdivision: BATESADDITION LR 21 X 14 BR 14.5 X 12 Dra s YES frTjj NG X Ext BR- X DR 11 X 10 Bp 12,5 X 11 Floors WDICPNY Sewer X SeptSlab CS 6rk X BR 12 X 11' FP YES Water CITY Roof COMP Kit 1415 X 12.5 8R X Neat CNT/G Pool NO Fence YES Den 15 X 11.5' Ulil CLOSEX T Cool CNT1E be 36 GrSch LEVER R&0 Dis DW Baths2.50Gar, 2 CAR I poss NEGO JHS RAMAY Shown By: A t X1 Key[ LBI occupant OWNER Horne W NO BA°.6: 2,1 SA96; 2, —\ Remarks: 'CURRENTLY A 2 BR HOME PLUS A 1 8R APARTMENT WITH KITCHEN & BATH, COULD OPEN A DOORWAY TO HAVE A 4 BR HOME. GREAT MOTHER-IN-LAW SET UP. HUGE OLD TREES FLOWER5 SHRUBS, E WI8X20 SHOP AM SUNROOM. r6632 2 CAR DETACHED GARAG " "PURCHASERS ARE CAUTIONED NOT TO RELY UPON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED"' HEREON BUT TOVERIFY ALL INFORMATION TO THEIR OWN SATISFACTION,ETC. Phone 442.7503 A DisclA: X B: X C: X Lisled 8y 5USAN S1CKA Co an CI21 DAVEFULTONREALTORS Phone 521.9800 SeIlDiscIY1N Y c • t Ii a• �1 _ ". w°2q�. "��-'i'`-4:a� {a' ✓ai�9:4 ,�5 �'1�: a :r. ��� ` A''.'# { pp t l y mg IV sow CA r r -i Y { ���t S_Z,' �yt �_ a <. " .,. [/ '4`�'4w,•""4'. y9 '°q } L � �� �V �y�7�—_• a.� Yj s � o. � \ fw�i4i �� • �. ♦ l r sue. � _ 4 .y . , e m..y � ri°vW,itA "s mtea, �MsF3a.,�mr.�-i, as �ij��� ^1♦54�{�yy{'sue`.' - .. �u°.mw�g3qy ,g,¢ d c �` K •��' P � ; 6 YS#Fbn x `w'V'SYa-l.�£w ��laW A � a ;L t �q� p T 4 • I _T% September 7, 1998 To Whom It May Concern: As former owners of the property at 817 Sunset, Fayetteville, AR, we bought the duplex for use as rental property. It originally was rented to my son and three other college students. Each side rented for $400 a month, and each rentor paid $200 a month. Since the boys all were friends, I'm sure they spent time on each others side of the duplex. Both of the boys who lived on the `B" side moved out in early 1998 and I did not rent that side out again. No one was living there for about three months. In May 1998 I sold the duplex to Ira Schwartzman and my son rented the `B" side from him until the end of August. I have always considered 817 Sunset to be a duplex, it was sold to me as a duplex, and I sold it to Mr. Schwartzmann as a duplex. If I may be of further assistance, please contact me: Larkus and Terri Pesnell 2383 Tall Oaks Dr Fayetteville, AR 72703 501-582-0110 Sincerely, Mrs. Terri Pesnell A-Y�TTE\/lL.sL�E. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING DIVISION COMPLAINT FORM Please complete this form and return to the Planning Division, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, AR 72701. Nature of Complaint: Location and/or address:.?)l Phone number (if available):� CL" Your name: cnri 5e l , 4 Address: _ � 2 Phone Number: 7 1 ~ t 0� Date: Signature: Q3- DO NOT WRITE BELOW LINE Case No. __ Date Received: Received By: I` cleucdanc� -7Q'7G i V. 0 ca Cs),,,p..� Fe, lV+ _ / vvV v �.1/`--^- `V �✓ ,✓' ! 1 \- `�-{r:.LJ {-y" ' "'4/* lM1�✓ K.�r7 pt.,Tt., &La-( G.- ,Q4,Lctc2s "d"bin G49 CL CN-Lt.,eL+F, 5 We do not want the property at 817 Sunset Drive, Fayetteville, to be used as a Duplex. Address / 4oa,, ni" l� (Rv�'nclu f . � GaTY V� �39 ;.5�� 1070 August 29, 1998 Fayetteville Board of Adjustment 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, AR. 72701 Dear Board of Adjustment Members, This past Thursday, August 27, I spoke with Tim Conklin and learned for the first time of the attempt by a couple of my neighbors to force my wife and I to convert our duplex at 817 N. Sunset into a single family home. My wife and I purchased this house from Larkus and Teri Pensell last May. As you might imagine, a big part of our decision to purchase this house was the fact that it was a duplex, and the income that we might expect to receive based on this fact. I would like to point out that my, wife and I are not financially wealthy people. We do not own any other rental property in Fayetteville, and we were excited when we purchased this property. We live around the corner from this property, raparwe love this neighborhood, and we view this purchase as a big part of our retirement plan. We purchased this property as a duplex, and havetinted it renteast as a dItpis our The Pesnells also purchased this property as a duplex, and understanding that this property has been a duplex since 1969. Each apartment has a front entrance and a rear entrance. There is no connecting door between the two apartments. Each apartment has its own kitchen and bathroom: Each apartment has its own electric and gas meter. (Debby from SWEPCO told me that her records indicate that this property has had two separate electric meters since January 1969. I spoke with a woman named Rose with Arkansas Western Gas, but she said that her records did not go back far enough to tell us how long this property has had separate gas meters.) There is off-street parking for four cars in the back of the house. This is not counting the two car garage. I would like to point out to this board at g26aNS��,u�►$e ane1997.who RanapTrulleyealing �who board's decision, purchased her property purchased apparently was also instrumental in trying to force the change of this property, her property at 901 N. Sunset in 1996. I would suggest to this board that if Ms. Raley and Ms. Trulley did not want to live next door or across the street from a duplex, then they should not have purchased the property that they did. It is obvious that this property was a duplex when both of these women purchased their respective houses. I would also like to point out to this board that to my knowledge there has never been any complaints lodged against this property or the tenants of this property. My wife and I respect the fact that this is a quiet residential neighborhood, and it is our intention to rent to.tenants whose lifestyle will not upset or interfere with our neighbors. Of E s course, we also realize that as landlords, we.are somewhat limited (legally) in our ability to pick and choose the people who rent these apartments. At present, side A is rented to a fifty year old woman who has just started at the University Of Arkansas as a freshman. Her home is in Harrison, and she often goes there on the week -ends. I doubt that anyone could ask for or find a more perfect neighbor. Side B has been rented to a young a and to my who. is a junior at the University of Arkansas. He has been a very quiet tenant, knowledge has never been a problem to his neighbors. (Apparently Ms.Trulley took some exception to. his having a youth group meeting'every Thursday night for one semester. This meeting, called Youth Challenge, brought together high school students tudy. To us, this is an admirable thing to do, and with some college students for.Bible s even if this house was a single family home, there would probably be meetings or parties causing visitors to park on the street.) This tenant is moving this week -end, and we have rented side B to a young couple hwo k full timbelieve e andobe the woman wonderful lso goesneighbors. bto the Both the young man and the young woman Community College in Rogers. In closing, I would like to make one further point. If this board does for someease reason decide that this property is in fact not a duplex, or should not be a duplex, p consider that the cost of physically changing this house so that is can even be used as a single family home will be substantial. I am a building contractor by trade, and most of the work that I do is remodeling. To change this house with two kitchens and no opening between the two apartments into a single family home would certainly cost more than we could afford. This is in addition.to the fact that as a single family house, the rental income could never equal the present income, which is what we have based our purchase on. Thank you for considering our poXt��t� this e onceining thisalso mattera I thought sed a letter that one of the tenants of this duple that you might find her reaction to this episode interesting. Yours truly, Ira Schwartzman Sharon M. Schwartzman ., September 1, 1998 Dear Mr. Schwartzman, This letter is in response to our phone conversation, in which you told me that two of the ladies on this street, two of my "neighbors", were responsible for the Notice of Public Hearing posted in my front yard when I returned home last Friday. As you know, I moved to rayercevv,e w a«cuu "A%, .. putting four children through college, and one through wed school, I am pursuing my dream to return to school after 40 years, to my husband's alma water. And, it has been an altogether satisfying and positive experience until I arrived home last Friday afternoon and saw this sign glaring from the front lawn. Perhaps this action isn't directed toward me personally, but I moved into this apartment the first of July, and it appears that these two people do not feel that I am a "desirable" in their neighborhood since I am renting, rather than buying. My husband and I are co -owners of a large helicopter company, which flies 12 helicopters, and supports over 100 employees. We are property owners, with a 4,000 square foot home in the country, here in Arkansas, and 6 acres of waterfront property on Table Dock Lake in Missouri. We are responsible citizens who take very good care of our property. I am in my 50's, and I am not a party animal nor am I loud or "trashy" just because I am a renter. I deeply resent this inference that I am in some way inferior because I rent. I was approached by one of these ladies the first week I moved in, as I worked in the back yard. I thought it was a friendly overture, until she stated that she wanted me to cease leaving the light on in the back yard at night, so that she could enjoy nature in her back Yard. I told her I was leaving it on for security reasons (I had watched one of the local community television programs in which a local police officer was being interviewed. He suggested that an outdoor light at night is a good idea.) and I told her I would be living here alone most of the time. She replied that this is a nice, safe neighborhood, that she is a woman alone and that the light was unnecessary. She also told me that the neighbors on her other side used to leave their light on, and she had asked them to leave theirs off also. (I knew already that she had told my young neighbor to keep his kitchen curtains closed at night, because she didn't want his light shining on her house), I complied with this request, noting that she frequently leaves her front porch light on until very late, or perhaps all night - I don't know since I don't stay up all night! Just before ending the conversation, she looked at my 4 pound Yorkie, asked if it was my dog, and does it bark much. At that point, I knew the visit was not to make friends, but to lay boundaries. It is my opinion that this person has an inordinate desire to control this neighborhood. I regret that while the weather has been so dreadfully hot and I have been having to divide my time between my home, our place on the lake and this place, that I haven't been able to keep up with the watering of the plants and the lawn. Perhaps this is troublesome to these ladies also, but I can assure you that this lawn looks no .worse than her littered front porch, and back yard strewn with large dead tree limbs which have been there since I first moved into this apartment. This letter will accomplish no more than allowing me to let off steam, but I feel better now that I have shared my feelings with you. I wish you the best when you attend the hearing. I hope for myself that all goes well, because I made a special effort to find a nice home here and get set up before the school year started, so that I could devote myself entirely to my studies. It would be very i distressing to think that it would now become necessary to start the process all over again to find quarters. With all the students back in Fayetteville that could be difficult.. And, F have been so pleased with your nice house and it's very convenient location next to . . campus. Thanks for hearing me out - sorry to be so long-winded; but this whole business is . disgusting and disappointing after so many other positive experiences here in Fayetteville. is McAlister FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY of FAYETrEVILLE, ARKANSAS PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE July 6, 1998 Susan S. Raley 826 Sunset Dr. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: Violation #C98-26 Dear Ms. Raley: 113 W. 1-lountain St. Fayetteville. AR 72701 Telephone: 501-575-8264 We want to update you on the complaint about the duplex located at 817 Sunset Drive. A determination has been made that the nonconforming status of the duplex may continue if the owners develop four parking spaces on -site. The duplex is still "Grandfathered" if the parking is developed. If they do not develop this parking, the number of people living in the house must be limited to three. We will let you know if there are any new developments in this matter. Please feel free to contact our office any time you have questions. Sincerely, Pettttle City Planner FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE October 21, 1997 Rania Trullev 901 Sunset Dr. Fayetteville, AR 7270 Dear Ms. Trulley, 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville. AR 7270I Telephone: 501-575-8264 I apologize for the delay in addressing your concerns. I have checked our building permit records and our planning office files for the structure located at 901 Sunset. However, due to the age of the structure, no records exist for that address. Since you had mentioned the existence of two electrical meters, I checked with SWEPCO and received information that the two meters have existed at that address since 1969. Our current zoning ordinance was adopted in 1970; therefore any uses existing prior to the adoption of the ordinance are "grandfathered". Any such uses may continue to operate as non- conforming uses until they are discontinued for a period of six months. After continuous disuse for those six months, the structure must be made to come into compliance with the current codes. I am attaching a copy of Section 160.139 of the zoning code, which addresses this matter. I realize that this is not the answer you had hoped for; however, the city is required to abide by its regulations. You may wish to consult an attorney and ask if there is any remedy to your complaint through the civil court system. Sincerely, jwl�� AV�4 Justus Harris N E inset Drive - C se Up ImW -1 cl 00 0 100 Feet 11 ET Do 5 w r'I LJ Mooms 11 ■ Pic M 119 DI Closed- 08/01197 CLS List Price $109,500 Lsl gy g i A IA l 1548 SIS 06/07197 PND Sale Price $109,500 Sale AgylAgt 1548 MCM Days On- 60 Fine- CONY �,, • ..MLS q LPY ' ' 1970 Levels 1 1/ r •ky\1 •.. �,Y�y�/K�y ��v,� i1A.;, r + �A R�".,.. •\ ` "4. a'J 7i�' 'F•'.. �'Oil•'i�i�cA Y �. S ' ?. ,\ i.\, n� ,..:�.: A e 11950 ;IIA' .;J .:•�'I•.-.. .. :. �: `' ..•(•;/r •}�., ,.".a, r•: \'S i�'//'.,te�r`' .`, Y�N' .'. �_.; ...\�•.... .1'.' rf••/!.`.\; YR {Irvv �3.\'y, l,:J: "f. �i1i�N� Lot Size 75X176 •� r.!': �Ja:i.y, .Rtl: , Jam, :��,. Y, 1- Zvi 6\l n •.fi�rr !.i•. }...:\� 4� ..!•:: - \ li,.{vrry 1' Taxes 810 /prI. 71/�Y�' i r� •! t - r / ralv'�7;%! �Yrwlyyt y.' Itt r,Ji it .,J{L'i f' .. ASfy \vr\ 4}�/{�'{�i •i,.'/•j� I�? Lr MORTG AssumY I N Z• 9 :� i. iy IR 1'�, rJi r Ai") :n MH.1'�1: 1. '�'Y'A�'!!!1 3��,' � I iJ- .�asP6\�•:`:f••.�f.,:rA.;•:•,:; •`:}:x{ '>1i!Yl�i Tr}1.'}„�:. _ l FHA VA »Cr'• .�. `..:.,�.%.;✓:.4. •F-.}•tit: '.Ij\r r A., .••,;' y , :.-j;'.,y..�\., ..1:•.;.��';;>�!'r• ...� .r.�y�^`.';•.. -� :,... ,Y' Af� q y "` �\i:;f \ �1!•r•:.... !FMvrF:•.Im \ M�{•.'J M \1{ � /. J'1 ,.... / }\r :f; x��! \ ��, . N Privale Conv • �Al.y.. _fi1S.i A. :.�.1! Y tr:: /• r.... F•NeV 'v d d lv{, % ' (�,.� .iG.•k i'•"... 1-�uY•i:•: • r p:•.¢�.''�' , iM . .; Ad• `f - - ��'�T '.. .. r•iS rA •� r \:.....'4 r lK:. .f ^c, i�.` "n.l vz•i .:.vw4i: ::.r.. d. r::... ..x.d r , ;} r!w-. :�'vY is ��i��':�-r l��r'aylk w•A r`. ':•..M:•::n]w?'h:'`::'...-ea.:r.•.,......%�i{. �'il %�,; %£�:.-:....Y • L�i •.r-{5... 'idv': L %5-.�r�1.C. :�'![y.y{'.C.f!.!'i:7,6{.:).}S. :�.�•':L:.i:Y•..,�}-J Y1_i...::.'�.:ib.J•:'..,.:'.�?.�.:!i.'..i:.:.?.:-.i!:i1..�-. J}!•.:.vv':r�:ia•.: ::i •'i•.:,G:ti,vY•'�••}.w::.v.••:Ih.•:'j�:yv.::! r-5.i.-.}-.' }y•L'r(}\,.J- v..•{.:'...l'yIYi'",,. f.{ .� rwTh{Y!'' vr :f�.a�\.'/(' ;.1rr-vavI6:�:r1,j'':..gr:..�a.l.:.Y -A"��ti.Ai.%dr,:iX:..irl•e:ny.•R.�\•.. 9.r._;%.-:.fL�f.•.-..�:�l.t, �•3:l.,>�[ i�1't'•- / Y0 Rate - - lI •_.-.:._::.-i.":..�,�u-;LL.:..1.'•aJ}\-'!_��:': rJ``t .Yi.i1 f+': •r. 1 •:31 i'J •/IIs:Jv:�.,)(..��{. i,G`. . .:. 1\'i :: .l•3 �\•\. •: f r Y jt. rX J..Sy.Vlt., .r J,.. V1-�ilr L : �,yw :: •x.1�5w.� 3'J:}r•:�tq:Ff4 .A-..: w..:•: ;{.y::` Y, "�I��'.1�v'�!+'+ :\ ,.�•v/�•y �iSil �Sv rxL'rv�ib it il�n`.� •. YAl LAIN ,A�! ."1.•. �I :l jj^I �" x•3�/�J16N y' ��/Awt-Y"* ���i� n�\����J• Pa �1. �31 i �•24 •- 3r r\ad/7k1\'�,1!F 3 1S=I:.r {., 1.y 11 FAY Address a 17 SUNSET le I; pT, NW SE �16.34 Direclians: OFF CLEVELAND Subdivision: BATESADDITION LR 21 X 14 BR 14.5 X 12 Drapes YES LrTjL NG UX Ex1 BR DR 11 X 10 OR 12.5 X 11 Floors WDICPNY sewet[XI Se Slab CS X Brk X BR 12 X 11' FP YES Waler CITY Pool COMP Kit 14,5 X 12.5 BR X Heal CNT1G Pool NO Fence YES Den 15 X 11.5' Ulil CLOSER T Cool CNTIE Zne 36 GrSch LEVER Rao Dis DW Balhs2154' Gar, 2 CAR Pass NEGO JHS RAMAY LB Oc it and OWNER Home Wrtv NO BA%:2,7 SAS:2, Shown B: A l X Ke c ji Remarks: 'CURRENTLY A 2 BR HOME PLUS A I BR APARTMENT WITH KITCHEN & BATH, COOL OPEN A DOORWAY TO HAVE A 4 BR HOME. GREAT MOTHER-IN-LAWSET UP. HUGE OLD TREES FLOWER5 SHRUBS, 2 CAR DETACHED GARAGE WI8X20 SHOP. 7X10 SUNROOM, 46632 "' PURCHASERSARE CAUTIONED NOT TO RELY UPON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED "' HEREON BUT TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION TOTHEIROWN SATISFACTION, ETC."' Lislefly SUSAN SICKA Phone 442.7503 Agcy DisdA- X B: X C: X Comm C121 DAVE FULTON REALTORS Phone 521.9800 SellpisclYlN Y 0 • I= aVAd s i r 41T 3 t a a ',s '. . - v 7 ter.+,>.. tee, :.t b.<ti !g ��� �• -_{. 0 I f `i _ _ � i �sfcis��!ta'a�^s°e.., "'^'TT^ e: ., �`��t,�'k tt ��:. / ti,,.,t lei � .•. d y ,a .. V •. .r u ,7 ' �-'.A!y�VM°`f� i.. � �t ! +•✓' _w '�, ���. � iR.��,. .. 5T ,1 `.. \� W's i, h.. S_.�ta 7,1 As IV pr art ..'+J.Rit � .�- v11� , -� ~I , Y �. �•#; �. � � i i''yy4�y'N . ice, t') 4 .` if-_ r �- _. � r ,. �•f� ��". �i�� ems.�-tiy' v . _ a= _riL�i�SSSZZZ.��. �q, -�:, "".' ri it klT a Y . .`�j`� _ � �ty'� —mot � - �'?M}�• � . 0. a a' - P +� f �.� f �y �x..•�j;i,f+�� �yni�..=-1#k�C� ,..-, i� 1 ��t'ax✓? i j .'}:�f7e '° � [ Jp ..~ j "�.Rr• 3 �� tip,, a.t , (' . Y. , i" , s yr. �, �..�: • rg - j' � . .'Rqqyy- > , ij✓ °" 'i u TA, ze'" -Yo-vg l a y , *+t"6 ♦.Z: 'li :fiY � �'w.' K '� it \ is §i K .'•eM ♦.. �_• ,.�.—q ,� t'v, _ iiy+fS e.f� .�f-i£Ytgj. AY. f• r • t i ' - i� �. Q gL! l fir►•. �. I 5' {.' 3 .IJ• �> i ,� I <���� # �a_v ,�p,�na$�r,7"^i�'-iiw. .-t ii Fw � f y 77•• ( , � R «, '` Y o t , � �d a TE�� -71 let P4 .� w y .� ♦ w .F *, ►�j ...:F . Y Map tf `,' � ;�L� «ro . �f • ^tA b � °i't^`.sv dq" ✓ L T I f^ t �Id.Ar. i 1 ♦ hik�,M v F .e.l yry. N �I ` �`r�' If Ntr ® w W h• � ♦ W 1 � � `, �"�" Ad 1^Y�xF �e ✓ � . ��Y � �1 '• �1+�� � :1� � . c� 4 S7 ^+b"..y ayd M L�k� 'o I 9 p T ,♦ !�414�Y � � i ♦ t .+ f ty I�+Mr two •� N�� , !b � / �'� i �T}d11�y�,,�� ura.. �♦. jl ra• �, f i h. H A August 24, 1998 Dear Board of Adjustments, While the property at 817 Sunset Drive was grandfathered in as non -conforming status, the property was used as a single-family dwelling for the last 10 years. At this -time, eleven different families that surround the property at 817 Sunset Drive, have signed a petition that they desire the property to remain a single family dwelling. I have turned in a request to be on the agenda for the September 8, 1998 Board of Adjustments meeting. I wish to appeal the planning department's decision on Violation # C98-26 relating to the use of the property at 817 Sunset Drive in Fayetteville as a duplex with non -conforming use status. Thank you for your help in this matter. Susan Raley 826 Sunset Drive Fayetteville, AR 72701 i August 24, 1998 Dear Alett Little, I wanted to correspond with you about my complaint #C98-26 which concerns the property at 817 Sunset Drive in Fayetteville. I have asked the City Clerk to place me on the agenda of the Board of Adjustments meeting for September 8, 1998 meeting. Please take whatever steps to make sure I am in the meeting. Attached please find my letter to the Board of Adjustments. Thank you very much for your help. Susan Raley 826 Sunset Drive Fayetteville, AR 72701 04 N d' O O O 04 Ad F� a N N d' O O O - Yx 4 f his Y�r " � n ; a � yY : j, . � ., ,.�. a f . ,�.. ye fir- ;• / - y a b��� e • tt •�. 4 �... � 11 •` �c Yiia�R � s��. � i � � � ^ � � tfY i ♦, � � M f r f� �f y � � P �'i �t'i'Y ,c �, 'fs�xta s�` ♦�"�[_� � �.iM�a,;,e FGa.. ..♦ ap- E _ 0, -a�Yt "A t s 'O ,r � �. ?I .� _ ' w♦ �k✓ S r f it'i' *a ,�� d �- At i- '� + •� ' �w+tt k-`.I-�;• ik. � i r"1 � tt f'1- s',�9ik�J� _ i l . ems. C '( � f Je. / •x N tt '�' `;.fir ,;�++. �,.`+ fr .r'. 'x k� ��` ♦'3�•./ e',[i `�- J � i 'e �o`n`' f / JR i �.�' �+R *� x `:-, a-- �. . �+pv�.s����♦ F�� r�r, '� -4 � -t -v �`- •.t ct '�,.9 - •. ��( Jr ,>4 + - .Ali �R.. � a t Rs • ,•. w�.� ,J r 1� tt '4�. �:+ � _ any er, �`l' �• i ,, k �, ' •' m t I ? v� y. �1 r� •alr •«a� C. ". v E 2 �,R a r� .•t��`A.� • .. �1. �.i i py{w A�Z6' j Y 5 fix+ `.. • • � F� �++.Er; _ � �e ({� i. - �lA y� i. •� �f .+E j+T ._ any .r �`��... >r s• R � f`';.'�/ R 1 i i y i _ z � y£ x j. 1 O N O O O 04 a 0 0 0 P4 r W F^^ Ln H NP C) CD C) W � j -11NA E; a IQ r, 0 0 0 04 s l km