Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the County Land Use Plan topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pulaski County Quorum Court adopts countywide land‑use plan for unincorporated areas after debate over rural property rights

3541703 · May 27, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Quorum Court approved ordinance 24I60B to adopt the countywide land use study and plan for unincorporated Pulaski County. The vote was 9 ayes, 6 nays. Justice Stowers cited strong opposition from rural constituents who do not want additional regulation of property use.

The Pulaski County Quorum Court on May 27 adopted ordinance 24I60B to adopt the findings of a countywide land‑use study and plan for the unincorporated areas of Pulaski County. The ordinance passed by roll call, 9 ayes and 6 nays.

The ordinance, presented for a third and final reading, endorses the land‑use study and plan for the county’s unincorporated areas. Supporters said the plan provides countywide findings and a framework for managing residential development and growth in unincorporated areas.

Justice Stowers, representing District 13, spoke at length in opposition. “The majority of District 13 … choose to live out in the country … in order to have more freedom, not less, particularly as it relates to what they can and they can’t do with the property,” Stowers said, reading and quoting language from the land‑use study noting resistance to additional regulation in the county’s north quadrant. He said his vote reflected the consensus he heard from roughly 27,000 constituents in his district.

Other justices voiced support for the plan’s role in addressing residential growth and in guiding future decisions. The court then called the roll; the clerk recorded 9 ayes and 6 nays. The adoption formalizes the study’s findings for the county but does not itself create new regulatory penalties; it signals the court’s policy direction for future planning work.

The item drew particular attention because it affects unincorporated, largely rural areas where some property owners objected to what they described as government planning of private property. The land‑use study itself, cited in debate, acknowledged resistance in parts of the county to additional regulations.

Following the vote, the court moved on to other business on the agenda.