boa_06 15 1987LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTE RECORD
JUNE 15, 1987
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being 9 in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were approved as mailed.
III. Members Present: Thomas McGowan
George Wells
John McDaniel
Ronald Woods
Cynthia Alderman
Joe Norcross
Jim Mitchell
Ronald Pierce
Rex Crane
Members Absent: None
City Attorney: Bob Hall
June 15, 1987
Item No- A - Z-4827
Owner: Shur-Value Stamps, Inc.
Address: 6901 I-30
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "I-2"
Variances
Requested: From the off - street parking provisions
of Section 8-101/I to permit a parking
area not meeting ordinance design
standards.
Justification:
The property in question was acquired
for future expansion of a dairy
facility. The plans are to expand in
the next two to three years. At the
present time, the property is used for
parking empty trailers which are waiting
to be loaded and moved to their final
destination. It would create a real
hardship on the company if they had to
black top or pave the property due to
the fact that it would have to be torn
up when the company is ready to expand.
For this reason, we are asking for a
3-year variance to allow the necessary
time to finalize the plans.
Present Use of
Property: Parking
Proposed Use of
Property: Expansion of Packaging Facility
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported as of this writing.
B. Staff Analvsis
The request is to permit parking of vehicles on an area
not meeting ordinance standards. The minimum pavement
requirement is:
1 1/2 inches asphaltic concrete hot mix with a
5-inch compacted base or a double surface
treatment with a 5-inch compacted base or a 4-inch
concrete slab and shall have appropriate bumper
guards as needed.
June 15, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
The property is currently being utilized for parking by
the Gold Star Dairy which is located directly to the
south. The dairy owns both tracts and their future
plans call for expansion and using the site in
question. Because of this, the owners feel that paving
the lot would cause a hardship due to the fact that in
2 to 3 years the pavement surface would have to be
removed. Staff agrees with this and supports a
temporary variance for the site.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the pavement variance for
a period of 24 months from the date of approval.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (May 18, 1987)
Staff reported that the request needed to be deferred
because the applicant failed to notify the property owners.
A motion was made to defer the request to the June 15, 1987,
meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (June 15, 1987)
The applicant was present and agreed to the staff's
recommendation to allow the variance for a period of 24
months. There were no objectors. A motion was made to
grant the variance for a period of 24 months from the date
of Approval, June 15, 1987. The motion passed by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
June 15, 1987
Item No. 1 - Z-4833
Owner: John Bale, Jr.
Address: 100 South Broadway
Description: Lots 11 and 12, Block 120
Original City of Little Rock
Zoned: "I -2"
Variances
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-104.2/E.1 to permit a new canopy
with a reduced setback.
Justification: The reason for needing the variance is a
lack of room. The property is 100 feet
and is zoned "I-2" thus requiring a
50 -foot setback which would leave no
property to utilize. This proposed
canopy is for customer protection from
the elements and for security due to
better lighting.
Present Use of
Property: Service Station
Proposed Use of
Property: Service Station
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to allow a reduced front yard setback
for a 24' x 30' canopy. The property is zoned "I-2"
which calls for a setback of 50 feet for the front
yard. Because of being on a corner and the ordinance
definition of a front property line a front yard
setback from both West Markham and Broadway is
required. The site has a width of 100 feet so meeting
the setback requirements does present some difficulty
and staff feels that a hardship does exist. The
building does not have the necessary setbacks, but that
is because it was constructed prior to the adoption of
the current ordinance. Another factor that should be
considered as part of the justification for this
variance is the "I-2" zoning which is not a compatible
district with the development pattern found
June 15, 1987
Item No. 1 - Continued
in the downtown area and this does create some
problems. One concern that the staff has is the site's
location which has high visibility. Because of this
staff encourages some type of streetscaping /landscaping
be undertaken to improve the appearance of the
property. This is consistent with what has occurred
directly to the north on Broadway and along West
Markham to the east.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance with the
condition that the necessary supports for the canopy be
attached to the pump island.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The-applicant, Jerry White, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. White said that supports for the canopy will
be in line with the existing pump island. A motion was made
to grant the variance subject to the supports for the canopy
beinq attached or aligned with the pump island. The motion
was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent, and 1
abstention (George Wells).
June 15, 1987
Item No. 2 - Z-4844
Owner: Robert L. Alexander
Address: West 29th and Spring Street
Description: Lot 1, Block 2
Liberty Hill Addition
Zoned: "R-3"
Variances
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-101.3/D.1 to permit a new residence
with a reduced front yard setback.
Justification: Lot size, being located on a corner and
wanting to save the existing trees.
Present Use of
Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of
Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The issue before the Board is to grant a setback
variance for a front yard for a new residence. By
being situated on a corner, the ordinance requires
front yard setbacks of 25 feet in the "R-3" District
for both street sides. With a 50-foot lot this is very
difficult to do and still have an attractive and
functional house. The reduced yard area for the
West 29th Street side will not have an impact on the
neighborhood because that type of setback is consistent
with the existing developed lots in the area. The
requirement for the 25-foot setback from both streets
is a recent interpretation of the ordinance. So, in
older areas, there are very few corner lots that comply
with that provision. The proposed site plan is a
reasonable option because of providing a more than
adequate side yard on the south and maintains the
setback relationship to West 29th Street established by
the residence to the east.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed.
June 15, 1987
Item No. 2 - Continued.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The
motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
June 15, 1987
Item No. 3 - Z-4845
Owner: Robert E. Munn
Address: 44 Inverness Circle
Description: Lot 14, Block 11
Pleasant Valley Addition
Zoned: "R-2"
Variances
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-101.2/D.3 to permit a deck and pool
with a reduced rear yard setback.
Justification: (1) Due to the unusual shape and sharp
slope of the property, it is
necessary to encroach on the
10-foot utility easement noted on
the survey. Copies of release
letters from each of the utilities
have been secured.
(2) Since the pool deck will be tied
into existing decks, the proposed
construction would also encroach
within 25 feet, actually 5 to 6
feet, of the back property line.
Again, due to the unusual lot shape
and slope, it is necessary to place
the pool as noted on the drawing.
An important consideration in this
request is that the back of the lot
borders an undeveloped drainage
easement and, therefore, will not
abut anyone else's backyard.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of
Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
No comments have been received.
June 15, 1987
Item No. 3 - Continued
B. Staff Analysis
The proposal is to construct a deck structure with a
pool in the rear yard area. There is an existing deck
attached to the back of the house, and the plan calls
for connecting the two areas and extending the new deck
component to within six feet of the rear property line.
(A portion of the deck that is in place already
encroaches into the setback.) To the north of the lot,
there is a large open space, a permanent drainage
easement, so the reduced yard space will not have any
impacts on the surrounding properties. The proposed
construction continues to concentrate all the
development in one location which allows the owner to
maintain an adequate yard area which is desirable.
Staff feels that proper justification has been provided
and supports the request. (All the necessary utilities
have signed off on the 10-foot easement intrusion.)
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the rear yard setback
variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to grant the variance as requested. The
motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 0
absent.
June 15, 1987
Item No. 4 - Z-4846
Owner: O.F. Greer
Address: 9504 Warren Road
Description: Lot 20, Block 8
Fairfield Subdivisoin
Zoned: "R-2"
Variances
Requested: From the height and area provisions of
Section 5-102/2.C to permit a pool to be
located less than 60 feet from a front
property line.
Justification: Being a corner lot and it appears that
any location in the rear would require a
variance.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of
Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to allow a swimming pool, an accessory
structure, to be placed less than 60 feet from a front
property line. The Zoning Ordinance requires accessory
buildings in the "R-1" through "R-4" Districts to be
located at least 60 feet from the front property line
and with a corner lot that requirement applies to both
streets. When the owners first contacted the Planning
Office about the issue, the staff worked with them to
see if there was any way of siting pool that would meet
all the requirements. After reviewing several
different options, it was determined that any location
would require some type of variance. The owner feels
that the proposed positioning of the pool is the most
reasonable because it saves some rear yard and has a
38 -foot setback from Redwood Drive. Staff agrees with
this and supports the necessary variance. The yard
area is enclosed by a fence so the pool will have no
visual impact on the neighborhood even with the reduced
setback.
June 15, 1987
Item No. 4 - Continued
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to approve the necessary variance for the
pool as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0
noes, and 0 absent.
June 15, 1987
Item No. 5 - Z-4847
Owner: Carl Townsend
Address: 2822 Center Street
Description: East 90 feet of Lot 7, Block 5
Liberty Hill Addition
Zoned: "R-4"
Variances
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-101.4/D to permit a new residence with
reduced yard area.
Justification: Size of the lot and being on a corner
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of
Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The issue is to permit a residence to be moved on the
site in question. To accomplish this, the owner is
requesting a variance from the front yard setback on
West 29th Street and a rear yard variance. In the
"R-4" District, a 25-foot front yard is required, and
for a corner lot that provision applies to both street
sides. Also, a 25-foot setback is the ordinance
requirement for the rear yard in "R-4." The lot is
only 90 feet so the only way to provide the necessary
rear yard is to encroach into the front yard area on
the Center Street side, and in this situation, that
would not be desirable. Since the owner of the lot is
relocating a house to the site, adjusting the
structural dimensions to accommodate the setbacks would
be difficult, and staff believes that a hardship does
exist and that the necessary variances are justified.
After reviewing the plan, staff feels that decreasing
the setback on West 29th from 20 feet to 15 feet would
be desirable for several reasons. First of all, this
would increase the yard area on the north side of the
June 15, 1987
Item No. 5 - Continued
proposed structure and, secondly, a 15-foot yard would
be more compatible with the setback for the residence
to the west. Finally, redevelopment of infill lots
should be encouraged, and the approval of this request
will help accomplish that.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the setback variances be granted.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The appliant, Carl Townsend, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Townsend spoke and said he had no problems
with the staff's proposal for reducing the West 29th Street
yard area to 15 feet. A motion was made to grant the
setback variances with the staff's recommendation for a
15-foot setback for the West 29th Street front yard. The
motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 0
absent.
June 15, 1987
Item No. 6 - Z-4848
Owner: Timothy and Margaret Farrell
Address: 5715 Hawthorne Road
Description: Lot 27, Forest Heights Place
Zoned: "R -2"
Variances
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7- 101.2/D.2 to permit a deck with a
reduced side yard setback.
Justification: (1) Because the structure solves the
problem of the excessive slope of
the property in a unique,
practical, and attractive way which
enhances the overall value of the
property.
(2) Because it has been in existence
for four years.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of
Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are no issues.
B. Staff Analvsis
This issue is before the Board because of an
enforcement action. Recently, the Enforcement staff
received a complaint about a possible violation of a
setback provision for the "R-2" District. Upon
investigation, it was determined that a wood
structure /deck was built into the side yard and that it
needed to be removed or the necessary variance be
applied for. (The ordinance requirement for the side
yard setback is ten percent of the average width or six
feet for this lot. The house is constructed to the
setback line.) This request presents a somewhat unique
situation because the construction in question has been
in place for four years without any inquiries being
made until now. In 1982, a tornado passed through this
part of the City and heavily damaged many structures in
the neighborhood, including the one at 5715 Hawthorne.
June 15, 1987
Item No. 6 - Continued
At the time of rebuilding the house, the owners decided
that something needed to be done to provide access to a
back door because the lot slopes downward from the
Hawthorne side. To solve this problem, a wood
walkway /deck was constructed between the house and the
east property line connecting the front with a deck
which was built at the same time. All the necessary
permits for the major construction were obtained, but
the deck /walkway was not included in the original
permit application because it was an afterthought and
no inspection of the deck was done by the City. (This
was an oversight on the part of the various parties
involved.) The structure starts at grade in the front
and then is several feet above ground level at the rear
of the house. It is constructed right to the property
line, but there is separation betwen this lot and the
residence to the east because of the driveway. Also,
there is a masonry wall along the east property line
which appears to lessen the impact of the structure
being built to the line. The walkway /deck does address
a unique feature of the lot and appears to be the most
functional design solution for the property.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The Chairman reported that he had received a written request
for a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the
July 20, 1987, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
June 15, 1987
Item No. 7 - Z-4849
Owner: Robert E. Deaton
Address: 8707 Stanton Road
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "R -2"
Variances
Requested:
From the mobile home provisions of
Section 3-101/C.1.D to permit a mobile
home for security purposes.
Justification: (1) As the school grows, there is more
need for housing a security guard
to protect the property and the
students.
(2) The variance is consistent with the
existing character of the
neighborhood.
Present Use of
Property: School
Proposed Use of
Property: School
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
Access to the mobile home must be approved by the
Traffic Engineer.
B. Staff Ana]ysis
The request is to place a mobile home on the property
for security purposes and approval by the Board of
Adjustment is necessary. The Zoning Ordinance states:
The Board of Adjustment is empowered to review and
approve or deny applications for the location of
mobile homes or other structures in existing
mobile homes or nonresidential sites. The use of
these structures shall be limited to one single
family dwelling unit for on-site security
purposes.
June 15, 1987
Item No. 7 - Continued
The site in question is the location of the Stanton
Road School and it encompasses several acres between
Stanton Road on the west side and a single family
subdivision along the east property line where the
mobile home is proposed to be placed. The primary
use area is located along Stanton Road where the
buildings are and play area. Between the buildings and
the mobile home location, there is a large open area
with some animals. Based on the survey, the proposed
mobile home will be situated approximately 500 feet
from the area adjacent to Stanton Road. This distance
seems to be somewhat excessive for providing security
and staff questions why the east side of the property
is being considered when all the structures are sited
on the west boundary. During a field check, staff
parked at the end of Buckingham Lane, within 30 feet of
the mobile home location, and had a difficult time
viewing the area to the west. It appears that this
type of relationship to the use area will not provide
adequate security and staff does not support the
variance as proposed. The owner has not stated why the
east side is preferable and why the mobile home should
not be closer to the existing structures. Also with so
many buildings on the property, the possibility exists
for utilizing one of the spaces or even making addition
for the security person. Other options are available
that are more suitable for providing the desired
security, and they should be seriously explored by the
applicant. Finally, the proposed mobile home location
is very close to an established single family
subdivision and that could create some problems.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the mobile home placement as
proposed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Robert Deaton, was present and represented by
Richard Butler, an attorney. There were no objectors in
attendance. Mr. Butler said that security was adequate on
the west side because of a high fence, but on the east side
security was a problem and that's where the real need
existed. He went on to say that Mr. Deaton did not want any
mobile homes visible from Stanton Road and the proposed
mobile home would be located in a grove of pine trees.
Mr. Butler then again reminded the Board that security was
needed on the east side. There were several questions about
Buckingham Place and a gate at the end of Buckingham Place.
June 15, 1987
Item No. 7 - Continued
Mr. Butler said that the property was approximately 6 acres
in size and then described the site. Mr. Deaton addressed
the Board and said the school was experiencing some problems
with the stealing of animals and people entering the
property from the east side. There was a long discussion
about various issues including access to Buckingham Place.
A motion was made to grant the requested variance subject to
the location of the security mobile home being within five
feet of the interior fence as shown on Tract 36 and not the
one along the east property line and a 6-foot opaque
screening fence be placed along the eastern property line.
The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 2 noes, and 0
absent. (The Enforcement staff informed the applicant that
the person occupying the mobile home must be an employee of
the school.)
June 15, 1987
Item No 8 - Other Matters
Owner: Bill Mathis /Charles Benner
Location: University Avenue and West 12th Street
(zoned "C-3 ")
Request: To appeal a decision by the Enforcement
staff concerning temporary sales of
merchandise.
STAFF REPORT:
The request before the Board with this matter is to review
the Enforcement staff's interpretation of the Zoning
Ordinance and how it applies to the location of the
temporary sales of various items. An individual, Charles
Benner, requested that this item be placed on the Board's
agenda because of what he feels are inconsistencies in the
Zoning Ordinance.
There are two provisions in the commercial section of the
ordinance that regulate temporary sales.
1. Section 7-103(c) District Restrictions
No sale or storage of sale items for special
events in temporary structures is allowed for a
period in excess of 30 days. No more than two
such sales or events can occur at the same
location during a calendar year.
2. Section 7-103.3(b) Development Criteria ( "C-3 ")
All commercial uses shall be restricted to closed
buildings except parking lots, plant nurseries,
promotional events, and the normal pump island
services of service station operation. In
addition, outdoor display of merchandise is
allowed in an area equal to one-half of the facade
area of the front of the building. Certain
seasonal or special event sales may be allowed
when the owner has requested a permit for such
activity in conjunction with the privilege license
application. The permitting authority shall
review the owner's plan or placement of
merchandise in order to assure that the
obstruction of drives, walks, required parking,
and fire lanes does not occur. In no case shall
full-time static open display be permitted.
June 15, 1987
Item No. 8 - Continued
Also, the Environmental Codes Office has a list of
restrictions that they provide to all peddlers and /or
individuals involved in temporary sales.
1. You must locate on property zoned "C-3" or "C-4"
only. Open display of merchandise in all other
zones is prohibited.
2. You cannot have temporary signs at the location.
3. You must have your privilege license on the site
where you are located.
4. Merchandise must be kept on the vehicle at all
times except on "C-4" zoned property.
5. You cannot set up or display anything in the
public right-of-way or anywhere on private
property that will create a traffic hazard.
6. You must have permission of the property owner
where you are displaying.
Charles Benner was operating a sales location at the
southwest corner of West 12th and University which is zoned
"C-3" and vacant. Mr. Benner had his items displayed in a
tent and was informed by an Enforcement Officer that the
merchandise could only be sold from a vehicle because there
is no other structure on the lot. After that occurred,
Mr. Benner questioned why a tent selling plants at the
K-Mart Center at University and Asher was not in violation.
He was informed that because a building exists on the site
that the temporary complies with the ordinance
requirements.
Mr. Benner contacted the Planning Office and expressed
concern with the enforcement decision. because their
interpretation deals with some "C-3" property differently
than others. He asked what could be done to have this issue
addressed and he was instructed to submit a letter
requesting the Board of Adjustment to review the matter.
(Attached is a copy of Charles Benner's letter for the
Board.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION;
Charles Benner, the individual who filed the request, was
not present. There was some discussion about deferring the
issue but no action was taken. Kenny Scott of the City
staff discussed the enforcement action and the City's
June 15, 1987
Item No. 8 - Continued
guidelines for peddlers. Mr. Scott said selling seasonal
items such as vegetables from a truck was permitted, but the
selling of dresses did not meet all the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance. He also said that the use needed to be
set up on an established piece of commercial property and
the City has experienced some problems with freestanding
temporary structures. There were some additional comments
made and Mr. Scott said that his office did receive several
complaints about the operation from nearby commercial uses.
The Board was reminded that the issue before them was to
determine whether the enforcement action initiated by the
City was appropriate. A motion was made to support the
enforcement of staff's decision regarding this matter. The
motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent
and 1 abstention (George Wells).
April 29, 1987
Board of Adjustments
City Hall
Little Rock, Ar. '72201
)ear Board of Adjustments,
I am writing this letter on behalf of myself and Bill Mathis, the
owner of the below mentioned property, to appeal a decision by the
zoning enforcement officers of the city of Little mock.
I am a merchant who sells hand made Mexican dresses and have rented
space on the lot located on the Southwest corner of 12th st. and
University Ave., next to Central Termite Control. The owner is Bill
Mathis, to whom I pay a daily fee to set up my tent.
I had obtained my merchants licence from the city clerk and had set
up on this lot (zoned C-3 Commercial), only to be told by a zoning
enforcement officer that my merchandise can only be sold off the truck
and can not be displayed outside or under a tent brecause no building is
on the lot. When I asked why a tent which sells plants is allowed on an
empty lot in front of K-Mart on Asher and University, I was told that
because a building exists on that lot a tent is permitted. Because the
building is so tar from this empty space it appears to be an empty lot
also. But a technical irit erpre-tation of the codes appears to allow a
tent on the K-Mart property but not on Mr. Mathis' property (both zoned
C-3).
I do not believe it is the intent of the Planning Board to treat
the owners of these two C-3 properities differently, holding Mr. Mathis
to a narrow and restrictive interpretation of the codes, and allowing
the owners of the K-Mart properities a broad interpretation. This I
believe is unfair.
This interpretation of the codes causes hardship on myself and Mr.
Mathis and we therefore wish to petition the Board of Adjustments to
consider a more equal application of this code.
Thank you for hearing this request.
Sincerely, MAY 6 1987
Charles Benner
Vice President
TRADE WIND IMPORTS INC. PO. Box 46/Ottine, Texas/Tel.(512)672-2676
June 15, 1987
Item No. 9 - Other Matters
Owner: Everett A. Ham III
By: Virginia Atkinson
Address: 721 West Second Street
Request: To grant a hearing for a denied
variance request.
STAFF REPORT:
The rehearing provisions in the Board of Adjustment Bylaws
(Article V) are:
Section 1 - No hearing of any decision by the Board of
Adjustment shall be had except on motion by a member of
the Board to reconsider the vote made and acted on
within 10 days after its decision and carried by not
less than five concurring votes.
Section 2 - No motion for a rehearing shall be
entertained except upon written request for rehearing
and then not unless new evidence is submitted which
could not reasonably have been presented at the meeting
at which the rehearing was originally had.
Section 3 - If a rehearinq is granted, the case shall
be put on the calendar for a rehearing and the notices
issued in accordance with the notice provisions of
these rules.
Section 4 - No additional applications to the Board of
Adjustment shall be allowed unless there has been a
substantial change in the circumstances affecting such
property since the prior decision on the same piece of
property.
On May 18, 1987, the Board of Adjustment denied a variance
request submitted by Virqinia Atkinson for an office
building at 721 West Second Street. Ms. Atkinson is now
requesting a rehearing on that decision and she has
submitted a written request with additional information.
Staff polled the Board members and obtained the necessary
votes and placed the item on this agenda.
The matter before the Board is to allow Ms. Atkinson to
present new evidence and then for the Board to act on the
rehearing request. If the rehearing is approved, the issue
will be scheduled for the July 20, 1987, meeting.
Additional notification will be required as is stated in
Article V, Section 3 of the Board of Adjustment bylaws.
June 15, 1987
Item No. 9 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The owner was represented by Virginia Atkinson. There were
no objectors. Ms. Atkinson said that the building needed
repairs and the parking problem could be addressed by
leasing five spaces. She went on to say that a change in
circumstances occurred because of being able to provide more
parking. Additional comments were offered by various Board
of Adjustment members and Ms. Atkinson. A motion was made
to grant the rehearing request. The vote on the motion was
4 ayes, 5 noes, and 0 absent. The rehearing request was
denied.
June 15, 1987
There being no further business before the Board, the
meeting,- was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
Chairman Secretary
Date