Property Owners File Lawsuit Over Variance Denials

Last updated Monday, May 7, 2007 8:47 PM CDT in News

By Steve Caraway
The Morning News

    SPRINGDALE -- A long battle over a proposed business at what will be one of the busiest intersections in Springdale has resulted in a lawsuit.

    Julie and Louis Knight filed a Benton County lawsuit May 2, saying the city's denial of three variance requests was unreasonable and should be overturned.

    The Knights own the property at 4500 N. Thompson St., at the northwest corner of Thompson and Jackson Avenue in Springdale.

    The suit, filed by the Knights' attorney Stephen Lisle, asked for compensation for making the property impossible to use. The denied variances included waiving the distance from the intersection to the property driveways.

    "We asked to keep the driveways where they have always been," said Lisle. "It was obvious we were making a futile effort."

    The junction with Thompson will become a major intersection after the northern east-west traffic corridor project extends Wagon Wheel Road. The design for the northern corridor calls for a five-lane road extending west to the Wagon Wheel exit at Interstate 540.

    "This will be a very busy intersection," said Patsy Christie, city director of Planning and Community Development. "It would not be safe to leave the driveways where they are now. They are about 10 feet from the corner."

    The building sat unoccupied for a long time before the Knights purchased the property. The structure was probably built while the lot was in the unincorporated section of Benton County, Christie said.

    The owners applied for a permit to renovate the building in 2005, then asked for a certificate of occupancy. The Planning Department denied the request, alleging the building had never been occupied and needed to go through large-scale development.

    The owners appealed the decision to the Springdale Planning Commission, which upheld the planning office's decision. Before an appeal came to the City Council, Lisle provided proof the building had been occupied.

    An affidavit stated a business was in the building in 2002 and a city directory stated Lincoln Marine operated at the address in 1998.

    When the property became part of Springdale, the business would have been accepted as a conditional use, according to Ernest Cate, assistant city attorney.

    The conditional use expired, according to Cate, since the building was not occupied for six months or more. Major development rules would not apply, but zoning regulations would.

    The lot is not big enough to move the driveways 150 feet from the intersection, the city's requirement, Lisle said.

    The Planning Commission would have been favorable to moving the driveways as far from the corner as possible, Christie said.

    "They made no attempt to move the driveways," she said.

    There was no way to know if the commission would have approved moving the drives, Lisle said.

    The lawsuit has been assigned to Benton County Circuit Judge Tom Keith.

    A hearing to set a trial date will come after the city replies to the case.

    Reader Comments (7 comment(s))


    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsibility of their authors. The Morning News does not review comments before their publication, nor do we guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by our comment policy. If you see a comment that violates our policy, please notify the web editor.

    milton wrote on May 7, 2007 9:37 PM:

    " Just another example of a city government running roughshod over its employers "

    For a Better Springdale wrote on May 7, 2007 9:46 PM:

    " All the city is asking is that this property be developed by the same rules that apply to everyone else. The business owners new these rules before they obtained the property (or should have if they knew what they where doing). It is not to the benefit to the citizens of Springdale to relax the rules to make up for someone's poor business decision. "

    Really wrote on May 7, 2007 9:52 PM:

    " The last thing this city needs another make-shift business on one of our busiest intersections. I'm rooting for the city in this one. "

    Nice attorney wrote on May 7, 2007 10:01 PM:

    " File a lawsuit before trying to settle the dispute through reasonable means.... NICE!! "

    JSM wrote on May 8, 2007 6:46 AM:

    " Good luck Stroker "

    Get real wrote on May 8, 2007 8:08 AM:

    " That building has been unoccupied for 15 years or more. It was only half finished, if that. There is no way a business could of operated out of that building half finished. Just do what the city asks and get on with it. It seems like someone is always wanting to file some type of lawsuit for some reason. Just do it and get on with it. Stop wasting the city's time and the attorney's time. "

    Dean wrote on May 8, 2007 5:22 PM:

    " Those driveways would be dangerous with the existing intersection, BUT they'd be deadly when that corner is developed as planned. Why not sit tight and improve the drives when the whole intersection is renovated ? The owners were trying to work with the city ? How ? "


    *Member ID:
    *Password:
      Forgot Your Password?
     

    Not already registered?
    Register Now

    Sponsors