Loading...
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