Washington County Quorum Court rejects ordinance to ratify Gully Ranch conditional-use permit

The Washington County Quorum Court voted down an ordinance that would have ratified a conditional-use permit (CUP) for Gully Ranch, a proposed event venue and agricultural project, after extensive public comment and internal debate about road safety, alcohol service and neighborhood impact.

The motion to pass Ordinance No. 9, moved by Justice Eki and seconded by Justice Washington, failed on a roll call vote of 6 in favor and 9 opposed. Yes votes were recorded from Justices Eki, Washington, Dennis, Hires, Rio Stafford and Massengill; no votes came from Justices Lyons, Dean, Koger, Lemming, Ricker, Pond, Bruns, Wilson and Rivera Lopez.

Neighbors and opponents repeatedly told the court the project would generate recurring event traffic, late-night noise and safety hazards on narrow stretches of Black Oak Road. "Having 100 to 200 people leaving the wedding venue after alcohol being served would be detrimental to the public safety and general welfare of the Black Oak community," said Scott Webb, who lives adjacent to the proposed driveway.

Supporters, including the applicant, argued the project preserves rural open space and will be operated in good faith with engineering controls in place. Applicant Fred Gully said he had already self-limited the venue’s capacity, reducing it from 300 to 200, and offered to maintain the private road to engineering standards. "I feel that it meets as well as exceeds the requirements for a CUP," Gully told the court during public comment.

During debate justices considered two substantive amendments. Justice Bruns moved to require on-site security for events in which alcohol is served; applicant representative Vicky Bronson said Arkansas regulations already require licensed bartenders and that the applicant would comply with state rules but would not accept unique additional conditions. The court voted down the security amendment. Another proposed amendment that would have required the applicant to provide an additional southbound lane for safe ingress/egress was not seconded and did not proceed.

County counsel and the county attorney repeatedly advised the court to focus on the seven statutory CUP criteria, including adequacy of roads, compatibility with surrounding uses, and public health and safety. Several justices who voted against the ordinance said the Black Oak Road alignment, curves and recurring event traffic raised an unacceptable risk; those who voted in favor pointed to prior planning-board approval and the applicant’s concessions, including the reduced capacity and a road maintenance plan.

Opponents also raised technical concerns: a public commenter cited a state geologist’s report and said the site has high landslide risk and questioned septic design on steep slopes; another commenter produced a map and packet showing registered sex-offender locations near the project and asked for specific child-safety and security plans.

The court’s failure to ratify the ordinance leaves the CUP in its current status and means the proposed event center will not be authorized by this body tonight. After the vote the court recessed and then moved on to other business on the agenda.

The quorum court’s action was legislative and recorded by roll call. The body discussed possible future approaches — including whether additional traffic or geotechnical studies should be required — but took no further binding action on the Gully Ranch item at this meeting.