Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Unified Development Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews proposed UDO amendments on penalties and single‑family 'in common' standards; planning commission to hold hearings
Summary
Council discussed two proposed amendments to the City of Conway Unified Development Ordinance: one to clarify penalties (Article 15) and one to add standards for single‑family developments held in common (Articles 4 and 6). Staff said both items will go to the Planning Commission for public hearings on June 5.
City staff presented two proposed amendments to the City of Conway Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) during the council meeting on May 19.
Miss Hooks outlined a proposed change to Article 15 that would align the UDO’s penalty language with the city’s Code of Ordinances by specifying that violations of the UDO are misdemeanor offenses subject to the penalties in the city code. Staff told council that last year’s Article 15 amendments had treated certain sign violations as civil infractions and that legal guidance from the Municipal Association advised clarifying the penalty language so it is consistent with the general code. Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the amendment on June 5.
Later in the agenda, staff presented a proposed amendment to Articles 4 (use tables) and 6 (design standards) to establish standards for single‑family dwellings built “in common” (single-family homes on a single parcel rather than separate fee-simple lots). The presenter, identified in the record as Miss Hux, said the change responds to developer interest in that product type and would add standards for minimum separation, ingress/egress for fire code compliance, permitted zoning districts, internal offsets, and buffer and landscape requirements. Planning Commission will also hold a public hearing on that amendment on June 5, and its recommendation will accompany the ordinance when it returns for first reading.
Council members asked how state law limits local penalties (including a statutory $500 fine limit discussed during the meeting) and whether enhanced penalties or jail provisions would be an effective deterrent. Staff noted that the city’s ordinances currently include the $500 fine by statute but that court costs and additional penalties can increase the effective amount charged if a defendant is convicted.
Why it matters: the UDO governs land use and development standards. The penalty clarifying amendment would make enforcement language consistent across the city code; the single‑family in‑common amendment would create new dimensional and safety standards for a housing product the city currently lacks explicit rules for. Both items proceed to Planning Commission hearings before returning to council for action.
