HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-10-28 Petition for Judicial ReviewIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS
CIVIL DIVISION
TERRA FIRMA PROJECT, LLC PETITIONER
v. CASE NO.____________
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT RESPONDENT
PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
COMES NOW, the Petitioner, by and through its counsel, The Brad Hendricks Law Firm,
and for its Petition for Judicial Review, now states:
1. This is a petition for judicial review of an administrative decision of the Board of
Adjustment of the Department of Planning and Development pursuant to the Arkansas
Administrative Procedure Act. See Ark. Code Ann. §25-15-212.
2. Petitioner Terra Firma Project, LLC, a construction business, is an Arkansas
Limited Liability Company in good standing.
3. Respondent Board of Adjustment of the Department of Planning and Development
hereafter the “Board”) is responsible for overseeing variances to zoning and permit requirements
for construction.
4. On or about October 15, 2020, the Board denied Petitioner’s application for a
variance from Area regulations of Section 36-254(d)3) to allow a reduced rear yard setback in the
R-2 district; and a variance from Area provisions of Section 36-156(a)(2)(b) to allow reduced
separation for an accessory structure in an R-2 district. The Petitioner now seeks judicial review
of this Order.
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Pulaski County Circuit Court
Terri Hollingsworth, Circuit/County Clerk
2020-Oct-28 16:01:16
60CV-20-6002
C06D12 : 9 Pages
5. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 25-
15-212(b)(1).
FACTS
6. The requested variances are found in file No. Z-9494. See attached Exhibit #1.
7. The Petitioner has twice modified the requested Variance to address any possible
issues.
8. The Petitioner presented the requests for the variances on 10/15/2020.
9. During that meeting for the Board of Adjustment, the Petitioner sought to address
all concerns raised by both members of the Board, as well as concerns raised by citizens.
10. In that meeting the Petitioner agreed to address all drainage issues potentially
caused by the variance as well as any issues related to windows on the sides of the structure in
question.
11. At the meeting on 10/15/2020 members of the Board expressed what appeared to
be frustration with the Petitioner building a non-compliant structure in the first place, making the
vote in question (5 to nothing against the variance) seem punitive in nature.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
12. The Petitioner realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
the paragraphs hereinabove in this Petition.
13. The Board’s decision should be reversed because other variances of a similar nature
have been granted in the neighborhood in question. See Exhibit #1. Further, the denial of the
variance was punitive in nature.
14. The Petitioner respectfully requests the opportunity to further brief the issues in this
case and requests that an immediate hearing be scheduled for oral arguments pursuant to Ark. Code
Ann. § 25-15-212(g), as the house remains vacant since a stop work order was issued on
06/05/2020.
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully prays that this Court enter an Order reversing
the decision of the Board, specifically finding that the variances requested in Z-9454-A be granted,
and for all other just and proper relief.
Respectfully Submitted:
THE BRAD HENDRICKS LAW FIRM
500 C Pleasant Valley Drive
Little Rock, AR 72227
501) 221-0444 (P)
501) 661-0196 (F)
tkitchens@bradhendricks.com
BY: /s/ Lloyd W. “Tré” Kitchens
Lloyd W. “Tré” Kitchens, ABN 99075