HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA Minute Record (JUNE)JUNE 20, 2024
ITEM NO.: 1 Z-9915
File No.: Z-9915
Owner: Overdis and Peggy McKenzie Sr.
Applicant: Overdis McKenzie Sr.
Address: 9 Hatfield Drive
Legal Description: Lots 63, 64, and part of Lot 49, all in Chicot Terrace
Subdivision in the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County,
Arkansas
Current Zoning: R-2
Present Use: Single-Family Residence
Proposed Use: Single-Family Residence
Variance(s) Requested: Variances are requested from the height and area
provisions of Section 36-516 to allow an increased
fence height from four (4) feet to five (5) feet between
a required building setback line and a street
right-of- way.
Justification: The applicant’s justification is presented in an attached
letter.
STAFF REPORT:
A. Planning and Development Civil Engineering Comments:
No comments required.
B. Landscape and Buffer Comments:
No comments.
C. Building Codes Comments:
No comments required.
D. Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property located at 9 Hatfield Drive is occupied by a single-family
residence. The survey indicates a triangular lot, with approximately 215 feet of
street frontage and a depth of 196 feet on the west and 260 feet on the southeast.
1
JUNE 20, 2024
ITEM NO.: 1 (CON’T.) Z-9915
The owner is concerned for the safety of his property and pets due to past
experience of theft and vandalism. The house is constructed within the building
setback lines of the property with a 40-foot utility easement along the southeast
(rear) property line. The applicant is proposing to construct a black chainlink fence
with decorative wood posts and top rail, five (5) feet in height. The posts are to be
topped with solar-powered lights for security purposes. The sketch provided
indicates that the fence will essentially enclose the yard area of the property.
Section 36-516 (e)(1)(a) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance states that the residential
fence standards; “Between a required building setback line and a street right-of-way,
the maximum height shall be four (4) feet. Other fences may be erected to a
maximum height of eight (8) feet.” Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance
to allow a fence to a height to five (5) feet between the building setback line and a
street right-of-way.
According to Section 36-516 (f) (7), The proposed fence columns must comply with
the following criteria: “(7) Support columns or support posts shall be permitted to
exceed the allowable fence or wall height by no more than two (2) feet, including
any ornamental features. Support columns or support posts shall have a maximum
width of two (2) feet. There shall be a minimum distance of seven (7) feet six (6)
inches between opposing faces of support columns or support posts which exceed
the allowable fence or wall height, other than at gates or corners”.
Staff is supportive of the requested fence height variance. Staff views the request
as reasonable and the variance request to generally be in support of the owner’s
safety and welfare.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance to allow a
chainlink and wood fence to be constructed to a height of five (5)-feet between the
required building setback and the street right-of-way as per the staff analysis and
submitted survey / site plan.
Board of Adjustment (APRIL 18, 2024)
This item is being deferred to the May 16, 2024 agenda as the applicant failed to notify
surrounding property owners as required.
The item remained on the consent agenda for deferral. A motion was made and
seconded to defer the item to the May 16, 2024 agenda. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 nays
and 0 absent.
2
JUNE 20, 2024
ITEM NO.: 1 Z-9915
Board of Adjustment (MAY 16, 2024)
Staff recommends that the application be deferred to the June 20, 2024, agenda, as the
applicant failed to send notices to surrounding property owners as required. There was
no further discussion. The item remained on the consent agenda for deferral. The vote
was 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent.
Board of Adjustment (JUNE 20, 2024)
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation for approval
as outlined in the “staff recommendation” above.
Overdis McKenzie, the applicant, addressed the Board in support of the application.
Mr. McKenzie stated that he requested the fence variance for the safety and security for
his property, vehicles and pets. The applicant deferred to the registered opposition.
Brenda L. Spicer addressed the Board in opposition to the application. Ms. Spicer stated
that her opposition concerned the fence in the rear of the property and not the fence in
the front of the property.
Board member, Jeremiah Russell, informed Ms. Spicer the applicant’s variance request
was for an increased fence height in the front portion of the property and not rear of the
property.
Ms. Spicer replied that she thought the variance request was for the “whole thing.” She
stated that she would file another complaint with the Department regarding her concerns
about other issues.
There was a motion to approve the application as outlined in the “staff recommendation”
above. The motion was seconded. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. The
application was approved.
3