Board of Adjustment

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES August 28, 2017 The Russellville Board of Adjustment met in its Regular Meeting, Monday, August 28, 2017, at 5:00 p.m. in the Russellville, Arkansas City Hall Council Chambers. Members Present Chairman Lannis Nicholson Vice-Chair Wendell Miller Secretary Peggy Stratton Rob Caldwell Steve Hubbard Members Absent Karen Yarbrough Visitors Present: Mayor Horton, City Planner James Walden, City Engineer Kurt Jones, Fire Marshall Setian, Building Official Holstein, City Attorney Trey Smith, Planning Assistant Lequitta Jones, and Emily McIllwain. Welcome Visitors The First Order of Business was a request to review and approve the minutes of the May 22, 2017 meeting. Member Miller made the motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Member Stratton and passed unanimously. The Second Order of Business was a public hearing requesting a variance from Article 3.6 to allow erection of a non-privacy fence around the entire property with a setback of 10 feet from the street, for property located at 220 Hillview Cove. Submitted by Jonathan and Emily McIllwain. (BOA.17.08.3631) Planner Walden said the request is to construct a non-privacy fence around the property. The fence portions along the sides of the house will be setback between 10-15 feet from the property line. The portions along the rear property lines will be placed on the property line. The request is for a variance to raise the allowed height for fencing by 1.5’ from 3.5’ to 5’. The placement of the fence in front of the front setback line along the south and eastern portions of the property cause the need for a variance. The applicant has been responsive in providing justification and clarification to the staff. The Justification from the Applicant. We have a unique circumstance that should allow for this variance approval because we own four lots that have been combined as one lot to form one much larger estate lot. We purchased our house, which is on Lot 10 and have since purchased Lots 8, 9, and 11. The additional three lots serve as our side yard and back yard. We are only seeking to fence the side and back yards. We do not want to fence in the front yard. We currently have a fence around back of Lot 10. This fence serves to contain my children and pets, but also currently serves to contain our swimming pool. We want to remove our old fence and construct a new fence around what is now our back yard and side yard of the one estate lot. It is necessary that this new fence be five feet tall to contain our children, pets, and swimming pool and keep them out of the street. We plan to build a fence with stone columns and four 2” X 8” boards in between each column. This will be a non-privacy fence which will not impede visibility from the street. The closest the new fence would come to the street is 20’, which is 10’ behind the building setback. Consistency with the Variance Standards: 1) So special circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, which are not applicable to other lands in the area? The site is a large area composed of four lots. The house is constructed on only one lot. The lots along the eastern and southern portion effectively act as a side yard, but are treated as front yards. This is peculiar to the lot and creates a unique hardship. 2) Would literal interpretation of the code deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the area? While a fence could reasonably be constructed as 3.5’tall, the lower fence height would prevent the eastern portions of the property from effectively being a side yard and would be insufficient in height to contain the applicant’s pets and children. Literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the area. 3) Are there special conditions that exist that are not the result of the actions by the applicant? No. 4) Will granting the variance confer on the applicant special privileges denied to others in the area? No, it will allow the applicants to fully make use of what is effectively their side yard. The Recommendation for Action: Approval with Conditions 1) The applicant seeks a remedy to sufficiently allow City Corp to access its sewer line without causing harm to the fence. The applicant sufficiently meets the standards for approval of a variance such that the circumstances are unique to the property and create an undue hardship on the property owners. Member Nicholson said he had spoken with some property owners and they didn’t see a problem with the fence. Other members had no issue with the fence. Commission Miller made the motion to approve the request as submitted contingent on complying with City Corporation. The motion was seconded by Member Caldwell and passed unanimously. Adjourned. __________________________ Chairman Lannis Nicholson