Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves variances to allow two North Oak Drive lots to be built
Summary
The Fayetteville Board of Adjustments approved variances allowing two previously platted North Oak Drive lots to be considered buildable despite RSF‑4 zoning nonconformities after staff recommended approval; neighbors and the POA raised notice, dues and lack‑of‑plans concerns.
The Fayetteville City Board of Adjustments approved variances on Oct. 6 that will allow two North Oak Drive parcels platted under an earlier PUD to be treated as buildable despite current RSF‑4 zoning requirements.
City staff recommended approval of two variances — relief from street frontage minimums (North Oak is a private drive) and a lot‑area variance for one parcel short by about 1,000 square feet — finding that requiring conversion of private right‑of‑way to public street would be disproportionate to the impact of development. “Staff finds that the amount of right of way that would be need to be turned from private to public... is disproportionate to the impact that they would be creating by building on these 2 lots,” staff told the board and recommended approving the variances with conditions.
Paradigm Development’s applicant, Tracy Hoskins, said the city’s rezoning left the lots functionally unbuildable and argued the board should restore the lots to their originally platted status so they could be developed. Hoskins told the board, “I can't pull building permits until they fix the problem they caused.”
Neighbors and the Sunset Woods property owners association raised objections during public comment. Susan Bradford Robertson said her 92‑year‑old parents may have been “taken advantage of” during the property transaction and asked for a delay to investigate. Robert Rhodes, an attorney appearing for neighbors and the POA, questioned whether the public notice sign had been posted correctly on both parcels and asked the board to table the item to allow discussion; he asked for a 30‑day delay. Janet Jones, a POA representative, said one owner was delinquent on POA dues and that prior court actions had resolved related lot issues.
Board members considered those concerns but confined the decision to the narrow question before them: whether conditions meet the hardship standard for a variance. Several members said the rezoning had created the hardship. The chair moved to approve BOA20250017 with staff conditions; the motion was seconded and the board recorded yes votes, carrying the motion.
The approval makes the parcels buildable from a zoning‑standpoint but does not override private covenants: staff confirmed that the city does not enforce neighborhood covenants and POA requirements remain privately enforceable. Parties that disagree with the board’s decision retain appeal options — staff noted appeals from the Board of Adjustments can be taken to city council by the property owner or via a council member on a resident’s behalf under the city code cited in the hearing.
The board then proceeded to the next agenda item.
