County Judge Deakins and the Washington County Planning Board heard a detailed history of the county's zoning rules and their legal risks during a presentation by planning consultant Jeff Hawkins, who said the county's heavy reliance on conditional-use permits has left officials exposed to court challenges and produced inconsistent outcomes.

Hawkins traced the issue to a 2005 Protecting Agricultural and Rural Areas (PERA) effort and the subsequent adoption of the Washington County Plan for Land Use and Development and an emergency zoning ordinance in 2006. He said the county's approach left most unincorporated land limited to agricultural and single-family residential uses, while other uses were funneled through conditional-use permits, creating what he called de facto spot zoning and serious legal uncertainty.

"Zoning's not an easy thing to implement. Balancing property rights with overall community interests is never easy," Jeff Hawkins said, summarizing the trade-offs communities face when adopting and applying land-use rules.

Nut graf: The briefing was intended to restart a stalled conversation about a longer-term, more defensible zoning code. Hawkins and county legal advisers urged the board and County Judge Deakins to consider a conventional zoning ordinance and an accompanying map so that permitted uses are clearer up front, rather than decided case-by-case through conditional-use permits. At the meeting, residents urged clearer definitions for agricultural uses and better enforcement capacity; no new ordinance or formal action was taken.

Hawkins told the board that a PERA task force convened in 2005 produced a final report recommending multiple growth-management tools and a county plan; the Washington County Plan for Land Use and Development was adopted in November 2006. The county enacted an emergency zoning ordinance (identified in materials as Ordinance 02/2006) that took effect Nov. 9, 2006, initially permitting only agricultural uses and single-family housing on 1-acre lots (2 acres in the Goshen planning area). Later ordinances expanded the area covered by that agricultural/residential designation.

According to Hawkins, the county never completed an originally planned multi-zone map (the draft would have created seven districts including multi-family, light and heavy commercial, and industrial). Instead, the county has relied on a conditional-use-permit (CUP) process to allow nonresidential uses. That approach, he said, has produced a long list of individual CUPs'"basically a new individual zoning district" each time'and invites lawsuits because the decisions mix legislative and quasi-judicial elements.

A county legal adviser who briefed the board described court rulings across Arkansas as inconsistent on the legal status of CUPs and warned that the county faces a high bar when defending Quorum Court decisions under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard. The adviser said the county had considered alternate approaches (including the compatibility/performance standards used by Benton County) but ultimately recommended a conventional, simpler zoning code as the safest path forward.

Hawkins said drafts of a simpler conventional zoning ordinance were prepared in 2021 and 2022 and an updated draft was provided to county officials in October 2023; staff were asked to bring the matter forward. His recommended structure for a first pass included four districts: agricultural/residential, light commercial, general commercial and industrial, with the county plan guiding where commercial classifications would be assigned.

Residents who spoke during a short public-comment period echoed concerns about clarity and enforcement. Willie Lemming, a long-time resident, said, "I don't care if we like it or we don't like it. We have no choice. Because if you don't, it's just spots spot zoning." Sherry Maine urged the board to sharpen definitions for agricultural uses and agritourism so similar proposals are treated consistently.

Board members and staff discussed concerns about public reaction to maps and labels, noting that showing a parcel as a future commercial node can alarm owners even if no immediate change will occur. Several speakers emphasized that zoning does not directly change property taxes (assessment is based on use, not zoning classification) and said clearer mapping and predictable rules could reduce legal challenges and delay for applicants.

No formal ordinance, map or vote was adopted at the meeting. County Judge Deakins and staff said they want to continue dialogue and directed planning staff to return the matter for further work with clearer explanations for residents. Hawkins and legal staff said they are available to assist as the county develops a revised code and map.

Ending: The Planning Board meeting served largely as an information session and a public check-in on long-running efforts to rewrite Washington County's zoning code. Board members said the next steps will include additional public engagement and staff-led drafting work; a timetable for any formal ordinance proposal was not given during the session.