Board of Zoning Adjustments Special Called Meeting - June 2, 2026
Board of Zoning Adjustments Special Called Meeting - June 2, 2026
The Jonesboro Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA) held a special called meeting on June 2, 2026, to consider two variance requests. Both requests were approved unanimously after discussion and public comment.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of Minutes: Motion and second to approve minutes from the April 21, 2026 BZA meeting. Approved unanimously by roll call.
Public Comments & Testimony
- For VR-26-12 (Hubble Cv), an adjacent property owner briefly spoke about their property boundary and driveway location, but did not express clear opposition or support.
Discussion Items
-
VR-26-11 – WCMC, LLC at 1601 Granger Dr: The applicant requested a variance from subdivision regulations to create two single-family residential lots (0.22 acres each) on a 0.44-acre parcel. The applicant explained that under current regulations, splitting the lot would require including a neighboring parcel (owned by someone else) and triggering stormwater detention and sidewalk requirements. The previous lot split occurred 14 years ago. Board members discussed precedent (one similar case in the past year) and the lack of a time limit on lot splits. The applicant confirmed both lots would conform to zoning requirements after a concurrent rezoning from multifamily to single-family. A motion to approve the variance was seconded and passed unanimously by roll call (4-0).
-
VR-26-12 – Jerod Monette at 803 Hubble Cv: Agent David James explained that the house was built in the 1970s with a front setback of approximately 1.5 feet from a platted but never-constructed cul-de-sac right-of-way. This discrepancy created a title cloud when the property went under contract for sale. The applicant requested a variance to accept the existing setback. Board members noted similar issues in the same subdivision from incomplete development in the 1970s. Discussion included alternatives: appealing to circuit court or seeking right-of-way abandonment. The variance was approved unanimously by roll call (4-0).
Key Outcomes
- VR-26-11: Approved (4-0). Variance granted to create two lots without triggering full subdivision requirements.
- VR-26-12: Approved (4-0). Variance granted to accept the existing 1.5-foot front setback.
- Both motions passed with all board members voting "yes" on roll call.
- The next regular meeting was noted for June 16, 2026.
Meeting Transcript
Roll call more here. My Lord? Here. Billy. Here. Okay. Thank y'all for coming. I need a motion to approve the minutes from 421 of 26. So moved. There's a second. Thank you very much. Okay. Item number one. WC WMLC. What's going on? Our goal is to create two single family residential lots. They'll construct a home on each lot. Okay. I can understand that. Our lot's not going to be the proper size when you plat this into two. So on that drawing in front of you, there's uh property to the north, and there's an existing house, and to follow the subdivision regulations, we would have to include that in our survey, and then we'd be plating three lots instead of the two lots that we're trying to create. So the subdivision regulations say three lots or more is considered a subdivision, and then you get into uh stormwater management, so we'd have to do a detention pond, even to serve that existing house that's not owned by somebody else, potentially a sidewalk in front of that existing house. That's and then they would have to sign the survey, so we're giving you know somebody a neighbor's signature authority, so to speak. So we're we're trying to uh request a variance to create two single family lots on that point four four acre track existing lot's not part of their ownership. Why why would that this was originally one piece of property right? And you talking about the house above the house above it was all all this was one piece of property. Uh they did a lot split. Well, you can do a lot split without going to planning commission and without meeting subdivision requirements. After soon after it's sold, then they turned around to split the other lot again. So it's a w we don't have anything, any time limit on that split. So what we're we're finding is some people are doing a lot split, turn around and sell on the other lot, and then they're trying to do a split again to get a w around subdivision requirements. Yeah, yes. But this has been a number of years. I don't know how many years how long has this been split? About 14 years. 14 years was the previous plat. I gotcha. Yeah. We had talked one time about put in time limit on a lot split. Um we never really got um just x amount of years or whatever. Yeah, um to try to avoid them. To avoid doing this, right? Yeah, I got you. Okay. Questions from the the panel. Uh Mr. Daryl, if if if we granted this variance, would we or have we already set a precedent of doing this in the past? We've done one other of these that I can remember in the last probably year. On North Cobra House. Yes.
openpublica.com