Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Unsafe Structure Rebuild topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves variance for owner rebuilding after unsafe‑structure posting at 1779 Short Alley
Summary
Property owner Dennis McCray was granted variances from front and rear setbacks so he can replace a structure the city posted as unsafe at 1779 Short Alley; staff and neighbors discussed access and lot size.
On July 24, 2025, the Conway Board of the zoning utility granted variances to property owner Dennis McCray to allow construction of a new single‑family house at 1779 Short Alley after the existing structure was posted as unsafe.
Kim, a staff member, told the board that construction services had posted the existing house as unsafe and mailed certified letters to Lawrence Williams in May 2023 and November 2024. Kim said a hearing on May 24, 2025 gave McCray time to design plans for a new single‑family home. Kim reported that McCray recorded a survey on May 8 and applied for a building permit on June 6, 2025, but because of the parcel size he could not meet the R‑2 zoning setbacks. Based on the site plan, Kim said McCray requested “a variance of 13 feet from the front setback requirement of 15 foot, a variance of 8 foot from the rear setback requirement of 20 foot.”
Dennis McCray told the board he wanted to “take it down and redo it” because the house was in bad condition and that he planned to rebuild roughly the same width but “just a little bit longer” to accommodate a bathroom. McCray said he intended to replace the structure on the same footprint where possible.
Dorita Bradford Milford Swinton, who said her sister Shelly Swinton’s family owns adjacent property, asked several questions about access and whether the small driveway would be paved and how construction and additional houses approved nearby would affect access. Swinton asked, “How is that gonna affect the people in there?” Kim and a board member said access, paving and other site improvements outside the setback question were matters for separate permitting and public‑works review and not before the board on the variance request.
A board member said the lot’s small size and skewed lot lines met the criteria for variance because the condition was not common in the area and denying relief would restrict the property's use. The board member moved to approve the requested variances; a second was recorded and the board approved the motion by voice vote. The chair announced, “All in favor? Aye. Variance is granted.”
Staff recorded the lot size as roughly 46 by 60 feet (as stated by the owner during questioning). The board noted the city supported the owner’s action to replace the unsafe structure and that the variances will allow McCray to proceed with plan revisions and building permit processing.
