Planning & Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

a little spot where we can downsize and still be a part of the neighborhood, but someone that can move in there and take care of the property as it needs to be taken care of. Sounds great. I appreciate it. Any questions of board members for applicants? Thank you. Appreciate it. Is there anybody in the public that would like to address this item? Seeing none, I'll close public comment and bring it back to the board for action. Make a motion that we approve. Second. We got a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Thank you very much. Appreciate you going through the process. Okay, let's move on. The next item also is in the county. Sonora Meadows Preliminary Subdivision item E staff report please. Sonora Meadows prelim subdivision. This is the vicinity map. This is the site map and this is the neighbor notification. And the applicant is requesting a prelim subdivision approval to establish and conduct uh and construct the Sonora Meadow subdivision which will consist of 22 lots, 20 buildable and two unbuildable like one of them is going to be detention pond. The other one is going to be a common area. The development contains two unbuildable like lots as mentioned. Um it is this new development is like next to the Sonora it's next to Sonora Road and uh it's south of the previously approved uh Sonora subdivision to the north. So the other lot is the one that looks Yes. So the the design detention pond is located at the souththeast corner of the development and it has about 124 uh,000 cubic foot foot capacity. Um the subdivision is about like seven

like the area is about 72 acres and located along Sonora Road just south of Sonora subdivision as mentioned and the middle school. Um everything is going to be about like every lot is going to be a minimum of 1 acre that ranges from 1 to 1.97 and applicant once it's done with the prelim is going to apply for like a final subdivision and go through like the whole process of approval and so far planning has not received any comments or complaints about the project. We received like one to be uh to be clear, we received like one question from one of the neighbors just like asking about clarification. Okay. All right. Any questions of staff from board members? Seeing none, is the applicant or applicants representative here? Hello, Blake Murray with Craft and Toll. I don't have much to add to what uh what Sam says. 20 uh 21 acre lots. Uh extending water main from Sonora subdivision to the north of us. Uh all the septic stuff is at the health department right now. It's been approved by the local person. Um and just asking for approval. No waiverss or variances. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that, sir. Uh any questions of the applicant from board? Seeing none, I'll open it up to public comment if there's anybody here that would like to address the board on this item. Seeing none, I'll close public comment. Bring it back to the board. Make a motion that we approve the Sonora Meadows prelim subdivision as presented. Second. We got a motion in a second. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? All right. Moving on. Um the next item also is in the county. It's item F, Hammond's minor subdivision. We'll start with staff report, please. Absolutely. Hammond's minor subdivision

vicinity map. This is the site map and this is the neighbor notification map. So the applicant is requesting a minor subdivision to split one lot into four. Currently the parent parcel is like 29.85 acres. After the split uh track A would be 3.5, track B would be 3.5 as well and track C C would be 3.13 and the remainder will be 19 acres and 19.7. Today it's same. We've never received anything from the neighbors and everything went like uh smooth and the standard planning conditions are here. Okay. Thank you. Any questions of staff from board members? Okay. Is the applicant applicants representative here? Tim West with Atlas Professional Land Surveying, 425 North Centennial Avenue, West Fork. Um I'm here tonight to represent Miss Hammonds. Um pretty much Sam um explained it probably better than I can at this at this time. Um she owns 29.85 acres. She's proposing four tracks. Um, track A being 3.51, track B also being 3.51 and track C being 3.13. Track D, which is in the rear of the property, is 19.7 acres. Um, track A, B, and C all have adequate road frontage. Track D is going to be accessed via 50 foot access in utility easement, which is which lies between track A and B. That was the only question I had. It's just a little blurry. And I I assume that was your was your uh is it a access in utilities eman? Did you say that? Okay. Yes. And it's how wide? 50 ft. It's 50. Okay. And it runs between A and B. Okay. That was

my only question to make sure we weren't landlocking track D. Uh any questions of the applicant from board? Okay. Seeing none. Appreciate it. Thank you for open this one up to public comment. If there's anybody here that would like to address the board on this proposal, we're taking public comment now. Hi. Hi. Sherry Maine, um Rich's Road, West Fagetville. I don't live adjacent to this, but I just had a question. I had looked at the number six on the planning conditions and had a question as to what that means. any further additions in terms of expanding the proposed acreage to be used current developed structure or building new structures for either the business or for gathering purposes must come before the planning office and potentially the planning board. Do we know something in the future that's going to happen? That is like the standard like conditions that we have. Basically, if they're going to like adjust any property line or they're going to like split again, they have to reapply. If they're going to like add any businesses, they have to reapply. Any changes on what's approved as a minor subdivision with that survey, they have to reapply again to the uh to the planning board and get approved with a new survey. Okay. Since those were specifically said business either for business or for gathering purposes. I thought maybe we had something that we were that we knew in the future that was going to happen there. No, it's like that's a standard proced standard like conditions. We had lots of people like they will have gatherings in their house but it's like for residential use and we have people like they do gathering they think it's a residential but becomes a business and that's why they reapply. Okay. And my other question was in regards to the 50oot easement. Um there's two utility easements for Ozark Electric. I guess they wanted a second

one, a 20 foot easement between B and C parcel. And then the other one is going to be uh in the 50oot easement off of Bethl Blacktop Road. Is there not a requirement anymore for highway frontage for the properties? If you don't have like if you don't have like road frontage, uh only two lots could be accessed with like access utility easement, a minimum of 30 foot wide. And the only reason like uh Ozarks asked asked the applicant to add that like access easement because he was unaware it was not recorded and that's why we go through the technical review and the resubmitted. So he got everything that they asked for and the that should be like accepted by them as well. Okay. and that that the larger easement that will be left I mean the larger parcel the 19 something acres um does that have access to road frontage on the back side no it no it does not and like he wanted this like to be like wide enough so he can have his truck or something like that or like trailer so it can turn the minimum is 30 foot he made it 50 it's just like for ease okay so that 50 foot easement will have access to all four parcels yeah it's going to serve like two, right? T it's it's actually technically created to create access to the track D or the parent track that's left that doesn't have road frontage. Track as proposed A, B, and C all have road frontage. Yes. Okay. Gotcha. I didn't understand that part. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. All right. Anybody else want to make public comment on this proposal? Okay. Seeing none, I'll close it and bring it back to the board. Everybody understand what we're talking about on the easement? Anytime you create a property, you don't want to have it landlocked. So that we are creating a a easement 50 feet wide back to the parent track the remaining 19.70 acres. Okay. Okay. Yes. I just want to make sure there's clarification since it

was asked. Make a motion we approve this subdivision as proposed. Second. We got a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Okay. Uh item G I marked through. I couldn't read it. Gilmer replat has been tabled since we weren't didn't have a quorum for the board of adjustments meeting. So we'll move on to item H. Bill's Fence Company preliminary largescale development also in the county. Sam, if you would. Yes, sir. Um just give me a second here. Let's find it. All right. Belins company preliminary LSD and this is the vicinity map of the project. This is the uh u site map and this is the neighbor notification. Uh the applicant is requesting a prelim large scale development permit to construct a 5,000 square foot metal building to house Bill Spencing Company after the current property was purchased by Ardot. Uh the project's property is located in Prairie Grove planning area and and no zoning area of the county. Thus, no conditional use permit is required. And that's like one of the few you don't see a lot. Um the applicant needs um to seek final large scale development when this prelim is like done and completed before becomes fully operational. The proposed new facility will contain a business office, storage space, and operational facility that will serve by like seven parking spots. One of them is being ADA compliant and van accessible. 10,000 square foot like lay down yard that will be located on the east side with a U-shaped uh entrance driveway to Greasy Valley

Road, Washington County 8. A complete septic system on site employees and a detention pond. Hours of operation suggested Monday through Friday from 7:00 am to 5 pm with occasional maintenance work on Saturdays that doesn't happen a lot and they're closed on Sunday. To date we have not received planning hasn't received any objection uh on about on the project and we have the planning conditions uh basically standards on top of the large scale conditions. Okay. Any questions of staff from board members? Okay. Is the applicant an applicant's representative here? James Girtz with EDA 813 West Meadow Avenue in Springdale. Uh the engineer on the project here to answer any questions you may have. Have you seen the proposed conditions of approval? Any issue with those? No issues. Okay. All right. Any questions of the applicant from board? Okay. Seeing none. Appreciate it. Thank you. Uh, anybody in the public like to address this item? We'll take public comment on it at this time. Okay. Seeing none, I will close public comment and bring it back to the board for action. Mr. Chair, make a motion to approve Bill's Fence Company preliminary large scale development. A second. We got a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Okay. Uh, I believe that's it for the agenda for items. We're on to other business and public hearings. Um Sam, I assume we still have both these tonight. We have discussion an ordinance modifying the planning and zoning laws in Washington County, Arkansas. And also the ordinance repealing 23-26 that required Eagle Crest Recovery CUP to obtain a conditional use permit. I uh the uh the attorney was supposed to be here for some like reason. He was

unable to make the meeting. So like I would suggest like tableabling this and move it to the next meeting on uh July June 5th. Okay. Um yeah, he's Yes, sir. Okay. Do we need a motion to table those or? Uh yes, sir. Please. Okay. I'll entertain a motion to table. County attorney is not here to walk us through it and there's no action to be taken by this board tonight. That's I don't know the answer to that. Do we have a motion? I'm sorry. You want to take public comment? What do you want to do? We can always take public comments, but I cannot respond. We can take public comment. This board cannot take any action on these items tonight. We can't do anything without the county attorney. I can't answer that question, ma'am. I'm Is he paid? I can't answer that question. I I can't answer that question either. I'm All right, we'll we'll take public comments on this if anybody wants to take public comments. I've I know you guys are frustrated. You've sat here a long time. I understand that. Um not only Ma'am, you will have your time on the podium. Yeah. I'm sorry, but this is the fourth time we've had people fly in spending a lot of money to come here and present only for this to happen again. Very disappointing. So, my name is Mary McKenna. I live at 19980 Lake View Road. I live I'm here to address uh the repeal of the ordinance for Eagle Crest Recovery.

this body in um January 2023 denied or made the recommendation to the quorum court for the cup to be denied to Eaglerest. Corn court denied it. Eaglerest appealed in district court when it wasn't looking. So this is Eaglerest has now been operating for 30 months without an approved cup. I live directly across the street from them. Washington County has done zero to enforce it. So they appealed the decision to district court. When it wasn't looking favorable, they passed a Hail Mary to Judge Deakons, County Attorney Lester, seeking reasonable accommodations. Now we all agree they are a protected class. We have never disagreed with that. But what are the reasonable accommodations? Are we going to disregard the septic requirements that you all the this planning commission requires? And by the way, they have never gotten a septic assessment, right? So that requirement was never met. We witness the pumper truck come on regular basis. I have photographs. I have video and leave that property. They do not have adequate septic for their patient census. Now, their original cup application that they submitted to you said 15 patients. You're going to hear the deposition of Julie Hernandez, their COO, that says they are topping over 20 patients. They are not adhering to life safety

code as they were required to by the uh state fire marshal. They are having patients in unsprinkled areas. They're putting their patients at risk. They are putting myself at risk being their neighbor and the rest of our neighbors. So, I lost my house to fire in 2015 because not because Noah Fire Department didn't do their darnest to put it out, but because they had to daisy chain trucks because there is no water source out there and there still isn't and there won't be according to the city of Springdale. I mean, it's millions and millions of dollars to do that. And so they've been operating almost 30 months with no approved cup. Washington County Judge and and uh attorney Lester have turned their heads at it. There is much more than meets the eye here. Okay, ma'am. I appreciate it. Again, there's what I'm what I'd like to ask and I'll be back again and again and again and again. I'm the woman that won't go away. Right is right and wrong is wrong. And by principle, I'm going to keep standing up for what's right. And I'm just asking you all to really think about and maybe ask some questions. I'm sorry, Attorney Lester isn't here. This is not reasonable accommodations. They're asking about the threat is a lawsuit, a federal lawsuit. They filed a federal lawsuit. It's in federal court. And the threat is from Brian Lester to say, "We're going to lose if we don't repeal this ordinance." That's simply not true. You have a letter from our attorney in your packet. You've got other information from us with the timeline. And there's much more than meets the eye here with this relationship. And I'm not I'm not going to stop until all that's uncovered. Thank you for your comments.

Again, there's Would there be a possible way next time to prevent us keep coming? This is why we have four neighbors. We've filled this room previously, but when they keep coming time after time and it's tabled tabled, I mean, I would just like to ask if there's any way ne next next time that we could be, you know, made aware. I'm really really my grace tank is just empty and appreciate it. Thank you. I I thank you for hearing our comments. I appreciate you hearing. Yes, absolutely. McKenna. All right. Again, there's active litigation. There's there's no action before this board tonight. I will do my best as chair next time this is on the agenda to make sure that we have the quorum, the folks we need to hear the item before we sit through the full meeting. That is my fault and I apologize. I wasn't aware that this was going to get tabled when we started the meeting or I would have notified you guys just like I did on the um board of zoning adjustments. That's my bad and I apologize. So, all right. Yes. Sure. Yeah. And like there's no vote like by the board so we can just like hear the changes. Okay. and we have two JPs, three JPs and the the media so we can discuss. Okay. So, we will go ahead and address the ordinance modifying the planning and zoning laws in Washington County. And I will do a better job as a chair before next time the Eagle Crest Recovery CUP is here to let you know if we're hearing that item at the beginning of the meeting. May I speak, Mr. I'll give you Yeah, I'll give you three minutes. Thank you. I appreciate that. Um, I'm a little bit different from name. N name, please. So, Stacy Bennett,

1998 Lake View Road. Name? Stacy Bennett. I may not be back here again and again. This just takes me a week every time to get prepared and reprepared. And so, I'm not going to get off script. I'm going to read from script while I've still got the balls to stand up here and do it. So, there is more than meets the eye. It's way beyond strange and out of bounds. Since this has become a war of perception versus reality for the residents of the cove, the reality has always been about an occupancy number. It's about the infrastructure. Eagle Crest needs for you to perceive that you, the quorum court, the county, all of us, everybody cares about who makes up this number. That's not the truth. They have to have that so they can claim discrimination as the reason for reasonable accommodation. The reality is the county insisted that basic safety requirements be met, which was and remains a legitimate concern. I want to share with you some snippets of information taken from depositions and foyer requests. These are things you guys will never see or get to. Think about the original ordinance and why you voted the way you did in 2023. And I'll ask you to separate your own fact from fiction. dates specifically are especially of interest here. Number one, the topic of the fire code. In September 2022, the Knobill Fire Department with the assistance of the state fire marshall's office approved Eaglerrest on the condition that they limit occupancy to 15 residents using only the two smaller

structures until Eagle Crest can get our fourcoated sprinklers installed. In an email from Dennis Free with the state to Chris Conway dated September 1st, 2022, Mr. Free went on to say that as soon as Eagle Eaglerest had more than 16 occupants, the code changes from R4 to R2. I feel like I'm yelling already. Thanks, Sam. It changes from R4 to R2, which is more costly. He wrote this in an email and then he wrote, "Either way, all group or occupancies are required to be protected by an automatic sprinkler system." Once the fire code approval was negotiated, DHS issued the license approved for 15 beds from September through J through February, assuming this would give time to install the sprinklers. By the way, Eagle Crest did get a quote on September 8th from VSC Fire Security for R4. No action has been taken to date. In a deposition of Julie Hernandez taken Tuesday, February 20th, 2024, attorney Steve Za asked these questions. Have any of the fire inspections or the fire inspection that you had told you to get the facility sprinkled? Yes. Is the facility sprinkled? No. Why not? The request was to get the facility sprinkled if we wanted more than 15 patients. We have not done so. We're waiting on a on a cup since it's hundreds of thousands of dollars to do so. All right. Now, I want to touch on the wastewater septic topic. Same deposition. I'm gonna have to three minutes is what's allowed for public comment. We're really not hearing this item tonight. I I I'm being generous because I feel sorry for you guys

sitting through the meeting and not getting to speak your mind. There will be a there will be an audience. There will be a time for all of this to be addressed tonight. Unfortunately, Miss Bennett, please email me that thing. Yes, please share please share all of your information with county staff and we'll make sure everybody gets a copy and reviews it. That I appreciate that more than anything. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. All right, let's move on to the uh ordinance modifying the planning and zoning laws in Washington County, Arkansas. Sam, uh, I'm going to ask like um JP Kai Lions to introduce this and like take lead on it. Thanks, Director Mana. Um, so everybody knows we we've been going through some discussions on planning ordinance. Uh the current ordinance that's up for a vote in the next quorum court after it passes the special meeting is basically all the ordinances that we've had for the past years in this county. Everything is still residential agriculture. Uh all of the conditions that applied then apply now. There's there's only been changes to make clarifications to the area where during the conversations we found there were some maybe misunderstandings etc. It's still a cup process just like it always has been. Um you get you you go through the process, you do the application, you come in front of the planning board, they vote on it, they pass it or they deny it, it then goes to the quorum court either under appeal or it has to go through the quorum court even if it's passed in no appeal for ratification. Okay? If the quorum court doesn't pass it, then it can be appealed to the circuit court just like it's always

been. There's no changes. the conditions. All we've done is hopefully made it much easier on everybody because it's all in one document now, one ordinance, right? Whereas previously it was across probably 50 or so. Uh it was like about like 120 plus. So that that's what's on the table. That's what we we've finalized. We brought it back to special meeting here for any any comments or or questions you guys have. And then the next step after this is it will come back to the quorum court in the May quorum court meeting for a vote. Okay. Thank you sir. Appreciate that. And we also like made changes because like of the territorial jurisdiction has been abolished by the legislature like in Little Rock. So we had to do this like we have to modify some of the stuff and rechange the ver like adjust the verbiage and like remove the uh uh some of the paragraph that like leads to that like territorial jurisdiction the planning area. So we did not want to have any uh ordinance that is like updated and then come back after like a week or two and like remodify it again. So that's that's what part part of the like change as well. So what's the next step from here? just if if the anybody in the public I mean this is for the public, right? It's anybody here that's left would like to have a comment on it or provide input on it. U that's what this meeting is for is for you. Um there is no vote here at the planning board. This is just a special meeting to give the the public the ability to comment on it and then it goes back to the quorum court. And it's also like you have the chance during the quorum court like to make your comments and come and attend as well. Absolutely. Thank you. Hello, my name is Beth Koger. where I live at 3661 East Enbury Drive in Fatville. I just want to be clear. So, are you guys saying that this is the public hearing that the statute requires for the zoning ordinance? Because I don't think it is. But is that what you're saying? Yes, ma'am.

So, there's not going to be another public hearing for people to come and actually ask questions and find out forum court meeting this month. JP lines. That's that does not meet the statutory requirements and I think you all should be concerned about that. You maybe you should look into it. It's just opening itself up for some lawsuits. Okay. Anybody else like to make public comment? Well, I'm disappointed the county attorney is not here because I had a lot of questions for him to answer. Um, and that I thought that's what this was was a question to get our our questions answered as a public hearing. Um, and to ask questions at the quorum court level, we get public comment. We do not get any feedback. So to pass this on to the quorum court without getting our questions answered tonight is kind of the the code is being posted online for over like a week or two. So like if you have any question you can ask them now. You can always reach out. Whatever you need, Miss Maine. Well, I mean I've I've asked questions and you know the county attorney is busy. I suppose he can't even be here tonight, but um to pass this on to the quorum court without getting questions answered is it and I'm just beyond amazed at how this operation's working. I do want to mention though, I think I said my name at the beginning, didn't I? Okay, Sherry M. Everybody knows me. Um, I sent everybody a a packet of information before the last meeting that I thought we were going to have, but there was not a quorum, so we didn't have the meeting on the public notice. But, um, and it it and it has some concerns

that I have had for several several years and I have mentioned to the planning board, to the county attorney, and we have a lot of issues with these. I live in West Fagatville out on Weddington Drive and as you all know we are inundated with red dirt pits, rock quaries um and dump truck traffic in that area. Um, and to in changing this ordinance, we can tighten up a lot of the verbiage and the information in this and clarify it so we don't have problems in the future like we've had in the past. And instead of just passing this and saying, "Okay, it sounds pretty good. Let's amend it if we find other things wrong with it, which is what we did back in 2006, which a lot of you weren't here then, but we there was nothing before. So, we passed something under under the administration of Jerry Huntton in 2009. We had all these amendments coming in and that's why there is all of this peacemail that the attorney says it is all in the ordinance because of all the amendments that we had to have to correct it. So, let's get it right as we can to begin with instead of having to correct correct it again. And I um I hope that all of you read the information that I gave you. And for as far as agricultural use, we haven't changed the wording since the original current ordinance that we're using right now. Agricultural definition is still the same exact wording as it was in 2006. We don't have the same type of agricultural businesses going on now that we had in 2006. We've we've added a lot agricultural product sale stores, commercial riding

arenas, boarding stables, equin training facilities, feed lot feed lots, gun clubs, rifle ranges, archery ranges. There has been a lot added that can meet Agri criteria, not to mention restricted surface mining operations that are not agricultural in nature. But there's so many other issues that we can address as well in this ordinance that we can clear up and not have lawsuits for the county uh because of unclear regulations in the ordinances. U and that's all I'm saying. I'm not saying right, wrong, whatever. I'm saying let's put some stuff in here and get some meat to it that that y'all can use when you make these decisions. Otherwise your hands are tied and you have to base it on is it you know the basic things. Is it going to cause a uh h houses to go down? Is it going to be dangerous to the people living beside it? You know all of these things you have the same criteria to go by. But let's put some meat in it where you can say okay if you don't meet this doesn't matter if all that happens because you're not an aggra business. So, we don't, you know, we don't we're not going to go into that. Um, I had one more thing to say. Um, and I think it should be in the new ordinance that the planning board members are paid more. Y'all are paid $75 a meeting. And that's been forever. I I mean, I've been coming to these meetings for 20 years. You You can't buy a tank of gas if you got a diesel truck or tank of diesel or whatever for $75. We need to increase that. The quorum court got a huge increase and I'm saying we need to put in here at least 100% increase to $150 per meeting for y'all to come to these meetings and sit and

give your time and um expertise on the issues at hand because that's only fair and equitable. you should be paid for your time. And I would say 250, but jumping from 75 to 150 is a big leap. You know, I'd say 250 per meeting was is fair and equitable. But, you know, I'm I'm that's just what I'm saying. But anyway, please read the stuff I sent you and let's let's see if we can get this as right as we can from the get-go so we don't have to keep hashing over the same things over and over and over again. Now, is the one that you attached to the agenda, Sam, the one that is what we're going to pass? We did not attach anything to that. Yes, that's the one like it's This is the one that's attached to tonight's agenda. Yeah, posted online. Yes, ma'am. So, is this going to be revised? That's going to be discussed like during the quorum court. Yes, ma'am. This this won't be revised anymore before the quum. No, that's the one like we have online. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate your comments. We've gone from this to this. So, I'm just saying. Well, that's based on like the feedback we received from the quorum court apples and oranges. Thank you. Promise this is the hardest $75 a month I earn. So, I appreciate those comments. Yeah, you should pay me to come here. All right. Hi. Hi, Evelyn Rio Stafford, Justice the Peace Fil. And I want to thank you all for your time and effort tonight. Uh everything you've done up here. uh time and effort looking through this very long planning and zoning ordinance and all the different revisions that we've we've brought before you. Um this has been to get to this point that we're at right now with this planning and zoning ordinance has been a year-long process for the quorum court. We first got the we got the first draft of it I think it was April of uh it was like February like 2024 but we started like the whole thing since 2018. Oh yeah. you you I

know you guys were working on it before it came to us for years. Um so even just at the quorum court, we've been we've been going through this for a year and what we've and I think one of the you know looking back on the process I think one of the problems that we had at the beginning is we were trying to boil the ocean is what I kind of the way I put it. We're I think we were trying to do too many things. So what we have done is we have taken out all the new commercial zoning and all that whole new process and put back in the cup process that we have today. So the planning and zoning ordinance that you have before you, the one document is pretty much exactly the process we have today with one major exception as uh JP Lions mentioned because this was delayed uh for a month because there was no quorum uh the last time we tried to have this hearing. Um the quorum court last uh week took that opportunity for us to go ahead and remove territorial jurisdictions out of that document because in this legislative session that just ended the state legislature decided to abolish those to do away with them completely. There are no more territorial jurisdictions. I believe that law goes into effect um at the beginning of August. It's 90 days after Cena die. So, I think that's maybe August 3rd or fourth. We thought we'd go ahead and just get a jump on that and take it out so that we don't have to go through this process all over again because every time that we make a change to the planning and zoning code, we have to bring this back in front of this body. That's state law. So, my feeling about this is that this is step one. Step one is to just get everything, all our 120 different ordinances codified into one document. We're not making major changes

to this right now, but that doesn't mean that we're not going to make major changes. We're going to still continue to work on this. This is just phase one to get everything that we're currently doing into one document so that it can be codified. It can be posted. People can get a copy of one thing in the planning office. They can get it at the clerk's office. there's clarity for applicants to know what's going on without having to look upund 120 different ordinances spanning all the way back to the 1990s. Um f any folks who have questions about things in it or suggestions or anything like that, I'd love to see them. uh email me as a justice of the peace or email some of the other JPS um and we will try to help you get those questions answered uh about about uh anything that you want to see changed in this document going forward because as I said I see this is step one and at some point we're going to start working on uh updating it and we'll have a step two and we'll come back again before this body with that Um, and so I just want to say uh close by saying thank you to everybody who's been involved in this process. It's been a very long road uh just to get to ironically to kind of get to exactly the same process we've always been doing, but to just get it into one document. Um, every time that you know, every time that we have uh want to change a paragraph in this thing at the quorum court, we end up debating it for hours. JP Lions can testify to that and I think JP Koger too. Um, so you know this is I think this is going to be to me an ongoing process that may stretch on for another year or beyond. Um, but I want to thank everybody for their time and

effort on this. Thanks. Appreciate it. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Tom Terminella. I live here on Densmore Trail in Fyenville. Uh I have this ordinance u in a format that I'm going to send Sam and it's highlighted the things that me being a citizen, a taxpayer, and a resident of the county. The most disturbing language in here is um the apparent overreach and authoritative uh position that the county judge takes in being able to modify, reject, dismiss all of your action as well as the quorum court. That's not in any ordinance today. This is a democracy. It's not a dictatorship. I'm I'm I'm I'm thankful for your service, right? Because you're the you're the first step in this process, but this ordinance is riddled with unconstitutional nonsense. and why this judge, this county judge, and why this county attorney think that the administrator or the county judge can mute and null and void all of your action and this quorum court of this county is insanity. And so I'm grateful for your time and your service. I'm not going to take up any more of your time. This is nonsense. And on top of it, I've been here for 55 of my 58 years, and it's a first for me to be sued and my wife and my children's LLC's being the successor to these assets by this county judge and this attorney. Okay? Never in my life I would

think that me and my wife would be in this position. We do nothing but good. I wish nothing but kindness for everybody in this community. I'm here to help anybody. But when I listen to certain people in this community, you know, say we don't need this or we do need this because we don't like dump trucks and we don't want this as a land use. She should have thought about that before she sold her 40 acres to the biggest industrial quarry in the county for 1.5 million. nonsense. You're full of nonsense. Mr. Anyway, it's it's done. Thank you for your service. That's my comments. I'll send them the same. Please do share your comments highlighted because it's an overreach and it's unconstitutional. Thank you so much, Mr. Mr. Chair. I'd like to address some of that misinformation that was just discussed. And sir, respectfully, I've heard this misinformation for months about the judge's overreach in changing the quorum court's decision. It's wrong 100%. I'm more than happy to sit down with you and point out where you're wrong because you're wrong. Okay, respectfully. This ordinance nor the previous gave the judge any authority to overrule the quorum court's decision on zoning. You are correct that this ordinance, just as this ordinance has been written for the last up years, does take appeals of conditions that this planning board approves is appealed to him and he can overrule the planning board. You are 100% correct with that statement, sir, but you are incorrect with the statement that the court the judge can overrule the court's legislative vote on a zoning point. And I'm more than happy to sit down and go through that in detail with you in that ordinance. Can I add to that? You know, one one thing about that is we're appointed. We're not elected.

The quorum court is elected by the people. Sure. So for an elected official to overrule appointed people makes sense to me but not to be able to overrule elected people. Yes. And I apologize. I'm really trying to understand likewise. And we have over and over and over again tried to provide the truth and the facts, but it keeps coming back up. And I'm a little I'm a little irritated. Get I'm not going to go off the rails into the brier patch. It's called selective enforcement, sir. That's what's going on in the county. The legal term is racketeering. Okay? We're not going anywhere. We're not surrendering our property rights. This is wrong and the people that read it in the legal world know it's wrong. So, respectfully, sir, I understand. We And again, I'm more than happy to have a conversation because I respect the comments. Right on. We will. We will. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Thank you, Lord. All right. Anybody else? Anything else for the good of the order? We've already taken public comment. So, let's I mean, this is I'm in kind of over my skis here. So, so I and I can't talk to JP Coder's point. That's going to be up to the county attorney and the judge. As was stated by JP Stafford, it's a a legal responsibility that when we bring changes to this, it's got to come back to a special meeting with you guys. And I know you guys don't get a vote on it, but it kind of lands here, right? Um, so we we've conducted that meeting. Now, it's up to given the circumstances of the county uh council not being here, whether this meets the statutory responsibilities or not, and it can move to the corn court or not becomes their decision from my point of view. So, and that's that's mainly thing

I want to say. I'm not an attorney. I'm not representing anybody. I'm I'm an appointed chair of this committee. So that's commission. That's not my decision to make on understand. Okay. I agree. That's that was where I was wanting to go. All right. I got a question. Yes, please go ahead. I'm sorry. So, I am brand new. So, I'm going to apologize ahead of time as Grace. So, since we're not can't vote on it, so I get that. But since our county lawyer is not here, don't throw anything at me. Should we table this until he is here? because I don't know I mean I'm that's why I'm asking I don't know the policies here I'm just saying hey let it go we let county responsibility then we open the county up for lawsuits that's his job to decide my initial thought was the table since he wasn't here we were asked to go ahead and have the public hearing which we've done we met that we met that our responsibility. It's up to the county judge and the attorney, county attorney to decide if this quantifies as a public hearing or if it needs to come back to this group. So, I want to put on record that I was highly suggest we table this, but y'all do what you want to. Actually, I would really like to table this. I want to I I want to concur with uh with her about this because uh if if the county judge and county attorney want to just check a box and and not have any real public comment, uh that's what they're doing. And why we're wasting our time with that just just we have nothing to say about it. We have no comment other than other

impact than any other public comment. Uh I think it's ridiculous. But I've got plenty to say if we've got time for that. Might as well get it on the record because you know we got plenty of time, right? I'm gonna go and get this on the record if you don't mind. I've got several. Um, first of all, I think JP Lions did a great job in in uh coming up with this getting the CU process integrated back in and kind of pausing that whole zoning thing, which was great. And I also think that Sam did a great job in consolidating the technical aspects of this zoning ordinance. I think they both done a great job on that. But the original, you know, is there any public demand for this? That's that's my question. Is there public demand for this? Is anybody in the public crying out to fix something? And I I would think no. I've not heard of any. Most of the public is against this. We're not we're not changing anything, Joe. the only I I understand your position, but I I respectfully disagree in several several key areas, but the original basis that uh was brought up to me was the the cost for the C process and the order and the amount of investment people would make up until the point where they got denied. And I I suggested a simple fix to this at the time. And that was not really looked at favorably. And in fact, just shortly after that, it was made clear to me that, you know, my my input was not welcomed. And in fact, I was slandered and threatened by these same individuals we're talking about. Be that as it may, my my issue with this proposed ordinance is not the idea of consolidating these technical requirements, which has been done well, as I said, but with the other process

regulation added. Now, it is true that we've got to keep in mind consolidating these ordinances and keeping the the law and the ordinances straight, but we also got to think about, you know, the housing shortage and and especially I think uh good about this thing is the streets and the septics and all that are going to be standardized those those ordinances and that's that's very good. But generally there's there's no public demand for this ordinance. It it's works for the administration but not necessarily for the people. It works in opposition to affordable housing. Uh it's got several additions that are punitive in nature. There's arbitrary language throughout it. Uh you know various appeals and rulings and words and powers that are granted uh that have changed slightly. Um in my view I think like the chairman said is earlier is that you know the court in court is elected and that is the best place for all final decisions to be made and I think that may be preserved but there are attorneys that think otherwise and it's and I think the court in court is more likely to serve the public good. Uh specific areas of concern are as follows. this this ordinance number 2024 the the front page it says and is gen whereas the second whereas it is generally more advantageous to the citizens of Washington County. Absolutely not. I totally disagree with that. It's more advantageous to the government of Washington County. Secondly, as far as the title goes, freedom should be removed and stricken because it it's the opposite of freedom. It may be pertinent and reasonable, but let's don't call it something that's

not. On page two, number 27, county plan, the county's comprehensive plan, whether in whole or in part, as adopted by the county planning board. We're we're not adopting anything. were not involved and and haven't been. The page 570B, it lumps in industrial with mining, two sep totally different things. And this 200 half mile uh notice is is going to be very I don't know very hard to deal with. Uh reszoning is it's talking about zoning in several places in here. Page six number 85 it's talking about resoning. Well we either we have zoning or we don't. I mean which is it? This is the old copy Joe. So this is this is the copy I got off the website two days ago. in page eight various uses I think it's 97 talking about the zoning official will be uh administratively assigned by the county judge and in page seven number 97 zoning is it gives the definition of zoning uh in 2C on that same page eight duties and functions the duties and function of the county planning board, which is this. And the zoning board of adjustment shall include those duties and functions enumerated in Arkansas code 1417205, which says the planning department creates zoning ordinances. That's not happening. Page page 29 for reasons of public safety. This article should be

retrospective in application to existing large-scale developments three years from the enactment of this session. So we're going to go three years back. We're going to try to control things that happened three years ago. That's page 29H 30 subsection two. Uh the time limits there I'm a little concerned about. Some large scale developments will take more than two years, but it says in no events shall there be more more than 18 months plus two 90-day extensions. Very concerned about that because sometimes, you know, and and they somewhere in here it talks about they can just totally cancel it if you're not done after those two extensions. Uh especially in a phased plan. And we will go to page 34. planning board decisions can be reversed, which is what Mr. Terminella was talking about. Um, and I understand what you're saying, uh, and I believe you're correct, but that is concerning by by concentrating, you know, like why are we here? Let's just let the county judge do it. And that leads to potential for favoritism and selective enforcement. We may like the county judge we have now, but we may not like the one we have in the future or he may not like us. So, we got to be real careful about that uh concentrating uh power like that. Um in and you know that whole page has got some problems for me. Uh, page 36, the expiration date. Uh, it talks about the violation. And I I don't know that I understand what tolling it means, but I'm assuming it says p that's pausing it. But if you have a a a violation and it's going to be $1,000 a day. I mean, are you kidding me?

$1,000 a day? There there's no black and white method of, hey, I I missed this some this happened. I'm doing my best, but I can't fix it within a week, so it's going to cost me $1,000 a day. I just read it for what it says. You know, I don't read it for what you meant. So, that that violation section in page 36 is a problem. page 54 number five which is which is what I think you put back in there that it says 5A zones created zoning or not is that the right word it says all of the unincorporated portions of the county are hereby zoned which I understand is agriculture residential I get that that's not what it says and lawyers are going to fight about what th what those words mean for years they get paid to do And you've got to have a good lawyer on your side to defend it. Criteria for allowances of conditional use. And this is what we struggle with tonight or that's what we actually do. And I believe there's a lot of arbitrary language in here. You know, what does compatible mean? I mean, it means something different. You know, if it's you live next to you or next to me, what's compatible? Uh, and this is the one that we know is abused is will not detrimental or endanger the public health, safety, morals and really the morals. I guess that's for the sex related businesses. I guess it comfort or general welfare. Joe, this is an ordinance. It's copy and paste. Well, I don't know what it is. I'm just reading what's on the paper that that is going to be voted on by the court. That's all I'm doing. The ordinance need to be changed then. So that's a copy and paste from a previous ordinance that passes. That ordinance is on the books now. Great. Well, let's let's change it while

we're changing things. How about that? Comfort and general welfare. I mean, we know the welfare clause has been abused in this country for 250 years. The quiet enjoyment, property values, arguments. Uh page 56, no conditional use authorized by the planning board shall be considered in connection with any variance request. I I I don't really understand the purpose of that, but I'd like to and maybe I can talk to Kyle about that later. U and the whole appeals and litigation shall automatically toll. Does that mean it pause? Is that what that means? In page 57, K4 shall automatically toll. And then particularly in disturbing with me is K5, any conditional use permit that fails to comply with these subsections shall expire and be null and void. And that kind of kicks the legs out from under anybody that's at least invested anything on it. And the final page is an appendance appendix. It says no residential business structure that would require a septic system or track of land. Um, and again, this may be in there with or with with or without an existing septic system shell. You can't sell your land if it would require a septic system. And I I don't know that you can keep people from selling their property. That's a state regulation. I understand that, but I don't know that that's enforceable. U and that's it, guys. I mean, I I've got several problems with it and I don't have a willing partner to talk to about it. I haven't to this day. you know, you you've been the most forward and and forthright person to talk to, and I appreciate what you've done there. That's now it's on the record. Appreciate it, and I won't be labored anymore. Thank you, Joe. All

right, I will call the public meeting for the ordinance modifying planning and zoning laws closed at this time. Is there any other business on the agenda for tonight. We'll see you next time on June 5th. Okay. We have three justice of the peace here. So, I'm sure that will will be addressed. So, all right. Any other business for planning board tonight? If not, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. Got a motion. I'll second. All those in favor say I. Any opposed? Thank you.