The Alexander City Council, in a split vote, decided to approve a variance request that will allow the subdivision of one lot into two smaller lots. The variance is needed because each of the two lots will be less than the minimum requirement of 8,000 square feet.
The 13,818 square feet lot is located at 14916 Regency Drive in south Alexander. It sits at the corner of Regency Drive and Charles Street. When divided into two lots one will have 6,916.5 square feet and the other will be 6,901.5 square feet.
Property owner Heman E. Montoya submitted the variance permit. His plan is to build two, site-built, one-story homes.
At the October 21 council meeting Planning Commission Chairman Michael Huck explained to council members the steps taken to reach this point in the process. Huck said two planning meetings have been held.
“We had a special meeting in September where we mainly discussed the plans and the dividing of the property and the shortage of square footage and the variance request,” he said. “Mr. Montoya had mailed out, to the adjacent property owners, ... a copy of the variance (permit) and a request to reply in writing whether they approved or did not approve of the smaller property lot size.”
As part of the variance process, the individual applying for the variance must get written approval from adjacent property owners and/or residents. Mr. Montoya told planning commission members he had spoken to the property owner behind him, explaining his plans and problem with the square foot requirement. According to Mr. Montoya the neighbor didn’t mind but he would have to speak to his wife.
The letters were sent by certified mail. Since no responses had been received by the September special planning meeting, the variance request was tabled until the regular October meeting.
Huck then proceeded to report on the results of the October meeting.
“And at that time, he (Mr. Montoya) came back with some of the certified mail cards signed, which means that someone came (to post office), picked it up and took the letter,” Huck said. “He also received some letters returned that no one picked up or signed for.”
While no one mailed-in any comments, one comment was hand-delivered to City Hall. It’s that comment that has caused some confusion.
Huck said the filled out form was delivered to, “City Hall here the day before our (Special) September (Planning) meeting and I received it at the September council meeting (one week after the planning meeting). And in there she had circled disapproved. But in the section where she was supposed to write the address of the property being divided, she wrote her address.”
This was the wife of the neighbor Mr. Montoya had spoken to prior to the September planning meeting. Huck said he sent Mr. Montoya a copy of the response and suggested he speak to the neighbor to verify their position on the variance request.
“The first time I spoke with him, it was just a verbal communication,” Mr. Montoya told council members at the October council meeting. “We talked. I'll (sic) explain to him what I was trying to do. And he said he didn't have any problem with that. At that time, I was, you know, trying to get him to sign the letter, just stating that. And he said he would wait for his wife to look over it also. But at that time, it was, in my understanding, it was fine because he said it would be fine. But then later, that's when they brought, they had dropped off the letter (to city hall).”
Mr. Montoya says he also spoke to the wife who told him she didn’t take the response letter to city hall.
“[S]he's the one that said that she didn't,” Mr. Montoya said.
“So our recommendation was written based on what we knew as of the October meeting, which was no one (the other neighbors) had sent in anything,” Huck told council members. “And, Mr. Montoya had spoken to, he had spoken to the neighbor, the husband who said” (it was fine).
What was unknown is that a complaint would be filed the day after the October planning meeting with the Alexander Police Department. David Ralston, and his wife Amanda, own the property behind the Montoya property. The complaint, filed by David Ralston, was included with other council meeting documents made available the Thursday before the October 21 council meeting.
The complaint has two key statements.
In one portion of the statement Mr. Ralston says, after receiving Montoya’s letter, his wife went to city hall for more information and was told, “Heman was trying to build a duplex rental property.” The word “Duplex” does not appear in the Variance Permit, which was sent to adjacent property owners/residents.
He ends the complaint stating, “I, David Ralston do not agree for any commercial and/or residential rental to be built on that property.”
For now, Mr. Montoya plans to build one of the single-family homes for his son. As for the second house Montoya said, “I might build it and sell it.”
Aside from the shortage of square feet, Huck noted the construction of the two houses will meet all other zoning requirements. Each lot will be the minimum 60-feet wide, each house will be within the setback measurements and they will not exceed the 40-percent maximum size limits. Zoning requirements limit the combined square footage of structures on any one lot to 40-percent of the lot’s square footage. Each of the houses on the smaller lots will be 28.3-percent and 28.38-percent.
With the progress report out of the way, it was Mayor Crystal Herrmann who spoke up first. If the variance is approved she is concerned there will be a rush to divide lots in south Alexander.
"[W]e'll have a lot of folks wanting to split their lots and double it," Herrmann said.
Later in the discussion, Council Member Joy Gray expressed a similar concern.
“If we say yes to this one, then what's stopping everybody from wanting to divvy up (their lots),” Gray asked.
“So that's the great thing about the variance, is that it goes through this process each time,” said City Attorney Chris Madison. “And each one of them is reviewed on their own merits. So if I were to come in and only had a hundred foot (wide) lot and try to divvy it up, you can only have 50 foot frontage and say, you know, this thing is (suppose to be) 60 foot. It's got to be 60 foot. And you can say no.”
Most of the remainder of the discussion revolved around replacing what is currently on the single lot with two site-built homes. On the lot now appears to be a mobile home, era 1970s when the subdivision was under development. There is also a shed appearing of similar age.
“So he'll be replacing the trailer,” said Council Member Angela Griffin. “I see a shed on here.”
“There's a shed,” said Montoya. “Yes, that would be removed too.”
“My one concern, honestly, is the sewer system at the same with the duplex,” said Herrmann.
The duplex the mayor is referring to is currently under construction at the corner of Alton and South Alexander Road. The construction permit was allowed because duplexes were listed as “Uses Permitted by Right” in the “Mixed-Use Residential District (R-2.MU).” “Duplex” has since been removed from that zoning designation. Anyone wanting to build a duplex in that zone must now go through the rezoning process.
The Saline County Waterworks Sanitary Sewer (SCWSS) Public Facilities Board provides water and sewer service to south Alexander. New connections are being accepted until SCWSS receives a report from the Arkansas Division of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) concerning the sewer plant’s current capacity to operate within ADEQ’s safety requirements.
The current lot already has a water and sewer connection. If the lot is divided into two lots the additional sewer connection needed has already been approved.
Griffin asked, “How much space is it in between (the two houses)?”
“In between the two houses, it's eight feet from the house wall to the property line, and then it's eight feet from the property line to the next wall,” Huck said. “And then the far left, it's a 10 foot drainage.”
As it appeared the council was getting close to a vote, Huck explained one more step required. If the council approves the variance a public notice must be posted in the five designated locations in the city. The public notice explains the variance request and gives city residents/property owners 30-days to comment. The 30-days ends at the end of the business day November 20. Comments must be delivered or mailed to city hall. If there are no further comments the variance automatically goes into affect.
“So if somebody were to object in the 30 days, then council has the opportunity to review those objections again,” Madison said.
“I guess so, yeah,” Huck responded.
The public notice states;
“All parties in interest may notify the Planning Commission of their views on this matter by letter mailed to;
The Variance Permit may be viewed at the Alexander Municipal Complex (City Hall);
Before the vote Griffin said, “I think I would prefer looking at homes than at duplexes or trailers.”
When asked about having Saline County redraw the property lines Huck said once the 30-day comment period has expired, and the variance goes into effect, as Planning Commission Chairman he will sign the subdivision plat. Mr. Montoya will then be able to take the plat to Saline County and they will add the new property line. This will also result in two parcel numbers.
Voting “Yes” were council members Joy Gray, Angela Griffin, Joe Pollard, Mitchell W. Smith, and Juanita Wilson. Voting “No” was Council Member Gina R Thomas-Littlejohn. Council Member Tony Staton was absent for the entire meeting and was counted as a “No” vote. Council Member Harold Timmerman was present at the beginning of the October 21 meeting but left shortly after it began, so was also counted as a “No” vote. The final vote count was five “Yes” and three “No.”
