Committee postpones resolution against Stewart Family businesses after extended public testimony
Loading...
Summary
The committee reviewed a resolution asking Stewart Family Christmas Lights LLC and Stewart Family Fireworks LLC to halt operations until a conditional‑use permit, large‑scale development permit and floodplain permit are obtained; the Stewarts’ attorney said the businesses are pursuing permits and the committee voted to postpone consideration to next month pending permit progress and corrective edits to the draft resolution.
The Washington County Services Committee spent the bulk of its meeting on a resolution introduced by Justice Massengale asking the Stewart Family Christmas Lights LLC and Stewart Family Fireworks LLC to cease operations immediately until they obtain a conditional use permit (CUP), a large‑scale development permit and a floodplain permit in accordance with county ordinance 2025‑044. "They've been operating a long time knowing that they need a CUP," Justice Massengale said when introducing the measure and asked the committee to send the resolution to the full court for action.
The resolution prompted extensive debate among justices about zoning enforcement, fairness to other longstanding businesses, the legal effect of a resolution versus ordinance enforcement, and whether the draft's factual assertions were accurate. Several justices said county enforcement and planning processes are dysfunctional or inconsistent, and multiple justices urged a careful legal review before any binding action.
Neighbors gave detailed public testimony about traffic backups, trash, light pollution and alleged environmental risk along the West Fork of the White River and to nearby infrastructure. "This business is supposed to be fined $1,000 every time it opens up without that permit," said David Baltz, a nearby resident, who urged enforcement and said attempts to resolve the issue with county staff had not succeeded. Jerry Tuck, another neighbor, described long-standing concern about scale and lack of oversight.
The Stewart family’s attorney, Brian Thomas, told the committee the businesses are pursuing the permit process and working with state agencies. "Where we are today is, we are in the process of pursuing a CUP and the large scale development permit and the floodplain permit," Thomas said, noting his client had been working with the Arkansas Department of Health on septic approvals and had retained an engineer to address floodplain requirements. He also apologized for earlier comments the committee found blunt and said his client did not intend disrespect.
Several residents and supporters also spoke in favor of the display as a seasonal regional attraction and urged fairness. "We have not personally experienced the negative impacts...the extra traffic has always been dealt with quickly," said Shelly Cordine, a nearby resident in support of the lights.
After extended discussion and an unsuccessful attempt earlier to end debate, Justice Wilson moved to postpone final action for one month to allow the permit process and factual clarifications to proceed; the motion carried by committee count (ayes reported 9, opposed 4). The chair announced the resolution has been postponed until the next County Services meeting for follow‑up.
What happens next: The Stewart families’ attorney said the businesses are continuing permit work (septic, floodplain studies) and that a CUP submission will follow; the committee will revisit the resolution next month and may receive updated permit documentation or rewritten draft language prior to any referral to the full quorum court.
