|
CHECKLISTS:
*Please note that if an item is marked inadequate,
staff will usually recommend tabling or denial of a project.
It is up to the Planning Board’s discretion whether or not to agree
with staff recommendation.
*All General Plat
Checklist information complete.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends
Final Plat Approval of the proposed West Haven Subdivision with the following
conditions:
1.
A deed restriction must be filed with the Final Plats indicating that the
“green space lots” are unbuildable, and a note must be added to the plat
stating this as well (must indicate responsibility for maintenance of these
lots).
2. Complete
all Health Department Requirements.
3. Complete
all conditions from the City of Fayetteville.
5. Any further splitting or land development not considered with this approval must come before the Planning Board.
6.
Have all signature blocks signed on 11 Final Plats - 2 for filing in the
Circuit Clerk’s office, 7 for the
County Planning office, remainder for the developer.
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND: The property is owned by Blind Squirrel LLC.
A conditional Preliminary plat of West Haven was approved by the Planning
Board February 5, 1998 total acreage of 52 split into 35 lots.
The Preliminary Plat approved by the County on December 1, 2005 replaced
the earlier Conditional Preliminary Plat.
Splits
previously completed on this parent parcel:
Parcel #001-17648-001 has two previous splits, Parcel #001-17651-000 has
no previous splits, and Parcel #001-17652-000 has three previous splits.
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water - The
project is served by Fayetteville Water.
Sewer- This
project is serviced by individual septic. (Fayetteville requires septic permits
to be in place at the time of final plat. These
are not yet complete).
Other
Utilities - The land is in the service area of Ozark Electric, Arkansas Western
Gas, Cox Communications, and AT & T Telephone (SBC).
Streets -
The property has access off of WC #84 (Wheeler Road), WC #2026 (Staci Lane) and
new internal streets
Courtney McNair,
Washington County Planner, stated, “This project has been before you before.
It is located just to the west of the City of Fayetteville.
It does lie within County zoning, but it is not zoned because it had
Preliminary approval before the zoning went into place.
It is located in City of Fayetteville’s Planning Area and it did
receive Final approval from Fayetteville on August 30, 2007. The main road leading to this project is WC
#84 (Wheeler Road).” McNair
also stated, “Up to this point, West Haven has made several submittals.
They have provided all of the plat corrections, fire flow analysis, site
distance, everything that we have asked for on the plat, and they have satisfied
road requirements. The Final
inspection was approved and an approval letter from Fayetteville has been
submitted.” McNair
added, “This project has been previously tabled due to all of the septic
issues, there is a letter that says that all has been finalized, so this project
has now completed all of the major items of concern, they have gotten their
septic approval. Two of the lots
(Lots 21 and 39) will not be residential, but green spaces because the septics
cannot be approved on those two lots and the developer has agreed to this.
Staff does recommend Final approval of West Haven Subdivision with
conditions. Condition #4 (Staff
would also suggest contact with both the City of Fayetteville, the Health
Department, and the engineer/developer to determine the best way to label the
two ‘unbuildable lots’ on the plat. Fayetteville wants lot’s numbers, the
Health Department does not. This
would probably be best to get resolved prior to getting the signatures you will
need on the Final Plat copies) the County does not care it can be with a lot
number or not, that is not an issue, but it does need to be resolved before
signatures on the plat.” Haley
asked, “Who is responsible for the maintenance on the green space lots?”
McNair replied, “Currently on the plat there is a note that says the
developer will maintain that.” Jorgensen
commented, “We agree with all of the conditions of approval and appreciate the
work on this project for some time now, so hopefully we have met everything and
satisfied. We hope to get approval
tonight.” Larry Walker moved to
approve West Haven Final Plat with staff recommendations. Kenley Haley seconded.
Motion passes. All Board members were in
favor of approving
West Haven Final Plat approval. Farmington Planning Area
b.
Elkhorn Springs Road Dirt Pit Expansion LSD Location:
Section 8, Township 16 North, Range 31 West Owner/Developer:
Larry H. Hillian / Les Rogers Excavating and Materials Engineer/Surveyor:
Clark Consulting / Bates & Associates, Inc. Location
Address: 13949 W. Hwy. 16 46.70
acres / Proposed Land Use: Borrow Pit REQUEST: Preliminary Large Scale Development Approval for
Elkhorn Springs Road Dirt Pit Expansion LSD.
The proposed acreage permit limits is 19.95 acres, 9.5 acres of that will be
disturbed. The acreage of the
entire parcel is 46.70 acres. CURRENT
ZONING: The existing pit is within the zoned area of the
County (Agriculture/Single-Family 1 unit per acre.) The proposed expansion is not within the zoned area.
Therefore, no zoning regulations apply to this pit expansion. PLANNING
AREA: This project is located in the City of Farmington’s
Planning Area, but Farmington does not review/ exercise jurisdiction over Large
Scale Developments of this nature. QUORUM
COURT DISTRICT:
District
10, JP Jack Norton (D) BACKGROUND/
PROJECT SYNOPSIS: The project site is located west of the city limits of Fayetteville and
south of Highway 16. It is between
HWY 16 and WC #659 Elkhorn Springs. The
project site location is 13949 W. Hwy. 16. The developer is Les Rogers Excavating and Materials and
the engineer is Clark Consulting. Larry and Tawana Hillian, who will be leasing
to Les Rogers, own the property. *Note
the Planning area does not correspond with the closest city limits due to
Fayetteville’s recent annexations and the Planning Areas having not changed in
unison with the change in city limit lines.
The existing dirt pit is accessed from WC #659,
Elkhorn Springs Rd. The expansion
pit (the project being considered at the October 4th meeting) point
of ingress/egress will remain at this existing location on WC #659, Elkhorn
Springs Rd. When the plans for this expansion project were first submitted to
this office, they proposed ingress/egress location for this dirt pit expansion
project to be HWY 16. This
has since changed. As a courtesy,
the Planning Department mailed out notices to the property owners within ½ mile
reflecting this change in point of ingress/egress for the proposed LSD.
The
applicant is requesting preliminary approval for expansion of an existing borrow
pit to include an additional 19.95 acres, 9.5 acres of which will be disturbed
land (the actual borrow pit). The
remaining area, subtracting the 9.5 acres, will be used as the buffer areas.
The 19.95 acres is a portion of a 46.7-acre tract. All area outside of
the 19.95 acres tract requesting the permit will remain, as they currently
exist, i.e. will remain as home sites, pasture and woodlands.
The project was tabled by the Washington County Planning Board at the
Sept. 9th, 2007 due to some property owners within ½ mile not being
notified. Staff has received the
required remaining adjacent property receipts.
Attempts by both the Planning Department and the applicant have proved
unsuccessful in obtaining a working address for two (2) of the property owners
within ½ mile.
Staff is satisfied with all efforts made to contact
these individuals, and the notification process is now complete.
The applicant has completed all but one of the plan
revisions requested by staff; the removal of signature blocks from the
preliminary plan. A digital plan
(.PDF or .jpeg) will need to be resubmitted once this is done for the Planning
Department’s files. Staff is
satisfied with all other information received.
A copy of the following information submitted to ADEQ
has been received: (a)
application for permit to engage in open-cut mining in the state of
Arkansas, (b)
info for
stormwater permit to the state *additional information received back from
state will be made available at the Planning Board Meeting (c)
letter to the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service requesting identification of
endangered species. These
permits and requested information have not been granted at this time. *see
pages B-9 through B-11 for copy of ADEQ information submitted in its entirety
for (a) –(b) listed above. The applicant has satisfied required Road Department
information requested to date (site distance info, dust abatement plan, 250’
paved road into site shown on plan, and other notes required on the plan).
The asphalt drive will need to be inspected and approved by the County
Road Superintendent before final approval is given.
The drainage plan submitted to the County Engineer shows that an
adequately sized detention pond would detain all increased runoff.
No
structures are being proposed on site, nor will there be there be any hazardous
chemicals or materials that will be used, generated or stored on said
development; this information is noted on the plan.
Adjacent property owners have provided written
comments in addition to voicing their concerns over the phone.
Following are a list of concerns that have been voiced: ·
Discontent of
verbiage in adjacent property owner project notification
*See page B-24 for a copy of adjacent property
owner notification letter sent out by applicant. ·
Protection of
environments beauty ·
Safety issues
associated with point of ingress/ egress when proposed drive was off HWY 16 >blind
hill to the east >blind
curve to the west ·
Adequate dust
control plan & proper enforcement ·
Dissatisfied
with past enforcement of dust abatement plan for existing dirt pit (before
Elkhorn as paved) ·
how long will
the project last? ·
reclamation of
pit ·
Decreased
property value ·
Increased
traffic / safety of motorist ·
Debris from
hauling trucks ·
Erosion and
destabilization of the ground
*see
pages B-12 through B-23 for copy of written adjacent property owner’s comments
in their entirety. CHECKLISTS:
*Please note that if an item is marked inadequate,
staff will usually recommend tabling or denial of a project.
It is up to the Planning Board’s discretion whether or not to agree
with staff recommendation.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Preliminary LSD approval of the
proposed Elkhorn Springs Road Dirt Pit Expansion LSD with the following
conditions being met. Required for Preliminary Approval:
1.
Correct all checklist items, remove signature blocks for Preliminary and
provide digital for files once this is done. Required for Final (to date): 2.
Pay all County Engineering fees. 3.
Must abide by all regulations defined in Sec. 11-100 Large Scale
Development Standards. (*Refer to pages B-5 through B-7 for information in it’s entirety) 4.
Must comply with all ADEQ rules and regulations – provide continued
copy of correspondence to staff.
5.
Any damage done to county road caused from dirt pit traffic, (i.e.
repairs to road) will be
the responsibility of the dirt pit. *This is a note on the plan. 6.
Any further land development not considered with this approval must come
before the Planning Board.
Have
all signature blocks signed on 11 Final LSD Plans. 2 for filing in the Circuit Clerk’s office, 7 for the
County Planning office, remainder for the developer.
Les Rogers, owner of the
proposed project, and Steve Clark, Clark Consulting, were present to answer any
questions. Juliet
Richey, Washington County Director, stated, “This is a request for a
Preliminary Large Scale Development approval for Elkhorn Springs Dirt Pit
Expansion. This is located between
Highway 16 and WC
#659 (Elkhorn Springs Road). Elkhorn
Springs Road is where the existing pit is.
This is not in a zoned area; it is in an unzoned corridor that goes along
Highway 16. The existing dirt pit
is below the proposed expansion. The
gentleman (Larry and Tawana Hillian) that owns the whole parcel, however, he is
doing a commercial lease just of the 20 acres for this dirt pit expansion to Les
Rogers. The legal description of the area of the
permit will be 19.95 acres. However
only 9.5 acres of that will be used as the actual borrow pit (to be disturbed).
The remaining area will be used as buffer areas and will remain
undisturbed. There are an additional 26.7 acres that will remain as they
currently exist and will remain as home sites, pasture and woodlands.
The rest of this area is not permitted for Large Scale Development in any
way shape or form and if they want to permit it then they will need to come back
through us.” Richey
also stated, “As far as the ingress and egress to this development, it is
going to be off of WC
#659 Elkhorn Springs Road not off of Highway 16. It was originally proposed off of Highway 16 and then they
changed it. Staff did mail out
notifications to everyone within one half mile that that was changed.
We had quite a few citizen comments when they first proposed it with that
concerning the safety of putting the entrance on that part of Highway 16, but
that has been resolved. It will be
the exact same access point as it is now, however, they will be required to pave
250’ from where it meets Elkhorn Springs back into the site that is part of
our Large Scale Development regulations. Where
it is next to the road, the pavement will be widened to 40’ to facilitate
turning movements onto Elkhorn Springs. The
main things that we look at on Large Scale Developments, as we talked about in
the past, we look at drainage issues, they have done a Preliminary drainage
plan, and that has been approved by our County Engineer.
We also look at traffic impact, they have indicated that there will not
be anymore traffic increase due to this expansion from the existing dirt pit,
that is because essentially they have mined all of this part that is existing
right now and they are just moving up, so they are not going to increase the
number of trucks, it will basically stay the same and they have put that as a
note on their LSD Plan, so that is something that they will be held to.
Another concern is whether the trucks are covered or not, we do have a
regulation that says that all trucks must be covered when they leave there and
that is also repeated on the plan. Also,
they are not allowed to track mud, dirt, and etc. onto the public road.
There is also a note that that has to be cleaned on a regular basis
removal of any foreign objects on a County or public road which have been
deposited as an activity of the development are not allowed.
That is one reason that we require this paving for their haul road, but
regardless they cannot be tracking on the road.
Any damage that they do to Elkhorn Springs Road they are liable for and
it will be their responsibility to get that fixed because there is not a traffic
increase then there shouldn’t be any damage because right now there’s not
damage on that paved road. We did
look at the site distance to make sure that the site distance is good for this
even though it is an existing pit. It
does meet regulations, which basically means that the speed limit that they have
posted there is enough visibility for people turning out and people already
coming on the road to see them. We
require 250’ setback from the road this is at 300’ at the closest point and
400’+ at the furthest point. Another
thing that people usually have concerns about and that we do have regulations
for is dust abatement, while the dirt pit is in operation there is excessive
amounts of dust in the air and those do have to be mitigated and what they have
indicated and what most people do is that they will send a water truck and water
the area to make sure that it settles the dust.
We had some people inquire on who measures what dust is excessive and
etc., it is the County Road Superintendent or the County Judge and if they are
violating that then they will be made to rectify it or they will be subject to
the penalties that we have in our development ordinance.” Richey
added, “Some of the property owner comments that we have had ask about the
protection of environment’s natural beauty.
That is not something that we look at particularly with these.
This is an objective approval, like we talked about with the checklist;
so basically, if they meet all of the regulations then it is something that we
need to approve. Safety issues were
brought up associated regarding the point of ingress/egress (and that was on
Highway 16.) So that has been
addressed since the drive has been moved. Adequate
dust control plan and proper enforcement, we just talked about that.
There are some people who have been dissatisfied with the past
enforcement of the dust abatement plan for the existing pit, it seems to be a
lot of those issues were before Elkhorn Springs was paved.
It is now paved. How long
will the project last? What I told them was this is we’re doing it permitted
for this area, if it takes them one year to dig out the dirt or if it takes them
twenty that is what we’re permitting. Decrease
in property value that is not something that we can consider for this type of
project. Increase traffic and
safety of motorist; we talked about that. Debris
from hauling trucks; we do require them to be covered.
I understand that sometimes debris comes out anyway and that is not
something that we can regulate, we just make sure that they are covered.
If they are not then people call the Sheriff’s Department and then they
come out and look at the pit and see. Erosion
and destabilization of the ground; that has been looked at in the Preliminary
drainage plan and also ADEQ (Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality) does
a review of open cut mines like this and they actually require to get two
permits; one is for the actual mining operation which requires them to submit a
mining plan, but to also submit a vegetation and reclamation plan with that and
for them to put up a bond before they can get the permit from ADEQ to begin to
make sure that the reclamation and re-vegetation does take place even if they
bail out in the middle that is something that ADEQ takes care of. That is something that we usually have some questions on, so
I want to let you know that ADEQ is involved in that part.
The other permit that they have to get from ADEQ is the stormwater
permit. The stormwater Pollution
and Prevention Plan and that basically has to do with run-off from that site
containing a lot of sediment or mud, those are things that are also under
review. They have submitted their
application for both the cut mine permit and the stormwater permit to ADEQ.
When they do that, I asked them to keep me posted on what they submitted
to ADEQ and if ADEQ has any comments back.
So far we have gotten comments back on the stormwater plan; they seem
pretty routine. They address them
and they send it back; usually they go back and forth a couple of times. At this time Staff does recommend Preliminary LSD approval of
the proposed Elkhorn Springs Dirt Pit Expansion LSD. Required for Preliminary approval, basically, they just have
a couple of minimal things we need them to change on the plans, it’s nothing
big, all of the major things have been taken care of. Dirt pits go through two approval meetings one is
Preliminary, which is what we are doing tonight.
Basically, they set out their plan for what they are going to do and
where their roads are going to be; generally how it is going to be graded.
They get their approval based on that and their Preliminary drainage plan
and all of that to move forward with going ahead and constructing the interior
road that goes 250’ into the site and some other things before they can get
Final approval and actually start. We
have had lots of people ask questions from the past ‘You say you’re making
them pave this part of the road, but no one is going to make them do it.’
They can’t get Final approval from us to start until they get that in
place; that haul road has to be put in. There
will be another meeting for Final approval; this is only the Preliminary
approval tonight.” Clark
commented, “I am representing Les Rogers, he is the owner of the existing pit
and will have the contract with the owner of the expansion area.
Les has operated the existing pit since May 2001 and he has maintained it
reasonably well. There were some
issues with dust apparently in the past that was addressed as a result of paving
the road. The interior portion of
the pit usually doesn’t have any real issues with dust because once it gets
rained on a few times it gets slicked off; it kind of gets a cohesive surface
and dust isn’t generated other than the areas where traffic occurs and he will
keep that wet and watered and maintain it while dust control is necessary.
Juliet pretty much covered everything.” David
Scott, adjacent
property
owner to the east at 15005 Elkhorn Springs Road,
stated, “I own the land that is immediately east of the proposed dirt pit.
First of all, I want to thank you for answering all of the questions I
had before. I may not like the answer, but at least I got an answer.
Our main concern is a fence post away from the development is an
85-year-old man. I don’t know if
you got the letter. Our main
concern is for this man. I’m sure
that it doesn’t surprise anybody that most of these pits don’t have a very
good reputation for dust and all of that. I can’t emphasize more that our concern is for him.
Having said that, if all of the criteria is met there is no way that this
can be stopped. This plan has now
changed our land from its highest possible use, which would be to sell it for
development for houses; it has now changed it to a dirt pit.
We are sitting on top of probably $100,000 to $200,000 worth of dirt on
our land. The same goes for all the land around us.
If we were all to get together it is possible to open a 300-acre dirt
pit. I don’t think there is
anything that could stop it. It has been a real eye opener for me; I would hope that it is
a wake up call for everybody. The
only way around this kind of situation is very strong zoning laws.
I like almost every good ‘ole boy in the country has been against
zoning laws, but I have changed my mind now.
I would hope that there is a way to address future issues, I see that
nothing can be done about this one. I
would ask that you please take into consideration the man next door and do
whatever you can to protect him. He
has to live with whatever comes off that pit.” George
Butler, Washington County Attorney, commented, “Mr. Scott there is a pending
ordinance before the Quorum Court to zone the entire County.
You might attend the next meeting to voice your support of it if you’re
in support of it on October 11, 2007.”
Sherry Cheatham,
adjacent property owner to the north at
13826 W. Highway 16 – J & J Estates Tract 3, stated, “I live on Highway
16 right across from where this is going in.
I, too, realize that there is nothing that I can do to stop it, but I
would just like you to be aware of just one thing.
I am asthmatic; I am already having a little bit of a problem with the
dust in the area now, so with the further development I will have to move.
I can’t live next to a dirt pit, but there doesn’t seem to be any
consideration for the property owners that are there now, so I don’t expect
you to do anything about that. You just need to think about the personal impact of the
people that live there now. I also
would like to know where I can see the reviews and the records of dust
assessment that have been made so far. I
would like to comment that I think that they have been in operation since 2001
and that road hasn’t been paved up until now. What assurance do we have that
it will be paved? What assurance do
we have that they will reinstate or re-vegetate it or anything, what is the
guarantee there? Its impacting a
lot of people that didn’t show up tonight, but believe me we have talked to
our neighbors, and this is really unreal the impact that its having emotionally,
on our property values, and everything else concerned. I don’t think any of you sitting here would like to live
next door to this dirt pit.” Daugherty
commented, “We have a little bit more requirements now than what we did as far
as paving the road and meeting the regulations now that weren’t there in the
past, so these regulations will be met that we require before it gets Final
approval.” Cheatham
asked,
“How do you guarantee that?” Daugherty
replied, “It is part of the requirement before it gets Final approval. Those have to be met.” Richey
stated, “As far as the re-vegetation, ADEQ will not give him a mining permit
until he puts up a plan for re-vegetation and reclamation and also a bond in
place which they specify the amount depending on how much land there is so that
if he did bail out in the middle then ADEQ then cashes in that bond and then
does the re-vegetation and reclamation themselves.”
Cheatham
commented, “By the time that he gets finished with it I can’t live there
anyway, so it won’t really effect me, but it will effect other people.
I can’t breathe in that environment.
I live in the country to try to get away from the dust.
Sorry, you need to think about how it impacts people.” Daugherty stated, “To
help in the future if you would show up at the zoning meetings and our Board we
don’t make rules we are required to enforce the rules that are given to us by
the Justices of the Peace that’s our job and whatever they tell us that they
want and the requirements that’s what we are supposed to meet.
That would be your next venue would be to express your desires to them at
these meetings. If it doesn’t help this situation it will help in the
future.” Kenley Haley moved to
approve Elkhorn Springs Dirt Pit Expansion LSD Preliminary LSD Plan as presented
with staff recommendations. Larry Walker seconded.
Motion passes. All Board members were in
favor of approving
Elkhorn Springs Dirt Pit Expansion LSD
Preliminary LSD Plan approval. Fayetteville Planning Area c.
Lightning Electric CUP Location:
Section 3, Township 16 North, Range 31 West Owner/Developer:
Lighting Electrical, Inc. - Jason Kuncl Engineer/Surveyor:
McGoodwin, Williams, and Yates, Inc. Location Address: Near the intersection of WC #881
(Double Springs Road) and WC #882 (Jess Anderson Road) 9.01
acres / Proposed Land Use: Office and Warehouse REQUEST:
Conditional Use Permit
Approval for the office and warehouse for Lightning Electric CUP in an area
zoned Single Family Residential and Agricultural.
The proposed project is located on a parcel 9.01 acres. CURRENT
ZONING: Project does
lie within the County Zoned area (Agriculture/Single-Family Residential 1 unit
per acre). PLANNING
AREA: This project
is located in the City of Fayetteville’s Planning Area. QUORUM
COURT DISTRICT: District 10, JP Jack Norton (D) BACKGROUND/
PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
The property is currently owned by Jason Kuncl.
The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit Approval for the
office and warehouse for Lightning Electric CUP in an area zoned Single Family
Residential and Agricultural. The proposed project has access off of WC #881 (Double
Springs Road). The
site is located approximately 0.47 miles (or ½ mile) from City Limits of Fayetteville.
The site is approximately 1.2 miles north on Double Springs Road past the
intersection of Double Springs and HWY 16 W (0.93 miles from the intersection of
Double Springs and HWY 16 W, as the crow flies). STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested CUP on
this property with the following conditions: 1.
Building and general development setbacks (not including main interior
road/driveway) shall be as follows: 300’
front setback from ROW, 100’ rear setback, 100’ side setback (from South
prop. Line), 50’ side setback (from North prop. Line)
2.
Facility should house an electrical contractor or similar use only (i.e.
plumbing contractor, etc). 3.
Facility shall comply with all Fire Marshal comments and AR state Fire
Code. 4.
All lighting should be shielded from surrounded properties 5.
All outdoor storage shall be screened with opaque screening material. 6.
If signage is placed near road, signage must be on monument-type signage,
and not to exceed 4’ in height. 7.
Cutting of large trees, etc shall be limited to those areas necessary for
development as generally laid out on the concept development plan. 8.
General development footprint should be similar in nature to submitted
concept plan. 9.
Double Springs Road should be widened to 14’ from centerline.
42.5 feet from Centerline ROW dedication shall be required at LSD. 10.
Existing drainage issues should be looked at and improved upon- if
possible. Special attention should
be given to the dam area. If any
issues are found, they shall be resolved at LSD.
All possible flow from new impervious surfaces shall be routed into the
pond area, and then released. 11.
Warehouse area for private use/business purposes only. 12.
Driveway apron shall be paved where drive meets County Road (20’ from
road into site). 13.
All other uses not considered with this CUP must be brought through the
PB/ZBA for review. 14.
The project must proceed through the County LSD approval process. ADDITONAL
INFORMATION: INFRASTRUCTURE: Water
– The property is in the
service area of Fayetteville Water. Other Utilities -
The lot is in the service area of AT & T Telephone (South Western Bell),
Ozark Electric, Arkansas Western Gas, and Cox Communications. Fire Marshal Comments: 1.
Must have 2-hour rated wall/door separation between the
office and the warehouse areas (due to proposed size approx 13,000- 14,000 sq
ft. total. Office area:
approx 3,500 sq ft, warehouse area: approx 10,500 sq ft.) 2.
Hydrant must be onsite- as shown in concept plan 3.
Onsite waterline should probably be an 8” 4.
Exit signs and lights shall be required in building 5.
Drive area should support 75,000 lbs in all weather
conditions and not exceed maximum grade for emergency vehicle to climb. Jason Kuncl, (Lighting
Electrical, Inc.), owner of the proposed project, and Chris Brackett, McGoodwin,
Williams and Yates, Inc., were present to answer any questions. Richey stated, “This is
a proposed Conditional Use Permit in an area zoned single-family residential and
agricultural with all the uses as a conditional use. The project is located on a parcel that is 9.01 acres in
size. This is located on WC
#881 (Double Springs Road) it is a little over a mile from the intersection of
Double Springs with Highway 16 west. It
is in the City of Fayetteville’s Planning Area and also in the zoned area.
The site does look like it is disturbed.
Ten years ago in 1997 there was some illegal red dirt pit mining
un-permitted by either the County or ADEQ at that time, that’s why it does
look disturbed. That has all been
resolved. I have talked to the
gentleman that’s the head of mining at ADEQ who was actually an inspector at
that time and he worked on this project. He
said that it has all been resolved as far as ADEQ is concerned.
It did go to court and a Judge took it over and made them reclaim the
land to some degree. There were
some intermittent erosion problems on the land, but ADEQ basically said that
they don’t have anything pending with it as far as that goes.
As far as the re-vegetation goes the applicant that is asking for this
project when they build on it they are going to do some re-grading on this part
to try to get some of the slopes down a little bit and get that re-vegetated and
that is the disturbed area.” Richey
also stated, “The Future Land Use Plan for that area comes from Fayetteville
since it is in Fayetteville’s Planning Area.
They have it as public/private open space and rural area residential.
However, in their report they feel like because it is a 9-acre tract of
land, but as long as it can have adequate setbacks from neighboring residential
properties that it would, with several other conditions, that it will fit in
with this area. There is mainly residential and agricultural in this area.
There are a lot of steep slopes in this area as well.
There is some drainage that goes through the site.
There is a lot of floodplain area. Because
of the site plan that they have developed we looked at putting some mandatory
setbacks on there and this goes with the development plan that they gave us a
concept plan keeping a 100’ setback from the rear property line, 100’ from
the side (from south property line), 300’ from the road, and 50’ from the
side
(from north
property line). That will keep the
disturbance of the area that hasn’t been disturbed from that mining area.
Keep the disturbance to a minimum and keep a good buffer around these
other properties with that. He is asking for, it is for an office and warehouse, he is an
electrical contractor, so he’s basically an electrician.
He has his own business. He
wants to have an office space and the warehouse area behind it just for storing
pick-up trucks that they have or also materials (wire) that they are going to
need things like that. Their
traffic is going to be extremely minimal most of the people go out to the job
sites every morning. Some of the
foremen do come in and pick up supplies; it’s going to be a very minimal
amount of traffic. About once a month they have a delivery truck that comes in
and delivers supplies. As far as
traffic goes this is going to be an extremely minimal impact.” Richey
added, “They will have to do some re-grading to get the road to a decent
grade. John Jenkins, Washington
County Fire Marshal, will require them to have a road built; it has to be a
minimum of 20’ wide and I think they are going to pave it, it is not
mandatory, but it definitely has to be a surface that a fire truck or any
emergency vehicle can get up in all weather conditions.
They are agreeable to that. There
is adequate fire flow out there to fight fires for this type of use and they
will be putting a hydrant on-site so that is accessible. There is some vegetation.
One of our conditions is that they keep their development into this
general development area with these setbacks that we discussed before and you
can see how much of the tree canopy will be preserved as a buffer.” Richey
also added, “When they did the clay pit mining originally, they dammed up the
water way that comes through there and there is an overflow pipe.
They dammed it up and basically created a pond and there is a dam
structure right before you get to the gentleman to the south’s (Donald
Johnson) property. The gentleman to
the south is definitely concerned about the dam as well as other drainage coming
through his property from this project. They
are going to look very closely at the existing drainage and at the dam structure
and resolve those issues as they see them whether repair the dam, replace parts
of it, or put it somewhere else because they are going to use it to drive over
so it needs to be engineered correctly, that is one of our conditions that we
are requiring as well.” Richey
commented, “Condition number 2 (Facility should house an electrical contractor
or similar use only (i.e. plumbing contractor, etc.) if they want to sell this
is to a plumbing contractor in the future or something in similar use then we
would be okay with that; we thought that we would make it more flexible in that
regards. If they were to increase
the traffic impact or anything like that then that would have to come back
before us. Condition number 6 (If
signage is placed near road, signage must be on monument-type signage, and not
to exceed 4’ in height) something small not a 50’ pole sign near the road;
that is to help to keep with the residential setting.
Condition number 9 (Double Springs Road should be widened to 14’ from
centerline. 42.5 feet from
Centerline ROW dedication shall be required at LSD) this is something that the
City of Fayetteville asks this goes with their Street Master Plan.
They also asked that we recommend that they do curb and gutter and
sidewalks, however, because of the type of building that is going in curb and
gutters and sidewalks are not going to do anything to help the drainage issues
in that area. There is only one
other development along here that is going to have sidewalks and we just don’t
feel like it is something that needs to be required for this development at this
time. We did feel like they could
go ahead and widen the road. Condition
number 10 (Existing drainage issues should be looked at and improved upon- if
possible. Special attention should
be given to the dam area. If any
issues are found, they shall be resolved at LSD.
All possible flow from new impervious surfaces (parking lot and the
building that they are putting in) shall be routed into the pond area, and then
released) basically, their intention is to use the pond as a detention area,
which not only will keep any additional drainage from going onto surrounding
property owners, but it will also allow for some of the sediment to settle out
and keep the water cleaner. Condition
number 12 (Driveway apron shall be paved where drive meets County Road (20’
from road into site) that is something that the Washington County Road
Department would like to see just so that basically if you had a dirt or gravel
driveway all of that is not coming into the County right-of-way.” Walker
asked, “The widening of the road, is that 14’ just on their side of the
road, centerline to their side?” Richey
replied, “Yes.” Daugherty
asked, “If we approve the Conditional Use then it comes back before us under
the Large Scale Development process?” Richey
replied, “That is correct.” Brackett
stated, “I am here with the owner of the project. We agree with all of the conditions that were stated.
We would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.”
Donald
Johnson, adjacent property owner to the
south at 2099 N. Double Springs Road, commented, “My name is Colonel Donald H.
Johnson. I live directly below this
project. The west (James Roberts)
and east (Sue Farrer) property owners are here.
We have submitted a comment letter to Mrs. Richey that states the reasons
why we oppose this. The picture that shows the foliage from the road, I have a
picture, and see if they even compare. These
trees existed in 1996 there is no such trees there.
The trees on the south much have been removed all the way up to my
property line. We’re talking
about inconsistencies even in what you’re dealing with as far as the pictures
and so forth. Are you aware that
the dam leaks underneath? You
don’t know this. ADEQ identified
this as a dam had to be fixed in reclaiming their property.
The property never has been reclaimed; we’re talking about the one on
Elkhorn Springs Road it will be taken care of properly.
I think there has been a lot done particularly in the County and the
State since this pit was illegally opened.
It is amazing the number of problems that we have in run-off; we’ve had
4” of water in our house when they peeled the hill off.
I have a cave and a spring and it feeds a trout farm.
It sounds like a drum when you run vehicles up there.
It is hard to sleep, that is my personal problem.
There is a whole neighborhood of problems. There is the inconsistency of planning something and then
deviating from it. There is a lot
of detail there. The builder has
not even approached me. I had a
meeting with the engineer, so I don’t know if we are really on the same track
on what the facts are and the problems with this particular property for this
type of construction. I think you
will be in a lot of difficulty trying to get up there and build particularly in
the wintertime. It is amazing that
they haven’t lost a life in the pond; it is probably 10’ or 15’ deep when
it is full. One of the pictures has
where it has eroded over the top of the dam and spilled over onto my property;
nothing has been done about that. I
think that there has only been two owners since the pit.” Sue
Farrer, adjacent property owner to the
east at 2188 N. Double Springs Road, commented, “I have the property across
Double Springs Road. I totally face
this everyday of my life. I really
sympathize with the lady that was here before the emotional impact of this on my
life since they started this illegal dirt pit has been well I can’t describe
it to you if you don’t live in the country and have a dirt pit move in across
from you. Nobody has reclaimed that
land; we’ve never seen ADEQ out there doing anything to reclaim it.
What Mr. Johnson said is true there’s no trees on this property they
were illegally cut down those were on other people’s property that surround
it. What upsets me the most is I
don’t believe that anybody will make anybody adhere to any of the conditions
that are set forth. We’ve heard
lots of ADEQ this and they have to do this and they have to do that.
Nobody has done that; nobody has reclaimed this.
At the bottom where the dam is were wetlands.
I wrote twenty letters and got one response when this started happening.
It was a wetlands that is now a dry land; I’m not sure with all the
wetland protection that goes on how that’s allowed to happen.
My concern is that you’re going to deviate once are you going to
deviate again and again? Who is
really enforcing what regulations you say these people have to do to make this
land livable for me who has to stare at it everyday?
I want somebody to assure me that what you all say is the truth that
somebody is held accountable for what goes on over there.” Butler stated, “The
County will enforce its regulations, but we can’t force State to do
anything.” Farrer commented, “It
is still basically a dirt pit. When
you look out there all you see is strata of red dirt, it’s a cliff basically.
I called several electricians to ask what Lighting Electric is, it is a
combination of independent electricians that are called together so that there
will be many pick up trucks there and there will be more than an occasional semi
come in there to bring supplies. This
is a residential area not a warehouse area.
I would be glad for them to say ‘Yes I am only one man, I’ll have one
pick up truck and one semi once a month.’
I would be glad to try to believe him, but that is not what my
understanding of Lighting Electric nationwide is.
I’m concerned you’ll deviate once you’ll deviate on and on because
nobody has taken care of this like they said they would.” Butler asked, “Do we
have a condition as far as the amount of traffic?”
Richey replied, “We don’t we can put one on there.
We can talk to the owner and get some more precise numbers.
Generally, what we determine from the statements that they gave us is
that it wasn’t going to be a big enough impact that it would need to do major
road improvements.” Farrer stated, “They
don’t live there, they come to work there.” Walker asked, “How can
we put a Conditional Use on the amount of traffic when we can’t put it on the
County roads?” Butler replied,
“We can in a Conditional Use Permit if it has to do with any of the criteria
in the ordinance that it can only generate so much traffic.” Farrer commented, “I
was glad to hear you say that if this does become a reality that the property
that widens will all be on his side of the road instead of taking mine.”
Richey stated, “That is right nobody is going to take your property
when it widens it will be on his side of the road.
As far as your other concerns part of what they are going to do when they
build this is to remediate that area that is where there has been some erosion
issues in the past and they are also going to look at the dam and both of those
are conditions of our approval.” Farrer commented, “I
don’t mean this to sound rude or disrespectful, but so says you.
We’ve heard that before and obviously in ten years nothing has been
done.” Richey stated, “I think
you’re talking about the State you’re not talking about the County.” Butler commented,
“We’re going to enforce our conditions.”
Farrer stated, “It doesn’t matter, I’m talking about a government
entity a government who supposed to do what they say they’re going to do.”
Butler commented, “If you don’t trust the County to do it, I don’t
know what to tell you.” Farrer stated, “But if you can’t trust the State the same
difference. I didn’t move in
across from the dirt pit they moved in across from me. I’m here first they’re here second.” Butler commented, “That is one of the hazards of living in
the country.” Daugherty stated,
“The other thing that could happen you could look at probably nine residences
move in there that wouldn’t have to go through all this process with the
current rules. I understand your
concerns and like George says we only enforce the County rules, which we will
try to make sure that is done. The
State has their own set of rules and enforcement and we don’t have control
over that, but you can express your concerns to the State.”
Farrer commented, “I am expressing my concerns to anybody who will
listen.” Walker stated, “I
envision it helping the looks of the property.
I’ve drove by the property and it is kind of an ugly eyesore right now.
I can see a nice asphalted driveway and a building put up there and it
improve your view.” Farrer commented, “Surely, you do understand my concern
that no one honored their commitments in the past I don’t see a guarantee for
what is going to happen in the future.” Walker
stated, “I understand your concern from the past. We have new regulations like George said it’s the
County’s responsibility to back all of these Staff recommendations that we are
asking for.” Farrer commented,
“It would be foolish of me to just take you all because you said you’re
going to do something since we’ve been burned once we don’t want to get
burned twice.” Daugherty stated,
“I understand, but we’re trying to do the best that we can and that’s all
that we can promise you.” Farrer
commented, “I am trying to do the best I can to protect myself and call it to
people’s attention.” Haley asked, “Can we
address number 3 in their (surrounding neighbors) letter where it states that
the proposed roadway into the warehouse is over a dam that has been identified
by Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) as leaking underneath and
must be reconstructed.” Richey
replied, “All we know that is what they said.
As a condition that we put on there is that we should pay special
attention to the dam and that their engineer should look into it if it does need
to be fixed.” Haley asked, “Are
we taking their engineer’s word for that or do we have one for the County?”
Richey replied, “We have a review engineer basically, their engineer
will submit the information to ours and he reviews it and makes sure that it
looks fine.” Farrer stated, “You do
realize that this dam was not ever engineered it was a bunch of dump trucks full
of dirt dumped there. There was no
contractor or anybody overseeing the building of that little dike there in the
first place, they just dumped dirt in there.
Nobody ever oversaw that or had any predictions of dam building.” Richey commented,
“That’s why it is going to be re-looked at and that’s why we made it a
condition and their engineer said that he is more than willing to do that and it
is a condition of approval. Basically,
if this didn’t pass then it may just go on as it is and no one will ever look
at it. If it does pass, and they do
this then it will be looked at. They
are going to build a road to drive across to get in there.
They are going to need to look at that anyway to make sure that they are
not building a road on something that it can’t handle it.” Brackett stated,
“We’re having to do improvements across that.
We’re not going to put our improvements across something that is liable
to fail. We can assume how it was
built; we’re not going to put our improvements on top of something just for
them to fail. We’re going to
build a road across that that is going to withstand it. It will not be on that existing dam.” Daugherty asked, “Your
desire is to try to improve the situation.”
Brackett replied, “It wouldn’t need to be improved after our
improvements if they’re approved after they’re constructed it will be a
better situation than what it is right now.”
Walker asked, “Are you going to investigate the leaking of the dam?”
Brackett replied, “Whether the dam leaks or not is really not going to
be an issue because our dam will not.” Walker
commented, “We all know if water runs under the road it is eventually going to
cave in and why would I want to build a building that I couldn’t get to.” Brackett stated, “That is our exact point we’re not going
to put in improvements that are going to fail.” Larry Walker moved to
approve Lightning Electric Conditional Use Permit with all staff
recommendations. Cheryl West seconded. Motion
passes. Butler asked, “Were you
talking about adding a condition about the traffic?” Walker replied, “That is not going to be in my motion.” All Board members were in
favor of approving
Lightning Electric Conditional Use Permit
approval. 5.
OLD BUSINESS 6.
OTHER BUSINESS Richey stated, “This is something that is in
front of the Quorum Court right now it went through the County Services
Committee at the end of last month. We
talked about this about two months ago and we talked about doing a tiered fee
system for if you’re doing more lots basically, you pay more than if you’re
doing less. Basically, we kept all
the base fees the same and then if you’re doing subdivisions more than 50 lots
then we raised that price. If
you’re doing Large Scale Developments that contain more than 50 residential
units then that goes up and also the high impact Large Scale Developments like
the dirt pits those have gone up slightly.
The spreadsheet is to show the comparison in-between what it is changing
to and what it is now. How many
times have we had to table something because notifications that the property
owner has sent out have been wrong? More
times than we can count. We have
decided to change it to where we do the notifications and yes it is possible
that occasionally we may make a mistake. However,
we are very careful we double-check each other’s work.
We compile a list of property owners for everybody to begin with.
We do about 90% of the work anyway all they do is take it to the mailbox
and mail it and write the date of the meeting on it.
What we want to do is take over doing that and basically, just ask us to
reimburse us for the certified mailing costs and basically 15 cents for paper,
envelopes, and printing for each one. I
feel like that will make for a lot less tabling and it is most confusing for
people, we get this more with Conditional Use Permits, its not a big developer
it is just someone who’s wanting to do a project, they’re not used to this
type of process and I think just taking it out of their hands will make it a lot
easier and make sure that people get notified.
That’s another ordinance that we have that went through County Services
that is being forwarded onto the full Quorum Court.” Richey
also stated, “We have some new ordinances that were just past last month. The Judge brought an ordinance (No. 2007-42) forward that
says ‘No structure or driveway, regardless as to whether it is part of a land
development, shall be built, installed or erected in such a manner that it will
be necessary for any vehicle to back out onto any County or Public Road.’
There was an instance where a gentleman built a garage on the edge of his
property where he basically backed directly out of his garage onto the road like
3’ of driveway, keep that from happening again, that is where that came about.
Richey handed out a draft schedule for 2008. I’ve tried to move meetings when we have a holiday or any
sort of proximity to a holiday so that basically so that the Board has more time
to get here. The two meetings that
are going to fall in 2008 near a holiday are January and July 2008 meeting.
I bumped it to Monday, January 7 at 5:00 p.m. and Monday, July 7 at 5:00
p.m. The rest of the meetings are
going to be on the first Thursday at 5:00 p.m.” Larry Walker moved to adjourn. Cheryl West seconded.
Motion passes. Planning Board adjourned. Minutes submitted by: Jessie
Pettit and Amanda Kimbel Approved by the Planning
Board on:
_________Randy Laney__________ Date: ___11/01/07_______
Randy
Laney, Planning Board Chairman
MINUTES WASHINGTON
COUNTY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS November 1, 2007 5:00
p.m., Quorum Courtroom, New Courthouse Fayetteville,
Arkansas DEVELOPMENTS REVIEWED:
ACTION TAKEN: LAND DEVELOPMENT HEARINGS Fayetteville
Planning Area a. Twin Springs Estates
Phase 2
Tabled Fayetteville
Planning Area b. Lightning Electric LSD
Preliminary LSD Plan Approval CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARING Fayetteville
Planning Area c.
Elan International CUP
Conditional Use Permit Approval 1. ROLL CALL: Roll call was taken.
Members present include: Robert Daugherty, Kenley Haley, Gary Head, Randy
Laney, and Larry Walker. Absent:
Billy Smith and Cheryl West. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (from the October 4, 2007 meeting) Gary
Head made a motion to approve as written. Larry Walker provided the second.
Motion passes. 3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA: Juliet Richey, Washington
County Planning Director, stated, “As it states on the agenda Twin Springs
Estates Phase 2 Final Plat will be tabled.”
Gary Head made a motion to approve the agenda. Larry Walker seconded.
Motion passes. 4. NEW BUSINESS LAND DEVELOPMENT HEARINGS Fayetteville
Planning Area a.
Twin Springs Estates Phase 2 Location:
Section 35, Township 17 North, Range 31 West and Section 3, Township 16 North,
Range 31 West Owner/Developer:
Gabby Hills Enterprises, Inc. Engineer/Surveyor:
Landtech Engineering, Inc. – Leonard Gabbard Location
Address: On the west side of Twin Springs Estates Phase 1 30.45 acres and 23 lots / Proposed
Land Use: Single Family Residential Richey stated that Twin
Springs Estates Phase 2 was to be tabled as per the applicant’s request. Gary Head moved to table
Twin Springs Estates Phase 2. Larry Walker seconded. Motion passes. Fayetteville
Planning Area b.
Lightning Electric LSD (Preliminary LSD Plan Approval Request) Location:
Section 3, Township 16 North, Range 31 West Owner/Developer:
Lighting Electrical, Inc. - Jason Kuncl Engineer/Surveyor:
McGoodwin, Williams, and Yates, Inc. – Chris Brackett Location Address: Near the intersection of WC #881
(Double Springs Road) and WC #882 (Jess Anderson Road) 9.01 acres / Proposed Land
Use: Commercial REQUEST:
Preliminary Large Scale Development Approval for the office and warehouse
for Lightning Electric LSD. The
proposed project is located on a parcel containing 9.01 acres. CURRENT
ZONING: Project does lie within the County Zoned area
(Agriculture/Single-Family Residential 1 unit per acre).
Received CUP on October 4th, 2007. *See CUP approval letter on
pgs. B-4 and B-5 PLANNING
AREA: This project is located in the City of Fayetteville’s
Planning Area; however, Fayetteville does not formally review this type of Large
Scale Development project. QUORUM
COURT DISTRICT: District 10, JP Jack Norton (D) ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION: See additional information on page B-3. BACKGROUND/
PROJECT SYNOPSIS: Jason
Kuncl currently owns the property. The
Conditional Use Permit for this project was granted on October 4th,
2007. The
proposed project has access off of WC #881 (Double Springs Road).
The site is located approximately 0.47 miles (or ½ mile) from City
Limits of Fayetteville. The site is
approximately 1.2 miles north on Double Springs Road past the intersection of
Double Springs and HWY 16 W (0.93 miles from the intersection of Double Springs
and HWY 16 W, as the crow flies). As discussed at the Conditional Use Approval last month, this
site was previously disturbed. Ten years ago in 1997 there was some illegal red
dirt pit mining un-permitted by either the County or ADEQ at that time. This has
all been resolved. The
owner is proposing an office and warehouse for his electrician business. The
warehouse area is for storing pick-up trucks and materials (wire) that will be
needed. Traffic will be minimal.
Remaining Road Department issues will be addressed at Construction Plan
approval. Road Improvements must be completed and inspected before
Final Approval is granted. The conditions placed on this project with the Conditional
Use included some setbacks. These are generally: 100’ setback from the rear
property line, 100’ from the side (from south property line), 300’ from the
road, and 50’ from the side (from north property line). The plans they have
submitted for Preliminary Approval keep the disturbance of the site generally
within these setbacks. This
project has completed all major conditions for Preliminary Approval. Fire
Marshal requirements have been met, drives are no steeper than the allowed
17.0%, and a hydrant with a proposed 8” water line will be installed. Planning
issues have also been addressed. The
Fire Marshal will inspect before Final Approval is granted. This includes all
infrastructure improvements (hydrants, waterlines, etc.), driveways, exit signs,
and firewall. Preliminary soils work, for
septic purposes, was submitted and
shows the general location of the proposed septic system. The system is within
the setbacks placed on this project at the Conditional Use Approval.
It was placed so that there will be minimal tree disturbance. CHECKLISTS:
*Please note that if an item
is marked inadequate, staff will usually recommend tabling or denial of a
project. It is up to the Planning
Board’s discretion whether or not to agree with staff recommendation.
*All
Checklist items have been completed. STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: One of Staff’s issues was that
they did not yet have their Preliminary soils work for their septic systems.
They did get that turned in. Everything
looked fine and even the Preliminary septic location is located within those
general setbacks that the Board set for their Conditional Use Permit.
Staff recommends Preliminary LSD Approval of the proposed Lightning
Electric LSD.
All preliminary conditions have been met.
This project must complete the LSD process by submitting a Final LSD
Approval Request.
This is a partial list of items that must be completed prior to Final
Approval: TO BE SUBMITTED TO PLANNING AT TIME OF
CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL (PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL): 1.
Need construction plans/cross-section for proposed street widening.
County must approve these plans. Planning
will need verification that these plans have been approved. 2.
Need a performance bond and insurance before any work can be performed in
the County Road ROW. (100% of
cost). Planning will need a copy
before Final Approval will be granted. 3.
Need to have Pre-Construction meeting before work in ROW begins. Road
Department only. 4.
Sign and stamp drainage report. Include
liability statement. Planning
will need two copies at the time of Construction Plan Approval. ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION: INFRASTRUCTURE: Water –
The property is in the service area of Fayetteville Water. Other Utilities - The lot
is in the service area of AT & T Telephone (South Western Bell), Ozark
Electric, Arkansas Western Gas, and Cox Communications. Utility
comments: Ozarks
Electric Comments: 1.
Any relocation of existing power lines will be at the
owner’s expense. 2.
Any U.E. needed to serve this site will be the owner’s
responsibility. 3.
Any questions, contact Greg McGee at (479) 684-4634 or gmcgee@ozarksecc.com. Chris Brackett and Chris Dougherty, McGoodwin, Williams
and Yates, Inc., were present to answer any questions. Courtney McNair,
Washington County Planner, stated, “This project came before the Board at the
last meeting on October 4, 2007 as a Conditional Use Permit.
It is located out on the west side of Fayetteville and is located in the
City of Fayetteville’s Planning Area, but Fayetteville does not formally
review this type of project. It is
also located in the zoned area, which is why it had to get the Conditional Use
Permit from the Board before moving forward.
It is off of WC #881(Double Springs Road) and Highway 16.
This was a disturbed site that had an illegal mining operation on it, but
that was all cleared up as Juliet explained last time that has all been settled
and should not effect this project.” McNair also stated,
“The owner is proposing an office and warehouse for his electrician business.
It should be very minimal traffic and any remaining Road Department
issues like widening of the road that Fayetteville required will be addressed at
the Construction Plan phase with the Road Department.
Road improvements will need to be completed before Final approval is
given, but they are asking for Preliminary at this time so it should not effect
this approval. The Board put
conditions on it at Conditional Use it had a general development area that it
had to stay in and it is showing all of the development aside from the driveway
to be in that general setback area which is a good thing and something that they
worked really hard to make sure happened. One
of our issues this time in your Staff Report was that they did not yet have
their Preliminary soils work for their septic systems.
They did get that into us. Everything
looked fine and even the Preliminary septic location is located within those
general setbacks that the Board set for their Conditional Use Permit. They did work really hard to minimize the tree disturbance
and stay within the boundaries that the Board set at the Conditional Use Permit.
Everything else was completed. The
Fire Marshal, John Jenkins, required that they don’t have any drives no more
than 17%, this is a very steep site and they did manage to keep all of the
drives below that. The hydrant with
the 8” water line will be installed, the Fire Marshal will need to inspect
that before Final approval. Once
again, this is just Preliminary so it does not need to be in place yet.
The Fire Marshal will also inspect before Final approval the driveways,
exit signs, and the firewall that they are required to put in-between the
warehouse and the office. At this
time Staff would recommend Preliminary LSD approval of Lighting Electric LSD
with no conditions. They have met
all Preliminary conditions that needed to have been met.” Walker asked about fire
flow. Jenkins replied, “I don’t
recall exactly what it was at the bottom of the hill.
I think it was well under a thousand as best I remember it was a fairly
large main.” Walker asked, “It has
been approved?” Jenkins replied,
“Yes. I don’t recall what that
number was I remember that it exceeds what we asked for.” Larry Walker moved to
approve Lightning Electric LSD Preliminary LSD Plan per Staff recommendation.
Kenley Haley seconded. Motion
passes. All Board members were in
favor of approving
Lightning Electric LSD Preliminary LSD
Plan approval. McNair commented, “The
projected gallons per minute was 1,500, that will be plenty.”
Walker stated, “That is minimum, I have done some research.” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARING Fayetteville
Planning Area c.
Elan International CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request) Location:
Section 29, Township 17 North, Range 29 West Owner/Developer:
John and Rebecca Ginger / Kenneth and Lori England Engineer/Surveyor: Location
Address: 3241 N. Gulley Road 7.5
acres / Proposed Land Use: OEM Sales Office and Warehousing of Finished Goods in
addition to private residence REQUEST:
Conditional Use Permit Approval for OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturers)
Sales Office and Warehousing of Finished Goods in addition to private residence
for Elan International CUP in an area zoned Single Family Residential and
Agricultural. The proposed project
is located on 3 parcels, which are together approximately 7.5 acres in size. CURRENT
ZONING: Project does lie within the County Zoned area
(Agriculture/Single-Family Residential 1 unit per acre).
PLANNING
AREA: This project is located in the City of Fayetteville’s
Planning Area. The City of
Fayetteville provided comments on this project.
See pg C-15. The City
does not have an objection to this use as long as the conditions set forth by
the applicant are stated as a requirement of approval. QUORUM
COURT DISTRICT: District 9, JP Butch Pond (R) We have received
some additional property owner comments since sending out the packet. In these comments property owners contend that
they do not want a business in this residential area. While it would give staff pause if this proposed business
were high traffic retail, etc, it is not. What
these people are asking for is akin to running a Mary Kay or
small book keeping type business out of the home. Another concern is that allowing this CUP would
“open the door” to other businesses to come into the area. First of all, CUPs are considered on a
case-by-case, site-by-site basis. Secondly,
if this CUP were granted, then it could only possibly, feasibly lead to another
approval (in a similar situation/setting) of a home-based business without
“off the street” appeal, signage, etc. Staff feels that home-based businesses of this
type do not detract from quality of life or the residential nature of any
neighborhood. Staff feels that
businesses like this should be allowed (by CUP ) in many parts of the County, as
they fit in well within a residential neighborhood setting. One property owner comments specifically stated
that they do not want a manufacturing business on site. This will not be a
manufacturing business; a condition prohibiting such a use is clearly stated. BACKGROUND/
PROJECT SYNOPSIS: The
property is currently owned by John and Rebecca Ginger.
Kenneth and Lori England has a current and valid contract to purchase the
property at 3241 N. Gulley Road through Lindsey and Associates, Inc.
The Gingers have written a letter granting the England’s the right to
apply for a CUP on this property. This
letter is included in your packet (pg.
C-12). The
proposed project has access off of WC #345 (Gulley Road).
As
per the applicant’s letter of use explanation (pg. C-8), there will be no
additional structures built onsite. The
existing detached garage (with slight exterior remodeling) and existing metal
shop building will be used as the commercial buildings for this project (see
pg C-9). The remaining existing
buildings onsite (horse barn and residential home) will be used for residential
purposes only. After
reading the applicant’s letter (pg C-8), you will see that the
existing 1,900 sq. ft. building onsite will be used to store small amounts of
inventory of electronics and molded metal or plastic. No additional structures
will be built onsite. There will be
no assembly or manufacturing of these products (or any products) onsite, merely
storage of a small inventory of such products in the existing building.
The employees are to be residents of the single-family home onsite, with
the possible addition of 1-3 additional employees in the future (who would work
set day hours). There would be no
walk-in clientele and the site will retain the same residential/agricultural
character that it now has. Although
we received one written comment response from a neighbor (across Gulley Road)
regarding property values and the integrity of the neighborhood, staff feel that
as there are no new buildings being built, all existing buildings will maintain
a residential or rural character, there will be essentially no change to the
appearance of the site, and there will be no clientele coming to the office
onsite, that the Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment
of other property in the surrounding area for the purposes already permitted,
nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the surrounding
area. STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: Staff
recommends Conditional Use Permit approval for the proposed Elan International
CUP with the following conditions: 1.
Absolutely no manufacturing or assembly of products may take place on
site. 2.
No additional structures will be built onsite for business purposes. 3.
Lighted exit signs should be placed above doors within warehouse and
office building. Fire Marshal shall
inspect. 4.
No walk-in clientele are included in the business model. 5.
No business signage should be placed out of doors onsite.
6.
Deliveries (other than the traditional UPS, Fed- Ex, etc.) should be
limited to an occasional delivery truck as stated by the applicant in his
submittal letter. 7.
No outdoor storage of business or commercial products shall be allowed. 8.
At least one owner of the business shall reside on the property. 9.
Any outdoor lighting should be shielded from adjacent property owners
using appropriate directional or shielded lighting. 10.
Any other land divisions, commercial structures, or other types of uses
not considered with this submittal must come through a separate CUP or review
process with the County. ADDITONAL INFORMATION: INFRASTRUCTURE: Water –
The property is in the service area of Fayetteville Water. Other Utilities -
The lot is in the service area of AT & T Telephone (South Western Bell),
Ozark Electric, Arkansas Western Gas, and Cox Communications. Margaret Barber, Lindsey & Associates, Inc., was
present to answer any questions. Richey
stated, “The applicant actually lives in Oregon, they are looking to purchase
this property. The real estate agent, Margaret Barber,
has come to speak on their behalf. I
think that we have all of the information.
We usually encourage people to come, but not when they are in Oregon.
This is a Conditional Use Permit on WC #345(Gulley Road).
It is outside the City of Fayetteville located between Sloan Estates and
the big water tower. Basically,
this site consists of several buildings, all which are residential in character.
There is the actual house, swimming pool, detached
garage (kind of an apartment area), horse
barn, and like a shop building that has been built on-site. The detached garage is approximately 700 square feet; right
now it is partially converted. They
are going to replace the garage doors with windows and finish out the interior.
It already has a separate septic system from the main house they are
going to use this as their office area for their business.
The horse barn is not to be used as a business building.
There is another red metal building where they want to store some
finished goods that they want to keep on-site.
It is approximately 1,900 square feet fully insulated and heated and
ready to use, they won’t need to make any changes to that.” Richey
also stated, “The letter seemed a little vague what the business was.
The way that I understand it is they are kind of the person in-between
for international businesses that make custom products for people in the United
States. The things that they are
going to be storing on-site are small molded plastic parts like the molded
plastic around a clock and small circuit boards, it is usually electronic stuff,
but it is nothing large. Basically,
all these products are custom made for specific companies.
They are going to keep a small amount of things in stock, so if one of
the people that they kind of broker for in-between the international companies,
if they need one or two replacement pieces, they are kind of the in-between
person that can get those to them without them having to place a whole new order
through this international company, but mostly they just kind of broker deals
between international companies and American companies.
That is what generally is going on, there is not going to be any
manufacturing on-site of anything, just some storage.” Richey
commented, “Some of the surrounding property owners had some concerns about
traffic. As the letter states it is very low traffic most of their deliveries
come in UPS or Fed-Ex, very occasionally they will have a small like box truck
that will deliver something. Some
of the surrounding neighbors were worried about traffic pulling out; there is a
circle drive, so there shouldn’t have to be any trucks or anything backing out
onto (Gulley) road. The Future Land
Use Plan shows this area to be rural area residential.
The City of Fayetteville is in favor of it.
They thought that a home based business like this with no signage, no off
the street clientele, and all of the buildings keeping in residential character
was a good fit for the area, it doesn’t effect anybody’s ability to enjoy
their other residential property. The
surrounding uses are single-family residential, some agricultural, and of course
the water tower facility. To the
south is Sloan Estates, which is an approved subdivision with homes. There is a lot of subdivisions in this area and mostly
single-family residential and agricultural.
There are a few existing small businesses just like you see in the
County, someone has a small engine repair shop and somebody else is doing
computers out of their homes that have been there for quite awhile and it’s
not like there is no commercial whatsoever, but this will be even more discreet
than that, we’re not going to allow them to have signs or anything.
Basically, people state that they don’t want business in a residential
area. Another concern would be that
it would open the door to other businesses to come.
First of all I want to say that Conditional Uses are considered on a
case-by-case site-by-site basis, so a Conditional Use does not set precedent
legally for another one. However, generally this is the kind of project that Staff
would be interested, would probably fit in most places in the County just
because it doesn’t take away from anybody else’s ability to enjoy their
property, as they don’t have traffic, signage, lighting, or any of those types
of issues. We do recommend that it
be approved with the conditions. We
did look at some of the fire issues because of the size of the building; all
that we have are the Exit signs. There
is a hydrant just next door on the water tower facility, it is on an 18” water
line, and there is water there since it is on the water tower line.” Barbar stated, “It was
an excellent presentation.” Kenley asked,
“Condition number 7 (No
outdoor storage of business or commercial products shall be allowed) who
monitors that? Do we have a
monitoring system?” Richey
replied, “Usually it’s just somebody complains and we go by. We don’t have
a system set up in place where we drive through.
Usually, if I’m in the neighborhood looking at a project and it’s
somewhere where I pass projects, I usually drive by them to see what’s going
on. I don’t have a regular
schedule.” Laney stated, “I think
that when the County took the step forward with zoning there was a lot of people
concerned about reasonableness in that. I
think that this is a good example of how things can be accommodated.
I think that the presentation was excellent.
I think when it is not precedent setting and it’s at least no direct
correlation in my mind of diminishing values or the enjoyment of other
people’s properties we need to stay with people’s right to use their own
property and the way that they want to use it.
It sounds like they are being; I don’t know how many of these are their
suggestions or your suggestions, but nevertheless the rules that they have
agreed to gives strong protection to the neighbors more than they would have
ever had in the past. I think it is
a good use of the way that they supposed to be doing things.” Daugherty asked, “If we
approve this with these stipulations, if this property re-sells down the road
will they be held to these same stipulations or will they come back if they have
to change anything?” Richey
replied, “It will automatically be held to these same stipulations like
somebody else could move in and say they have a book keeping business they could
run it out of there. If they did
want to change any then they would have to come back for a Conditional Use if
these were not accessible to them, but yes all this runs with the property it is
not owner based.” Daugherty commented,
“If they wanted to run an accounting operation they could or something along
those same lines.” Larry Walker moved to
approve Elan International Conditional Use Permit with conditions. Robert
Daugherty seconded. Motion passes. All Board members were in
favor of approving
Elan International Conditional Use Permit
approval. 5.
OLD BUSINESS 6. OTHER BUSINESS a.
Proposed Revision to Planning Board By-Laws:
Existing Language is shown in italics.
Proposed language is shown as bold and underlined. WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD BY-LAWS, ARTICLE IV.
MEETINGS A.
Planning Board meetings shall be as provided by state statute
14-17-203(d). The regular meetings
of the Washington County Planning Board shall be held on the first Thursday of
each month.
In some situations due to holidays or other events, the Planning
Board may schedule its regular monthly meeting for an appropriate alternative
date. As
per the below regulation regarding the amendment of by-laws, the above proposed
change will be read at the November meeting, and acted upon at the December
meeting. Washington County Planning Board By-Laws, ARTICLE IX.
AMENDMENTS A.
These by-laws may be amended or repealed by an affirmative vote of not
less than five (5) out of seven (7) of the Planning Board. Any proposed
amendment shall first be presented in writing at a regular meeting and placed on
the agenda of a subsequent regular meeting for action unless ten (10) days
written notice of the proposed amendment has been given to all members of the
Board, in which case action may be taken at any regular or special meeting. Any
proposed amendment may be adopted by unanimous vote without notice if the County
judge is present at the meeting. Richey
stated, “We want to do a proposed revision to the Planning Board By-laws. The existing language ‘Planning
Board meetings shall be as provided by state statute 14-17-203(d).
The regular meetings of the Washington County Planning Board shall be
held on the first Thursday of each month’ we
want to generally hold to that but because of holidays and things like that
there are a couple of times next year in 2008 that we were wanting to put those
on other days so to do that we need to make a change to our By-laws.
I put ‘In some situations due to holidays or other events, the
Planning Board may schedule its regular monthly meeting for an appropriate
alternative date.’ Also
as per our By-laws we can’t vote on it this time but it comes up for reading
this time and then we vote on it next time.” Laney commented, “It is
technically correct, we would probably abide by it that way anyway.” Haley asked, “Is this going
to be in place soon enough?” Richey
replied, “Yes, I’m publishing the schedule in hopes that you will vote yes
at the next meeting. This is just
Planning Board / Zoning Board of Adjustments it doesn’t have to go to Quorum
Court or anything. This is just
your By-Laws so at the next meeting if you all will just vote for it that would
be great.” b.
Discussion of possible cell tower array ordinance amendment Richey
stated, “We have an existing cell tower ordinance, I don’t know if you all
are aware of that or not we do regulate cell towers in the County.
Most of the ones that we put up are an administrative review by the way
that the ordinance is written which is why you all probably haven’t seen one.
One of the things is we have basically one section that deals with
putting up a whole new tower like the actual structure and then we have another
section that deals with putting up arrays or additional antennas like Verizon is
already on a tower and then Cingular comes in they want to put their antenna on
there too. Something that we found
was that we don’t require them to do a structural analysis of that tower to
put up an array that basically would say ‘Yes this tower can support another
array.’ I didn’t even know that
that supposed to be in there or anything, but I got an array submittal from a
company this past month who actually sent me a structural analysis even though
they didn’t have to, that told me that the tower was deficient to put their
array on there and not only was it deficient to hold their array but it was
actually deficient to hold the arrays that it was already holding, which is not
good. I looked at a couple of other
cities’ ordinances and they have a little blurb in there that just says ‘You
have to send us a structural analysis every time you add an array.’
That is what I want to do and I am going to take it to County Services in
two weeks and ask them to add that. I
just want to make the Board aware of that.
I assume that was just an oversight at the time I think people were just
building towers not so much putting a lot arrays on them.” c.
Discussion of General Planning Department matters Richey stated, “We’re slower than we were.
I think that we’re probably going to have a more lengthy agenda next
month, probably have five or so items. I
don’t think a lot of them are going to take a lot of time; we have a couple of
Final Plats and some things coming through.
There is going to be at least one Conditional Use; Mayfield Store
somebody wants to sell antiques and things out of it.
Next Thursday, November 8, 2007, the Quorum Court is supposedly, I
don’t know if they are going to table it or not, but it is the third reading
for zoning throughout the whole County. I
don’t really know what will happen to that.
That it is proposed by District 3 JP David Daniel (R) from Springdale.” d.
Pass out 2008 Planning Board meeting schedule e.
Discussion
of Current Development Richey stated, “The
Current Development kind of shows what we have on the table right now.
Jessie Pettit, Washington County Planner, also has been keeping a
spreadsheet of all the Conditional Use Permits that we have done since zoning
was passed and it has been about a year now.
We have only denied two and I think we have passed 17 (correction 11 have
been approved). I think that we
have been doing a really good job and I feel like I should be more encouraging
to you all because I know that sometimes zoning is not fun for you all to deal
with, but I really think that it has been really effective and I think that we
have been doing really good things. Some
of them are not so big and some of them are like Rio Bravo that we did a couple
months ago, I thought that was a good example of what zoning can do in the
County I think that made a good compromise and I think it made that neighborhood
a lot happier. I think that it is really good and I really appreciate the
Board sticking with it and doing a good job.” Robert Daugherty moved to
adjourn. Gary Head seconded. Motion
passes. Planning Board adjourned. Minutes submitted by: Amanda
Kimbel Approved by the Planning
Board on:
_______Randy Laney
Date: __12/06/07__
Randy Laney, Planning Board Chairman
MINUTES WASHINGTON
COUNTY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS December 6, 2007 5:00
p.m., Quorum Courtroom, New Courthouse Fayetteville,
Arkansas DEVELOPMENTS REVIEWED:
ACTION TAKEN: LAND DEVELOPMENT HEARINGS Fayetteville
Planning Area a. Twin Springs Estates
Phase 2
Tabled VARIANCE HEARING b.
Luper Minimum Road Frontage Variance Request
Variance CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARINGS Goshen
Planning Area c. 21910 Hwy. 45 E. Old
Mayfield Store
Conditional Use Permit
Approval Fayetteville
Planning Area d. Tuck CUP
Conditional Use Permit
Approval 1. ROLL CALL: Roll call was taken.
Members present include: Robert Daugherty, Kenley Haley, Gary Head, Randy
Laney, and Larry Walker. Absent:
Cheryl West. Billy Smith resigned from
the Planning Board / Zoning Board of Adjustments on October 30, 2007. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (from the November 1, 2007 meeting) Gary
Head made a motion to approve as written. Robert Daugherty provided the second.
Motion passes. 3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA: Juliet Richey, Washington
County Planning Director, stated, “Item A (Twin Springs Estates Phase 2) will
be tabled.” Gary Head made a
motion to approve the agenda subject to the change. Robert Daugherty seconded.
Motion passes. 4. NEW BUSINESS LAND DEVELOPMENT HEARINGS Fayetteville
Planning Area a. Twin Springs Estates Phase 2
Location:
Section 35, Township 17 North, Range 31 West and
Section 3, Township 16 North, Range 31 West Owner/Developer:
Gabby Hills Enterprises, Inc. Engineer/Surveyor:
Landtech Engineering, Inc. – Leonard Gabbard Location
Address: On the west side of Twin Springs Estates Phase 1 30.45
acres and 23 lots / Proposed Land Use: Single Family Residential Richey stated that Twin
Springs Estates Phase 2 was to be tabled due to lack of resubmittal (1). Gary Head moved to table
Twin Springs Estates Phase 2. Robert Daugherty seconded. Motion passes. Richey
stated, “Unfortunately, we can’t hear Item B (Luper Minimum Road Frontage Variance Request)
until Kenley Haley shows up because there needs to be five Board members to vote
on a variance.” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARING Goshen
Planning Area c.
21910 Hwy. 45 E. Old Mayfield Store CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request) Location:
Section 22, Township 17 North, Range 28 West Owner/Developer:
Warren Adcock / Drew Easterling Engineer/Surveyor: Location
Address: 21910 E. Hwy. 45 0.59
acres / Proposed
Land Use: Commercial Project
#: 2007-219 Planner: Juliet Richey, e-mail
at richey@co.washington.ar.us REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit Approval to re-open the
21910 Hwy. 45 E. Old Mayfield Store as an antique/reclaimed building material
shop in an area zoned Agriculture/Single-Family residential 1 unit per 2 acres. CURRENT
ZONING: Project does lie within the County Zoned area
(Agriculture/Single-Family Residential 1 unit per 2 acres).
PLANNING
AREA: This project is located in the City of
Goshen’s Planning Area. QUORUM COURT
DISTRICT: District 9, JP Butch Pond (R) BACKGROUND/
PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
Warren
Adcock currently owns this property. The proposed
project is located at the intersection of Hwy. 45 and Hwy. 303. There will
be no additional structures built onsite; the existing building will be used.
The proposal is to allow a low impact store that will sell antiques and
reclaimed building materials, as stated in the applicant’s letter (pg C-8). A
proposed commercial use, like an antique store, is historically relevant, as
this site has been used previously as a convenience store. Staff does feel that
any outside storage should be screened and kept in an orderly fashion. Traffic
flow for this type of use should be low intensity, and should not cause problems
with general safety. In staff's
opinion, the re-opening of a commercial use on at this location will not impede
the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding area for
uses permitted in the zone, as this site is historically commercial, and it is
appropriately placed at the intersection of two highways. As the
building is already in existence, in staff's opinion, the re-opening of a
commercial use in this building will probably help to raise or keep property
values level, as there will no longer be a vacant building in the area. The light commercial use of an antique store should have
little to no effect of the already permitted uses of residential and
agriculture. Staff has not received any
written neighbor responses at this time. However, one neighbor has voiced
concerns over the septic system that will be used. The original septic permit
(pg. C-10-C-13) for this project had been approved by ADH (layout and perc test)
and was submitted to the Planning office, however, the Health Department DID
revoke this permit based on the gallons per day usage not being correct (will
clarify at the meeting). According
to a letter from ADH, “the original submittal was for 45 gallons a day usage
in an office building…now submitted for an Antique/Reclaim lumber store. This
will change the requirements per day usage to 168 gallons.”
Staff does not feel this should impede the approval of this
CUP as the Health Department has stated that “further review is necessary
…to evaluate if there is enough space for additional lateral line locations.
If no further space is available, a holding tank may be utilized under the Rules
and Regulations Pertaining to Onsite Wastewater Systems.”
“Section 10.6 Holding Tanks
10.6.2 Holding tanks shall be approved only for domestic waste from
commercial
establishments, excluding grocery stores and/ or food service
establishments.
10.6.3 Holding tanks shall not be approved for
residences, full or part time. 10.6.4
The minimum capacity of any holding tank shall be ten times the estimated
daily usage as outlined in Appendix C of this regulation or 1000 gallons,
whichever is greater. 10.6.7
Proof of a notarized contract with a licensed septic tank cleaner shall
be required before a permit to operate is issued.
The contract shall provide for cleaning within 24 hours of notification,
and shall state where the wastewater will be deposited.” The
septic system/holding tank must be in place and inspected by the Health
Department before the building is used. In addition, an existing well onsite must be
capped to Well Drillers Specification before the business is opened.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: Staff
recommends Conditional Use Permit approval for the proposed 21910 Hwy. 45 E. Old
Mayfield Store CUP with the following conditions: 1.
No
additional buildings may be built on this site. 2.
Any outdoor
storage must be screened from sight of surrounding properties with an opaque
material (wood fencing, rock or brick wall, etc). 3.
The septic facility or holding tank (or other ADH
approved device) must be in place prior to this business opening.
Must comply with all
rules and regulations from the Health Department. 4.
The
existing well must be properly capped prior to the business opening. 5.
This structure is NOT to be used as a residence. 6.
All outdoor lighting should be shielded from
neighbors using appropriate fixtures. 7.
Any other land divisions, commercial structures,
or other types of uses not considered with this submittal must come through a
separate CUP or review process with the County. ADDITONAL
INFORMATION: INFRASTRUCTURE: Water
– The property is in the
service area of Madison County Rural Water. Other
Utilities - The lot is in the service area of AT & T
Telephone (South Western Bell) and Ozark Electric. Warren Adcock (Robbins Realty), owner of the proposed
project, was present to answer any questions. Courtney McNair,
Washington County Planner, stated, “This project is located on the east side
of the County just past Goshen and almost to the County line.
It is located in Goshen’s Planning Area as well as in a zoned area that
is the only odd zone that we have which is one unit per two acres slightly
larger zone because of Goshen’s minimum standards.
It is on the intersection of Highway 303 and Highway 45.
There is existing parking and drive to both Highway 45 and Highway 303.
The surrounding uses since this is a Conditional Use we look at those and
this is asking for use as an antique shop and reclaimed building material shop,
so it is taken into consideration the surrounding uses it is mainly residential
and agricultural in this area. There
is a used farm equipment sales and a small pottery shop just up the road.
Directly adjacent to the site is all agricultural or residential uses.
Goshen’s Future Land Use map sees in the future for this area is
residential which is compatible to the surrounding area.
Goshen did have a meeting on this and they did vote to go ahead.
They said that this use was compatible even though it didn’t fit in
with their future land use it was compatible because of the historical use of
that site. The store as it sits
today is a vacant building.” McNair also stated, “We
have a hydrant which is run off of Madison County water and they could not get
us an actual gallons per minute, but they did give us what they think that they
have a 100 (pounds per square inch) pressure coming out of the hydrant.
The Washington County Fire Marshal, John Jenkins, said that he is okay
with that even though it is not the actual gallons per minutes because it is an
existing building and hydrant. It
is on a 6” inch line and it is in an isolated location so if anything did ever
happen it probably won’t catch the neighbors on fire and the hydrant is right
on site next to the War Eagle Mill sign. Since
it is a low impact use we don’t feel that the traffic flow would be extremely
high low intensity for this antique store and reclaimed building material.
The use is a historical use the store may not be necessarily historical
to do an antique store and reclaimed building material, that may not be the
previous historical exact use, but the commercial use of the store is in line
with what it had been historically. We
feel that it is appropriately placed on the intersection of two highways, which
is part of our Land Use Plan for the County is that we put commercial at
intersections whenever possible. As
far as property values we feel that at this time there is a vacant building
there and that is actually lowering property values so when this is actually
opened again it will not be a vacant building and they will fix it up and keep
it looking nice. The only major
issue that we have with this was the septic permit.
What happened was the first one was revoked.
There is a letter (Attachment A) from Melissa Wonnacott from the Arkansas
Department of Health that states that the initial permit for this site was
revoked because it was based on a three-person office building, which is
incorrect. You see that submitted
now as a store where there will be customers coming in, so the gallons per day
that they are required was 168 gallons instead of 45 gallons that significantly
changed the tank that they had. In
the letter it states that they will have to do a surveyor investigation to see
if lines could be put in to accommodate that and if they can’t they said that
is okay because they can use a holding tank for this use.
Staff does not feel that the septic issue should impede this approval.
There will be a few more restrictions with the holding tank; they cannot
be for residences or for any kind of food service that is the only difference
between a holding tank and a regular septic tank.
Staff does recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the
proposed 21910 Hwy. 45 E. Old Mayfield Store Conditional Use Permit.
Condition #2 (Any outdoor storage must be screened from sight of surrounding
properties with an opaque material (wood fencing, rock or brick wall, etc) if
the Board would like to list the type of material that they can use; I had a
question about if they can use old tin to screen the building materials that
they are storing outside. Anything
other than the antique store and the reclaimed building material will have to
come back through the Planning Office for another Conditional Use review.” Walker asked, “What’s
the purpose and why haven’t we capped the well?”
McNair replied, “That is one of the requirements of the Health
Department for their septic. I’m
not entirely sure why.” Richey commented, “I
think it is proximity to the new septic tank.” Betty Christian, adjacent
property owner to the north, east, and
west at 21630 E. Hwy. 45, stated, “I live west of the Mayfield store.
I am where they have the equipment dealership shown, I would like to
correct that the dealership closed in approximately 1995.
I have an antique collection of my own, but it’s not a business it is
my own personal collection. I am
free to sell my own collection if and when I decide.
I am not selling new equipment or parts.
As Staff has shown, it shows the store is sitting on five tenths of an
acre, I believe this has gone over at another meeting where Mr. Adock, Mr. Rick
Johnson, Ms. Melissa Wonnacott and myself were present.
By their own admission with the map that they had drawn up the property
is 115 x 115, which is including the right-of-ways, that brings it down to three
tenths of an acre and when you take the store out it is just a little over two
tenths of an acre. My main concern
is the septic system because there was a run-off, which the Health Department
was involved in. I am concerned
about another run-off coming onto my property because I was notified if it did I
would be liable because it came across my property and got into the creek.
My concern is the creek because if the run-off gets into there.
This question was asked at the Health Department and Mr. Adcock said that
he can guarantee that there would be no malfunctions but the answer from the
Health Department is ‘We cannot guarantee that because there can always be a
malfunction.’ I am
concerned about that.” Harold McDuffie, adjacent
property owner to the south at 21885 E.
Hwy. 45, asked, “My wife and I own the property directly across the road and I
just want to clarify one thing if there is any change in the use of this
property for the selling of antiques, if some additional business is put in
there, we will all be notified. Is
that correct?” McNair replied,
“That is correct.” McDuffie
commented, “Our one concern there was a camp three or four years ago.
What effect is going to come from your choice? Make an acceptance to be a general store that will serve beer
there that would really affect the value of my property if that happens.
I want to be sure that would never happen unless we’ve been
notified.” Laney stated, “Under
our recently enacted rules when you grant a Conditional Use Permit it’s
conditional to that use that is granted. It
used not be that way, but it is that way now.” Doug Dorland, adjacent
property owner to the south at 18403
Edgewood Road, asked, “I live in Mayfield.
My concern is when you use the term antique store and building supplies
it sounds very much like somebody else’s junkyard.
Is there any clarification we call this place an antique store and it
turns out to be an old building with ruins and create a real mess out there?” McNair replied, “That
is part of #2 on the requirements (Any outdoor storage must be screened from sight of
surrounding properties with an opaque material (wood fencing, rock or brick
wall, etc) if the Board wants to chose a
specific way that it can be screened then we can add that condition.
If it is screened properly I think that should keep it from becoming
unsightly and of course you can always call us if there is a problem.” Laney commented, “From
my understanding it is a requirement to be screened its just the materials are
not established yet. Mr. Dorland is
right one man’s junk is another man’s antique so you’ll have to be a
little careful about that.” Head stated, “There is
also some issue with that turning off the highway you can’t screen it too much
or you’d be blocking the highway view and that particular part of the highway
is not the slowest part of that it’s at the bottom of the dip, so you’re not
going to be able to screen it where you can’t see to turn off on the side
road.” Christian asked about a
diagram showing where the parking would be.
McNair replied, “The parking as shown on what they submitted from the
Health Department when they submitted the septic permit which is no longer
valid, but where they said that the parking was going to be was in front of the
store and I do believe that is where the parking has been historically as
well.” Christian commented, “I
would like to say that the highway has widened since that time.
Probably where the existing pumps are sitting the parking will have to be
in back unless they’re parking out on the easement which the State doesn’t
allow that.” Adcock stated, “If you
look at the photograph you can see the gravel drive that goes off of Hwy. 303
that’s where I park every time I go out there.
There’s not room to park more than maybe 4 or 5 cars with the
Conditional Use that we are requesting I feel like 1 or 2 cars at a time will
all that will be there. There’s
not going to be anything out by the sign where the hydrant is that’s a ditch
anyways, so there won’t be anything blocking the view of the turn.” Christian asked, “If
you’re going to use the driveway for parking where will the trucks be parked
unloading the unused lumber?” Adcock
replied, “It will not be large trucks it will be pick-up trucks with small
trailers, there won’t be 18-wheelers trucks there.” Gary Head moved to approve
21910 Hwy. 45 E. Old Mayfield Store Conditional Use Permit with conditions.
Larry Walker seconded. Motion
passes. 1.
No additional buildings may be built on this site. 2.
Any outdoor storage must be screened from sight of surrounding properties
with an opaque material (wood fencing, rock or brick wall, etc). All Board members were in
favor of approving
21910 Hwy. 45 E. Old Mayfield Store
Conditional Use Permit approval. VARIANCE HEARING b.
Luper Minimum Road Frontage Variance Request Location:
Section 2, Township 13 North, Range 29 West Owner/Developer:
Randy and Mary Jane Luper Engineer/Surveyor:
Blew Land Surveying Location
Address: 17835 and 17839 Sunset Road, Winslow, AR 13.02
acres/ Proposed
Use: Single Family Residential and
Agricultural Project
#: 2007-234 Planner: Courtney McNair,
e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us REQUEST: Variance Request to allow less than the minimum
required road frontage on two lots for the Luper family.
The proposed project is located on a parcel 13.02 acres in size.
The approval of a variance will allow the proposed Tract A to
have 29.54’ of road frontage (exemption split regulations require 100’ of
road frontage without a variance), and the proposed Tract B to have 94.89’ of
road frontage (exemption split regulations require 165’ of road frontage
without a variance). CURRENT ZONING: Project does not lie within
the County Zoned area. PLANNING AREA: This project is located solely
in the County. QUORUM COURT DISTRICT: District 9, JP Butch Pond (R) BACKGROUND/ PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
The property is currently owned by Randy and Mary Jane Luper.
Their son, Caylum Luper, is requesting the variance. The proposed project has access off of WC #38 (Sunset Road).
This project will be able to come through the Planning Office
as an administrative lot split (for mortgage/family purposes) if this variance
request is approved. Randy and Mary Jane Luper also own the lot to the north of
(and adjacent to) this property. The option of adjusting the lot lines to create
more road frontage was discussed but, due to an existing mortgage contract on
the adjacent property (see attached variance request
forms pg B-5 and B-6), this is not feasible. The parcel that the Lupers are intending to split currently
has deficient road frontage. Tax
records reveal that the lot was created in 1990. The rules regulating development were quite different at that
time, and it is hard to find approval information in our filing system for
simple splits in this era (good information starts in about 1992).
Discussion with the Lupers also revealed that the small
29.54’ strip that leads to the road on the western side of the lot may have
been a previous surveying mistake. That being said, staff finds no evidence of bad faith in this
situation by the applicants, and the existing road frontage situation combined
with the adjacent existing parcel being held under a current mortgage contract
does equate hardship in staff’s opinion. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variance with the
condition that future lot splits will not be allowed until more road frontage is
available, or another variance is approved.
The variance approval and the condition should be listed on the lot
split. The
variance may only be approved “…upon a three-fourths majority vote
of the full Board and approved by the County Judge…” In
this case, this means that 5 board members must be present and vote
affirmatively for this variance to be approved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Variance Request approval for the proposed Luper Minimum
Road Frontage Variance Request with the following conditions: 1.
Any future lot split will require more road frontage to be granted, or
another variance approval. 2.
The variance approval language and the condition of approval should be
listed on the lot split. These are the notes that must be
added to the survey for this lot split: “Any future lot split will
require more road frontage to be granted, or another variance approval.” “A variance allowing 29.2 feet
instead of 100 feet of road frontage on Tract “A” was approved on December
6, 2007 by the Washington County Planning Board.” “A variance allowing 93.95 feet
instead of 165 feet of road frontage on Tract “B” was approved on December
6, 2007 by the Washington County Planning Board.” ADDITONAL INFORMATION: Below is the variance language in
our code: Sec. 11-78. Variations. (a) If
the provisions of this Article are shown by the developer to cause undue
hardship by reason of exceptional topographic or other physical conditions, as
they apply to the proposed land development, the Planning Board, upon an
affirmative vote of not less than a three-fourths majority of the full Board,
may grant a variance to the Developer, subject to the approval of the County
Judge, provided the variation will not have the effect of nullifying the intent
and purpose of this Article. (b) In
granting a variance and modifications, the Planning Board may impose such
conditions which will, in its judgment, substantially secure the objectives of
the standards. When any such variance is granted, the motion of approval shall
include a statement describing the variance and the facts upon which the
issuance of the variance was based. All such variances shall be enumerated on
the final plat. (1) When
the developer requests a variance to the street specifications, the County Judge
may obtain the services of a registered professional engineer to review the
developer's proposal and submit a written report. The developer shall agree to
compensate the County for the engineering study fees. (2) The
Planning Board may waive the preliminary and final plat requirements for a
division of any part of the original parcel if the Planning Board determines the
proposed division conforms to the official plans and regulations. Notice of any
variance, the Planning Board permits shall be prepared and file a notice in the
Circuit Clerk's office. Said notice shall state that further divisions of said
parcel may require conformity with the provisions of this Article. (3) Transfer
or adjustments of a property line between adjoining property owners which does
not create a landlocked parcel shall not require a variance by the Planning
Board. (4) The
County Judge is authorized to consult with an independent registered
professional engineer if he has concerns about the impact of any development on
county or public roads or drainage. This initial consultation shall be at the
expense of the County. If after said consultation concerns still exist then the
County Judge may retain said engineer to perform a complete analysis of said
development at the expense of the developer. Preference shall be given to
engineers located within one hundred (100) miles of the County. (Ord.
No. 91-9, Art. 1, § 2.08, 4-11-91; Ord. No. 2005-3, Arts. 1--3, 2-10-05) Sec. 11-108. Variations. (a) If
the provisions of these standards are shown by the developer (by plan or written
statement) to cause undue hardships as they apply to the proposed land
development, depending on the nature of the hardship a variance from such
provisions may be granted by the Planning Board upon a three-fourths majority
vote of the full Board and approved by the County Judge, so that substantial
justice may be done and the public interest secured; provided that the variance
will not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of this Article. (b) In
granting a variance Washington County, the Planning Board, County Road
Superintendent or County Judge may impose such conditions as will, in its
judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standards or requirements
so varied. When any such variance is granted, the motion for approval shall
include a statement describing the variance and the facts upon which the
issuance of the variance is based; all such variances shall be enumerated on the
final plat. (c) If
the developer requests a reduction to the street widths or pavement sections
and/or right-of-way width, the County Judge may obtain the services of a
knowledgeable registered professional engineer to review the site and the
developer's proposal and submit a written report of recommendations. The
developer shall agree to the engineering study fee and the developer shall be
responsible for reimbursing the County for any engineering study fees. (d) The
County Judge is authorized to consult with an independent registered
professional engineer if he has concerns about the impact of any development on
County or public roads or drainage. This initial consultation shall be at the
expense of the County. If after said consultation concerns still exist then the
County Judge may retain said engineer to perform a complete analysis of said
development at the expense of the developer. Preference shall be given to
engineers located within one hundred (100) miles of the County. (e) Transfer or adjustments of a
property line between adjoining property owners which does not create a
landlocked parcel shall not require a variance by the Planning Board. (Ord. No. 91-9, Art. 1, § 8.03,
4-11-91; Ord. No. 99-32, Art. 1, 7-8-99; Ord. No. 2005-3, Arts. 1--3, 2-10-05;
Ord. No. 2006-34, Art. 1, 6-8-06) INFRASTRUCTURE: Water –
The property is in the service area of Washington Water Authority. Other Utilities -
The lot is in the service area of Century Tel Telephone and Ozark Electric. Caylum Luper, son of the owners - Randy and Mary Luper,
was present to answer any questions. Richey stated, “This is
just a variance request. This is on
Sunset east of Winslow the south part of the County. It is not in a zoned area or in a Planning Area.
What happened was back in the 80’s there was a tract division.
I don’t even know what we had as far as regulations in the 80’s as
far as road frontage there may have been none at all for tract splits.
Basically, we ended up with a weird scenario here with this frontage.
Now they want to split this back portion and they have two frontage
shortages. One of them they actually think was done by mistake by the
surveyor leaving the strip on the side. Basically,
we have no evidence of bad faith it is an undue hardship they didn’t mean for
this to happen and now it has. They
wanted to do a lot line adjustment, but because one of the pieces is under
mortgage they cannot adjust those lines to get more frontage, therefore, they
are asking for a variance to allow road frontage of 29.54’ on one piece and
94.89’ on the other. If the Board
grants the frontage variance tonight then we can just process the split
administratively because it is for family.” Larry Walker moved to
approve Luper Minimum Road Frontage Variance Request with conditions. Robert
Daugherty seconded. Motion passes. All Board members were in
favor of approving
Luper Minimum Road Frontage Variance
Request. Robert Daugherty left the
meeting to attend another meeting. Fayetteville
Planning Area d.
Tuck CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request) Location:
Section 13, Township 16 North, Range 30 West Owner/Developer:
Thelma Tuck / John Mark Bernard Engineer/Surveyor: Location
Address: 3856 Wyman Road 1.53
acres / Proposed
Land Use: Residential, Single Family Project
#: 2007-223 Planner: Juliet Richey, e-mail
at richey@co.washington.ar.us REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit Approval for Tuck CUP to
allow two single-family detached homes on one lot that is less than two acres in
size. (The consideration is for the
allowance of more than one single-family home on a parcel, as well as the higher
density of two homes per 1.5 acres). CURRENT
ZONING: Project does lie within the County Zoned area
(Agriculture/Single-Family Residential 1 unit per acre).
PLANNING
AREA: This project is located in the City of
Fayetteville’s Planning Area. QUORUM COURT
DISTRICT: District 9, JP Butch Pond (R) BACKGROUND/
PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
The property
is currently owned by Thelma Tuck. The
proposed project is located at 3856 E. Wyman Road. Two
single-family homes on 1.5 acres is not the norm in this neighborhood (see D-7),
however, in staff's opinion, because this is only one lot, staff does not feel
it will change the character of the neighborhood.
A septic permit has been approved for the additional home (see D-16).
Therefore, staff does believe that the establishment, maintenance, or operation
of the conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare. There has
been an objection by the neighbor across the street to this project due to the
intention of the applicant to place a manufactured single family home on this
property (see D-11). This CUP is
the consideration of a higher density (two homes on less than two acres) of
single family home, not the type of single-family home. Our zoning ordinance definition for single-family is as
follows "Single Family Residential means a detached dwelling for occupancy
as the residence of one family." The
truth of it is, that without a CUP, a person could divide land into one-acre
parcels and put whatever sort of single-family residence (modular, manufactured,
stick built, etc) on each one. The
question at hand is density, as single-family residential detached structures of
all types are allowed. The County
Future Land Use Map shows this area to be a "Rural Area Residential”
which generally calls for a lower density than what is proposed. (Rural Area
Residential is category on the County’s Future Land Use Plan Map, which
reflects the City of Fayetteville’s adopted 2025 Plan).
However, discussion with Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning for
the City, stated that the City was comfortable with this sort of density with
conditions (see D-14). STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: Staff
recommends Conditional Use Permit approval for the proposed Tuck CUP with the
following conditions: 1.
Any other
land divisions, commercial structures, or other types of uses not considered
with this submittal must come through a separate CUP or review process with the
County. 2.
This
approval is for a detached single family residential home only. 3.
Septic system must be installed and operational
prior to applicant occupying home. ADDITONAL
INFORMATION: INFRASTRUCTURE: Water
– The property is in the
service area of Fayetteville Water. Other
Utilities - The lot is
in the service area of AT & T Telephone (South Western Bell) and Ozark
Electric. John Mark Bernard (Win Air) was present to answer any
questions. Richey stated, “This is
a Conditional Use Permit for a Conditional Use to allow two single-family homes
on one lot that is less than two acres in size. The Board needs to consider the allowance of (A) more than
one single-family home on a single parcel as well as (B) this higher density of
two homes per 1.5 acres instead of what would be permitted by right, which would
be one home per one acre, basically, it needs to be two acres.
This does lie in the City of Fayetteville’s Planning Area it is not too
far out of the City limits it is on Wyman Road.
There is an existing single-family structure on the 1.5 acre lot, it is
an existing brick home. The
applicant, Ms. Thelma Tuck, it is in her trust she actually owns the property
around here as well. Most of the
parcels around are larger in size; there are several one-acre parcels.
There is only one other parcel that I saw kind of in that area that had
more than one dwelling on a parcel, I think it has three dwelling units on a
parcel, but they definitely look like they have been there for a while.
In Staff’s opinion because this is only one lot we don’t really feel
that it will change the character of the neighborhood to allow this in this
circumstance. A septic permit has
been approved for this additional home and therefore we don’t believe that it
has any sort of health safety issues if you approve it.
There has been some objections from the neighbors.
Several objections are due to the fact that this is a manufactured home
that they want to put on the property that is not something that we can take
into consideration at this time. We
are looking at the density and how that will affect the surrounding homes in
that neighborhood and just around more than one house on that parcel.” Laney asked, “My point
is that is becoming a more urban development so that the 1.7, 1.9, and the 1.9
beside it; what are we going to do when they come in? It is a changing neighborhood that it looks like to me; it is
becoming more dense. We would have
to consider saying yes to the people on the 1.7, 1.9, and the 1.9 if we say yes
to this one, I’m assuming. Basically,
between two subdivisions.” Richey replied,
“Technically, a Conditional Use as George Butler will tell you is it doesn’t
set a precedent, but it does in a way. They
are asking to allow a density of two homes per 1.5 acres which it is less than
what is allowed by right, but it is not significantly less not like they are
asking for four units per acre or anything like that, so we don’t feel that it
is going to have a big impact on the actual character of the neighborhood.
The fact that it is manufactured is not something that we can look at the
County will allow any type of detached single-family residence by right unless
it is something that the Quorum Court wants to deal with in the future the type
of housing is not something that we can deal with tonight.” Walker asked, “For
reference how many other manufactured homes are in the area?’’
Richey replied, “I drove out there the other day because I was
interested in that myself; and there are several to the east.
The lot with three homes on a parcel those are manufactured homes.
Some of them are older and some of them are newer.
If you go out on Wyman maybe another mile there are a couple more.
There are some older single-family homes as well as new ones.” Head asked, “I’m
curious if they own all the land around there why don’t they just cut some
more land out?” Richey replied,
“They can do that, essentially, if this fails that is something that they can
do. They weren’t aware of zoning
in the area and this manufactured home was actually moved onto the site before
they found out that it couldn’t be. Basically,
it is just sitting there right now, we allowed them to weatherproof it, but told
them basically they couldn’t do anything else with it.
They asked, ‘What do we need to do to make this right?’
We said that they can ask for a Conditional Use or go through a lot line
adjustment process or lot split process through the City and because it is in
the City’s Planning Area they would have to go through the City as well.
This was basically the quickest way to get something done and so we
decided to try this route first. They
could do a lot line adjustment or split as well.
Part of the issue is that even though it is in Thelma Tuck’s trust the
parcels are already separated and set up to be deeded to different people in her
will. They would rather not have to
do that they’d rather leave it on that one parcel because they are going to be
living there as her caretakers and leave the rest of the will and trust alone,
but it is an option to do like Gary was saying to do a split or a lot line
adjustment.” Walker asked, “Who
polices item #4 (An
owner of the property (parcel) must keep primary residence in one of the single
family homes at all times so that the property does not turn into a multiple
rental property in the future)?”
Richey replied, “Item
#4 has been removed. The City of
Fayetteville wanted us to put a recommendation that said, basically, one of the
homes would have to be occupied by the owner of the property at all times and
George Butler said that we can’t do that.” Laney commented,
“Sighting a reason that it is not going to materially change, I do think that
we will see further requests in that area.
I’m not really sure that I want to rely on that, because I think this
is a transitioning area so maybe differ just slightly, but I don’t think that
it changes the outcome from my perspective.”
Larry Walker moved to
approve Tuck Conditional Use Permit with conditions. Kenley Haley seconded.
Motion passes. All Board members were in
favor of approving
Tuck Conditional Use Permit approval. 5.
OLD BUSINESS a.
Proposed Revision to Planning Board By-Laws:
Existing Language is shown in italics.
Proposed language is shown as bold and underlined. WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD BY-LAWS, ARTICLE IV.
MEETINGS A.
Planning Board meetings shall be as provided by state statute
14-17-203(d). The regular meetings
of the Washington County Planning Board shall be held on the first Thursday of
each month.
In some situations due to holidays or other events, the Planning
Board may schedule its regular monthly meeting for an appropriate alternative
date. Washington County Planning Board By-Laws, ARTICLE IX.
AMENDMENTS A.
These by-laws may be amended or repealed by an affirmative vote of not
less than five (5) out of seven (7) of the Planning Board. Any proposed
amendment shall first be presented in writing at a regular meeting and placed on
the agenda of a subsequent regular meeting for action unless ten (10) days
written notice of the proposed amendment has been given to all members of the
Board, in which case action may be taken at any regular or special meeting. Any
proposed amendment may be adopted by unanimous vote without notice if the County
judge is present at the meeting. Gary
Head moved to amend the By-laws to include the new wording for the Planning
Board to schedule its regular monthly meeting for an appropriate alternative
date. Kenley Haley seconded. Motion
passes. 6. OTHER BUSINESS Richey stated, “The Conditional Use is in its own
category in current development. We
have done some house cleaning and took out the projects that have been hanging
around.” ·
Discussion
of new County-wide zoning to be in effect December 15, 2007. Head
commented, “I
want to extend a thank you to the members of the Washington County Quorum Court
for passing Countywide Zoning last month. After many years of legally
being forced to tell the public that there were no rules to address use-related
concerns within the County, the passage of zoning now allows the Planning Board
to look seriously at use and compatibility issues for the many projects that
come before the board members. Due to the passage of zoning, The public
will now have a chance to speak up, and the board will be able to consider the
issues that they bring. The Planning Board thanks you for passing
Countywide Zoning." Gary Head moved to extend a thank you to the Quorum
Court for passing Countywide zoning. Larry
Walker seconded. Motion passes.
The Board had further discussion on single-family
homes and rent houses. Walker asked, “What I’m looking at is if you’re
putting it in a subdivision of upper class houses, is it still is that like
use?” George Butler, Washington
County Attorney, replied, “It’s like you can have an area where all the
houses were on two acres and were brick and stone and say maybe 3,000 square
feet that doesn’t stop you from coming in and building a little 1,000 foot
white frame house.” Laney stated, “Under our current zoning scheme,
your point is for maybe if we had a more complex zoning scheme, but the approach
has been taken here is pretty simplistic.” Head commented, “The City of Fayetteville has tried
every way in the world to write every conceivable way to govern Planning and no
matter what you try to write there is going to be a situation that is going to
be difficult to fit in any of it and compatibility issues are more on use than
it is on type of building. If it is
single-family then you don’t necessarily get to tell them what it is going to
look like, but you can say that commercial doesn’t belong in single-family and
that is basically all the rules that we have.” Richey stated, “That’s correct.
We have lots of people out in the County that build metal building homes,
it is kind of a cheaper way to make a home and they use it for a home for awhile
and then sometimes they build another house and make it a shop and we don’t
limit that, we don’t say what type of house you can build.
I don’t know that I would recommend it as the Planning Department that
we dove into that.” Laney commented, “The only comments that I’ve
heard and I think that it needs some clarification on the new zoning rule is
that I had a banker tell me this morning that it de-valued a lot of the property
out in the County because it couldn’t be developed for a subdivision.
I told him that is not the case at all, you have to submit a plan if you
want to do less than an acre and as far as my vote goes if it was well conceived
and had some green space and smart uses of curved driveways and then yes we
could approve things that would allow much higher density, but the point is it
wouldn’t be automatic, you would have to prove to me that there was screening
and berms and design effects. I
think that the next time that you get a chance to talk to the press you need to
clarify it doesn’t mean that you can never build anything in the County like a
subdivision. The banker said that
farmers that I have made loans on their land where ready to retire and ready to
cash in. Now, they can’t sell
their land for $25,000 an acre and again that is not the case, in my opinion, if
they bring in a good plan.” Head stated, “Obliviously, the case is there are
4,000 lots sitting empty in the County and nobody is buying $25,000 acre of land
because there is an excess of lot inventory out there so it has nothing to do
with right by use of whether the County zones or not.
All of that in the conversation that went on at the Quorum Court meeting,
if I heard it the same way that George did, was to try to stop someone from
putting in a commercial use next to someone’s home, that’s why we have
zoning in the County.” Butler commented, “If you have the methodical
farmer that is ready to sell their land and retire this also keeps if he is
thinking about doing that and all of a sudden someone wants to put in a quarry
or a red dirt pit right next door to him that gives him the opportunity to keep
his property from being de-valued even more.” Head stated, “That’s what I wanted to clarify.
If everybody had to sit in one of these chairs for just a meeting, that
was a controversial meeting, they would have a different appreciation for
zoning, and I don’t expect that everybody is going to do that.
The education process unfortunately is difficult when it’s not in your
backyard, but when it is in your backyard you become educated very quickly about
what can happen to you.” Richey commented, “We had a press conference on
December 4, 2007 and I felt like the Judge covered it very well.” Head commented, “Unfortunately, one of the
representatives that was against it happens to be my representative.
Of all people to be against zoning when you’re a hog farmer you’re
generally the target of no one’s affection.
When we zoned the County everything came in exempt in the County as A1.
It is protected as every agricultural use that you want to use.
I’m afraid that he’s misinformed as to the facts regarding zoning and
it’s not about property rights it’s about lack of property rights and
without zoning you have no rights. The
guy next to you can put up anything that he wants to and this at least protects
your right to argue about a use and that’s all we’ve asked for and that’s
exactly what the present zoning allows is an argument that didn’t exist
before.” Butler stated, “It allows your input to have some
meaning.” Walker asked, “Say I was wanting to put in a
limestone pit and I am selling agricultural lime.” Head replied, “It ain’t gonna fly it’s commercial
because you’re selling.” Butler replied, “We would define agricultural.”
Head commented, “So is the Tractor Supply store.” Richey stated, “The whole County zoning goes into
effect December 15, 2007 which is actually a Saturday.” Head commented, “Has the number of applicants
because of the slowness of the Real Estate market slowed down all of the people
that might be thinking about building subdivisions and all that kind of thing.
Someone is going to come around and go ‘The reason that we’ve slowed
down is because you have put in zoning’ and I can tell you from being a banker
it’s because no one wants to loan any money to build a bunch more stuff right
now because there is already too much out there in the market.
Please don’t let someone believe that the reason that there’s not
going to be a whole lot more planning on a whole lot more subdivisions is
because we have inventory in excess in this County and until that is rectified I
don’t think that a lot of people neither the lenders nor the individuals is
going to be brave enough to run out and try build a bunch more inventory.” Laney stated, “To summarize Juliet’s comments to
me initially some questions from people out in the rural areas who may have just
heard their neighbors say something that’s pretty much settled down so it
doesn’t seem to be much of a reaction at all, frankly, other than initially a
few calls to clarify what they had heard as rumors. So far so good.” Butler commented, “The vote was close on the Quorum
Court the audience was definitely not one-sided at all.” Head stated, “The audience was mostly for zoning.
The guys that fought it were worried about their farm.
Obviously, in my opinion, they didn’t understand that it came in A1, so
if you had a hog farm you were protected. If
you want to put in a hog farm you can do so by right.
If you want to build single-family homes you have to ask to be re-zoned.
” Butler commented, “If it is
going to be smaller than an acre.” Richey stated, “Educating people in a public forum
is really hard. I run into a lot,
it doesn’t even matter what you say there is a general mistrust of government.
We just live in a really complicated world.
Ordinances are long and written in legalese.
I understand that people feel that way, but we just try to present it as
best we can.” Haley commented, “The County has come a long way
whether we want to admit that or not. I
remember some very challenging days and it was good to hear that the majority of
the people in the audience their desire for zoning.
I thought that was encouraging.” Gary Head moved to adjourn.
Larry Walker seconded. Motion
passes. Planning Board adjourned. Minutes submitted by: Amanda
Kimbel Approved by the Planning
Board on: Randy
Laney Date:
01/07/08
Randy Laney, Planning Board Chairman
Blake Jorgensen, Jorgensen &
Associates, was present to answer any questions.
The
asphalt drive will need to be inspected and approved by the County Road
Superintendent.
Cont…on the following page
CONDITONAL USE
PERMIT HEARING
Cox Communication Comments:
County
County