Board of Zoning Adjustments Meeting – September 16, 2025

The Jonesboro Board of Zoning Adjustments met on September 16, 2025 at 1:30 PM at the Municipal Center. The board considered one appeal case: a variance request from Weston Wagner for property at 1306 Charles Drive. The meeting included roll call, approval of minutes, and a public hearing on the variance. The variance was denied.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Minutes: A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the August 2025 meeting. The agenda lists the minutes as MIN-25:078 for August 19, 2025, but the transcript references "the minutes of the 18th August meeting." Despite this discrepancy, the minutes were approved unanimously.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Weston Wagner (Applicant): Mr. Wagner appeared to request a variance to divide a half-acre lot at 1306 Charles Drive into two lots for single-family homes. He explained that he has built multiple homes in Jonesboro and provided examples of his work. He noted that the lot had frontage of 52 feet and 52.78 feet on the two proposed parcels, falling 5-8 feet short of the 60-foot requirement for a replat. He stated that all other setbacks (side, rear, front) were met. He argued that the area originally required larger lots due to septic tanks, but city sewer now exists, reducing the need for large lots. When asked about an alternative of rezoning to a residential zoning that allows 50-foot lot widths (e.g., RS), he acknowledged that would take 6-8 weeks and preferred the variance to expedite construction.

Discussion Items

• Variance Request (VR-25-24): The board discussed the proposed lot split and the hardship justification. Board members noted that the lot width was the only non-conforming dimension. Some members expressed concern that the hardship was self-created (dividing the lot to double investment) and that the applicant had an alternative path (rezoning) without requiring a variance. Others noted the benefit of adding two single-family homes to the area and that the lot, once divided, would meet all other requirements. The applicant emphasized the need for new housing and the speed of approval via variance versus rezoning.
• Alternative Considered: One board member suggested that rezoning to a residential district (e.g., RS) that permits 50-foot lot widths would eliminate the need for a variance. The applicant resisted, stating the area is zoned R1 and he wanted to keep it consistent. The board did not formally explore this option further.

Key Outcomes

• Vote and Decision: A motion was made to place the variance request on the floor for a vote. After a second, the board voted. The transcript indicates "Yes. No. No." – one vote in favor, two against. The chair then stated "Hard way," indicating the variance was denied. (Note: The vote tally is inferred; it appears the motion/request failed with 1 yes and 2 no.)
• Next Steps: The applicant was informed he could pursue rezoning through the city council, which would take an estimated 6-8 weeks. No other business was discussed, and the meeting was adjourned.