Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Zoning Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Quorum Court refers comprehensive planning and zoning ordinance back to Planning Board after multiple amendments
Summary
After several substantive edits — including a new occupancy definition for single-family dwellings — the Quorum Court referred a proposed county planning and zoning ordinance back to the Planning Board for a public hearing to allow public review of the revised draft.
Washington County justices referred a proposed comprehensive planning and zoning ordinance back to the Planning Board for a public hearing after making and debating several amendments to the draft ordinance.
Justice Lyons introduced multiple technical amendments during the meeting, including restoring approval-procedures language that staff said had been inadvertently removed and adding an approval process the court described as part of the county’s ordinary review practice. A high-profile change to the ordinance’s definitions modified "single-family" to accommodate unrelated occupants: after debate, the court approved language adopting a per-bedroom occupancy metric (two unrelated occupants per bedroom) rather than an absolute numeric cap. Justice Lyons said the change was meant to provide a clearer boundary so the county would not face similar discrimination claims in the future.
County legal counsel and planning staff repeatedly advised that some substantive changes could require additional public hearings under state law. County Attorney Lester told the court that because the Quorum Court had initiated the ordinance, the court must ensure the Planning Board has an opportunity to hold the public hearing required by Arkansas statute; counsel also recommended sending the ordinance back to the Planning Board given the number of amendments made at this meeting.
Members debated whether it was appropriate to adopt many of those amendments at the Quorum Court level or to have the Planning Board vet them in a public meeting. Justice Massengill and others said the Planning Board had already vetted portions of the draft on May 1, while others argued the number of changes the court enacted merited a fresh public hearing. A motion by Justice Lyons to refer the ordinance to the Planning Board for a special meeting passed on a roll call.
The referral will return the amended draft to the Planning Board for a public meeting and a recommendation back to the Quorum Court. Counsel and planning staff said the Planning Board could vote on recommended language and that any further changes would return to the Quorum Court for final action. The court also discussed a recently enacted state change affecting territorial jurisdictions, which the draft removes to comply with state law effective in August.
