Pecan Lake residents press board to reopen vote after sale of site tied to Garden group-home approval

Residents from the Pecan Lake neighborhood told the Little Rock Board of Directors on Nov. 4 that they remain opposed to a conditional-use approval allowing a group-home operator — referred to in public comments as the Gardens — to locate near their neighborhood and a school bus stop.

Vice Mayor Weyrick said the board had been notified in advance of an intent to "rescind the Gardens application," but that the applicant had closed on the property on Oct. 31, which raised procedural questions about whether a rescission motion could be heard. City staff and the city attorney explained that closing the sale can change the circumstances and render a rescission motion not ripe for board action.

City staff and the city attorney described the available petition route for residents: gather signatures equal to a statutory percentage of the total votes cast for mayor in the previous election and submit them to the city clerk by the statutory deadline. In an illustrative example during the meeting, a city attorney explained that if 100,000 votes were cast in the last mayoral election, a 15% threshold would require 15,000 signatures to trigger a referendum. The attorney said the clerk then has a verification period and, if signatures are sufficient, the board would set an election under the special-election rules.

Several residents said they had not received direct notice about the application and criticized the timing. Gail Washington asked whether the signature threshold could be met in the available time and requested written clarification of the rules. State Representative Fred Allen told the board he was "opposing this" and urged officials to "explore every avenue to make sure that this project gets back in front of the city board of directors" so neighbors can "let their voices be heard." Bernard Mitchell and other Pecan Lake speakers said the applicant misstated the character of its existing Sherwood location and urged the board to reconsider.

City staff told residents they would provide written guidance on the petition and verification process and contact information for the city attorney and clerk. The city attorney explained that many purchase agreements are contingent on zoning approval and that once a buyer closes, the factual circumstances can change because the buyer owns the property and may use it for a different lawful purpose if a referendum fails. That explanation was offered as the reason the board could not simply rescind the prior action after closing.

No new formal vote on the Gardens matter was taken at the Nov. 4 meeting; the board had earlier voted to defer Resolution 10 to Nov. 18. City staff said they would provide written clarification of petition deadlines and signature thresholds to neighborhood representatives.

What the board did not decide Nov. 4 was whether and how to reopen consideration of the conditional-use approval. Residents seeking a referendum were advised by staff on deadlines and verification steps but were told the petition route is a statutory mechanism carried out through the clerk's office and the voter-verification process.