Planning - Regular Meeting

Roll call.

Gilmore. Here. Miles. Miller.

Here.

Bailey. Here. Apples. Okay. Thank you all for coming. I need a motion to approve the minutes from 4-21 of 26. So moved. Is there a second? Thank you very much. Okay. Item number one. WCWMLLC. What's going on?

Our goal is to create two single family residential lots. They'll construct a home on each lot.

OK. I can understand that. Are the lots not going to be the proper size when you plat this into two?

So on that drawing in front of you, there's property to the north and there's an existing house and to follow the subdivision regulations, we would have to include that in our survey and then we'd be platting three lots instead of the two lots that we're trying to create. So because the subdivision regulations say three lots or more is considered a subdivision and then you get into storm water management, so we'd have to do a detention pond, even to serve that existing house that's owned by somebody else. Potentially a sidewalk in front of that existing house. And then they would have to sign the survey, so we're giving somebody, a neighbor's signature authority, so to speak. So we're trying to request a variance to create two single family lots on that .44 acre track.

if the existing lot's not part of their ownership, why would that? This was originally one piece of property.

You're talking about the house above it? Right, the house above it, all this was one piece of property. They did a lot split. Well, you can do a lot split without going to Planning Commission and without meeting subdivision requirements. After it sold, then they turned around to split the other lot again. we don't have any time limit on that split. So what we're finding is some people are doing a lot split, turn around and sell on the other lot, and then they're trying to do a split again to get around subdivision requirements.

Yes. But this has been a number of years.

I don't know how many years. How long has this been split?

About 14 years was the previous plat.

We had talked one time about putting a time limit on a lot split. We never really got.

Just X amount of years or whatever. Yeah. To try to avoid them. To avoid doing this, right. Yeah, I got you. Questions from the panel?

Mr. Darrell, if we granted this variance, would we or have we already set a precedent of doing this in the past?

We've done one other of these that I can remember in the last probably year.

On North Culver House? Yes.

The thing about it is with there being no time limit on that, that's where we need to come up with a time limit. And I would take any of y'all's suggestions on what you think a proper time should be before that second lot is considered not part of the original tract.

But 14 years is certainly longer than I would be thinking. I don't know what you think, Kevin.

It's a long time between when it was sold. A lot of things change in 14 years.

I have a question, Daryl. If they do make the split like they want to, will both lots conform to our policies?

They would both conform to the zoning requirements, yes.

You basically split it down the middle?

What is that?

Are you going to split it down the middle?

Yes.

Make two equal lots?

Yes, I think Anique may be able to pull that up. But we're going to split that down the middle. And each lot would be 0.22 acres. And each lot would have a single family home. And we're in the middle of a rezoning. I know it's kind of different from this meeting, but we're in the middle of a rezoning. So we're going, it's currently zoned multifamily, RM8. And we're zoning it to a single family, RS5. DAVID BURRAGE. You're building it.

It's going to be rezoned to single family?

DAVID BURRAGE. Yes. DAVID BURRAGE. OK. DAVID BURRAGE. We're going to go from multi.

DAVID BURRAGE. That's what you're asking for with Planning Commission?

DAVID BURRAGE. That's going to Planning Commission. We went to Planning Commission. And it's in the process of going to all three readings at the council level. But that's the rezoning aspect.

DAVID BURRAGE. Talked about MAPC splitting up the lot. Is that why it's here?

At MAPC, we did not have a problem with going from RM8 to single family homes at all. But we did not discuss the lot splitting.

Any other questions?

Let me, so the two lots that's gonna be proposed, are they being sold? Are they being built on by the current owner of the lot?

So I've worked with this developer builder and he builds homes on those lots.

I'm trying to find the hardship for a positive vote.

think it's that property north of us is a different owner it's been 14 years and then making making that existing home and lot north of us part of the subdivision it triggers things like sidewalks storm water management for a home that's been there for decades and decades

Do they have any storm maintenance requirements when they build the houses? So I'll make the motion to approve the variance.

Second?

Second.

OK.

Roll call, please.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. OK. Thank you.

Appreciate it.

All right. Jared Monette.

I'm actually David James. Jared is here. I'm the agent on this bill.

OK. Go ahead and speak. Your name, address, and then what you need.

David James, 442 County Road 4242, Jonesboro, Arkansas, 72404.

And then tell us what you want to do.

The variance that we're asking for is basically just an acceptance. In 1973, the original developer did not complete the cul-de-sac that was supposed to be there, and so whoever constructed the house just went off of the setback off of the road that was current. And so we're in the process of trying to get the house sold. The cloud came up on title. And so we, title requested us to get a variance and acceptance from y'all saying, hey, we're good. We can clear title and pass off title for clear and marketable title to the next buyer.

Basically the setback on the front of the home toward the cul-de-sac? Correct, yes sir.

As you can see, the front porch is about a foot and a half away from, that cul-de-sac, just so we're clear, is not there. Where it says Hobo Cove is, that is where the actual road is.

So you've got the actual Hobo Cove, but the cul-de-sac itself has never been developed.

It was never constructed, correct. Yes, sir. And they're not requesting to change anything. They're just simply wanting clear marketable title because we're currently under contract to close. And then, of course, this popped up and we wanted to do our due diligence to make sure everything was clean.

Where's this at?

Hubbell Cove. It's north side of town. If you go down Patrick, back off that way.

Yeah. There's several cul-de-sacs not constructed in that area. subdivision out there. I think we ran into this with the streets, Daryl, sidewalks, the cul-de-sacs not being built and the roads just stopping in multiple locations out there.

House was built what year?

Oh goodness, I'm not sure on the actual date of construction. We've owned this house for what, four years? four or five years, and it wasn't caught in title then. Now it's on the market, it's under contract currently, and then when they requested a survey, that's when this came to knowledge.

Probably lines where I don't see the cul-de-sac being constructed there. Any time soon.

Yeah, I mean, it was plotted in 1973.

Yeah, that's what I was going for.

If you all decide to grant this variance after that, I mean, that will clear up the title. But if I was the property owner, I would start working to get that right away abandoned.

Yeah.

Okay.

Does it have a name?

I mean, at the building line, it will. But I would try to get at least that portion of the right-of-way abandoned. That way you're not a foot and a half off the... This is a little different, but we've had several in this area where they've got, you know, they started a subdivision, they built about half a road, and then they didn't finish it. We've had lots that are planted lots that don't have, you know, a street in front of it. We've had a look at variances for curb and gutter and sidewalks, that type of thing. So every one of them are a little different, but Seems like back in the 70s that was pretty prevalent. It's just a stub out of street and start building houses in it.

Yeah.

So the only thing we're looking at today, though, is the variance for the setback. That's correct. Yes, sir.

If we were to say no to this, what would be the recourse on this? How would they ever be able to tear down half the house?

I mean, an appeal from the BZA goes to circuit court. So that would be their next step. But I mean, either that or work to abandon the right-of-way itself. title work completed and get a sale done for the owner.

And this will be a primary residence for the gentleman that's purchasing the house. It's a primary residence. It's not an investor. And he's just wanting to move into it and call it home.

We can't tie the abandonment of the right-of-way to this variance, can we?

Now, once you do the variance, that's, I mean, there'll be a foot and a half or 1.8 feet, whatever that is. That'll be the new setback for this building.

Move the landowner to get that abandoned.

If they ever wanted to do anything else, they would have to abandon that right away. If they wanted to put anything, you know, add anything to the front of the house, it would have to be.

Well, I mean, the water mains up there next to the road the whole night, so there would be a lot more if you want to do anything in front of the house.

Yeah. Any other questions?

Chair, I move that we put the variance VR 2612. Excuse me.

I'm sorry. Anybody here want to make a comment? Anybody else? Would anyone else like to make a comment? Yes. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay.

So you're the property owner to the left. Okay. Gotcha. Gotcha.

Okay, thank you. Okay, Kevin, I interrupted.

Mr. Chair, I just move that we place the variance on the floor for a vote, please.

Is there a second? Second. Roll call.

Gilmore?

Yes.

Miles? Miller? Yes. Bailey?

Yes.

Okay, thank you. All right, thank you, guys.

All done, thank you. Any other thing before us?

No, sir.

All right. I'll see you all on the 16th.