Loading...
26 FEB 9 A G E N D A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 9, 2026 6:00 P.M. CITY HALL CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER: PAGES 2. APPROVAL AND/OR CORRECTION OF MINUTES: Regular Scheduled Meeting of January 12, 2026 1-2 3. VARIANCE REQUEST(S): a. Rear Yard Setback Variance 101 Cross Street Petitioner: Midark Houses LLC Representative: Tucker Land Surveying 3-4 b. Rear Yard Setback Variance 130 Joiner Avenue Petitioner: Puckett Investments LLC Representative: Tucker Land Surveying 5-6 c. Fence Height Variance 911 Southeastern Avenue Petitioner: Nellie Jean Marion 7-16 d. Fence Height Variance 305 West Martin Street Petitioner: Nivea Chapple (Thornton) 17-24 ADJOURNMENT MINUTES: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING DATE AND TIME: February 9, 2026 6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. ATTENDANCE: Commissioners: Moore, Walker, and Chairman Brittenum were present. ______________________________________________________________________ City Clerk Susan Davitt recorded those listed above in attendance and Chairman Brittenum declared a quorum. APPROVAL AND/OR CORRECTION OF MINUTES: Commissioner Moore moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker to approve the regular meeting minutes of January 12, 2026. MOTION CARRIED with Chair voting AYE. VARIANCE(S): a. Rear Yard Setback Variance 101 Cross Street The public hearing opened at approximately 6:01 p.m. City Engineer Adam Whitlow stated this request is for a variance from 25’ to 13’, the lot has been vacant, and the current owner bought the lot to improve the district with new single-family housing. He explained that the lot is non-conforming and not very deep, so in order to build a house, they require a shortened rear yard setback. He detailed that it was requested by the owner, there should be a representative present, it was properly advertised and posted, Public Works received no phone calls in objection or support, there are like properties in the area with substantially less than code requirements, and this is an old platted area with no building lines, so Staff supports granting the variance due to the above conditions. Casey Smith, Project Manager for Arkansas Homes and Rentals, related that the house will be 1223 square feet with four bedrooms and two bathrooms. He noted that they have already built several of the same size houses in the Sunnyside Subdivision. He confirmed a lot of the older existing homes are smaller, but people need more space now. He mentioned it will have a two car driveway; wide enough to park two vehicles, but not deep enough. He brought up that it is currently planned to be a rental house. The public hearing closed at approximately 6:06 p.m. Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Moore to approve a 13’ rear yard setback at 101 Cross Street. MOTION CARRIED with Chair voting AYE. b. Rear Yard Setback Variance 130 Joiner Avenue The public hearing opened at approximately 6:07 p.m. Engineer Whitlow stated this is a similar request to the last, except it is to go from 25’ to 23’. He confirmed it is a small, non-conforming lot, it was properly advertised and posted, Public Works received no phone calls in objection or support, there are like properties in the area with substantially less than code requirements, and this is an old platted area, so Staff supports granting the variance. Mr. Smith related that this would be the same exact house as the previous request. The public hearing closed at approximately 6:08 p.m. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING February 9, 2026 6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Moore moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker to approve a 23’ rear yard setback at 130 Joiner Avenue. MOTION CARRIED with Chair voting AYE. c. Fence Height Variance 911 Southeastern Avenue The public hearing opened at approximately 6:08 p.m. Engineer Whitlow stated this request is for a height variance to go from 6’ to 8’ for a fence spanning along the common lotline between 911 and 907 Southeastern Avenue. He explained it will be set approximately 5’ off of the property line to provide access to maintain the area between and will transition to 4’ beyond the front of the house. He confirmed the request is from the owner, a representative was requested to be present, the property was advertised and posted, Public Works received no phone call in objection or support of the request, but Staff cautions granting the variance due to the hardships stated being general in nature and not specific to this property; also, this is relating to a newer ordinance. Representative Rob Purvis with Bee Fencing mentioned a code change last year and told how the company was replacing a shared dilapidated fence that also has to do with the security of the petitioner. He explained the occupants of the house to the right have made threatening remarks to her, so she is wanting to install an 8’ fence from the right side of the property, then bring it down to 4’ in the front. He noted this is more than just about a fence; there are other issues related to the neighbors. He told how the work was in progress when Code Enforcement received a call, but they were unaware a permit was needed to work on an existing fence line. Petitioner Nellie Marion affirmed she had contacted the City when she had fencing installed in 2019, but recently found out it the code was changed four months prior to this most recent instance. When Chairman Brittenum inquired about the attached tarp from the pictures provided, she explained that when the tornado came in 2023, it caused some of the boards to be blown away, so she nailed some salvaged ones on top of the existing fence. She told how the City explained to her the variance request had to do with a hardship regarding the property. She noted near the light pole, the fence is taller than 6’ because the ground is a bit higher than her yard. She mentioned trees being cut down on the fence line, which left roots. When Chairman Brittenum inquired what the hardship is, she brought up the land slope, noting if she puts up a 6’ fence, it would be shorter than the existing fence. Mr. Purvis stated with the slope, if they put a 6’ fence, it is not going to be tall enough because of the way the ground runs. Ms. Marion pointed out there is a lot of dips and holes in the ground all over because of moles and unleveled ground. Engineer Whitlow does not feel like it is at enough of a slope to justify a hardship. He gave an example of someone having a 15% slope where their neighbor is 8-10’ higher and an 8’ may have the visibility standards equivalent to a 6’. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING February 9, 2026 6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. Mr. Purvis called attention to a picture that currently has 8’ and 6’ fencing. He also noted property across from Ms. Marion has 8’ fencing. Ms. Marion recalled the fence laying on the ground when she moved in 8 years ago. A brief discussion ensued regarding the distance of the new fence relating to the existing fence. Ms. Marion noted the tarp being torn is from the neighbors; there are several reports where she called the police. She told how they used to come in her yard, explaining they are two adult brothers who have mental issues, but she does have a civil talking relationship with their sister. She assured if the height is approved, it will not obstruct any views. When City Clerk Davitt inquired, Engineer Whitlow replied that any fencing forward of the structure has to be reduced down to 4’ and has to be see-through. He mentioned they have allowed side fences only to be opaque, but if it encloses the front yard, it needs to be alternating pickets, wrought iron, or something to that effect. Commissioner Moore shared that he visited the property and the 8’ frame has already been installed with metal poles in between posts. He noted it would be very expensive if she had to tear it down, so he is against touching the front part, but 8’ is unacceptable for the back. Chairman Brittenum brought up that City Council passed an ordinance where the maximum height is 6’. She understands part of the 8’ fence is up, but to her, it is the responsibility of the contractor to find out local codes. Mr. Purvis acknowledged it was their mistake for not knowing, but if they can move forward and finish the fence, he believes it would be best for all parties. City Clerk Davitt related if the Board approves it, they have no leg to stand on with anyone else under the ordinance. She related only fences standing prior to the ordinance were grandfathered in; if they require repair or replacement, they would have to go by the same 6’ rule. A brief discussion ensued regarding a previous approved variance, but it was determined that receipts were provided showing they purchased materials before the ordinance was passed, but in this instance, it was not. Commissioner Moore stated it can be cut down to 6’ since the metal pole does not go all of the way to the top. Mr. Purvis noted the whole issue is that the 8’ standing fence with the tarp will be over the top of the 6’ new fence. He requested leaving the existing 8’ then tapering it down to 6’ then 4’. City Clerk Davitt pointed out if the Board grants this, under what conditions can they ever deny anyone, because this is against the ordinance and there is no true hardship. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING February 9, 2026 6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. Engineer Whitlow clarified that this Board is not a legislative body; the City Council is the one who created the ordinance. Ms. Marion reiterated there are roots that have come to her yard on the side where she has sewer and a water faucet. She surmised the roots could tie into her water lines and asked if that would be a hardship. City Clerk Davitt does not believe that relates to the height of the fence. The public hearing closed at approximately 6:40 p.m. Commissioner Walker moved to deny the fence height variance at 911 Southeastern Avenue. A brief discussion ensued regarding the heights contained in the ordinance. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED at this time with Chair voting AYE. d. Fence Height Variance 305 West Martin Street The public hearing opened at approximately 6:43 p.m. Engineer Whitlow stated this request is to go from 6’ to 8’, while transitioning down to 5’ beyond the front of the house. He explained it is requested by the owner, a representative should be in attendance, the property was properly advertised and posted, and Public Works received no phone calls in objection or support of the request. He confirmed Staff has the same concerns mentioned in the previous request; they do not feel like there is a hardship represented. Co-petitioner Nivea Chapple (Thornton) related they are here to request an 8’ fence in the rear and 5’ on the front sides. She explained the reason is because both her side neighbors have very large dogs, so they would like to put up a fence to keep them from jumping over. Co-petitioner Calvin Chapple told how they cannot go in their backyard because the dogs threaten to come across the fence each time. Chairman Brittenum noted pit bulls are banned in the City, so Animal Control should be contacted. Mrs. Chapple brought up that they are the second house behind Splash Zone, and with that comes a lot of foot traffic. They would like to put up a fence to deter people from walking through their yard. She mentioned a barrier is needed between her neighbors on the right side due to the way they take care of their property, and on the left side, there have been issues with them parking on their property line with their vehicles. She shared pictures of the neighbor’s vehicle track marks in their yard, noting that they plan on expanding their driveway to have more room to park their own three vehicles. They would like to put up a fence as well. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING February 9, 2026 6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Moore stated the entrance to their backyard is blocked from the neighbor parking in their yard. Mrs. Chapple noted page 22 of the agenda shows the side of the property where they have issues with the cleanliness of neighbors. She told how they are trying to deter rodents and shield the eyesore of inoperable vehicles. Chairman Brittenum recommended they notify Code Enforcement regarding the vehicles. She understands, but the ordinance states 6’ and 4’, not 8’ and 5’. She suggested the petitioners speak to City Council. City Clerk Davitt explained a hardship could be in regards to the topography of the land; something out of the property owner’s control. When the petitioners inquired about City Council or appeal procedures, she replied that the appeal goes to a court of law; the other would be going to City Council and try to persuade them to amend the ordinance, which is newer. Engineer Whitlow related if they feel like the ordinance needs changed, they can discuss it with their Council representative since they are the lawmakers. A brief discussion ensued regarding what is considered reasonable privacy and the possibility of having a two-story house adjacent to some properties. Chairman Brittenum advised the petitioners to reach out to their Council Member Trenika McCoy. The public hearing closed at approximately 6:59 p.m. Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Moore to deny the fence height variance at 305 West Martin Street. MOTION CARRIED with Chair voting AYE. ADJOURNMENT: Without objection, Chairman Brittenum adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:00 p.m. MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully, ___________________________ ______________________________ Susan L. Davitt CHAIRMAN Vivian Brittenum CITY CLERK – TREASURER