Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board denies Battenfield setback variance, citing self-imposed hardship
Summary
The Benton County Planning Board voted 2–5 to deny a variance request to reduce a 10-foot setback to 1 foot for a private carport, finding the need self‑imposed and expressing fire-code and future-neighbor-impact concerns.
Benton County planning commissioners voted down a request for a setback variance (case 25-518) on Feb. 4 after concluding the claimed hardship was self-imposed and that the proposal could limit a neighbor's future property options.
The applicant sought to reduce a required 10-foot side-yard setback to 1 foot for a personal carport at 21600 Seminole Court in Salem Springs. Staff reviewed the application as a request for relief based on a claimed hardship: the driveway configuration and lot shape, the applicant said, left insufficient usable space to build a covered parking structure.
Applicant Mike Battenfield and Richard Faust of John Brown University, who was assisting as a construction manager, described on-site constraints. Faust noted the existing retaining wall and a slope on the south side of the property, saying the wall ‘‘starts at about 18 inches [and] goes to about 3 feet as it gets to the back inside corner,’’ which he said limits access and contributed to the design choice.
Several board members pushed back on the central legal standard for variances. "This is self imposed," several members said in explanation of their votes, arguing the owner set himself up to need a variance and therefore did not meet the board's hardship standard. Members also raised fire-code setbacks and the risk that a signed neighbor letter of support would not bind future owners.
Board discussion included options to table the request so the applicant could revise the design (for example, pull the structure back to a 3-foot encroachment or to a fully compliant 10-foot setback). Staff said tabling to allow redesign was a workable option, but several board members opposed tabling because suggested amendments had been discussed at the technical review meeting and not adopted.
When the motion to approve was called, the roll call produced two votes in favor and five against; the chair announced the motion failed and advised the applicant to redraw and resubmit or build within the required setbacks.
Because the board found the condition to be a self-imposed hardship and denied the variance, the applicant may resubmit with a revised plan or pursue a compliant design.
