boa_01 19 1988LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY AND MINUTES
JANUARY 19, 1988
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being seven in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The Minutes were approved as mailed.
III. Members Present: John McDaniel - Acting as
Chairman
George Wells
Cynthia Alderman
Ronald Woods
Rex Crain
Thomas McGowan
Ronald Pierce
Members Absent: Jim Mitchell
Joe Norcross
City Attorney Present: Stephen Giles
January 19, 1988
Item No. A - Z-4950
Owner: Sarah Collins
Address: 2524 Izard Street
Description: Lot 7, Block 32, Kimball's South Park
Addition
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the area regulations provisions of
Section 7-101.2 /D.1 to permit a front
yard less than 25 feet.
Justification: We are unable to build a house due to
the 25 foot setback requirement on West
26th Street.
Present Use of
Property: Vacant
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The applicant is requesting of the Board of Adjustment
approval of a front yard setback of 20 feet rather than
the required 25 feet as stated in the Ordinance. The
lot is presently vacant and located in the Quapaw
Quarter. The lot fronts on Izard Street and West 26th
Street, which because of it being a corner lot, is
required to have to front yard setbacks of 25 feet.
Located in this area of central Little Rock are a
number of different sizes and styles of homes.
Surrounding this property there are some older homes
that have been or are presently being renovated. The
site is elevated which gives the site appearance of
both Izard and West 26th Street being lower in
elevation. The applicant does have a hardship because
of the lot being on the corner and having to provide 25
feet on both frontages.
January 19, 1988
Item No. A - Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12-21-87)
Mr. Brett Swearingen of Jim Walter's Homes represent the
applicant. There were no objectors in attendance. Staff
informed the Board that there was a problem with the notice
requirement being met. The notice form was returned with
only three signatures. The lot is 50 feet in width and if
proper notice was given within 200 feet of the property
there should have been more names. Mr. Swearingen stated
that an attempt was made to obtain the signatures, but most
of the people were renters and not owners. Staff then
informed the Board that the requirements for the notice does
not require a certified abstract list, but it is impressed
upon the applicant the importance of meeting the notice
requirement no matter the resources. A motion was then made
to defer this item for a 30-day period and the applicant was
instructed to obtain the necessary signatures by the next
meeting on January 19, 1988. The motion passed by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (1-19-88)
No action was taken on this item due to the fact neither the
applicant nor a representative was in attendance at the
meeting and the staff still had not received proof that the
notice requirement had been completed. Staff made the
decision that this item is to be allowed to appear on the
February 22, 1988, agenda and that correspondence will be
sent informing the applicant.
January 19, 1988
Item No. 1 - Z-4960-A
Owner: City of Little Rock /Bill Reimer
Address: 1720 Izard Street
Description: The East 111.0 feet of Lot 7, and the
East 111.0 feet of the South 2.0 feet of
Lot 8, Block 239, Original City of
Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas
Zoned: "R-6" High-Rise Apartment District
(Currently being down zoned to "R-4"
Two Family District)
Variance From the area provisions of
Requested: Section 7-104.4-D.1 to permit
construction of a new residence with
reduced front yard setbacks.
Justification: A portion of this lot was taken from the
Wright Avenue right-of-way leaving a
large weeded lot which can be
effectively utilized in the affordable
home program.
Present Use of
Property: Vacant Lot
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family Residence
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The requested variances before the Board of Adjustment
at this time are for reduced front yard setbacks.
Presently this property is zoned "R-6" which is for a
High -Rise Apartment District, but the applicant has
applied before the Planning Commission for a down
zoning of "R-4" Two Family District. The requirement
of the Zoning Ordinance for front yard setbacks in
"R-4" zoning is 25 feet. The lot is located in one of
the older areas of the City and presently vacant. The
property zoned by the City of Little Rock and the
intent behind the request is to build a 1,000 sq. ft.
affordable home which will help in the City's attempt
January 19, 1988
Item No. 1 - Continued
to utilize it's vacant property around the City in
order to provide for low income housing for those
citizens who meet the criteria and guidelines of the
Affordable Housing Program.
Wright Avenue has a high traffic flow; therefore, the
applicant has chosen to design the new constructed
house to front on 18th Street with a front yard setback
of two feet. Eighteenth Street is not a heavy
trafficked street which will allow for easier egress
and ingress on an existing curb cut. The property is a
corner lot and with the requirement of the Ordinance
stating that both frontages should be 25 feet, the
applicant is also in need of a variance for a reduced
front yard on Wright Avenue which will be 22 feet
instead of the again required 25 feet.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff is recommending approval of the variances as
requested subject to (a) the applicant's request before
the Planning Commission for a down zoning of "R-4" Two
Family District being approved, (b) steps, if
constructed, should be placed on the west side of the
house and not the front where the porch is indicated,
and (c) the large oak tree to the west side of the
property is not to be removed or altered (disfigured)
in any way.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (1-19-88)
Mr. Bill Reimer represented the applicant. There were no
objectors present. There was discussion regarding whether
the large oak tree should be part of the conditions of
approval. It was finally decided that the applicant should
put forth all and any effort necessary for the oak tree to
remain. A motion was made to approve the variance per
staff's three conditions. The motion passed by a vote of
6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, 1 abstention.
January 19, 1988
Item No. 2 - Z-4954
Owner: Brandy Wine Corporation /White-Daters
Address: 301 Nix Road
Description: Lot 1, Block 4, Gibraltar Heights
Addition to the City of Little Rock,
Arkansas.
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance From the area provisions of
Requested: Section 7-101.2-D.1 to permit
construction of a new residence with
a reduced front yard.
Justification: A 25 feet front yard setback makes it
impossible to utilize this lot in a
reasonable way.
Present Use of
Property: Vacant
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family Residence
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
Engineering recommends an additional five feet of
right-of-way dedication on Nix Road per Master Street
Plan requirement.
B. Staff Analysis
The issue being brought before the Board of Adjustment
at this time is a request for a reduced front yard
setback. The property is zoned "R-2" Single Family and
the requirement of the Ordinance states that for a
corner lot the frontage to both streets should be 25
feet. The lot in question is vacant and small in size;
therefore, the applicant is proposing that the front
yard setback on Shadow Lane be nine feet. Because of
the lot being only 50 feet in width, the requirement of
the Ordinance does present a hardship for the
applicant.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff is recommending approval of the variance as
filed.
January 19, 1988
Item No. 2 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (1-19-88)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters Associates, represented the
applicant. No objectors were in attendance. Mr. White was
asked if he had any problems meeting staff's recommendation,
Mr. White stated, "No." A motion was then made to approve
the variance, subject to the applicant dedicating to the
City of Little Rock an additional five feet of right-of-way
off Nix Road. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0
noes, 2 absent.
January 19, 1988
Item No. 3 - Z-4956
Owner: Hildegarde Teel
Address: 3319 West 7th Street
Description: The East 48.3 feet of the West 96.6 of
Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 10, Kimball
and Bodeman Addition.
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance From the area provisions of
Requested: Section 7-101.2-D.1 to permit an
addition to encroach within the front
yard setback.
Justification: The carport is needed to protect my car
from the weather and break-ins.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
At this time, the applicant is requesting of the Board
of Adjustment a front yard variance in order to be
allowed to continue to maintain an already-constructed
one -car carport that is in the front yard. This
request was brought about because of an enforcement
action. Surrounding the property is residential usage.
The carport is approximately 16.8 feet from the
one -story rock and framed house and constructed of wood
with a roof supported by three poles on each side. The
roof of the structure does extend within the City of
Little Rock's right-of-way; therefore, the applicant
will be required, if the variance is approved, to
obtain a franchise agreement with the City in order for
the extension to be allowed; otherwise, the variance,
January 19, 1988
Item 3 - Continued
if approved, will have to be moved closer to the house.
Another concern that staff observed was the possible
drainage from the carport to the neighbor to the west.
The applicant should secure the necessary structural
fixtures (gutters) to ensure that drainage will be to
the applicant's property and not the neighbor to the
west. The variance, if granted, will leave a zero
setback from the structure in question to the front
property line. Even though the property does have a
considerable rear yard, there is no possible way to
access it.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff is recommending approval of the variance
conditioned upon (a) the applicant either obtaining a
franchise agreement from the City of Little Rock for
the roof extension or the moving of the carport north
toward the house in order to prevent any extension
within the right-of-way, (b) provide for proper
drainage on the applicant's property and not the
neighbor's property to the west, and (c) the open
carport can never be enclosed.
BOARD OF AJUSTMENT ACTION: (1-19-88)
Mrs. Hildegarde Teel, the applicant, was in attendance.
There were no objectors present. Mrs. Teel stated that she
did not feel that the enforcement action was warranted and
that staff's recommendation was unfair. After a
considerable amount of discussion between the Board, staff
and Mrs. Teel, the Acting Chairman informed her that it was
the Board's position to try and help the applicant.
Mrs. Teel was then asked if she would be willing to work
with staff concerning the conditions of their approval, she
stated, "Yes." A motion was then made to approve the
application, subject to staff's recommendation. The motion
passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
January 19, 1988
Item No. 4 - Z-4961
Owner: Wanda Stewart
Address: 7215 "N" Street
Description: Lot 5, Block 15, Riffel and Rhoton's
Forest Park, Highland's Addition
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance From the area provisions of
Requested: Section 7-101.2-D.1 to permit a carport
with a reduced front yard setback.
Justification: The reasons why it would be a hardship
to remove the carport structures are:
(1) financial, (2) the lack of
protection for my car and myself from
the weather.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis:
This request is being brought before the Board of
Adjustment because of an enforcement action. The
applicant has in place a one-car carport that is within
the front yard of the structure. The carport has been
in place for a period of one year and leaves a front
yard of 8.4 feet to the frontage on "N" Street. There
is a concrete drive already in place. The area is one
of the older established neighborhoods with "N" Street
being narrow in size. The carport is needed in order
to provide some protection from the weather to and from
the one -story brick house.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff is recommending approval of the variance as
filed.
January 19, 1988
Item No. 4 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (1-19-88)
The applicant was in attendance. There were no objectors
present. The applicant stated she agreed with staff's
recommendation. A motion was made to approve the variance
as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes,
2 absent.
January 19, 1988
Item No. 5 - Z-4692
Owner: Allan R. and Dana A. Snook
Address: 4116 Longview Road
Description: Lot 30, Lonlea Addition, Phase VIII-C
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variances 1. From the area provisions of
Requested: Section 7-101.2-D.3 to permit an
addition with a reduced rear yard
setback.
2. From the area exception provisions
of Section 5-102.2-C to permit more than
30 percent of the rear yard coverage.
Justification: A Building Permit was not applied for by
either contractor (pool and deck)
because both thought the other had done
so. We were negligent in failing to get
a permit, but it was an honest mistake.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues:
The deck should not encroach into the rear easement
unless approved in writing by the easement's utility.
B. Staff Analysis:
As a result of an enforcement action, this request is
before the Board of Adjustment. The applicant has
already constructed in placed an in-ground swimming pool
with wood decking surrounding the pool. Along the rear
property, and both rear side yards, a wooden privacy
fence is constructed that has heights of 12 feet along
certain areas of the rear and six feet along the
remaining rear yard area and rear side yards. The fence
is constructed in this manner in order to compensate for
the difference in the grades on the property as well as
the slope of the property. The applicant states that
without the construction of the wooden decking to
correct the grade problem, they could not have utilized
the area around the pool. The slope of the property
falls from the left to right with a drop of nine feet.
January 19, 1988
Item No. 5 - Continued
Located to the rear of the property is a utility
easement of five feet that the applicant has built over
without any proper notice or approval from the utility
company. Staff has informed the applicant that some
documentation from the utility company has to be
obtained.
What is of issue before the Board of Adjustment is the
fact the applicant has encroached with the 25-foot rear
yard setback that is required by the Ordinance. The
wood decking and swimming pool exist within a large
portion of the rear yard and extends to the fence which
is along the rear property; therefore, the applicant is
requesting a rear yard setback of zero feet to
compensate for the construction.
Staff also feels that in as much as the construction
takes in a large portion of the rear yard, a variance
for more than 30 percent of the rear yard coverage is of
issue also. As state earlier, the swimming pool, wooden
decking and fence are already in place without the
applicant having obtained any Building Permits.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff is recommending approval, subject to (1) mature
evergreen plantings being placed along the south
property line, outside of the fence and the planting
being agreed upon by the neighbor to the rear and
approved by the Zoning Enforcement Office, (2) as per
Engineering comment, a letter from the utility whose
easement the applicant has built over stating its
position.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (1-19-88)
Mr. Allan Snook, the applicant, was in attendance.
Mr. Rob Wilson, Attorney for Mrs. Patricia Bueter, the
neighbor to the south, was present as well as Mrs. Bueter.
January 19, 1988
Item No. 5 - Continued
Mr. Snook addressed the Board and discussed the events which
had led up to the point of the meeting. He stated that he
had tried on a number of occasions to work with Mrs. Bueter
regarding her complaint and now feels that to obtain a
variance would be the most feasible means of resolving the
isssue.
Mr. Rob Wilson, the Attorney for the neighbor, stated the
fence around Mr. Snook's rear yard was most offensive.
Mrs. Bueter's property fronts the rear of Mr. Snook's, and
Mrs. Bueter feels that to grant the variance would be
allowing Mr. Snook to circumvent the law. If the variance
is to be approved, what then will keep the next person from
just going ahead building what would be a violation of the
zoning requirements and then coming in for a variance?
Mr. Snook presented a sketch of a landscaping layout that he
had Melburger, Tanner and Associates draw up to be placed
along the south property line. Mr. Wilson then stated that
Mrs. Bueter also had a landscaping plan that she felt was
more in line with the intent of screening the view of the
fence.
The Board then reviewed both plans and stated that there
should be some way for these two parties to work out their
disagreement and both be satisfied. The Board agreed that
some type of policy should be adopted to address this issue
in the Ordinance because it's not the applicant's fault, but
that of the Contractor.
A motion was then made to defer this item for a period of
30 days to allow both parties to meet and resolve this
matter between themselves. Both the applicant and the
objector agreed with the motion. The motion passed by a
vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. This item will appear
before the Board again on February 22, 1988.
January 19, 1988
Item No. 6 - Z-4964
Owner: Martin Dorman /S.G. Puryear
Address: 113 Oak Lane
Description: Part of Lot 8, West Markham Street
Subdivision, to the City of Little Rock,
Arkansas
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial
Variance From the area provisions of
Requested: Section 7-103.3-D.3 to permit
construction of a building with a
reduced rear yard.
Justification: The existing lot being only 91 1/2 feet
deep does not permit 25 feet for a rear
yard.
Present Use of
Property: Vacant Building
Proposed Use
of Property: Commercial Sales
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues:
If approved, handicapped parking spaces should be
provided and required landscaping on north and south
property line will need to be met.
B. Staff Analysis:
The proposal before the Board of Adjustment is for the
construction of a 4,000 sq. ft. building with a reduced
rear yard setback of 7.5 feet. The property is zoned
"C-3" General Commercial and the use of the building
will be for a 555 Auto Supply Company. There is
presently on-site an existing building that will be
removed in order for the new structure to be built.
The applicant is also proposing to meet all the
requirements of the Landscaping Ordinance and parking
requirements as well as design. In place on the
property, south side, is a six-foot wooden fence and
due to the fact that the lot is 91 1/2 feet in depth,
the applicant feels a hardship does exist regarding
this request. Surrounding the property is commercial
and residential usage. Oak Lane is a dead-end street
and narrow in size.
January 19, 1988
Item No. 6 - Continued
C. Staff Recommendation:
The recommendation of staff is denial of the variance
as filed. Staff feels that the applicant's request
indicates a overbuilding of the lot with the
construction of a 4,000 sq. ft. building and the impact
the size of the building and the use places on the
residences to the south and east of the site.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (1-19-88)
Mr. S.G. Puryear, the applicant, was present at the meeting.
There were several objectors in attendance. Mr. Puryear
stated that he did not understand the recommendation of
staff. Staff informd him that whenever a proposed building
is such that it does not allow for the meeting of the
Landscaping Ordinance or parking requirements, then it is
considered too large for the site. The use, even though
appropriate for the zoning, would generate more traffic in
an area where there is residential use and parking will be
limited.
Those objectors who spoke in regard to concerns that
consisted of the use not being appropriate, the street, Oak
Lane being narrow, deficiency in parking, and Mr. Keith
Blair stated that he felt at least 15 feet of the south side
of the site may not have been part of the original rezoning
application.
An earlier motion for deferral was withdrawn, and a new
motion to deny the application per staff's recommendation
was presented. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,
0 noes, 2 absent.
January 19, 1988
Item No. 7 - Z-4968
Owner: John Terry Fry
Address: 1205 Kavanaugh Boulevard
Description: Part of Lots 9 and 10, Block 9, Midland
Hill's Addition to the City of Little
Rock, Arkansas
Zoned: "R-3" Single Family
Variances 1. From the area provisions of
Requested: Section 7-101.3-D.2 to permit a
reduced side yard setback.
2. From the height in area provisions
of Section 5-102.2-C to permit a
structure less than 60 feet from the
front property line.
Justification: We wish to mitigate a hazardous existing
situation parking of cars in the front
of this property. The owners wish to
create off-street parking for two cars
in a safe and secure place.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The issue before the Board of Adjustment is for a
reduced side yard setback. What the applicant is
proposing is for the construction of a deck /carport,
new arbor and new driveway. Presently on the property,
there is a two-story brick and stucco residence which
is in need of some repair as well as the need to
provide for on-site parking to protect the cars from
being parked on the Kavanaugh Street side. The side
yard in question is to the west of the site and should
be five feet, and the applicant is proposing 2.6 feet.
January 19, 1988
Item No. 7 - Continued
On the east side of the existing structure, the
applicant will be removing the porch and existing
stairs as well as an existing side structure. To the
south of the property or rear, the applicant will
construct a freestanding structure, an arbor that will
not be 60 feet from the front property line; therefore,
a variance is being requested for the accessory
structure being the arbor. The improved drive will
allow the applicant to egress and ingress off Charles
Street rather than continued to use Kavanaugh, which is
a heavily traveled street at peak hours. The
deck /carport will be constructed in such a way that the
carport will be under the deck in order to maximize the
utilization of the space and still maintain a
noticeable rear yard area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff is recommending approval of the side yard
variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (1-19-88)
A representative of the applicant was in attendance. There
were no objectors present. The representative stated she
had no problems with staff's recommendation. A motion was
made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by
a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
January 19, 1988
Item No. 8 - Z-4970
Owner: H.S. Davis
Address: 1600 East 15th Street
Description: Lot 11, Manufacturer's Addition
to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas
Zoned: "I -3" Heavy Industrial
Variance
Requested: From the area provisions of
Section 7- 104.3.2 to permit an
addition with a reduced side yard.
Justification: The proposed site for the addition is
the only logical point for expanding
the existing building.
Present Use of
Property: Commercial
Proposed Use
of Property: Commercial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The request before the Board of Adjustment is for
construction of an addition to an existing building
with a reduced side yard setback of 4.6 feet. The
property is zoned "I-3" Heavy Industrial and the
requirement of the Ordinance is for a 30 foot five
yard setback. The property in question is where Davis
Rubber Company is located. The addition is needed for
the expansion of the business. The property is located
in the eastern part of the City where there is mixed
uses of commercial, industrial and some residential.
The new addition will be 30 by 50 feet. In place is a
circular drive that is in need of upgrading as well as
upgrading of the parking and landscaping.
The applicant also feels that the variances should be
granted because: (a) the proposed addition is
separated from the adjoining property, which is a truck
and bus terminal, by a railroad track which is in very
January 19, 1988
Item No. 8 - Continued
limited use and a steeply sloping hill which the
adjoining landowner could not build upon, (b) the
proposed addition is not anywhere near other
manufacturers or business activity, and it will not
interfere with any of the landowners use of their
property, and (c) the proposed addition does not create
an additional nonconformity nor does it increase the
degree of the existing nonconformity of any part of the
existing structure, and we believe we should be
entitled to expand our facility, as a matter of law.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff is recommending approval conditioned upon the
applicant upgrading the circular drive, parking area
and the meeting of the requirements of the Landscaping
Ordinance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (1-19-88)
Steven R. Davis represented the applicant. There were no
objectors present. Mr. Davis presented to the Board a
picture showing what the site looks like, and asked that the
conditions on the approval for the parking and landscaping
be delayed until after the construction of the addition, due
to the fact that the drive will be used to access the
building area. Staff stated that there is no problem with
that as long as the applicant understands that the
improvements to the circular drive, parking and landscaping
will have to be completed before a Certificate of Occupancy
will be issued. Mr. Davis stated he understood staff's
statement. A motion was then made to approve the variance
request, conditioned upon improvements to the circular
drive, parking and landscaping being completed before a
Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the new addition.
The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
January 19, 1988
Item No. 9 - Z -4971
Owner: Lewis E. Schickel
Address: 5724 Dreher Lane
Description: Lot B -R -1R of Southwest City Commercial
Subdivision
Zoned: "C -3" General Commercial
Variance From the area regulation provisions of
Requested: Section 7 -103.3 to permit construction
of addition with a reduced rear yard
setback.
Justification: This addition is needed for expansion
for new equipment.
Present Use of
Property: Commercial
Proposed Use
of Property: Commercial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The issue before the Board of Adjustment is for a
reduced rear yard setback, in order to construct an
addition to an existing building. The property is
zoned "C-3" which requires a rear yard of 25 feet, and
the applicant is proposing a rear yard of five feet.
The use of the existing structure is that of a
cleaners, and the property is adjacent to the Southwest
City Mall. The applicant did submit a letter from the
realtor of the mall which stated they had no objections
to the request. This property is surrounded by a
mixture of usages, being commercial and residential.
The frontage of this site is on Dreher Lane and one
block east of Geyer Springs Road which is a heavy
traveled street. The rear of the property was chosen
as the most suitable location because of structural
constraints and the proximity of the existing cleaning
equipment.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff is recommending approval of the variance as
filed.
January 19, 1988
Item No. 9 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (1-19-88)
Mr. Keith Buchanan represented the applicant. There were no
objectors present. Mr. Buchanan stated he had no problems
with staff's recommendation. A motion was then made to
approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote
of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, 1 abstention
(George Wells).
January 19, 1988
Other Matters - Item No. 10
File No.: Z-4972
Owner: Jean Baldock
Address: 15703 Cantrell Road (was 15603 Cantrell
Road).
Zoning: "R-2" Single Family /Established "C-4"
Nonconforming Use
Request: The applicant is requesting a
determination of an enforcement action
siting the expansion of a nonconforming
use.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Issue:
This applicant is before the Board of Adjustment seeking a
determination as to whether the siting of an expansion of a
nonconforming use violation by the Zoning Enforcement Office
is warranted.
The Zoning Enforcement Office indicates that the applicant
expanded the commercial nonconforming use of a plant farm
when he constructed on -site temporary greenhouses. The
property is zoned "R-2" Single Family, but with an
established nonconforming "C-4" use existing on the property
prior to this applicant's tenant obtaining a privilege
license. The temporary greenhouses were constructed without
the tenant obtaining a Building Permit. The Zoning
Ordinance states:
"Any nonconforming structure maybe enlarged,
maintained, repaired or altered; provided, however,
that no such enlargement, maintenance, repair or
alteration shall either create an additional
nonconformity or increase the degree of the existing
nonconformity of all or any part of such structure."
The applicant contends that during the latter part of
October 1987, the property at 15703 Cantrell Road was rented
for a plant farm. The tenant then met with the Zoning
Enforcement Office and was assured that the use could occur
in a nonconforming status and that there should be no
problems with construction of the two temporary greenhouses.
January 19, 1988
Item No. 10 - Continued
The tenant for the property obtained his Privilege License
in the Zoning Enforcement Office and begin purchasing his
equipment for the greenhouses and started erecting them,
unaware that he needed a Building Permit since they were to
be of temporary use.
On December 17, 1987, the tenant did receive a phone call
from the Zoning Enforcement Office stating that he was in
violation of the Zoning Ordinance and the construction must
cease immediately. He was also instructed that in order to
appeal this zoning enforcement action he would have to come
before the Board of Adjustment.
The decision that now rests with the Board of Adjustment is
a determination as to whether the existing nonconforming
status has been expanded because of the construction on -site
of the two temporary greenhouses.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (1-19-88)
The applicant as well as the tenant for the property were in
attendance at the meeting. The applicant as well as the
tenant stated that the two temporary greenhouses were
discussed when the Privilege License was obtained and
assurances were given that this use would be appropriate.
Mr. Kenny Scott, of the Zoning Enforcement Office, stated
that the Officer involved in the case had stated to him and
documented in the file that no assurances were given
regarding the temporary greenhouses. Also, the Privilege
License indicates that when asked whether any new
construction will take place on the site, the applicant
indictated "no."
After a considerable amount of discussion regarding what is
classified as temporary and what exactly the Board was
supposed to determine, it was decided that the tenant did
intend for the two greenhouses to be of a temporary use. A
motion was then made to rule that the two temporary
greenhouses do not expand the already-nonconforming "C-4"
use, and that the use is to run with the present tenant's
lease date for the property, which is on a renewal basis.
December 30, 1987
City Board of Adjustments
Little Rock City Hall
500 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Sir:
I am writing in regard to the property at 15703 Cantrell Road.
This property is zoned R-2 with a non-conforming C-4 established.
The latter part of October, 1987 we had an opportunity to rent
the property for a plant farm. I met with Mildred Brown in Zoning
and Regulations to establish if a plant farm was in the permitted
use on our non-conforming rating. Mrs. Brown assured me it was
permitted, and I explained there would be temporary greenhouses
and she thought there was no problems.
I called our tenant, and he went down and got his privilege li-
cense with Mrs. Brown. The tenant proceeded with purchasing his
equipment for the greenhouses and started erecting them, unaware
that he needed a building permit since they were temporary.
On December 17, Mr. Bob Brown called me to say we were in violation
of the law, and we must cease construction immediately. After
meeting with Mr. Bob Brown on December 29, he referred us to Mr.
Tony Bozynski in the Planning Department. Mr. Bozynski suggested
we apply for an appeal hearing.
Sincerely,
Jean Baldock
8 Arrow Ridge Court
Little Rock, AR 72205
December 21, 1987
The Board voted to elect John McDaniel as Chairman for 1988-89.
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.
Chairman Secretary
Date