Bentonville board approves variance to place garage in front of house on flag lot

The City of Bentonville Board of Adjustment on Feb. 12 approved a variance allowing an accessory garage to be located in front of the primary residence on a flag (pipestem) lot, treating the property's front yard as a rear yard because of the lot's shape and site constraints.

The variance was requested by the homeowner and applicant, Mr. Dilday, and was described by city planning staff as an exception to setback and accessory-structure rules specified in the city's zoning code. Board members asked about flood risk, the city's future land-use map designation, and whether the lot could be rezoned instead of granted a variance; after discussion a board member moved to approve, another seconded, and a roll call vote was unanimous in favor.

The request cited City of Bentonville zoning code sections 601.01(d)(1) and 401.07(c)(1) and (2)(b), which cover setback regulations for R-1 residential lots and accessory structures. City planning staff summarized that under R-1 rules an accessory structure may not be located in front of the primary structure; the applicant asked the board to treat the front yard as a rear yard because the parcel is a flag lot accessed by a narrow stem from the street.

Applicant Mr. Dilday told the board the lot's topography and drainage shaped his setback options. "The drainage ditch slopes towards my house, which accelerates water off of that towards my house," he said, and added that high retention-edge levels at times cause water to come over the top of the ditch at his property. The applicant also noted storm damage to trees and referenced a pool house on the property visible in county property photos.

City planning staff told the board the parcel is not inside an official FEMA floodplain. Staff also reported that the city's newly adopted future land-use map lists the area as a "Walkable Neighborhood" category with sub-designations DN-1, DN-2 and DN-3 under standard review, and that the lot remains in R-1 zoning, while the Residential Estate (RE) designation carries a two-acre minimum and therefore would not apply to this parcel.

Board members asked whether rezoning would be an alternative; staff said lot-area requirements for RE would prevent that option. The staff summary also noted that the RE garage setback is 30 feet, identical to R-1, but RE requires a larger minimum lot size.

A board member said the lot's "pipe stem" configuration and neighboring structures effectively limit where a garage can be sited; another member described the request as "pretty straightforward" and indicated neighbors would likely not see the garage from the street because of intervening structures. After brief discussion, a board member made a motion to approve and another member seconded. The clerk called the roll: an unidentified board member recorded as "240026" voted yes; Phillips, Grisel, Swanson and Barrington also voted yes. The motion passed.

The board did not attach additional conditions to the variance during the meeting. Staff and the applicant discussed site constraints including a front yard alternative field for septic on parts of the subdivision where city sewer was not available at the time of development.

The meeting closed with routine items: the board chair asked members to prepare to select officers (chair, vice chair and secretary) at the next meeting per the bylaws and reminded members to submit outstanding financial conflict-of-interest statements. Board member Kevin Barrington, who arrived late and introduced himself as a Bentonville resident and Arvest employee, participated in the vote approving the variance.