Jonesboro board approves three variances for commercial and residential properties

The Jonesboro Planning Board on Tuesday approved three separate variances affecting commercial and residential properties, moving each applicant closer to bringing projects into compliance with city standards.

The board approved a variance to reduce setbacks on the north and east sides of an existing commercial building after a presenter said the parcel had been replatted into a single lot and the as-built structure sits closer than current standards allow. “We were asking for a variance to have smaller setbacks on the north and east side,” the presenter said, noting the change is intended to prevent title-insurance issues that could block future sales.

Board staff explained the importance of reconciling the as-built condition with current code, noting that substantial damage or reconstruction could trigger full compliance with present standards. After brief questions about required distances and city right-of-way improvements, a committee member moved to approve the variance and the clerk recorded affirmative votes; the motion carried.

Rob Hester of Stonebridge Construction, representing Bridal Clardy, asked the board to allow two variances for a narrow Greensboro Village lot: one for the percentage of storefront glass and another for on-site parking. Hester said the project is about four percentage points short of the glass requirement and that design choices—such as not taking glass to floor level to accommodate restaurant seating—drove that decision. “The only two things we’re out of compliance on is the amount of glass storefront,” Hester said, adding the site would rely on nearby shared parking rather than a large on-site field.

Staff clarified that Greensboro Village’s pattern book was adopted as part of the PUD code for the area and that parking in the village functions as shared common parking; the applicant indicated four curbside spaces and nearby surface lots would serve patrons. The board voted to approve both variances.

At the meeting’s next item, an owner said he built a home at 1421 in 2018 after receiving a variance and now seeks permission to tear down and rebuild a similar house on the adjacent 1423 lot, which was consolidated from three parcels into a single 50-foot lot. Staff noted that RS8 zoning would permit a 50-foot lot but cautioned about spot-zoning concerns if only a single parcel were rezoned amid surrounding R-1 homes. The board approved the requested variance following a motion.

The board opened with routine approval of the June 2 minutes, approved the three variances described above, and then adjourned. The transcript records the motions and roll-call affirmations but does not include detailed vote tallies beyond the affirmative responses noted during each roll call.

Next steps: approvals grant the applicants permission to proceed under the variances granted; any required permits, curb-and-gutter work, or title-clearance steps remain subject to staff review and building-permit processes.