INFRASTRUCTURE:  Water – The property is in the service area of Washington Water Authority.

Other Utilities - The lot is in the service area of Ozark Electric and Prairie Grove Telephone.

David Shane Cross, owner of the proposed project, was present to answer any questions.

Jessie Pettit, Washington County Planner, stated, “Is for a parsonage.  It is located in the southwest portion of Washington County.  The site is located well outside both of the City of Lincoln’s Planning Area and the City of Prairie Grove’s Planning Area.  It is in the zoned area that is why it is here tonight.  The site is located just north of where Four Corners (WC #284) and Blue Mountain Road (WC #299) intersect, 16494 Blue Mountain.  The site is located on the east side of the mountain there; the slope is approximately 11%.  Blue Mountain Road is a public gravel road with good visibility.  The Road Department had no comment on this project.  The property’s owners are Shane and Patricia Cross and Shane is also the applicant.  On the site photo you can see the existing structure that is being used as a church since 2007 prior to zoning.  The proposed structure will be behind it.  As I mentioned, this is basically a single-family home to be used as a parsonage.  There are two parcels that are .5 acres just southwest of the site.  Most of the other adjacent properties are much larger.  The average tract size is approximately 19 acres.  The average acreage per existing single-family is within the quarter mile study area is one per 53 acres.  A lot of these parcels don’t have homes on them so that would account for that inflated number.  It is really quite beautiful up there.  It appears that there are adequate utilities, roads, drainage, and other public services available.  Washington Water Authority is the water service provider; discussion between Washington Water Authority and the owner/applicant regarding an additional water meter has taken place.  The Health Department approved septic system for the proposed structure is installed.  Other utility providers Ozark Electric and Prairie Grove Telephone had no comments on this project.  There appears to be no drainage issues, although, the site is quite steep.  There is a minimum of 20’ between the existing structure and the proposed structure to maximize fire safety.  Fire has no other concerns, as the new structure is to be a single-family home and not a church building like a classroom or an auditorium.  We are mainly focusing on the parsonage here.”

Pettit added, “Although the density exceeds most of the surrounding properties in the rural area the proposed increased density of the parcel appears to be a welcomed addition to the rural neighborhood.  According to adjacent property owner’s written comments, four adjacent property owners submitted comments all were in favor of the Conditional Use Permit request.  There were no negative comments or concerns.  The establishment or operation of the Conditional Use does not appear to be detrimental to or endanger the public health safety moral comfort and general welfare of the surrounding properties.  The request is to add one additional single-family structure on a 2.01 acre tract.  The tract already contains one existing manufactured home.  Staff does recommend Conditional Use Permit approval of the proposed In His Presence CUP with conditions being met.”                       

Pettit also added, “Future expansion of the church will require an additional CUP as this CUP request does not deal with any expansion of the church.  Development of a church on an acreage over one acre is considered a Large Scale Development.  The proposed structure requires a second water tap to be operational prior to occupation of the proposed single-family structure just Arkansas State plumbing code.  Any additional land divisions, commercial structures, or other types of uses not considered with this submittal must come for a separate CUP review process with the County.  Certified mailing receipts to be paid.”

Shane Cross had nothing to add.

Robert Daugherty moved to approve In His Presence Ministries Conditional Use Permit subject to Staff’s recommendations. Kenley Haley seconded.  Motion passes.

All Board members were in favor of approving In His Presence Ministries Conditional Use Permit.

County

e.   Living Word Tabernacle CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request)

Location: Section 3, Township 16 North, Range 31 West

Owner/Developer: Arlie and Delores Rice / Jim and Julie Rice

Location Address: 11989 W. Double Springs Road (WC #881)

2 acres and 1 unit / Proposed Land Use: Church

Project #: 2008-170 Planner: Juliet Richey, e-mail at jrichey@co.washington.ar.us

 Planner: Courtney McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us

Juliet Richey, Washington County Planning Director, stated that Living Word Tabernacle Conditional Use Permit was to be tabled and removed from the agenda as per the applicant’s request.

Gary Head moved to table Living Word Tabernacle Conditional Use Permit. Robert Daugherty seconded.  Motion passes.

All Board members were in favor of tabling Living Word Tabernacle Conditional Use Permit.

Fayetteville Planning Area

f.   Jones Shop CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request)

Location: Section 30, Township 17 North, Range 29 West

Owner/Developer: David Jones

Location Address: 3990 N. Old Wire Road (WC #87)

6 acres and 1 unit / Proposed Land Use: Shop / Office Building

Project #: 2008-173 Planner: Juliet Richey, e-mail at jrichey@co.washington.ar.us

REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit Approval for Jones Shop CUP.  The proposed project is 6 acres with 1 unit proposed.

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: 

David and Beverly Jones Trust currently own the property.  The proposed project has access off of Old Wire Road (WC #87).  There are currently two existing structures on the property, an old house and a small barn.  The old house is currently just used for storage.  There are no plans to use either the house or barn for any use other than storage at this time. 

Please read attached request letter written by the applicant (see pg. F-12 ).  This is a request to allow a shop/ office structure to house a trade-type business on this site.  Mr. Jones’ business is a plumbing enterprise, however, he would like to zone the property and the building to allow other similar type businesses in the future (i.e., electrician business, general contracting, etc).

He is proposing to build one additional structure, an approximately 3600 square foot combination shop and office building, as well as adding gravel to existing driveways onsite. He has provided elevations of the building and a site plan  (see pgs. F8- F11).  He plans to have a masonry/brick front on the office portion of the building.  He may also be adding some areas of fenced outdoor storage.

Due to the nature of the use, traffic should be minimal. 

We have received two comments from neighboring property owners.  Both are opposed to this CUP (See pgs. F17- F20).

It appears that a portion of this property is located in a special flood hazard area, panel #05143C0230 F, effective May 16, 2008.  The applicant is aware of this and is not planning any structures for this portion of the site.

This project will be required to go through the Large Scale Development (LSD) process if this CUP is approved.  The LSD process includes a general site plan review, as well as review of road and drainage impact and review for compliance with Arkansas State Fire code.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Conditional Use Permit approval of the proposed Jones Shop CUP with the following conditions being met. 

1.       All outdoor storage areas must be screened by opaque fencing.  Fencing should be either wooden or composite privacy fencing or masonry in nature.  All gates must also be opaque.

2.       Any fleet vehicles must be kept indoors or in the screened area at night.

3.       All lighting must be shielded and in no way directed toward any neighboring properties.

4.       Signage must be kept to a monument style of signage or attached flush to the side of the building and be no larger than 20 square feet.  Signage may not be illuminated.  If monument style signage is chosen, it may be not taller than 5’ in height when measured from the ground.  Placement of monument signage should be at least 10’ back from the ROW.

5.       Front of building should be masonry in nature (shown as proposed is fine).

6.       The driveway to the project must be paved/ hard surface extending 20' back into the site to prevent tracking of gravel, etc. onto the County Road.

7.       Must be 25’ from all property lines, and 25’ from any ROW.

8.       Drainage report at LSD must be to City of Fayetteville standards (regarding increased flows).

9.       This development must proceed through the LSD process.

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.

Other Utilities - The lot is in the service area of Ozark Electric, AT & T Telephone, Arkansas Western Gas, and Cox Communications.

David Jones and Beverly Ann Bassett Jones (Trust) owners of the proposed project, was present to answer any questions.

Juliet Richey, Washington County Planning Director, stated, “This project is close to the City of Fayetteville’s city limits, it is over by the Joyce / 265 intersection.  It is right at the intersection of Joyce and Old Wire (WC #87).  There is a little bit of floodplain on this property in the corner, but it is not anywhere near where they are proposing to build any structures.  They are asking to put a shop building with an office in the front.  It is going to be for a trade type business.  In the beginning he plans to put a plumbing shop on that site, that is what his business is.  We want to go ahead and zone it to where it would allow other trade businesses in the future that are similar in nature.  The ones that we have seen in the past have been welding or electrician type businesses, nothing that is going to be retail in nature, but any type of trade type business.  It is proposed to have a masonry front where the office is and then there will be a metal building attached to it as well.  It is approximately 3,600 square feet.  This is something that we have seen before in the incorporated areas.”

Richey added, “There are some road issues coming up to this.  However, this is not a retail business, most trade businesses they have several employees they meet there in the morning and pass out project assignments for that day and go out and then don’t return until the evening maybe making one stop back during the day to get supplies.  We feel that uses like this with some minimal conditions can fit well into a residential neighborhood.  There are a couple of other existing commercial things in the area, storage units, commercial inside the city limits, there is actually another commercial plumbing business that exists out here as well, but besides that you basically have the residential and agricultural areas of the County, there is a cemetery and a church.  We have had quite a few property owner responses in this area.  We had eight against and two for.  Most people had comments about the existing road situation with dangerous corners and intersection and too much traffic.  Staff doesn’t feel that there is going to be much addition to traffic and certainly not as much as there would be if you had several single-family homes added to the area.  I realize that it is a commercial use and people did have questions what the exterior would look like, employee parking, screening, lighting, and things like that.  I did want to note that the two that were for are the same as the applicant he also owns two parcels adjacent to this.”

Richey also added, “The main things that we think need to be taken care of are that all outdoor storage areas need to be screened by some sort of opaque fencing.  We suggest that it either be a wooden or composite privacy fence or masonry in nature.  All gates to this area must also be opaque.  If they are going to store any pipe or any fittings outside then that is not going to fit in with the residential type nature so we want that screened from view.  The applicant was interested to know if chain link fencing with insert able vinyl strips would work, I don’t think that type of fencing is as condusive to blending with residential, but that would be up to the Board.  Any fleet vehicles must be kept indoors or in the screened area at night, that’s to make it more condusive to blending into a residential area, so you don’t have all the company trucks lined up out front.  I think there are maybe seven half-ton trucks with the exception of one one-ton vehicle, so we’re not talking about large dump trucks or anything like that.  All outdoor lighting needs be shielded and no way directed toward neighboring properties.  The signage must be kept to a monument style signage or attached flush to the side of the building that would be no larger than 20 square feet and signs cannot be illuminated, so therefore, you’re not going to have that problem at night in the residential area.  Setbacks from the right-of-way, and the building should be masonry in nature; how it is shown is fine.  The driveway to the project must be paved or hard surfaced extending 20’ back into the site to prevent tracking gravel onto the County Road.  All structures need to be 25’ from property lines and 25’ from any right-of-way.  Drainage report at Large Scale Development must be to City of Fayetteville’s standards as far as the increase of any flow due to this development.  This development will have to go through the Large Scale Development process after if it receives Conditional Use Permit approval.  The Large Scale Development process is basically a site plan review where there will be a traffic study completed to make sure that it is not going to put any sort of undue burdens on the road and if it is then it would be required to upgrade roads.  They will look at drainage plans what kind of water it is going to be displaced by building this building and putting this commercial parking area there.  Fire safety issues will be looked at by the Fire Marshal so those are the things that are reviewed in that site plan review to come which is called the Large Scale Development process.” 

Daugherty asked, “For clarification purposes, I’m sure it is neighbors’ concern, if he wants to do something that is higher traffic concentrated then he will have to come back before the Board?”  Richey replied, “Yes, that is certainly true.  I have told several people and Mr. Jones this would be a totally different deal if they were asking for some sort of retail where you had people driving by and it did generate a lot of traffic.  We understand that there are road issues out there and that would be something that would be completely different that would be looked at, but in this case it doesn’t generate a lot of traffic.  Other comments that we have had from the neighbors is that they feel like having this type of commercial will make it easier or make it segue directly into something in the retail sector and I don’t consider it that way at all.”

Haley asked, “I was going along with Robert Daugherty’s line of thinking.  You said it is currently at seven trucks?  What is considered a larger impact 10, 15, or 20 trucks?”  Jones replied, “I have five trucks.”  Richey replied, “Basically, when you have high traffic counts it is because you have people coming to get services in some sort of retail or bank or something like that.  I guess at some point it would be a higher traffic generator if the business grew a lot.  Generally, these types of businesses we don’t consider traffic generators because people are not coming to them.  You don’t come to see your plumber you call them when you have a problem and they go out to your house.  What we’ll look at, at the Large Scale Development process is they will have to give a traffic count and then the Road Department will evaluate it to see if the roads are okay for that.  The Road Department reviewed this and they didn’t have any issues with it at this level.”

Haley asked, “Where is the driveway coming out?”  Richey replied, “It is coming out onto Old Wire where an old chicken house was.”  Haley asked, “Weren’t the storage buildings those were grandfathered in, right?”  Richey replied, “It was before we had zoning.  They went through the Large Scale Development process, but it was before we had zoning.”

Daugherty asked, “That will basically be regulated by complaint driven, I suppose, and then we would look into something if it turned into be something that was really a higher traffic concentration.  In other words, if it turned into be some other type business then that is I suppose that is how we would regulate it somebody would complain and then we would investigate it.  Would the neighbors know how we do that?”  Richey asked, “You mean if someone put in a retail type business?”  Daugherty replied, “Yes.”

Haley asked, “I got a lot of calls on this and that is one of the reasons I want to be sure.  Do we have any choice, we discussed this previously, with the conditions that we are putting on there for approval to deny this, or basically is this one of these that okay if they meet these conditions we need to approve it?”   George Butler, Washington County Attorney, replied, “Conditional Use is there is a certain amount of subjectivity to it if you don’t feel like that the conditions that have been put on it substantially negate any negative impacts that are set out in the ordinance and then you don’t have to vote for it.  There is an objective side to it, but then there is a little bit of subjectivity, too.  The Conditional Use is not a matter of right.  It is not like if we didn’t have zoning you’re just looking at Large Scale Development and it meets our minimum requirements therefore you have to approve it.  It is a discretionary thing, but you should exercise your discretion properly.”   

Haley stated, “I actually went out there and looked at this and that is an extremely dangerous curve there and I understand whether it is seven trucks or five trucks that is still an impact.”

Butler commented, “Right now we are just talking about the use of the property.  In the Large Scale Development process they will have a chance to look where the drive comes out and also the curve and what needs to be done about that.”  Richey stated, “Yes, I actually don’t think where the drive is now is badly situated it is to the further part of the property so that gives you time when you get around there.  We can look at site distance if it would be better to put it somewhere else and that can certainly be looked at in the Large Scale Development.  You can put a condition on it tonight that you want further investigation of that and that is fine.”

Walker asked, “How many acres is it?”  Richey replied, “Six acres.”  Walker asked, “If it went to a subdivision or a housing?  How many houses could you put on it?”  Richey replied, “Six by right.”  Walker commented, “So, there are twelve vehicles right there minimum.”

Jones had nothing to add.

Anita Roberts, adjacent property owner to the west at 3935 N. Old Wire, stated, “I am directly right across the street from it.  I have several concerns that really have me concerned.  First of all, there are some inaccuracies in the application.  He said that it is currently used in his business, it is not, he bought this for a commercial use for an investment.  He used to live next door.  He tore the chicken houses down the first thing he did.  He said that he wants to put it on the existing chicken houses, but those chicken houses are on the northwest corner along the fence line is nowhere near the plans that he has given you.  There is another road that I would like for you to consider, and that would be the narrow curve to the south.  There is the one up towards the highway and there is one that has evidence that has a barrier that is already dinged up.  There is a complete drop-off about a foot or more there is no way to widen it.  I do want to add that a couple of years ago cars not even trucks or commercial of any kind even cars have trouble getting through there. A few years ago my daughter was coming through and she knows to drive safe and she was on her side of the road.  There was a red blazer on her side and she had to go into the ditch and he still hit her and she went into one ditch and ricocheted across the other.  By the grace of God there was not a car coming she could have been killed and what you’re asking is for more commercial traffic to come out there and endanger the lives of everyone including my family and my kids.  I would rather have twelve cars with six houses I would rather have that traffic any day over commercial traffic right across the street from me.  We have the blinding curve.  He said there are only three single homes there are three dozen homes.  He is using the storage units, yes, that was grandfathered in we tried to fight that, that is why we now have zoning.  We are zoned for our protection and it is the Board’s job to protect me on this because we are now zoned.  I have lots of other points, but we don’t want to go there.  We’re zoned, so then when you’re zoned you go to the Conditional Use Permit which is set out by Washington County.  This is your checklist this is my template my plan to see if it fits with the application and if it fits then being that we’ve got an approval, if it doesn’t then you’ve got to deny it.  Number C adequate roads, we’ve already discussed that, no.  D compatible with surrounding area, it is not this is residential.  As soon as you cross 265 it is a whole different area it’s horse farms, it is barns, it is narrow winding roads, it is residential it is not commercial.  Commercial will not fit in.  Will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property, yes it will.  Will not substantially diminish and impair property values with surrounding area.  I have a letter from a Real Estate Agent she did some studies on this and she said that yes it will impair our property value and it will impair our sell ability.  Compatible with policies, no we’re zoned one acre residential.  Compatible with Future Land Use map, no if you go to page F13 it is rural area residential public and private open space recreational.  I know that there have been talk about putting some kind of restrictions on it, basically, it does not fit it is going to hurt our property values it is going to hurt us and by saying fences and all that it is lipstick with a whole lot of pig written all over it.  I’m begging you to please deny this because that is what Washington County’s checklist requires.”     

Daniel Capstick, adjacent property owner to the west at 3829 E. Joyce Blvd., commented, “I live directly across the street from this proposal to the west.  The thing that bothers me I have a fairly nice house and I hate to see something commercial go across the street from my property.  A lot of effort went into to establish rural zoning in Washington County and it seems to me like here is somebody wanting to open the gate all effort that was put in to create an orderly development outside of the city limits of Fayetteville.  I don’t think that it fits in with the location.  It is completely out of order.”  

Diana Harder, adjacent property owner to the northwest at 3338 E. Joyce Blvd., stated, “I live right next door to where the storage buildings were put.  This has devalued my property.  I was here for all of the meetings during that time when it was approved and then zoning went in.  We thought that we weren’t going to have this problem anymore well here we are again.  If you drive by my house I am just east of the buildings and you can see what it did to my property it looks like crap, excuse my French.  I would really like for the Board to consider that putting commercial out there you’re going to ruin the township out there that we have.  It’s a beautiful area despite the storage buildings, but commercial use is not what it is for.  I hope you all will take a drive out there and look at it.”   

Jones commented, “I am the property owner.  I have some figures we have a fireworks tent on our corner every year and from 2002 to 2005 the sales were in 2005 $25,000 for two weeks worth of sales. In 2006 Mr. Capstick’s property I don’t know who owned it, but they put retail fireworks tent up, too every year.  Our income off that fireworks tent was cut in half, so I know where the other half went, in other words, $10,000 to $12,000.  They are using their ground as my point to make money off of it just like I’m not wanting to make money off of mine I’m wanting to put the use for my own business.  The area is being used more so as commercial than what has been described here tonight in my opinion, much more so.  There is a guy directly across the street to the north from the corner he runs a business out of his home he makes dentures, implant teeth, and dental products.  Mr. Capstick has a sod farm that I know that he is not giving the sod away for free, he may say it is agricultural business, but that is still a business it is commercial, he is doing it for profit.  I fail to see why they have a complaint about me wanting to use my property for my business purposes when they are already using theirs for business.”      

Laney commented, “As chairman I’m not going to make a motion, but I am going to comment that you have feedback request on the chain link and I don’t think that would be adequate at all in my opinion and in addition I would think that if it is approved the fence itself ought to be screened somewhat with trees and shrubs and maybe we can see it on the Large Scale Development plan we can see the spacing of those and some actual elevations if it moves forward from here.  Since it is wholesale plumbing business I would in question the need for any kind of street side sign; seems like that would help it not stick out quite so much in the community; those are my thoughts.”

Walker asked, “I guess I didn’t follow the street side sign.  If it is a business you would need a sign?”  Laney replied, “Only have them on front of their building they don’t have street post that would stand out.”  Walker stated, “That could be on the fence or whatever.”  Laney commented, “I guess people making deliveries are the only people looking for it, really.”

Richey asked, “You’re saying you would be okay with one (sign) like that was flush on the side of the building, but not one out front?”  Laney replied, “I don’t see a need for a pylon sign in a neighborhood.  The only people that are looking for the building are people making deliveries which usually come back time and time again.”

Haley asked, “Back to the roads; there’s not even any shoulders on that; correct on Old Wire or Joyce isn’t it just like the pavement and then the ditch?”  Richey replied, “In that area, I think that you are probably right.  There are narrow roads in that area.  I understand that, but to me if you had six single-family homes there, which is what is allowed by right you’re going to have more traffic generation than you’re going to have with this.  I don’t know, it doesn’t make the situation better, but I’m not sure that by approving this use you’re going to make the situation potentially any worse.  I’m trying to be pragmatic about it the roads are not great out there.  They are notorious especially the Joyce part is notorious for being narrow, windy, drop-off, and no shoulders.”    

Richey asked, “Did you have any additions as far as the landscaping or the signage that you wanted to make?”  Head asked, “Won’t you get that in Large Scale.”  Richey replied, “We don’t have landscaping standards if that’s what you’re asking.  If landscaping is something that you want to see then I would suggest that you make that recommendation/condition with Conditional Use Permit approval.”

Walker stated, “I’ll just kind of voice where I am at on this.  I understand residential and I understand the people around it and I feel for you, but if I own a piece of property and I had a business and I’d bought this piece of property to establish a place of business then I would feel more upset if I couldn’t use this piece of property that way.  That is kind of where I am going.  I don’t see if the business is kept up and screened like your recommendations how it effects and we have already got and if there no other plumbing shops and no other commercial operations in this area, then I would say it doesn’t fit.  I can see commercial coming that way; with the residential being slowed down and the development there maybe more commercial land sold in that area than there is now.  I am sorry, but at some point in time you have to ask yourself if I owned this piece of property and I wanted to put my business in there should a Board sitting here tell me I couldn’t and that is where I am coming from.”

Daugherty commented, “If we approve this, I would like for the landowner if he would to make it as condusive to the neighborhood as he could because it is great for your operation sometimes if you have the approval of your neighbors.  We may not require it but I would like for it to look as good as it could to maintain their values to the best of your possibility.”

Shawn Shrum, Washington County Assistant Road Superintendent, stated, “We actually widened that road in the last three years done a mile and then we did eight tenths and then we did another mile and it was right in front of that area the overlay and widened in the last three years.”

Larry Walker moved to approve Jones Shop Conditional Use Permit with the Staff recommendation and followed by Large Scale Development.  Gary Head seconded.  Motion passes.

Larry Walker, Robert Daugherty, and Gary Head were in favor of approval. Kenley Haley was opposed.

Laney commented, “It passes.”

Laney asked, “Review the notice for the Large Scale Development plan, will they receive additional notice?”  Richey replied, “Yes, when the Jones Shop comes forward for Large Scale you will receive a notice if you are within 300’ of that property.”  Butler stated, “We need to remind people of their appeal rights.”  Laney commented, “You do have the right to appeal to the Circuit Court within 30 days.”  Butler stated, “The zoning appeals go directly to the Circuit Court.”

Fayetteville Planning Area

g.  Big Red Dirt Farm, LLC CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request)

Location: Section 9, Township 16 North, Range 31 West

Owner/Developer: Big Red Dirt Farm, LLC / Craig Hull

Location Address: 15453 Hamstring Road (WC #842)

57.356 acres and 1 unit / Proposed Land Use: Dirt Farm

Project #: 2008-162 Planner: Juliet Richey, e-mail at jrichey@co.washington.ar.us

REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit Approval for Big Red Dirt Farm, LLC CUP.  The proposed project is 57.356 acres transitioning from a dirt pit operation to include limestone quarrying activity.

CURRENT ZONING: Project does lie within the County zoned area (Agriculture/Single-Family Residential 1 unit per acre).  Current red dirt pit was grandfathered in at time of County Zoning as an existing non-conforming use.

PLANNING AREA: This project is located in the City of Fayetteville’s Planning Area.

QUORUM COURT DISTRICT: District 11, JP Mary Ann Spears (R)

INFRASTRUCTURE:  Water – The property is in the service area of Washington Water Authority.  Other Utilities - The lot is in the service area of Ozark Electric, AT & T Telephone, Arkansas Western Gas (not on site), and Cox Communications. 

BACKGROUND/ PROJECT SYNOPSIS: 

Big Red Dirt Farm, LLC – William G. Sweetser Trust and A. Brad Johnson currently own the property.  The proposed project has access off of Hamstring Road (WC #842).

The applicant has requested to transition from the sole use of a red dirt pit to include quarrying activities for the extraction of rock.  The applicants have completed studies on the site and have determined that a formation of rock approximately 200’ in depth existing on this site.  According to the applicant, mining this amount of rock could take 50- 75 years.  Please refer to the letter provided by the applicant (see pg G17 ).  

After researching the use of a quarry, staff found that the primary differences between dirt pits and quarries are as follows:

·         Blasting of rock

·         Crushing of rock material

·         Differences in reclamation requirements by Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

Blasting

The applicants have indicated that Dykon Blasting, a blasting company based in Tulsa, OK, who has done many projects in NW Arkansas (blasting for U of A parking garage and Fayetteville Public Library), will be conducting the blasting for this pit.  No explosives are kept onsite, and blasting is completed on an as-needed basis.  I asked the Dykon representative about the average frequency of blasting.  He indicated that while there is no way to give an exact number of blasts for each month (depends on the demand for rock, etc.), that on average there would be about two blasts per month.

There is some blasting in red dirt pit operations themselves to take down pillars of rock that are exposed while mining the red dirt; however, this blasting is not comparable in longevity to a quarrying operation.

The existing dirt pit directly to the North of this site (Stephen’s Red Dirt Farm owned and operated by Lindsey/ Rogers Group), has a portion of area within their dirt pit that is a grandfathered quarry.  They currently conduct blasting for rock extraction in this quarry area.  In short, there is already some blasting taking place in the immediate region.

I asked the Dykon representative for additional information in regards to blasting that I thought might be of interest to you.  Please see excerpts from emails from Jared Redyke with Dykon below:

[Jared Redyke]   Prior to our first blast in April (to take down pillars in the red dirt pit) we hired an outside pre-blasting survey contractor (Bradley Safety Consultants) to offer and perform pre-blasting surveys on the closest structures to Big Red Dirt Farm. [Juliet Richey]  Do you know which properties that you looked at?  What exactly is surveyed/monitored? [Jared Redyke]   There is no requirement for pre-blast surveys for blasting projects.  We typically perform them as a matter of internal company policy.  Attached is an email that was sent to Bradley Safety Consultants with a list of the houses that we wanted pre-blasted (see pg G34).  Although not required by law if blasting under the scale distance formula, we will place a seismograph at the closest residence for each blast.  This is subject to change depending on where we are blasting in the quarry.  At this point we have been monitoring at 1075 Hamestring Rd.

[Jared Redyke]   The neighbors can contact Big Red Dirt Farm to be put on a list to be called before a blast.

[Jared Redyke]   There have been many Government studies done on blasting vibrations and their effects on structures.  These studies show that tape joint cracks in sheet rock walls (the weakest point of a house) will begin to occur at vibrations levels of 2.8-3.3 PPV  (Peak Particle Velocity – this is the unit of measure that a seismograph reads from a blast) The State of Arkansas has reviewed these studies and have adopted a very conservative PPV limit in order to protect the public and assure that no vibration damage to nearby structures has occurred.  The State Arkansas has adopted an upper limit of 1.25 PPV at the closest residential structure.  If it takes 2.8-3.3 PPV to create minor cracks in the tape joints of a sheet rock wall and the vibrations readings are below 1.25 PPV (A very large safety margin) then no damage due to blasting is possible.  Other environmental influences cause more stress and strain on a residence than blasting.  Opening and closing of doors, kids running, thunder, all cause more vibration activity than a blast.   The most common cause of cracking in a house is settling damage.  Soils under all houses shrink and swell due to wet and dry periods in the weather cycle.    All blasting at the Big Red Dirt Farm will be below the prescribed State of Arkansas Blasting Limits.[Juliet Richey]  So who at the state monitors these PPVs?  Do you have to turn in a log periodically, are there random inspections, or is it just on a complaint driven basis? [Jared Redyke]  The Arkansas Department of Labor.   We are required to keep the blasting records for 3 years.  The inspections are typically complaint driven.

In summary- I feel that although blasting is a concern, an average of twice per month is not extremely frequent and there are state regulations in place to limit the intensity of blasting.  Also, as there will be blasting in the immediate area due to the close proximity of the existing quarry to the north, I do not think that eliminating blasting on the proposed CUP site will make an overwhelming difference to the area.  I do feel that we should place a condition on the site limit the times of blasting to between 7:00 am- 6:00 pm, Monday- Friday.

Crushing:

Rock will be crushed onsite at the quarry to create different sizes of rock.  A machine called a crusher performs this task.  As a crusher would create some noise while in operation- staff feels that we should place a condition on the site limit the times of crusher operation to between 7:00 am- 6:00 pm, Monday- Friday.

Differences in reclamation requirements by Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ):

Many quarries are converted into lakes once the quarry is exhausted.  Unlike open cut mines like red dirt pits, for the reclamation of quarries you can leave sheer wall faces in place when mining is complete, and are not required to slope the upper rim of the lake to approximately 10’ below the average water level of the lake so that people or animals could get out if they were to fall in the lake area.  You are required to fence a lake with sheer walls; however, staff has some concerns regarding a situation of this nature.  Staff feels that some conditions should be placed on the property addressing the slope of the banks of the lake if the applicant wants to pursue a lake as a reclamation feature. The Planning Board would need to add this as a condition as this is something that ADEQ does not cover at this time.

We also have no details on the proposed reclamation plans other than the fact that a lake is planned.  Staff feels that it would be helpful to get more information from the applicants as to their plans for reclamation prior to making a final decision on what conditions should be placed on the project

Neighboring property owner concerns and general information:

Staff has received multiple comments from neighboring property owners within ½ mile of the project (See pg G20).  We have received two comments from neighbors who are in favor of the project, and six comments from neighbors who are opposed to and have concerns about the project.  There were 134 people notified of this project.  The concerns cover a wide range of topics including:

·         Noise,

·         Dust,

·         Traffic and Road issues,

·         Erosion,

·         Buffer area in relation to surrounding properties,

·         Signage and fencing for safety and property value purposes,

·         Screening,

·         Reclamation intentions,

·         Blasting,

·         And wildlife.

Some of these issues are covered under ADEQ quarry mining review.  ADEQ’s regulation of quarries is covered under “The Arkansas Quarry Operation, Reclamation, and Safe Closure Act, Act 1166 of 1997, As Amended.”   This act can be found in the Arkansas Code Annotated: 15-57-401 through 16-57-414.  I will provide you with a copy of this act separately as it is lengthy.  I will refer to some of its requirements below.

ADEQ requires a storm water permit and plan be in place to address sediment run-off on site.  Storm water permits require that silt fences, sediment ponds, hay bales, or other best management practices be in place to keep from depositing sediment from the site in streams or on adjoining properties.

ADEQ requires a separate air permit to deal with the dust created by the crushing on rock onsite.  The County also requires a dust abatement plan at Preliminary Large Scale Development review.  This plan must be reviewed and approved for adequacy by the County’s Contract Engineer.

ADEQ requires a reclamation plan and appropriate bonding for the quarry.  However, as discussed previously, staff feels that some of the minimum requirements of the reclamation plan may not address all issues that could arise in the future.  According to the quarry act, ADEQ requires that the land be reclaimed as a pasture, lake, timberland, wetlands, or a combination thereof.  For a quarry of 50-100 acres in size, the reclamation must be completed through the first seeding within two years of quarry exhaustion.  ADEQ holds the reclamation bond for the quarry until reclamation is complete.  If the operator of the quarry does not reclaim the site after a certain time has passed and the quarry has been exhausted, ADEQ will use the bond to reclaim the site according to submitted and approved reclamation plans.

ADEQ requires that measures be taken to safeguard the operations for the benefit of neighbors and other citizens and to limit trespassing onto the site.  As per 15-57-410, they require that either one, or a combination of the following be installed around the quarry:

“…(1)(A) A minimum four-foot high, four-strand barbed wire fence boundary attached to steel posts;

(B) A five-foot high earth and/or rock berm with slopes steeper than 1.5 to 1 and a minimum top width of five feet (5'); and

(C) A protective barrier of boulders, concrete, or other objects capable of discouraging pedestrian or vehicular traffic;”

Also required are:

“(2) Brightly colored warning signs, for which blaze orange is recommended, will be installed every three hundred feet (300') in clear view;

(3) Barriers or lockable gates capable of withstanding normal vandalism are to be installed at all quarry site entrances. During temporary closure and after full reclamation of an exhausted quarry, barriers of rock or securely locked gates will be installed at all entrances on safety benches and haul roads so that no traffic or dumping can occur on the affected lands or in the quarry itself…”

There have been some requests by property owners for screening via privacy fence and/or vegetation and tree plantings. Staff thinks that the Planning Board should take both suggestions under consideration.  Staff also feels that perhaps berming could be required in addition to the required ADEQ fencing on all portions of the site to help block views of the quarry from neighboring properties and the roadway, as well as lessen the danger of someone wandering off the drop.  

ADEQ requires an undisturbed area of 50’ from the property lines to the quarry operation.  Staff recommends raising the buffer area to 100’.

The applicant has stated that there will be no increase in truck traffic from the existing level (currently hauling red dirt).  A traffic study will have to be completed at the time of Preliminary LSD review; however, Hamstring Road is adequate for the current traffic level at this time.

Comments from the City of Fayetteville Planning Department:

As the City of Fayetteville is directly adjacent to the property (City limits line is southern property line), the City was given a chance for review/comment on this project.  Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, made the following comment:

Red Dirt Farm - We appreciate you including our comments for this particular CUP, even though it is outside of Fayetteville's Planning Area boundary. In my discussions with the City Engineer, Fayetteville would like to state that we would recommend and appreciate a condition of approval to be added that states the following: "Any damage or destruction to the public roads accessing the proposed use that can be attributed to the user in question shall be repaired or replaced at the user's expense at such time it is deemed necessary by the governing entity." It is our concern that consistent heavy traffic will begin to and continue to deteriorate adjoining streets in the area, which has occurred in the recent past and which will then need to be repaired for citizens of both the County and City to utilize.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 

Staff realizes the seriousness of this use and recommendation.  We have received comments in opposition to this use as it relates to quality of life issues, and these are not issues that are taken lightly.  However, the fact that there is an existing red dirt pit on the site now, and a much larger grandfathered red dirt pit directly north, as well as a quarry site, the lack of approval for the CUP for this requested quarry will not eliminate blasting, noise, dust, or any other issues in this area that come with the extraction use.  There have been extraction uses in this area since at least 2001, and possibly earlier. 

Staff also realizes that red dirt, rock, and other extraction materials are materials that are needed to create homes and infrastructure in Northwest Arkansas.  These materials must come from somewhere, and it makes sense from a planning and use standpoint to locate a quarry in the vicinity of other quarries, and in an area where rock is already exposed.

That being said, staff does feel that some conditions should be placed on the use to make it more compatible with the residents of the surrounding area.

If the applicant provides more details regarding the reclamation plan, and those details are found satisfactory at the meeting, then staff will recommend approval of the quarry with the following conditions:

1.       Limit the times of blasting and rock crushing to between 7:00 am- 6:00 pm, Monday- Friday.

2.       Require that the undisturbed buffer areas surrounding the quarry be 100’ from County Road ROW and all neighboring property lines (ADEQ minimum is only 50’).  Areas that are currently disturbed within 100’ of property lines should be re-vegetated and regarded as per the open cut mining law to prevent erosion and not mined further.

3.       A combination of both (1) (A) and (1) (B) of the quarry act be required along the perimeter of the quarry property.  (1)(A) A minimum four-foot high, four-strand barbed wire fence boundary attached to steel posts; (B) A five-foot high earth and/or rock berm with slopes steeper than 1.5 to 1 and a minimum top width of five feet (5');

4.       If installing a lake as part of reclamation, the upper rim must be sloped to where people or animals could get out if they were to fall in the lake area.

5.       Any damage or destruction to the public roads accessing the proposed use that can be attributed to the user in question shall be repaired or replaced at the user's expense at such time it is deemed necessary by the governing entity.

6.       All ADEQ permits or Notices of Intent (NOI) must be in place and approved prior to operation

7.       There shall be no traffic increase.

Other conditions to consider:

Screening of neighboring properties by planting of vegetation or privacy fencing

Current Comments from staff and utilities:

Washington County Planning Department’s Staff Comments:

Due to recently understanding the ADEQ reclamation requirements for quarries, staff would like a better understanding of your reclamation intentions.

Health Department Comments:

            No Comment

Washington County Fire Marshal Comments:

Any future structures must be approved by the Fire Marshal prior to construction and must meet the Arkansas State Fire Code.

Washington County Road Department Comments:

Interior drive must be paved 250’ into site (from intersection with County Road) at LSD.

Washington County Environmental Affairs Comments:

            No storm water permit will be required by Washington County at this time. Must comply with all ADEQ rules and regulations.

Sheriff’s Department Comments:

            No Comments Received

Washington County 911 Addressing Comments:

            No Comment Received

Washington County Contract Engineer Comments:

            No Comment

Washington Water Authority Comments:

            No Comments Received

AT & T Comments:

            No Comment

Ozarks Electric Comments:

General Comments:

1.       Any relocation of existing facilities will be at developer’s expense.  Any extension of line that has to be built specifically to feed the subdivision will be at full cost to the developer.

2. All lot corners must be marked with lot numbers clearly written on the stakes before construction will begin.
3. If off site easements are needed for Ozarks to get electricity to the development, easements must be obtained by developer and provided to Ozarks before the design will begin.
4. Subdivisions will be built on Policy 45 (Ozarks will contribute up to 50% of the direct cost.  The remainder of the direct cost will be paid by the Developer).  There will be extra charges to the Developer when extra time and materials are used for rock trenching, boring, select material bedding, shoring, dewatering, etc.
5. Developer must provide Ozarks Electric with a Digital copy (AutoCAD 2004) of the Final plat as well as a hard copy.
6. All Utility Easements to be cleared of all trees, brush, dirt piles, buildings, and debris so that the easement is accessible with equipment.  If easement is not cleared developer may be subject to extra charges.
7. Please contact Greg McGee at (479) 684-4634 or gmcgee@ozarksecc.com when construction begins on subdivision and again when construction is within three months of completion.

Additional Comments:

1. No additional comments

Arkansas Western Gas Comments:

No Comment at this time.  If customer would like natural gas services please contact James Boyd at 582-8652.

Cox Communication Comments:

            No Comment.  If you have any questions please call Jason combs at 479-871-3475

Craig Hull, Hull & Company (representative of the project), A. Brad Johnson, (Big Red Dirt Farm, LLC) an owner of the proposed project, and Joe Summerford, Attorney, were present to answer any questions.

Juliet Richey, Washington County Planning Director, stated, “This is a Conditional Use Permit request for the Big Red Dirt Farm, LLC Conditional Use Permit.  It is an existing red dirt farm.  It is out off of Hamstring (WC #842) off of Highway 16 west and it is not in the City of Fayetteville’s Planning Area, although, it is adjacent to their city limits.  It is in a zoned area.  Hamstring Road is paved down to a point.  There is an existing dirt pit and quarry directly north of this that is owned by JA Mining also Lindsey works the red dirt part of it and a group called Rogers Group works the quarrying part of it.  That site was grandfathered in for both quarrying and red dirt when we passed zoning.  The site that we are talking about tonight was only grandfathered in for red dirt use when zoning was passed.  The surrounding uses: Most uses in this area are single-family and agricultural uses with the exception of the large dirt pit up here and Mr. Luttrell actually has a dirt pit as well.  I think it is actually in the City of Fayetteville’s city limits now a little further to the east.  You have a little bit of scattered commercial along Wedington and this area, there is a travel agency, used car lot, and a couple things like that along this road and everything else is residential and agricultural.  Basically, when we were looking at this project extraction is something that happens in this area and it has happened out here for quite a long time.  This dirt pit opened in 2004.  The one just north of it has been permitted through ADEQ (Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality) since 2001, but was mined before that.  I am not even sure for how long, I don’t have aerial photographs that go back that far.  Basically, when you are transitioning from the use of a red dirt pit, which is what it is now, to a quarry there are several primary differences.  The differences that we found are that you have blasting of rock, crushing of rock material, and differences in reclamation requirements by ADEQ.”

Richey added, “The first thing that I want to talk about is the blasting.  Most companies contract out their blasting, so that way you don’t have to store any of your blasting materials on site, that’s what pretty much all of the quarries do that I can tell in this area that I have talked to.  Dykon Blasting is the company based out of Tulsa, Oklahoma that they are using to do the blasting here.  They have done many other projects in Northwest Arkansas, U of A parking garage and Fayetteville Public Library.  I went through and asked them some questions about how they operated.  They do look at the structures that are closest to where they are going to be blasting; there is no requirement from the State that they do this but they do put seismographs near those to see how those structures are affected and they move those around depending on where they are blasting on-site.  If the neighbors want to be contacted when there’s going to be a blast then they can be put on a list.  Basically, the velocity of blasting is regulated by the State of Arkansas and the Department of Labor and they’re required to keep their blasting records for three years and if requested then they do have to turn those over to the State.  He did tell me that inspections are typically complaint driven.  Basically, the State has said that there is a certain level that you blast at where you start to get cracks in your joints and your sheetrock.  The State sets the highest blasting level that you can do under that and that’s what they have to stick to.  It is regulated by the State.  I did ask for them to bring their blasting contractor here tonight in case you all had more detailed questions.  I don’t know what else to say about it except that it is regulated.  I did ask them how frequently that they are going to blast and they said on average twice a month.  It could be more than that depending on what they are doing or less than that, but we’re not talking about blasting everyday or twice a day or anything like that, every couple of weeks.”

Richey also added, “Even if we didn’t approve this there would still be blasting in the immediate area because there is the existing quarry that is directly north of there.  Even if we decide that this area shouldn’t become a quarry then you would still have blasting happening in the area.  Throughout looking at this project basically that is something that I think that you should consider at all times.  This area is going to have extraction uses going on both red dirt and quarries no matter whether we approve this one or not.  Basically, this will just be an additional quarry to what’s going on in that area.  We did think that there should be a condition placed on the site to limit times of blasting between 7:00am and 6:00pm Monday – Friday.”

Richey commented, “Rock will be crushed on-site at the quarry to create different sizes of rock.  A machine called a crusher performs this task.  The crusher is going to create some noise while in operation.  We also feel that there should be a condition placed on to limit the times of crusher operation and we’re recommending between 7:00am and 6:00pm Monday – Friday.  The last thing that is the basic difference between how it operates now and what it would be as a quarry is there are differences in reclamation requirements by the ADEQ.  As a red dirt pit right now if it is reclaimed, then they have to grade up the slopes to a certain degree and re-vegetate it.  Quarries being different in nature you do a lot of digging that is straight down once you get to the rock.  You’re not required to re-vegetate the whole site when you’re done essentially because you’re not going to have the topsoil to do it.  They don’t require you to bring in additional topsoil.  Basically, they say you can make a lake, a forest, a pasture, a wetland, or any combination thereof.  Most people chose to do a lake and that is what they have chosen to do to state what their reclamation is.  I don’t think a lake is a bad use; the main thing that I was disturbed about was that in a lake situation the ADEQ does not require you to slope the sides of that lake down to where if any animals or people fell in that they can get out.  That is something that I talked to the applicants about and they are willing to add that additional condition to it to make it to where it is a lake for something that the community can use and most certainly won’t be a health and safety issue when it is completed.  The reclamation would basically just be a road in and then the entire property, which is 57 acres, would be a lake.  They would slope it down to 10’ below what the water level would be so that people or animals could get out if they fell in.”

Richey stated, “Neighboring property owner concerns, we’ve had a lot of concerns from property owners, basically they revolve around noise, dust, traffic and road issues, erosion, buffer area in relation to surrounding properties, signage, fencing, safety for property values, screening, reclamation intentions, blasting, and wildlife.  As far as dust goes, there is a dust abatement plan that is required through the Large Scale Development process, which they will have to go through after this.  One of the conditions that we have put on it and that they have offered that there will be no traffic increase from what they have now, basically, they will be replacing the shipments that they were doing of red dirt will slowly transition to rock as they get up and going.  Also, because they didn’t come through the Large Scale Development process the first time, they will be required to cover every load leaving this property.  If this passes and it goes through as a quarry which is something that I am not sure if that is being done now. ADEQ requires that you have a 50’ buffer area in relation to surrounding properties.  After going out there I actually went and stood on a piece of property that is adjacent to this directly to the south and looked at some of the erosion issues that they are having now and I think it would be smart to leave a bigger buffer than 50’, I think that 100’ would be more adequate.  The slopes that are straight cut right now with the red dirt are going to need to be sloped down and re-vegetated before the quarrying operation begins.  I certainly understand if you have these shear walls of dirt and basically their property line is creeping closer and closer to your property line then you’re going to wonder at what point your property is going to be in jeopardy of eroding down as well.  ADEQ requires a stormwater permit to be in place to address the sediment and run-off on the site that is something that we’re going to have to see before it would get Large Scale Development approval that basically makes sure that you are not depositing sediment from this site into surrounding streams, the roadside ditches, or adjoining properties.  ADEQ requires a separate air permit to deal with the dust created by crushing rock on-site.  Also, we require our own dust abatement plan so those are also things that will be looked at, at Large Scale Development.  ADEQ requires reclamation plan and appropriate bonding for the quarry and that was something else that people inquired about is how they make sure that this reclamation gets done and that would have to be bonded up front with ADEQ.  Basically, they have two years after the quarry is exhausted to have the re-vegetation completed and if they don’t then ADEQ steps in and uses that bond.  Another thing that some property owners voiced concerns about that I also felt was valid was that there be some measures taken to keep people from wandering onto the site and trespassing into the site.  As per ADEQ rules, they require that either one or a combination of the following be installed around a quarry, minimum of 4’ high four strand barbed wire fence boundary attached to steel post, 5’ high earth berm or rock berm, or a protective barrier of boulders, concrete, or other objects capable of discouraging pedestrian and vehicular traffic.  They also require warning signs that are brightly colored and installed every 300’ in clear view.  Barriers and lockable gates capable of withstanding normal vandalism installed at all quarry site entrances.  Basically, we think that probably they should incorporate a berm and a fence go ahead and take that extra step to keep people around the perimeter of this property and that is something else that we are asking as a condition.  As far as the setback from the County Road, we require through our Large Scale Development ordinance that it be setback 250’ from the County Road, which they are not right up against the road right now where they are doing the operation, but that will limit some of the mining that is right on the road.  City of Fayetteville, although it is not in their Planning Area, we did ask for some input from them because it is directly adjacent to their city limits.  Basically, they would like for us to state as a condition that any damage or destruction to public roads accessing the proposed use that can be contributed to the user in question should be repaired or replaced at the user’s expense at such time it is deemed necessary by the governing entity.  That is because, basically, they take care of the roads directly after leaving this site.  I don’t want anybody to think that we don’t take this seriously.  We spent a lot of time talking about this and spent a lot of hours on the phone with ADEQ trying to understand their process and what the holes might be that we need to look into.  I realize that people do live in this area, and I realize that some of those people have bought since there have been extracting activities going on in this area so they knew that when they bought it, but there are also people who have been living in their homes out there for twenty something years and they bought their homes before that.  However, as I said earlier, I don’t know truthfully what we would accomplish by eliminating a quarry in this area because there is one directly north that is grandfathered in and they are going to be blasting there and they are going to be crushing there.  It would make a difference for the people who are directly adjacent to this site, basically, they are going to have the noise a little further away, but for the general area, I don’t think that it is going to make much of a difference.  There might be slightly less traffic on the road, but there’s not going to be no dump trucks on the road.  This is an area that has, basically, become an extraction area next to Fayetteville.  I don’t really know what else to say besides that, but every time we look at things that is what I keep coming back to.  From a planning standpoint, I think that it makes sense to keep extraction uses next to other extraction uses.  Unfortunately, there are people that live in this area, but there are people that live all over the County and it is not easy and I know you all are the same way I know that you care about people and you care about their livelihood and I do as well, but I don’t know if there is a good answer for situations like this.  To the best of our ability if we put up some recommendations to try to make it to where, basically, it is not going to be anymore of a noise issue than it is now as it operates as a red dirt pit.  Those recommendations are to limit the times of blasting and rock crushing to between 7:00am and 6:00pm Monday – Friday, to require that the undisturbed buffer areas surrounding the quarry be 100’ that should be 250’ from the County Road right-of-way and 100’ from all neighboring property lines.  The areas that are currently disturbed within 100’ of these property lines need to be re-vegetated and re-graded as per open cut mining law to prevent erosion and not mine any further.  Large Scale Development regulations require all mining to be setback 250’ from the County Road right-of-way.  A combination of both 1A and 1B of the quarry act, which we talked about earlier, required around the perimeter of the quarry property.  1A be the minimum of 4’ high four strand barbed wire fence attached to steel posts and 1B a 5’ earth or rock berm with the slopes as specified by ADEQ so that way you have two things that are between the neighbors and people hunting or walking through that area that keep them out of that quarry.  As far as installing a lake as part of reclamation the upper realm needs to be sloped to where people or animals can get out if they were to fall in the lake area.  Any damage or destruction to the public roads accessing the proposed use that can be attributed to the user should be repaired or replaced at the user’s expense.  All of the ADEQ permits or notices of intent must be in place and approved prior to operation.  There should be no traffic increase and they need to pay mailing fees.”

Richey commented, “Other conditions that you might want to consider that were brought up by neighbors were screening of neighboring properties with planting of vegetation or some privacy fencing.  I want to add a couple of things; quarries do last longer than dirt pits.  This is something, depending on the amount of rock and the demand for rock, that can be in place for 50 to 75 years.  Depending on how deep the lake is when it does come time to be filled up and used as a lake; it may take several years to fill it.  They are required by ADEQ to keep that signage and that stuff around that quarry until it is totally filled.  I don’t know if there are more stipulations that you want to look at on that.  I know that the timeframe of this is a really long way away; we’re talking about before we get to the reclamation part, but I do think it is important I don’t know what State law will be then and it could be that it is far more stringent then what we have now.  I do think it is important that we try to make sure that something that happens in this area is something that can be a benefit to the community even if it is 50 or 75 years from now.”

Walker asked, “You said that there is a 50 to 75 year quantity of stone there?”  Richey replied, “That is what they think.”

Laney asked, “The one to the north and to the west how far and how big are they grandfathered?  Does it go by parcels, existing borders, or when it is grandfathered because it looks like it is growing?  How big can it grow and still be grandfathered?”  Richey replied, “It can grow, usually we go by parcels.”  Laney asked, “Do you have an acreage estimation on how much it can grow?”  Richey replied, “I don’t, I will say that the quarry part is limited when they did grandfather in this quarry there was only evidence that the quarry is not extendable to the whole site.  They can only quarry within the perimeters that had been quarried in the past.  This is something that we discussed and we have in writing.  Basically, they can go down, but they can’t extend their quarry out to the rest of the site without having to come through the Conditional Use Permit process.  The red dirt expansion is not something that we have actually discussed.”  Laney asked, “You can’t tell me by using the parcel maps how big a parcel that they have control of now?”  Richey replied, “They own land that is not being mined now like the West Ridge Acres Subdivision; they actually own all that.  They own some of this that is not being mined right now, so I don’t know if I can answer that.”  Laney asked, “Does grandfathering include all the parcels they control or only the geographical area that was a red dirt pit when it was grandfathered in?  Does the grandfathering cover the entire parcel that was owned at the time or at least controlled at the time the red dirt pit was grandfathered or is it just the footprint of the red dirt at the time of the grandfathering?” Butler replied, “I think it is just what was actually being mined, red dirt.”

Daugherty asked, “How do we police it, they could keep going?”  Butler replied, “Our ordinance also says that a nonconforming use (aka a red dirt pit) can expand, but it can expand only as a Conditional Use so if they expanded the red dirt operation they would still have to come back here for a Conditional Use.”

Walker asked, “If they owned that property or had it leased with the sole intent to mine it in the future, why would it have not grandfathered in?”  Butler replied, “That would not be enough to grandfather in to my understanding of the case law.” 

Walker asked, “The fencing and the berm a four barbed wire fence is not going to keep someone out if they want in.  So, why would you not give them the option to put a 6’ or 8’ high chain link fence in lieu of the berm.  I don’t know which is cheapest, but a four barbed wire fence is not going to keep somebody out.”  Richey replied, “If somebody wants in then they’re going to get in, you’re not going to keep people out.  I think the general idea was you have the berm to kind of block the view a little bit and have a change the topography.  The barbed wire fence keeps somebody from who is just out there hunting or something that doesn’t know that is there to keep them from wandering into it.  I don’t know that you can keep people out if they want in.”

Walker asked, “Is the part where the City of Fayetteville talked about fixing the roads.  Are we talking about from the quarry all the way to Fayetteville?”  Richey replied, “Fayetteville is directly adjacent to the quarry.”  Walker stated, “I’m talking about the way it sounded to me like Fayetteville wanted us to put a stipulation that they would have to fix Fayetteville’s city streets because of use.”  Richey commented, “Hamstring is a Fayetteville city street.”  Walker asked, “Are we going to be able to tell Tyson or whoever because they run trucks over the roads that they have to fix the streets?  I’m just talking in general.  If they are tearing where they enter on a Fayetteville street and all the turning at that point tears up the road, yes I think that we can ask them, but as far as just traveling on a Fayetteville street I don’t see how we can put in our stipulations that they have to repair the street at their cost?”  Richey replied, “It says it has to be directly attributed to them.”  Butler asked, “Is your issue, Larry that we’re saying that you have to repair City Streets as opposed to County Roads?”  Walker replied, “I’m saying where does it stop?”  Laney stated, “Larry is saying that theoretically it can go all the way to I-540 and say fix the whole thing.”  Walker commented, “I don’t like the wording of that recommendation.”  Richey stated, “I think that we can change the wording if you want to, basically, the County has something like this anyway and I don’t know exactly how it is worded if we can find that you are tearing up streets and we can attribute it to you then you pay for it.  The City apparently doesn’t have a clause like that and so I think that is what they are worried about now is they’ve taken over Hamstring south of here.  If you want to just limit it to Hamstring and not to Highway 16.”  Laney commented, “We can work on that when we make the motion.” 

Daugherty asked, “If it is 50 to 75 years from now and probably by then it’s going to have a new owner, how does that follow the property or how can we make sure that these guidelines follow that property?”  Butler replied, “The Conditional Use does run with the property and if somebody else takes it over as a quarry they are going to be bound by these same conditions.”  Daugherty asked, “If they don’t take it over as a quarry and it’s not reclaimed?”  Butler replied, “There is a bond that they put up with the State if they don’t reclaim it properly.” 

Richey stated, “We had fifteen property owners in the area that responded, twelve were opposed, two were in favor, and then one person stated their concerns, but didn’t specifically state for or against.  A lot of them are close by and then there are some that further away.”

Craig Hull commented, “I am from 111 2^nd Street in Rogers.  I am an environmental consultant.  Brad Johnson is here with me today to answer any questions as well.  The proposal before you is essentially to try to orderly transition from the red dirt farm operation that’s been in place since before your zoning ordinances were adopted and to try to bring us into full compliance going forward with future extraction of the limestone.  The boone formation is approximately 200’ deep in this section of Washington County.  We’ve had recent tests of the materials that come out from just the peaks that are sticking up in the red dirt right now that show that we are getting excellent Class 7 base material that meets the State spec for limestone.  This is a natural resource production area that is determined not by us but the good Lord given us this bounty of limestone that happens to run in a big seam right in this area.  We are fortunate to have the opportunity to not only to extract the resource, but the operation has come up with a recycling program for the crusher operation that is actually a mobile crusher, but its home base is at this site so that the trucks back hauling from a location where they have taken red dirt or the mix that we’ve got now to a site can bring back slabs, waste concrete, slag, and miscellaneous materials and we can actually re-crush that at our crusher at this site if it is back haul or on-site for the Washington Regional Medical Center when they took over the mobile home park down at the end of Gregg Street.  They went on-site with the crusher there and essentially became part of the leed green building program for the hospital because they were recycling the material right in place.  The whole provision of what we are trying to accomplish here is not only to extract the resource, but it also cuts into the profits of the mining operation to recycle, but on long-term it is beneficial to our clients and to the public.  The other factor here is we’re in an economic development position this is a natural resource that is being extracted in Washington County that is going to be paying taxes, payroll, truck drivers, and operators.  It is a major portion of our economy in this region and to look at it just as a hindrance is to not see the full picture.  Respectfully, I would say the energy efficiency things that we’re trying to do, we’re trying to stay on the cutting edge with the technology that has changed.  We bought the most energy efficient crusher and it’s used in the way that we’re trying to use it for multiple purposes actually can reduce truck trips and save lots of fuel for the future.  We also would say that we have invested $60,000 in improving Hamstring Road was actually improved with a partnership and our clients contributed large dollars towards this improvement.  It was a gravel road when they showed up six years ago.  This facility is an important part of our community.  We recognize the impact it has on our neighbors and we come up with a reclamation plan that exceeds the State’s standards.  We’ve listened carefully to your Staff as they’ve researched the provisions that we would need to implement.  We have ideas for this not to become not just another pond, but actually a lake with a fountain in it and some plantings to create a real garden type environment out there the next generation or two down the road.  In the meantime, we want to do what’s right as far as the neighbors are concerned and we’ll comply fully with the safety stuff, but we’re also working on the 250’ from the road area to re-landscape that with detention areas that come along the north side of the driveway and we’re getting into a lot of Large Scale Development details.  Stepping back to just the zoning issue before you tonight it is a compatible land use with the other nearby uses, it is an important natural resource production for our region and we’re doing our utmost to try to comply as a long-term compliance program to do the Large Scale and to be legitimate with you and with our neighbors.  We’ll be glad to answer any questions.”

Walker asked, “Will you be getting agricultural lime from your crushings, will that be a product that will be sold there?”  Hull replied, “The crusher just generally would have the fines would be mixed in for SB2 mix as far as we know at this point, we haven’t tried to do a production for ag lime.”  Walker stated, “Looking at the aerial view, I see a lot of undisturbed property still on-site.”  Hull commented, “That is a year old aerial.”  Walker asked, “Most all the red dirt has been removed?”  Hull replied, “We have another eight to ten years of overall materials.  As far as the operations that we are permitted to do now to do what we have to do to just continue with red dirt would require working around the pinnacles of limestone that are in place.  We’re stuck with now blasting to redo the landscape and to make the contours efficient for the reclamation plan.  We’re essentially just trying to comply with your rules.”  Walker asked, “Where is the overburden going now?  There should be some overburden over the red dirt.”  Hull replied, “We have a huge stockpile on the northeast corner of the facility and we are curtailing any off-site hauls in this very month because we can’t accommodate any more, but we have an adequate stockpile to re-landscape the whole 250’ frontage as well as any buffer areas around it come 75 years from now.”

Louise Arney, adjacent property owner to the southeast at 415 N. Blue Jay Lane, stated, “My property is so near to that.  I just think it would devaluate my property if I should sell.  Who would want to build a fine home close to an operation like that?  My property is south of Highway 16.”

Jim (James) Gallagher, adjacent property owner to the northeast at 12279 Martin Road, commented, “I live on Martin Road, which is northeast of this site.  I represent the three property owners on that twenty acres northeast of the site.  Frankly, I don’t even know where to start.  You’re considering an incomplete application, which shouldn’t have even made it to the hearing tonight.  There’s repeated references in here to things that are not provided by the owner.  We’re hearing things for the first time tonight and no opportunity to evaluate it or respond to it.  A fountain, now come on.  We all acknowledge this is a nonconforming use, if we allow this to continue and quarry this area it will be a further nonconforming use.  If there is going to be any meaning to zoning in Washington County in the future we’re going have to begin conforming not encouraging people to be nonconforming and expand that function.  A lifetime commitment is going on here, I don’t know that anybody in this room is going to be around when this rock quarry is finished and these people that are going to be left here when we’re gone is going wonder what did these people think when they did this in 2008?  We are going to rely on the State to enforce this?  We can’t get the State to enforce dumping, these quarries, sediment run-off from these sites, and now we’re going to bring explosives on the site and somebody in Little Rock is going to regulate it from there.  You have to regulate that here you can’t dump this on the State and make this their problem.  There is a reference in here to the conditions that are going to go on there that they’re probably not going to be overwhelming to the neighbors. Why are we allowing any, never mind overwhelming, you’ve seen the list of complaints they go on and on.  Your Staff report states that Hamstring Road is adequate for this.  It is not adequate for this, it is a two-lane blacktop road it is very narrow.  This is at a foot of a hill at a curve about a tenth of a mile we have a school bus stop and we have these trucks coming past them at a high rate of speed.  The road is not adequate for their traffic right now.  The road is not that old as these people talked about they paved it for all of us and we’re grateful for that.  If you go out there right now you’re going to see that these trucks have one center stripe right off the road because they drive down the middle of the road it’s not wide enough for them and they want to go too fast, they’re being paid by the cycle by the load.  It’s their job to get in get loaded get out; they’re really tearing up this road.  If you go out there and look at the road it looks pretty good; if you go out there right after a rain you will see the water in the cracks in the pavement.  This whole pavement from this driveway all the way to Highway 16 is checker boarded with fractures.  The edges of the pavement are broken off.  Probably in preparation for this meeting a few minor repairs were made on the shoulders of this road in the last couple of weeks.  The volume of traffic is incredible; I can tell you from coming in off Highway 16 that I will stand behind seven dump trucks blocking that road trying to get into that site.  Three of them are sitting in the driveway off of the road; four more are sitting on the road.  No cars go past them when they are doing this.  There is nothing you can do about it.  Now, we’re going to encourage them to bring more out here.  I just can’t imagine how you could do this.  In the Staff report it says this is a quality of life issue, this is a residential area with a nonconforming use to come in here and say it’s okay lets get more nonconforming lets get less residential.  Why do we even have zoning in the first place?  They don’t clean the wheels of their vehicles when they come off the dirt pit and onto the road.  If you come out there after a rain you will find a half-inch of mud on that road.  They’ve cut down their traffic he says because they can’t get access, I think that they cut down on their traffic because they didn’t want anybody taking pictures of what goes on out there right now.  Once they announced that they were coming in here the traffic on that thing stopped it is almost nonexistent.  Tarping the loads, if you could put that on there as a condition that would be great, they’re not doing that right now.  Yesterday I drove around a rock that’s out on the road that they dropped on there.  If your car is coming behind this they are going to ding up your hood they’re going to break your windshield, big enough piece comes off there at a high enough rate of speed down that hill they’re going to kill somebody.  It’s going to go right through their windshield.  It says in the report no known fire issues; the reason that there are no known fire issues is because you didn’t ask.  I had a meeting with the Wedington Fire Department Board of Directors and Fire Chief last week.  They are responding to this area.  I asked them if they knew anything about this they said they knew nothing at all about it.  I said do you know that they are going to bring explosives in here; they said we knew nothing about this.  These reports aren’t going to be adequately addressed if you’re asking the Fire Marshal he is going to tell you what the code says.  You need to ask the people who is actually going to respond when these people have an accident out there.  These are issues that are going to disrupt the comfort of the general public it says it in your report.  How that is compatible with a favorable recommendation, I don’t understand.  When they are evaluating what is going to happen out there they say it should not be injurious.  They won’t tell you it will not be injurious, your staff doesn’t know; they’re just speculating they’re not even willing to say will not they’re saying should not.  Up until now we’ve had no information on the reclamation program.  This is going to interfere with the orderly development of the area.  The orderly development of the area is residential and agricultural not industrial.  There is no provision in here for parking whether it is staff that is working there or the vehicles that are staged to be loaded that is why they are out on the road.  You just heard testimony about the economic benefit of this program there.  Economic benefit is not a legitimate land use issue.  When you’re done here and all these people have had their say you’re going to get the opportunity to vote.  If you intend for this County to have any future at all in terms of zoning you have to vote no.  If you vote yes the message that you are sending to the people of Washington County and the Quorum Court is there really isn’t any zoning in Washington County that was all a farce.”

Donald H. Johnson JR, adjacent property owner to the south at 881 N. Ed Moore Lane, stated, “I am a landscape architect here in Fayetteville, Arkansas.  I live directly to the south of this red dirt pit probably 100 or 200 yards, I’m not sure.  There is a neighbor (Dave Bolen) between us that has some vacant land.  I have to agree with Mr. Gallagher, I can repeat several things that he said that I’m opposed to this.  Things that have happened to us as a family, I have lived on my property over 22 years.  This red dirt pit and the one behind it are fairly recent they are five to six years old; because they were grandfathered in I don’t understand why they have the ability to just disregard what happens to the surrounding neighbors there because it profits them.  How its not profited us as Mr. Gallagher mentioned besides the noise and the dust is our windshield.  My wife and I have replaced three windshields in our vehicles because of broken glass and rocks and it isn’t because we’re traveling less than 200’ behind a dump truck it’s because there are rocks on the road.  I understand there is an economic thing where we need to increase our wellbeing as far as the city, but there is also the issue of interest of our livelihood and our quality of life that is already there.  The things that can’t be spoken as far as the wildlife; I’ve seen several different things that disregard with the wildlife as far as them migrating out of there the deer and different kinds of wild animals.  More importantly to me, I build koi ponds for a living, I have koi ponds on my piece of property and if we’re going to allow blasting this blasting is going to kill all of my koi.  It has already killed several, I can’t directly pinpoint that the blasting has done it, but there is already blasting going on, I’m not sure if it is at the other gravel pit or the one behind me, but there have already been blasting going on.  It already shakes our house; it already knocks things off the shelves.  There are other neighbors I’m not sure if they are here or not, but I can represent six other neighbors down the road that could’ve come to the meeting prior to this but since it has been changed they couldn’t get off work to come down here, so they wanted me to voice their opinions as well as what is going on with their homes.  Other than the fact that our property is going to be diminished, I’m sure you have seen what has happened from red dirt minings.  You have the benefit of aerial photos, I have the benefit of flying and I have been over this site and several other sites and I don’t understand why we need to keep deteriorating more and more land.  If they need gravel why don’t they just get it from the one that is already there?  Why create more of the detriment to the property?  I don’t understand that.  These are personal issues and environmental issues, but the main thing that is kind of on my mind is if we have codes and you made rules and regulations why even begin to make these codes, rules, and regulations if you’re just going to turn around and amend it just so that somebody else can make more money?  I don’t understand that.  I have several other things listed, but in order to honor what you asked I’m not going to mention the other things that we’ve already mentioned as far as noise, dust, main thing if we can do something with the blasting maybe regulate the amount, whatever they are doing right now which isn’t obviously next door to my back door it already is too much it already is shacking my house, it is a brand new house we’ve built with a loan we got through McIlroy Bank.  I don’t know what my insurance company is going to say as far as that goes or my mortgage either despite my neighbors, but in the event if I ever decided to sell I doubt anybody would want to buy my house if this is going on for the next 50 to 75 years.”

Carolyn Kent, adjacent property owner to the south at 7828 W. Wedington, asked, “I am past the curve.  I am right next to Raincrow Road; I’m just east of Raincrow Road on the north side of the highway.  Is blasting for red dirt and blasting for this stone not different?  Also, the crushing is that no difference in that?  If I go out in my yard and I want to kick red dirt around I can use my foot to crush it.  If I want to crush a stone it’s not going to take my foot.  I wonder about has there been any kind environmental impact study done for this as far as how it will impact the environment that surrounds it not only the people and the animals, but also just the land that is there now.  We have given up a lot of land in Washington County to big business and they are already own some right there and they’re using it for a profit.  Mr. Hull said that this was for clients and the public; I don’t believe that, I don’t believe that is going to help the public.  Every time that you drive onto Highway 16 and toward town, you take your life in your hands because these gravel red dirt trucks, which is supposed to have nothing above the sides are loaded to the gill and you can stay 200’ behind, but the rocks that bounce off, they bounce where they want to.  I have a broken windshield; I haven’t replaced three of them because I don’t see the point in it.  I also question that they haven’t started blasting already because most people work say they leave their homes 7:30 or 8:00 and don’t get home till 5:00, 5:30, or so.  I don’t work those hours; I work to where I am home during the day and the last week in a half to two weeks, I am close enough that I have heard louder blasting than has ever been and I have been there since 1993.  As far as more trucks that is a joke.  They couldn’t get more trucks in and out of there if they tried.  It is just impossible to add to the amount to as the man said to the loads that they are doing.  The sediment is already out of control and for them to say two years to redo something?”  Richey replied, “The final reclamation after the quarry is exhausted they have two years to get their re-vegetation plan underway.”  Kent asked, “After 50 to 75 years?”  Richey replied, “Yes, but stormwater plans are ongoing those have to be in place all of the time to keep sediment from running off-site.”  Kent commented, “I would like to know who has been out there to check about the stormwater because the sediment runs off everywhere.  I don’t know if the County asked these people to pave this road or if they just did it for the neighbors, but where they come off their road onto Highway 16 and for about a quarter of a mile they tear up the road constantly.  It is not just one or two problems.  Tarps, I think they’re already supposed to be tarped and they’re not.  There are a couple of things that I really disagree with in this; this is about big business this is about Sweetser big business against all these little people like me that moved out here and have nice quiet or did have nice quiet beautiful family residences and areas.  I can now look across my neighbor’s pasture and see that red dirt farm.  If they already have a limestone quarry to the north why don’t they just keep using that and let this red dirt farm stay where it is?  We vote for people on the Quorum Court to protect our interests and I don’t believe that putting a limestone quarry out there is protecting the interests of the residents.”

Kevin Bourke, adjacent property owner to the southwest at 971 Raincrow Road, stated, “We are adjacent to this property in question here due south.  I am representing three other neighbors that are on the street who is not able to be here largely because of the time; Lawrence and Alice Fletcher who live immediately adjacent to the property here in question, they live in Russellville, Matt Lewis who lives on the same side of the street and the folks that live next to us Dena Gay.  We bought our property on Raincrow in 1991; a number of years before this red dirt operation went into existence.  Let’s be clear I don’t think red dirt farm is accurate I think it is more of a quarry more of a strip mine it is more of a dirt pit.  I don’t know where the word ‘farm’ comes into play here; it just doesn’t work.  Historically, we have experienced some really poor neighbors with respect to the people that operate red dirt farm.  Initially, it took them a lot of time to comply with I guess recommendations with respect to cleaning up the roads around the area, none of that was in existence for a couple of years.  They had plenty of opportunity to put some kind of a barrier between what you see in terms of the red dirt area and our residences and haven’t seem to have even considered that aspect.  The other aspect is the way that they have mined and excavated to the point of the property lines.  There is a serious possible hazard to animals, livestock, children, and anyone else that happens to venture over the barbed wire fence line and see a 30’ or 40’ drop.  These are opportunities that these people have had to deal with through the whole course of this operation and haven’t taken any proactive or any insightful action towards looking at our benefit the neighbors here.  I can see the red dirt pit from my yard right now when the leaves on the trees are gone five months out of the year it is stark, it is just barren wasteland out there right in front of us.  We did not buy property in the Fayetteville area to be hand in hand with industrial operations we came here because Fayetteville is fairly green, proactive, and forward thinking.  Really along the lines that really argue with what we are trying to look at here in terms of any kind of approval.  What I would like to speak to in terms of some of the advocacy that has gone on here with respect to the points made by Mrs. Richey here in that limestone quarry in existence in the area that maybe another one won’t be imposing at all; two wrongs don’t make a right.  If you would prefer to live within a half mile away from a rock crushing operation or if you would like to live right next door to it, would it make any difference to you?  If you said yes I would ask you if you had ever been around a rock pit or a rock crushing operation.  My father used to lease and operate a rock pit and a rock quarry.  They are not pretty they are dangerous they are very ominous to the area.  We’re within a few hundred yards of where the blasting is going to be taking place.  I can’t emphasize enough the shadowing that has taken place with the way that these people have operated this dirt farm up this point, it has been totally profiteering.  It takes weeks to get them to even clean the roads up and now that they are a little bit more engaged with some of the other aspects of profiteering they are a little bit more concise of these things.  The over all burden of the truck traffic and the operations that exist at this point are really an imposition on our way of life, and I’m sure, a detriment to our property values.  I am representing some other folks that couldn’t be here tonight.  I don’t want to go over the same list of complaints that we visited here tonight, but I think history plays an important role in terms how we’re going to look towards these folks keeping up their obligations in the future.  We’re looking forward to this dirt farm going away because there is no more dirt there and we’re looking forward to them recognizing their first held obligation to turn this back into a greenspace.  Now, that we’re at this juncture and we have an opportunity to maybe see some of our property values come back we’re looking at the next phase being considered by this Board here to even promote and put this way out into the future.  Who wants a lake with mosquitoes and sheer rock pits right next to where you live?  There are rock pits south of Fayetteville, east of Fayetteville, north of Fayetteville; big viable more abundant quarries that are in operation.  Some of them aren’t even in operation because there is too much of an abundance for them.  To look at this from a standpoint of cost to benefit ratio, what are the benefits?  Just as many truck drivers, just as many quarry pit operators, just as many people that are engaged in the benefit side of this economic model are going to still be there if they get the rock from West Fork, Springdale, or Bethel Heights.  There is no economic opportunity there it is just going to be an offset.  There is no benefit that I really see in terms of the community I mean are we building a dam here in Fayetteville are we building pyramids?  Why do we need all of this limestone just within a couple of miles from downtown Fayetteville?  Where is the community’s benefit, I don’t see it?  I don’t appreciate the advocacy side of saying well there is a rock pit already there another one is not going to make any difference.  I beg to differ, I would like for you to come to the place and see the perspective and the point of view that we have.  These are very serious concerns for a number of people besides myself that are here.  I know that other people list their personal specific complaints, but in general I think it is important to see how these people have operated their operation in the past, what they haven’t done, and how much trouble it’s been for them to try to comply and provide anything safe and reasonable to the people that live there, they haven’t done that.”       

Jeff Silva, adjacent property owner to the southwest at 8010 W. Wedington Drive, asked, “I am speaking in opposition to the permit approval.  My big concern is the blasting.  I’m just wondering over a period of time how that is going to effect structural homes, structural damage.  I know that they cited some instances where they did blasting here in Fayetteville, but I am sure that was a one or two time occurrence, but they’re talking about going on for years and years blasting.  You can’t tell me that can’t affect structural homes in the area.  Who is going to be responsible if something does happen?  They’re going to claim that’s just settling occurring that’s bound to happen.  That’s doors closing and children running around, we can’t be responsible for that.  There doesn’t seem to be any enforcement; who will be responsible to enforce the reclamation process?  Is that left up to this Board, State, City, or County?”  Laney replied, “The State ADEQ will be responsible for their limitations and the County is talking about putting if approved and following recommendations additional requirements, it will be our enforcement responsibility, so it will be split.”  Silva commented, “I would ask that you deny the request.” 

Roma Gray, adjacent property owner to the north at 16529 Little Road, stated, “I live on Little Road which is just off of Hamstring Road.  I also own a small horse farm on (Residential Drive) Harp Road (WC #3803) that is even closer to this business.  I travel on Hamstring Road twice a day and a comment was made how wonderful it is to have the paved road going to the red dirt farm, but the process of watching that occur and the way it was done was beautiful tree lined avenue and it is devastated now the way that they removed all the trees.  They had very little regard for how this business was going to appear traveling on this road.  The safety concerns about the increased traffic are very troubling.  When you have been run off of a road that doesn’t have a shoulder on it by trucks going too fast crossing the centerline there’s just blatant disregard for the driving safety and more traffic makes it more scary for me to have to travel on this road.  The concern about water quality of what’s happening in Hamstring creek and everything downstream from that.  Big Red Dirt Farm is currently not maintaining their silt fences, at one time they had a few of them they have fallen over they have not been repaired there is a big gigantic mosquito swamp now that is partially encased in what once was an attempt at the silt fences. The mention of property values has already been addressed.  However, for the entire valley when you come down WC #842 Big Red Dirt Farm is like the gateway into what used to be a beautiful valley a beautiful place to live.  It’s the dominant thing that you see when you pass by there, so even properties that are not just adjacent to this but people traveling on that road their property values are going to be affected by this as well.  I personally have tried daily to come to terms with someday they are going to run out of dirt here and this is all going to be okay.  The long-term limestone quarry is just a devastating concept for me.  Also, the blasting with explosives there are damaging effects to the nervous system of humans and animals that are subjected to this.  On a personal note, when the blasting occurs my horses flee.  I worry about the effects on people’s livestock not just the horses, but cattle as well and wildlife.  I hope you really consider that this is not just a rural area something is already going on there, but this is our community the place we’ve chosen to live because originally it had natural beauty.”

Doug Hurley, adjacent property owner to the south at 966 N. Raincrow Road, stated, “I cannot add anything else to what’s been said, but I had not commented back to on the paperwork that we have received in the mail.  I just want to go on the record that I’ve agreed with everything that has been said tonight by all the speakers.  I’m on the very north end of the road.  I’ve watched that dirt pit grow towards the south to where it is bordering on the deal.  I see it out my windows; I see it off my deck.  I hear the trucks, the beeps, and everything.  I just want to go on record that I agree with what’s been said and I am also opposed to the approval of the CUP.”  

Donald H. Johnson, adjacent property owner to the northeast at 2099 Double Springs Road, stated, commented, “I am on Double Springs Road (WC #881) about a mile below downwind from what you were talking about here.  I have a clay pit right over the top of me.  Some of this just doesn’t make sense when you actually follow the history what has happened in red dirt operations and now like Mr. Gallagher said we’re going to vote it right into something more complicated.  We’re told that Fayetteville is moving west it can’t go in any other direction.  I don’t think they want to move impression like Lindsey is going to make another major housing development.  In 76 years it’s going to be a long time to put housing on this spot if that’s how long they’re going to have it open regardless the biggest problem that I see, I was also on the Wheeler Water Board for two terms as President of that Board, we are hurting the creditability of this operation here.  If we had plans we wouldn’t have some illegal clay pit out in our area.  Judge Hunton said if we can actually have zoning we can get on top of this problem and not have it just happen randomly and haphazardly.  Actually, as Mr. Gallagher says it is happening haphazardly right now it appears to us as we live out there and what information we get.  The only check and balance on this is the newspaper and I quit taking the newspaper in commission this wasn’t digging up the objective pros and cons of whatever goes on.  This is the same thing right here.  What about the spring underneath this?  I have a trout farm, there is underground water here, and we don’t even talk about it.  I talked to a lady for one hour with yesterday, Illinois River Watershed Partnership; the State has made a grant of $135,000 to monitor.  All of these things haven’t been looked into and all I’m saying I think this thing should be completely tabled and should be concerned your importance and being what is consistent and doing what is good for the good of Washington County.”

Arthur McCandless, adjacent property owner to the south at 7580 W. Wedington Drive, commented, “This pit is directly behind my house.  It is within 300’ of my property line and approximately 500’ of my house.  Since they have been blasting I am finding cracks in the brickwork of my house.  Last week one of the explosions I would liken it to about a 500-pound bomb.  The concussion was so great that I thought it was going to break our windows completely out.  It did loosen bricks next to those sliding glass windows.  What’s going to happen when they drill down and blast into the footing of my house because we are on that limestone shelf?  My neighbor, Mr. Samples, is even closer and parts of our houses is subterranean which makes it even worse because they are going to be blasting right under us.  There are other houses down the road and up the road that are in the same boat.  We just happen to be the lucky ones who are right in that line and on that shelf.  I’m not just asking I’m begging save my house.  We’ve had all kinds of talk about the wildlife; we’re almost devoid of wildlife.  We had herds of deer roaming our backyards and we loved it, but those deer aren’t coming there anymore and if they are there and if they blast you can see them heading out and then you don’t see them again for months.  It is damaging everything.  What we’re getting now is probably one tenth of what we will get if you go down into that quarry further.  I’ll go with everything that has been said here I haven’t heard a word that was untrue or not worthwhile.  I hope you will be sensible with it and rescue us.”

Lanny Samples, adjacent property owner to the south at 7606 W. Wedington Drive, stated, “I live directly adjacent to the property on the south side and I live on part of the family farm that my wife’s family has owned since 1950 at that site.  I think everything that has been presented here tonight has been very articulate and well stated and I came prepared to accept the inevitable, but what I’ve seem is very compelling to the opposite degree and I am definitely against this permit being granted.  I have gone back to the back of our property and the ADEQ specifies a 50’ setback and right now the measurement from our fence property line to the vertical wall of the pit is 48’.  Juliet said that the commission is proposing 100’ that would be great.  There is no barrier from our back yard it is like everyone has already stated you can see the red dirt pit.  At 11:00 at night or midnight you can hear the backup beeps at 5:30 in the morning you can hear backup beeps.  I experience that myself personally.  Property values, the family farm is 30 acres right there and since that pit has opened if we ever decided to sell or develop that area if you had property or building lots 48’ away from a red dirt pit wall, what would you get for that property, not very much?  The way that the weather has been lately with all the rain, I talked to a gentleman that worked for McClinton Anchor and through his experience there was a pit that they had that had a 50’ setback and in 5 years that wall had collapsed and the five strand barbed wire fence was hanging in midair and I am 48’ from that wall right now, so I am concerned.  ADEQ says a 5’ high earth and/or rock berm.  The pictures show a 3’ high pile of dirt you go to that dirt and go another 15’ and you’re 43’ straight down I measured it with a weight and a string.  You go another 20 yards to the left it is 50’ straight down there is nothing there to prevent animals or people from falling in.  Over the years we’ve had a lot of kids roaming through the woods at the back of our property, they’ll be going right by it.  To the east of us there is an old barbed wire fence that is not a new five-strand width fencing.  None of this has been done and taken care of.  Currently, the fence in one area is down on the ground that is right on our property line a tree from their side has fallen across the fence and there is nothing to prevent people or animals from walking through.  Protective barrier of boulders or concrete ADEQ requires again there is nothing up there to do that.  Also required brightly colored warning signs and in the middle hanging on our fence is a license plate sign that says warning open pit that’s it there’s no warning other than that there.  ADEQ requires undisturbed area of 50’ to property lines, I’m 48’ currently and that’s not enough.  I vehemently oppose the permit being granted and I think everyone else that has spoken tonight has stated that very well.  There are very good reasons not to grant it.  I think that the Lindsey pit if you look at the aerial photos and the photos here that Lindsey pit has enough gravel to supply the Fayetteville area as it is.  I don’t think the way that the housing market is I don’t think that another pit is needed at this time.  They say reclamation they will put a pond with a fountain in it; 75 years from now who is going to enjoy a pond with a fountain in it?  They’ve got money to put into escrow to reclaim the area if they put $10,000 or $5,000 in an escrow account now what is that going to be worth 75 years from now as far as reclaiming that area?  Again I am opposed.”

Brennan O’Donohoe commented, “I work at the Big Red Dirt Farm, I manage the operations day to day.  I just want to tell everybody I understand your concerns absolutely.  I want to let you know that anything that I can do.  My phone is always open.  I know we’ve done things in the past that haven’t been condusive like the roads and things like that, but I promise you for me that I will do everything in my power.  The roads that we are mudding them, awhile back about a year and a half ago we got into some trouble and I agreed to fix the problem then we bought a $40,000 sweeper to maintain the roads.  We kept the roads clean.  The silt fences that were talked about our consultant took pictures just three days ago.  Where they’re saying the mosquito pond is that is actually holding the silt from going down into Hamstring creek.  We’re trying to maintain that as a detention pond, which by the way we’ll going to extend probably 75’ to facilitate that much more run-off.  The property line and fence line that was talked about where you said 50’ breaker wall its okay that we have that right now because we’re still going to excavate the pinnacles when we get those out there and it has to be done regardless we’ve got to reclaim that.  We tried to go over there the other day and slope this 3 to 1 slope as ADEQ requires.  They say you got to have 50’ of your property from your neighboring line; you got to maintain a 3 to 1 slope.  We went 48’ and we stopped and we started to cut the 3 to 1 slope.  We added more signs.  The tree that was on the fence line we repaired some fences we put up a new barbed wire fence, we put some signage all the way on the southern property line.  We put fence posts down with orange yellow tape.  We had 400’ to 500’ of that vertical wall incase there is somebody that does cross over that don’t really see that.  We put yellow caution tape.   We can do more.  I want to let people know that we’ll do what we can do.  Just ask me. I mean that sincerely.  Anything that I can do when somebody has a problem my phone number is yours please call me.  My family and I rely on this job.  I know that you call it big business and all that, but I know three other guys that work that pit.  They give me a living and I love my job and I know that it is a nuisance to you guys sometimes.  I will do anything that I can to my power to make it where we all can work together.”

Laney stated, “I appreciate you wanting to look them in the eye, but we need you to turn around and speak into the microphone.”

O’Donohoe stated, “It is important that they understand that we’re not out there to just profiteer.  The things that I just said I mean that sincerely, we will do everything in our power.  I want to say a lot of the blame that we’ve gotten just recently on the blasting; we haven’t blasted in six weeks.  The Rogers Group we felt them blast we feel it once a week usually and I can understand what they’re talking about.  We feel that shake.  A lot of the road problems I think that the Big Red Dirt Farm is receiving a lot of the blame for something that another pit helps create that problem.  Since we’ve started beginning reclaiming getting the pinnacles out of the way of the farm, I think that we’ve blasted 11 times in the last five to six months just to get the pinnacles going.  We tell them to, we don’t fine them at the farm, but the trucks the broker everybody lets them know that they are supposed to tarp.  I’m not going to say that people haven’t tarped because people have tarped.  We encourage and we tell them on the CB when they leave we make sure we’re like okay your tarp is not down.  We ask that they get it fixed and repair it if they’re not working.  There is a lot of things that we are getting blamed for that we really do make a conscious effort to fix so that the problems that they brought up about broken windshields and things like that don’t occur.  We had problems in the past where we have broken stuff.  I had a truck break a car’s fog light the other day and we paid for it.  We try to do what we can to help the public.  I sincerely am asking you if there is a problem to ask me and I will do everything in my power to help in the best that I can.  I know that everybody is not going to be happy with that, but if there is one thing that maybe I can do to make it better please after the meeting let me know and I will do my best.”

Michael Luna, adjacent property owner to the north at 16529 Little Road, commented, “I live on Little Road.  I would like to say that the people that have spoken for this kind of remind me of a kid who is being as bad as he could all year long and a week before Christmas he starts promising all of this stuff that he’s going to do because he is going to get something out of it.  This farm has been a public nuisance, basically, because of all the truck drivers who don’t obey the traffic laws; they pull right out in front of the people trying to go to work in the morning.  They are busting gravel now on Sunday mornings.  I guess that’s against what they’re supposed to be doing.  I just don’t believe that all of a sudden they’re going to start being good citizens if they’re granted this extension or whatever because in the past it just hasn’t happened and one thing that I haven’t heard anyone mention is that as the crow flies about a mile from this site is a nuclear waste dump and how is this blasting going to effect in this loose geology that we have going to effect this nuclear waste dump that has already leaked as far as I understand and they went out there and redid a bunch of it about 18 months or two years ago.  That sits at the top of the hill next to the water tower on Harmon Road (WC #30), as I understand it that is what that is there were nuclear signs on the fence when they were doing it; I don’t think those signs are there anymore.  I don’t know if that blasting would affect the integrity of that dump or if that is something that needs to be studied, but I do know that I am dead set against any proliferation of this business’ ability to do more than they have already been doing.”

Murray Butler stated, “I am also a truck driver who runs these roads everyday that have to maintain this Northwest Arkansas beautiful heritage that we have. There are lots of ups and downs and positives and negatives on this.  Sure the road needs widening; I agree 100%.  There are also a lot of people late for work in the mornings, going to school, in a big hurry.  We can’t move as fast, I’m sorry; we have a job to do, we’re trying to do it safely.  It’s very hard to do some days; we don’t get a break.  I’m not saying that we’re angels, but I’m the one that lost the rock that cost my boss $900; I feel bad about it; it happens I can’t prevent it.  If you’re in this business it happens.  There’s no secure for loss of materials off of any semi.  Look down the interstate today I saw two sheets of insulation stand straight up 8’ tall and a semi smacked it head on.  What can you do?  He can do his job or it could kill somebody.  Our job is safety, safety first.  That’s what we’re here for.”    

Donald Johnson JR asked, “There is some new news that came up tonight that I wasn’t aware of.  Maybe it was hearsay or talk but the first gentleman (Mr. Hull) that came up to speak about the benefit of this was talking about recycling old concrete and things.  Most of the citizens that live around this place was again looking for high hopes that this would come to an end as soon as the red dirt pit was finished and that they were going to have to reclaim the land and get to go back to nature; trees and nature topsoil and so forth.  I’m wondering is there such a thing as a legal loophole so that they won’t have to reclaim this land that it is just going to be supposedly a lake, just a hole in the ground, or is it going to be a possible site for a dump or what?  I am half way through paying off my mortgage.  I’m not sure if I’m really excited about paying off my mortgage if I’m going to be living up against someplace that is turning into an unsightly thing.  Most of us are living our lives whatever our jobs may be so that we can retire into a nice home someday and that is what our hopes are.  Whether it is 50 or 75 years most of us are going to be dead at that time so a fountain in the middle of a so called lake is not going to benefit anybody.”

Laney asked, “Do you have an answer to his question about ADEQ’s reclamation process on the existing can they extend it just by recycling; I think the answer is no.”  Richey replied, “I don’t think that they can, but I guess I would have to talk to ADEQ to make sure.”

Haley asked, “The houses in that area are they served by the rural water also or are they on wells?”  Richey replied, “I think that there is a mixture; there are some wells.  We had a call from somebody in the area, I don’t know if they are here tonight, but they had well water and they felt like their well water had been damaged in the past.  I know that there are some people on wells out there, but there is rural water as well.”

Walker asked, “I would just like to hear for information sake; what is the procedure for blasting?”

Someone from the audience stated, “I would like to speak to the question that was asked about the wells.  On our road there are seven houses and three of them are on wells.”  

Jared Redyke, commented, “I am with Dykon blasting.  This industry that I am in is highly regulated.  We’re regulated by the city, the State, the DOT, and ATF.  We have a lot of rules and regulations that we are required to follow.  The City of Fayetteville as well as the State regulates blasting.  There have been a lot of studies done on blasting and vibration to study what actually causes damage to houses.  The State has looked at that as well as the City of Fayetteville and they’ve chosen a very conservative limit for vibration.  We are not required to set a seismograph up, but our company does set seismographs up at the closest structure to monitor every blast and I’m not going to sit here and say that people are not going to feel the blast because they will at times depending on where they are at and locations.  We do a lot of blasting in Northwest Arkansas this is a growing place with rock and we do quarry rock as well as construction blasting even in the middle of town, so we’re used to dealing with neighbors, the vibration, and their concerns.  That is something that we look at on every site that we blast.”  Walker asked, “In your experience have you seen it deteriorate the limestone shell from a distance away?”  Redyke replied, “No, the fracture zone around an explosive bore hole is 30 to 40 times the bore hole diameter, so just immediately past that bore hole you’re not going to get any fracturing.  That is why we can blast in areas very close to houses and structures and it is something that we do all the time.  We’ve worked for city projects down at the library we had 110 year old houses 100’ away from where we were blasting for the foundation there.  A year or two after that project we did some work at the University for a parking deck there; we had a 40’ cut 40’ away from a three-story apartment.  We had the physics lab across the street.  We had meetings with them because they had very vibration sensitive experiments going on and we coordinated our blasts with them.  So, we’re well aware of the vibration issues and concerns of the neighbors and we take all of the necessary precautions that we can to design our blast.  Are they going to be able to feel them at times?  Yes, but that doesn’t mean that damage is occurring just because you can feel a blast.”

Richey asked, “Earlier somebody brought up blasting you know when you talk about where you do projects like the library in town and you do it I don’t know how long it takes maybe a couple of months and you’re done.  I was wondering if you had anything to say about that versus where you are blasting in the same area over a long period of time say 50 to 75 years if there is a difference.”  Redyke replied, “No, there have been studies on that and there is no cumulative effects of blasting.  You initiate a blast and the vibration goes out and dissipates with distance and that is how we design our blast is based on the distance of the closest structure, we limit the pounds per delay, based on that distance.  Once that blast goes off the energy is dissipated and it is not like there is a cumulative effect.  We do pre-blast surveys on a lot of houses when we’re close in blasting and most of the time people don’t look for cracks in their house they don’t realize that they are there, but environmental effects are taking place on every structure everyday, wind, rain, shrinking and swelling of soil, it is just a natural occurring thing in structures for them to move; engineers designed that in and it just happens.”

Haley asked, “Let me make sure I understand this correctly; with your recommendation of the 100’, would that address one of Mr. Samples’ concerns because he said it was 48’ away from his property line?”  Richey replied, “They would have to rebuild that area out to 100’ and then slope it.”  Haley asked, “So, that would be covered under that condition?”  Richey replied, “Yes, that one of his concerns.  As far as erosion, yes, that condition actually came from a conversation that I had with him.  I went out and looked at his property and we talked about it.  Whether or not he thinks that is adequate; I don’t know.” 

Laney stated, “I would just address some of the general comments that have been made.  Somebody made a reference to in essence be a referendum on zoning in the County.  I think the records are clear this Board was supportive and encouraging of zoning all along.  This Board has already spoken on zoning and has been very encouraging of it.  The hard part is you have to balance interest so that is what is going on here, so I don’t think any vote here should be considered any reference on what we think of zoning because we’ve been supportive from the beginning.  Variances are built in to make things work.”

Kenley Haley commented, “I’ll throw it out there. I make a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the Big Red Dirt Farm with the conditions put on by the Staff of Washington County.”  Gary Head seconded. 

Gary Head stated, “Aye” and Larry Walker, Randy Laney, and Robert Daugherty were opposed.  Kenley Haley did not vote.   

Laney asked, “It is three to one.  If we have a lost motion to approve is that equivalent to denial?”  Butler replied, “That is denial.”  Laney stated, “Project is denied.”

Butler commented, “This decision can be appealed to Circuit Court will be tried de novo by Judge and/or jury will hear the matter de novo.  If you want to be involved in that proceeding you will need to get an attorney because I’m sure it is going to be appealed.  In other words, they start from scratch.  It will be in the newspaper.”

Richey stated, “The Large Scale Development can only go forward if the Conditional Use has been approved and it has been denied; so no it won’t be on the October 2, 2008 agenda.”

5.  OLD BUSINESS

6.     OTHER BUSINESS  THE FOLLOWING WAS NOT DISCUSSED AT THE MEETING

·          Planning Board members receive Washington County Employee Hand Book and sign form

Richey stated, “Please sign the forms for the employee hand book if you have not already.”

·          Discussion of Corridor Zoning progress

·          Discussion of allowing a second home by right

·          Discuss Current Development within the County

·          Discussion of possible wind farm ordinances in the future

·          Any other general Planning Department or Planning Board Business

7.  ADJOURN

 Larry Walker moved to adjourn. Robert Daugherty seconded.  Motion passes.

Planning Board adjourned.

Minutes submitted by: Amanda Kimbel

Approved by the Planning Board on:

                                                                 _____Randy Laney_____________ Date: ___10/02/08_______

MINUTES

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD

&

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS

October 2, 2008

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

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARINGS

Fayetteville Planning Area

b. 250' Self Support Tower – S. Mally Wagnon Road CUP                     Tabled

County

c. Crossroads Wireless – Colony CUP                                                   Tabled

County

d. Crossroads Wireless – Dutch Mills CUP                                            Tabled

County

e. Crossroads Wireless – Ray CUP                                                       Tabled

1. ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken.  Members present include: Robert Daugherty, Kenley Haley, Gary Head, and Randy Laney.  Absent: Cheryl West and Larry Walker.

2.  APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (from the September 18, 2008 meeting) Robert Daugherty made a motion to approve as written. Kenley Haley provided the second.  Motion passes.

3.  APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:

Gary Head made a motion to approve the agenda. Robert Daugherty seconded.  Motion passes.

4.  NEW BUSINESS

LAND DEVELOPMENT HEARINGS

Fayetteville Planning Area

a.  Twin Springs Estates Phase 2 (Final Plat Approval Request)

Location: Sections 3 & 35, Townships 16 & 17 North, Range 31 West

Owner/Developer: Gabby Hills Enterprises, Inc.

Engineer/Surveyor: Landtech Engineering, Inc. – Leonard Gabbard

Location Address: West of Twin Springs Estates Phase 1 on N. Double Springs Road (WC #881)

30.45 acres and 23 lots / Proposed Land Use: Single-Family Residential

Project #: 2005-120 Planner: Courtney McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us

All Board members were in favor of tabling Twin Springs Estates Phase 2 Final Plat.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARINGS

Fayetteville Planning Area

b. 250' Self Support Tower – S. Mally Wagnon Road CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request)

Location: Section 29, Township 16 North, Range 29 West

Owner/Developer: Jimmie and Bobbye Sexson

Representative: American Tower Corporation – Douglas Konrath (Project Manager)

Location Address: (closest addressed property) 2270 S. Mally Wagnon Road (WC #139)

17.71 acres and 1 unit / Proposed Land Use: 250’ Self Support Tower enclosed in 56’ x 100’ fenced area

Project #: 2008-182 Planner: Jessie Pettit, e-mail at jpettit@co.washington.ar.us

All Board members were in favor of tabling 250’ Self Support Tower – S. Mally Wagnon Road Conditional Use Permit.

County

c. Crossroads Wireless – Colony CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request)

Location: Section 18, Township 16 North, Range 33 West

Owner/Developer: Lawrence and Joan Pharr

Representative: Site Excell – Alissa Coffield (Director of Collocations)

Location Address: **At the curve on Highway 59**

84.62 acres and 1 unit / Proposed Land Use: Telecommunications site

Project #: 2008-184 Planner: Jessie Pettit, e-mail at jpettit@co.washington.ar.us

All Board members were in favor of tabling Crossroads Wireless – Colony Conditional Use Permit.

County

d. Crossroads Wireless – Dutch Mills CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request)

Location: Section 21, Township 14 North, Range 33 West

Owner/Developer: Harley and Charlotte Webb

Representative: Site Excell – Alissa Coffield (Director of Collocations)

Location Address: 22570 Dutch Mills Road (WC #418 and WC #419)

97.90 acres and 1 unit / Proposed Land Use: Telecommunications site

Project #: 2008-185 Planner: Courtney McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us

All Board members were in favor of tabling Crossroads Wireless – Dutch Mills Conditional Use Permit.

County

e. Crossroads Wireless – Ray CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request)

Location: Section 26, Township 13 North, Range 33 West

Owner/Developer: Lee Roy and Joann Goldman

Representative: Site Excell – Alissa Coffield (Director of Collocations)

Location Address: (closest addressed property) 21679 Hwy. 59 (WC #4424 Res. Dr. Mountain Top)

70 acres and 1 unit / Proposed Land Use: Telecommunications site

Project #: 2008-186 Planner: Courtney McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us

All Board members were in favor of tabling Crossroads Wireless – Ray Conditional Use Permit.

5.  OLD BUSINESS  

6.    OTHER BUSINESS

• Discussion of Corridor Zoning progress

Juliet Richey, Washington County Planning Director, stated, “I wanted to go over this with you all real quick what we talked about.  I can’t remember the last time that we discussed this.  Our meetings have been kind of, the last one was really long and then we had a space in between there.”

Laney commented, “We haven’t discussed it since you met with the Committee.  The conversation that you and I had was not here so that is the one you are thinking of.”

Richey stated, “Let me just go through what we have recommended and all of this went through on the first hearing at the Quorum Court last month (September 11, 2008) so it will be on the second hearing this month.   Most of the County is agricultural/single-family residential.  The area west of the City of Tontitown is going to go ahead and zone all of that.  East of the City of Springdale on Highway 412 this is just a section that goes between the city limits and Beaver Lake.  We are going to zone the middle part and then the City of Springdale has requested that we look into possible some commercial by right in both of these areas.  Both of them they have them marked on their Future Land Use Map as being commercial.  The first part just because it is adjacent to the city limits and it is commercial at the city limits at this time.  The second one by Beaver Lake is where the Springdale By-pass ties in.”

Laney asked, “So, unless we come up with some commercial zoning ordinances all we have now is what we got which is the single-family, so we can do that and they’re considering waiting on that until some are written for commercial?”

Richey replied, “Yes, the area farther east at the County line we propose to be zoned single-family and agricultural.  Highway 62 between the City of Prairie Grove and the City of Lincoln is proposed to be single-family and agricultural except for the part adjacent to the City of Prairie Grove to Greasy Valley Road (WC #8) and they requested to see that be zoned commercial by right due to where that is where the Prairie Grove By-pass is going to tie in.  Highway 16 west and all of it is zoned except for the area directly adjacent to the City of Fayetteville’s city limits and the City of Fayetteville was interested in looking into some sort of neighborhood commercial zoning for that area and then the rest of Highway 16 west is going to be single-family and agricultural.  The City of Greenland and City of West Fork is single-family and agricultural.  Basically, we are closing some of the gaps - to me probably the most important ones - and then we are leaving those areas open for study.  We are trying to proceed with that, we have a list of property owners in that area.  I’m going to start trying to organize meetings to talk to the property owners in that area about commercial by right.”

Daugherty asked, “How are you going to treat the existing commercial properties that are already there that are going to be zoned agricultural?  What are those people going to have to do?”  George Butler, Washington County Attorney, replied, “They will be considered nonconforming uses that will be allowed to continue and if they want to expand they can expand by Conditional Use Permit.”

Daugherty asked, “If they sell to another individual and under the assumption that future purchaser could use it for commercial purposes that part won’t happen either then will it?  How will that be treated?”  Richey replied, “If it is similar if it is like the same use like say you own Bob’s Machine Shop or something and you want to sell it to somebody else to use for a machine shop or something similar to that then it would still be allowed.  You wouldn’t have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for that.  Let’s say that you own Bob’s Machine Shop and then you wanted to sell it and somebody wanted to make it into a church kind of like what we ran into the other day (The Pentecostal Church) then it would have to go through a Conditional Use Permit.”

• Discussion of allowing a second home by right

Richey stated, “Additional Dwelling Unit checklist is something that we’ve talked about and we did get it passed as an amendment to the rules and regulations for zoning and this is if you have one single-family home and you want to add another one and you have at least two acres we can just ask for a few things; soils work for septic, water tap or a well, meet minimum setbacks, spacing 20’ minimum for fire safety, and then once we have all of those items then they are approved administratively.”

                Butler commented, “You all will not see them unless there is some little tweak that it does not fit into.”

                Laney stated, “Well done.”  Haley commented, “That’s good.”

Courtney McNair, Washington County Planner, stated, “We have three in the works and waiting on soils work.”

                Richey commented, “I think that will help people out and still protect other people as well.”

• Discussion of Current Development within the County

Richey stated, “I was just kind of let you know what we had.  Our lot splits have, I don’t know if they have actually dropped anymore, but they have dropped in the last year.  Last month we did about 22 lot splits and we were doing more like 35 or 40 a month, so we’re still doing some it hasn’t dropped in half, but we are doing less administrative splits in our office.  As far as the current development goes, you’re at every meeting, so you know that we have less and less subdivisions.  We have a couple that we are trying to get finaled and they’re struggling pretty bad.  We’re dealing with banks on some of them now and not developers at all, so we’ll just I guess kind of continue to see how it goes.”

• Question and Answer time with Staff and County Attorney about any general zoning questions board members may have

Richey stated, “I didn’t know if you wanted to ask me questions, or ask George questions; just general zoning issues or kind of policy of how we want to do things.  I know that the last meeting was pretty contentious.  Not the most pleasant experience that we’ve all had in awhile.”  Head commented, “I don’t think that you can ever have...” Butler stated, “There’s never been a pleasant meeting when there was a quarry or red dirt pits.”  Head commented, “I don’t think that you can plan around a quarry or a dirt pit it is always going to be an emotional subject and it won’t matter.  I wish that you could make it not, but I don’t honestly believe that it is possible.  I don’t know what you could do to try to make it better.”

Daugherty stated, “I think that Randy has a good idea that we need to look at.”  Laney commented, “I had mentioned to you that it is the idea that the Quorum Court uses for second readings on certain kind of bills that it would be treated over a two month period.  I don’t know what subset obviously can’t anticipate all of the future, but right now it seems like quarries and mines are always the big deal.  I don’t know if we can single them out like that.”

Butler stated, “What you could do is if you wanted to not make the final decision, but look at it again you could move to table it and ask so that you could think about all that was said and also ask Staff to maybe come up with some additional conditions that might you might have some specific suggestions or ask Staff to try to come up with some additional conditions that might address the concerns that have been made or ask Staff to do more research on what’s been said.”  Laney commented, “I guess I would say rather than kind of reacting when everybody is here and the emotions are already high and voting to table it and then feeling like some people take off work to come and I want to respect that, but if they knew going in that it was going to be over a two period time then it might help a little bit to give appropriate deliberation to the matter and give people a chance to submit their ideas without feeling like they have to come here.  That is the only idea I had, but singling out quarries, but that does seem to be the way.” 

Butler stated, “I think I have to go in and amend our ordinances to do that.”  Laney commented, “We could waive it.  It could be standing and then we could say, ‘For any Conditional Use Permit we could say it would be a two hearing process that could be waived if we wanted to and do it in one or we could set the rule aside.”  Butler commented, “We have some Conditional Use Permits that are pretty simple and they’re easy to do.”  Laney stated, “Lay that aside and all we do is vote before we did it that okay we are choosing to set aside our second hearing.”  Butler commented, “I would have to amend our ordinances if you wanted to have it that way that there would be at least two hearings.” 

Head asked, “To enforce that meeting it seems like on quarries no one ever bothers to come until the night of the Planning Commission.  The difference is that quarry has been there for a long time and all of that emotion and bad things maybe they were that dirt pit or maybe it was the neighboring dirt pit. To enforce that meeting before we ever hear it.  Can you make them come together in one place here and debate the whole deal because that meeting never happens until here?”  Richey asked, “Are you talking about between the applicant and the neighbors?”  Head replied, “Yes.”  Richey asked, “I don’t know do you want to enforce them to have a meeting?  I’m trying to think of the City of Fayetteville if they require neighborhood meetings.” Butler commented, “I would have to think about that and go back and of course think about whether or not a way to do that and then how I would write it and the only other thing would be to when we’ve got one of those and they come in for the first time and they’ve said a lot of stuff and there’s a lot of things to be sorted out and there’s a lot of emotion there needs to be time for thought.  It maybe that Staff might be able to come up with some more conditions or that the developer might even offer some more conditions, it would be to move to table it until next month and come back let us think about all this.  Staff check out A, B, C, and D that was said here tonight come back I feel like we need maybe some more stringent or specific conditions and things like that.”

Head stated, “I think that the only way that you’re ever going to keep all those dirt pits cleaned up is having some plan at the end and you know all of them don’t have limestone I assume to take.  At some point I assume the economy will change and I assume that there is going to be more need for more of that and we’re going to see more of it that’s the only thing.  It is always going to be in the County, it’s never going to be in the City, so we’re going to get every one of them every single time.” 

Laney commented, “I don’t think I like the idea of having to vote to table it because then everybody feels like we come up here ready to make a decision.”  Butler stated, “I wouldn’t think that would be a waste of time because you’re going to have another public meeting and listen to and gives you time to think, they would be able to come back and meet in public, Staff could come back with additional recommendations and the developer might, and then you might be ready to make your decision.”

Head commented, “My only thought is maybe we should set some standards for what we would accept in the form of a gravel pit, mine, or a red dirt pit with bigger setbacks and with more stringent rules and conditions.”  Butler stated, “Some of those things would be kind of uniform that you would go ahead and tell them and some things are going to kind of depend on the subject.”  Head commented, “The more uniform we could make it on the front end we could keep everybody from wasting a whole bunch of time.  If you don’t have 100’ of setback don’t bring it in here, don’t try to buy a little piece of land next to a bunch of other people and turn it into a dirt pit.  If we could agree on some standards that make your job a whole lot easier then trying to enforce every time they walk in here.  Just some setback standards, George, not necessarily … every time we always hear about traffic, road conditions, breaking windows, and all that stuff, so if we could go into it and say if you’re going to build one of these we have to have this kind of road, this kind of ingress/egress, and this much setback put it wherever you want to.”  Daugherty stated, “We expect you to live by those rules.”  Head commented, “Don’t bring it in here and then have to listen to broken windshield stories because I understand that no one wants to live next to something like that or explosions when they start talking about only blowing things up once in awhile.”   

Butler stated, “Prior to that I feel like I would have to go back to the Quorum Court with an ordinance or we could just develop our own set of general guidelines to be consulted saying, ‘These are the kind of things that we’re going to probably look at and want to impose and amend them.”

Laney commented, “This is a good topic, but I want to go back to getting the parties together I think that we could just administratively host that if the Staff wanted to host a listening session with the proponent and with the neighbors.  The Board doesn’t even need to be there if you just want to get them together we don’t have to have an ordinance to that we could just host it and obviously the proponent is going to feel like I need to come, but they don’t have to come I would suppose.”

Head asked, “Today maybe not that big as a deal considering there’s not so much going on, but you know we can’t plan that there’s not going to be.  When there is we’re going to see more of those coming before this Commission in fairness to the neighbors and in fairness to the guy trying to put in a business we ought to say here’s the minimum that we will be comfortable in ever granting for a quarry or a red dirt pit.  Here’s how far you got to be from somebody, sort of we got that, but maybe that’s not … if it’s 25’ from the line and I’m your neighbor I’m not happy.  If you would have bought more land I suppose you would have had less problem, is that generally the fact?”  Richey replied, “To me that was a constraining factor of that particular site because it was only like 50 acres.  That constrains what they could do and still be able to dig.”

Laney stated, “I would be in favor of two readings for Conditional Use Permits and then we could waive that.”  Richey asked, “I’m not in favor of … can we ask George if we can look at time that directly only Conditional Use Permits that fall under like the high intensity stuff that we have.  I don’t want to have mandatory two readings for all Conditional Use Permits.”  Laney commented, “I said mandatory but we could waive it all we have to do is approve it.”  Richey stated, “You’re talking about frustration of people like not knowing when to take off work and for how long.”  Laney commented, “I understand that, but I’m saying I didn’t know if we could just single out … If you’ve got some words to single out high intensity.”  Richey asked, “If we can are you for that?”  Laney replied, “Yes, for quarries and red dirt pits.” 

Daugherty stated, “Here’s what happens to me is I need some time to separate fact from emotion.  As I thought about it the next day if given time I probably would have voted different and not been caught up in what I guess for lack of a better word mob mentality.  I felt like I need time to separate or do a better job personally of separating fact from emotion.  The other thing is before I vote I would like to know what other members sometimes they have good ideas and I would like to hear from other groups in our panel other people, so that might help me make a better decision.  As I look back at that I should have asked Billy Sweetser to come up and maybe answer some of those concerns or see if he could have addressed some of those concerns.  As I think back he really maybe didn’t get a real opportunity to address all the concerns we had.  My concern is we don’t go through a process where we totally limit commerce in the County and right now you’re probably not going to get a dirt pit passed and you probably couldn’t set up a livestock auction.  It’s going to be hard to do the things that people don’t want to live next to.  It’s going to become extremely more difficult and I don’t know how we address those issues, but I don’t think that we want to stop commerce.  In essence, I felt like I did the other night with the way that I voted.  I really had a hard time deciding on that one and I needed a little bit of time to analyze it.”

Haley commented, “I think that it is still going to be very controversial whether you have 100’ or 50’ you’re going to still have the same basic issues no one wants it there.  I think that we need to be extremely careful of the appearance we give if we table something because it could give the appearance that we are not wanting to deal with it.  These people have invested their time and I think that we do need to be accountable in making decisions.”

Butler stated, “I think that you need to articulate very clearly why you’re tabling it.”  Head commented, “I’m not arguing that it is still not contentious, but we have to make a decision on what we think is reasonable as far as setbacks.”  Butler commented, “If you don’t want to use the word table you could say you move to continue the hearing to the next meeting.” 

Head stated, “Maybe the setbacks are 500’, if we’re never going to vote on another one that is not 500’ then we ought to say that, but we ought not send people thorough this process and then sit up here and turn them down every time because five people get up here and yell and scream.  There ought to be some more standards set.  I don’t want to scare anybody and put one next to someone that doesn’t want one.  I don’t want one in my backyard and neither do you at the same time I don’t want to lead someone to believe that they can go get one and go to all the trouble to get one and then get in here and go nope too many people don’t like it, that’s not fair to anybody in the deal.  It is all about fair and if we can set standards that unless you have a whole lot of land and the setbacks are deep this Committee or the County or however you want to say it if it’s got to be a County ordinance if the Justices of the Peace say, ‘Hey, if you want a dirt pit it’s got to be in the middle of a lot of land and you own the roads in and out and you don’t dust people and you don’t leave gravel, you know what I’m saying, or gravel mine or whatever.”

Butler commented, “Even then it is still problematic for the simple fact you got to go where the rock is, you got to go where the red dirt is.”  Head asked, “You have to buy enough land not to run your neighbor’s land, that’s my point.  That’s what it boils down to; you got to buy enough land if you’re going to do it not to run your neighbor’s land.  What is enough land?” 

Daugherty stated, “It’s like Gary said in this case he was already there, so that made it extremely more difficult for me to decide.”  Butler commented, “He was already there and there was a quarry close by.”  Daugherty commented, “The other thing that concerns me is when you voted down the appeal process that they have to go through that is quite a bit of … I don’t know if there is an easier appeal process.  It’s like you say either to have a second reading or sometime for them to be able to react to what the problems are somehow.”

Richey stated, “I think as far as tabling something, to me there are almost always on cases like this something brought up that we haven’t talked about yet.  For instance on this last one (Big Red Dirt Farm, LLC Conditional Use Permit) they brought up that U of A Research Farm with radioactive waste or whatever.  I was thinking about that well, I know that has been cleaned up, but I don’t know how that was cleaned up if it was buried properly on-site or if it has been hauled somewhere else.  To me when people bring things up I think it is fine to say that you’re going to table it if you say, ‘Hey, you brought up some new things or I need to think about it,’ to me that is respectful to them, don’t you think?  I think it is.  To me you’re saying, ‘I’m listening very carefully to what you’re saying and I need time to digest it and think about it.”

Head commented, “When we table something it is 30 more days.”  Laney stated, “We did one down in the old shop where we had people all over the place and I remember we tabled that one.”  Daugherty commented, “That does help some because it gives everybody a time to kind of cool off and digest the information.”  Laney stated, “I’m all for getting the parties together and everybody knows that I’m for finding solutions, but if I’m a proponent I’m just going to be proactive, I’m going to be out there sponsoring neighborhood meetings, I’m going to be doing it, so I don’t have a lot of sympathy for guys who show up here and say, ‘Well, I never got a chance to answer it,’ because I can’t believe in that case … There had been a lot of complaints about windshields and all this stuff that came up here, so I didn’t vote reactive to that, I just want to make that clear.  I try not to react to the emotion or in matter of fact sometimes that would make me vote the other way because I thought some of those people were very rude, so I try to ignore my emotions and go with the facts the best that I can understand them.”

 Head commented, “My feeling was there was already one next door I didn’t really see creating monopoly.”  Daugherty stated, “One of the issues with me was I guess I struggle in my mind was maybe the maintenance they had how they had taken care of the property in the past and I’m thinking now are they really going to do what they say they’re going to do in the future?  I was trying to digest all of that in my mind and say, ‘Can I really believe that we can hold them accountable?’  ‘Do I really believe that they are going to do what the neighbors need them to do in this case?’  The hardest part for me was the creditability part of it because of what we heard about the past and then I didn’t want to get caught up in I know that it is the benefit of the County to have this commerce from a tax position and then I thought do I vote for that reason or do I vote for what’s best for these neighbors in this case?  When it came down to I thought well, I finally have to vote my conscious in this case, which is really taking care of the neighbors, but I think looking back I might have heard Gary’s comments might have changed my mind or it might not have, but those are all good issues to consider.”

Laney asked, “George, when you’re withholding approvals like this, which is separate from the Quorum Court where they are coming up with legislation, here we’re a ruling body and somebody touches all the right points gets their app. ready and they’re ready to go, are we denying them a hearing?  In other words, could we just say, ‘You know what, our experience has been early on in the apps. that Staff is going to recommend that we do a public listening the first time and then the second time act.  Could we just write that into our rules or are we denying them their right by spreading it over 60 days?”  Butler asked, “You said write it into our rules do you mean?”  Laney replied, “Our own Committee rules that we have an administrative process where by if it is a quarry or other thing that’s … I don’t know how we word it.”  Richey asked, “Like your By-laws?”  Laney replied, “Our own By-laws then you could come for us and on the agenda Staff is recommending that we take a listening session first and then we’ll vote on it the next month and we could say, ‘We don’t like the recommendation we’re going to vote tonight.’  That’s a way to do it.”  Butler commented, “I need to think about that.”  Laney stated, “Okay, think about that and if it would work, if we had that flexibility, I’m not just sure if the public quote has a right to get a decision the first time, I don’t think they do.”  Butler commented, “I don’t think so because we’ve tabled things before back before zoning.”  Laney stated, “We’re denying them if we spread it out a year.  60 days which I recognize interests relatively speaking that is not a long time.”

Daugherty asked, “Why was the appeal process set up the way it was?  Why does it go to the Circuit Court?”  Butler replied, “It’s that way by State law and let me explain to you a little bit what the difference is between the County and the City.  You see things being appealed to the City Council all of the time.  Our enabling legislation for zoning says, ‘You appeal it from an appealing of the Board of Zoning of Adjustment to Circuit Court’ that’s what it says.  The Planning legislation is an enabling legislation is worded a little bit different such that we were able to say that you make your appeal to the County Judge before you go to Circuit Court.  The City enabling legislation on zoning says the same thing as ours that you go directly to Circuit Court and I was wondering about that one day and I was talking with some Planner from one City and I said, ‘Well, the reason that we do that is we actually have the Planning Board make the decision and because Planning Board’s decisions per State law can go to the City Council.  We got legislation passed in 2007 session that the Quorum Court if it wanted to could elect to become the Board of Appeals for the Planning and Zoning Board.  They have not necessary been anxious to take that on and it can’t be like we’re going to do it in this case and not that case, you are or you aren’t.”  Laney commented, “You’ll be hearing everything twice in my opinion.”  Butler stated, “I think either way you went there was going to be an appeal and even if you had another administrative in between it was going to go on to Court because people feel so strongly about these things whether they’re rightly or wrongly, they feel very strongly about them.  They’re going to go to Court.  If you had granted it the neighbors would have appealed now the developers are going to appeal I know that they are going to appeal I talked to his attorney, I talked to him again today.  I know that the neighbors are going to join in the appeal and get their own attorney.  Strongly enough the other Conditional Use Permit (Jones Shop CUP) that you granted the other night the neighbors are going to appeal that.  I found that out today and I said, ‘What?’  Head commented, “They tore that old building down by the way, that building is gone.”  Butler stated, “He wants to put his plumbing business next to his house.”  Head commented, “About 150 yards (to the east) from there is a huge Webb’s Plumbing and there’s trucks.”

Laney asked, “What do you all think of the idea that I gave that we would write in our if George attests it and it is all right that we would write in our By-laws that on dirt pits and quarries.”  Richey asked, “We could use that.  We have that separate definition for the high impact Large Scale Developments we could say that anything that qualifies for that which is dirt pits, quarries, or huge traffic generators, essentially; could we use that say if it applies to that?”  Butler replied, “I need to think about that and go back and look at the legislation again and our own ordinance to see whether or not I think that we have the authority to do that within our own By-laws as opposed to having to go to the Quorum Court.  I’m sure that the Quorum Court would be happy to do that, but it would be quicker I realize to implement if you could do it by your own By-laws.”         

Richey stated, “When people come in I tell them, they ask me how long does it take to get this Conditional Use Permit and what I usually tell them is depending on if it is very contentious something like where you have a lot of opposition or it is something completely new that we have not heard yet that was brought up at the meeting then there is a chance that it will be tabled.”  Laney commented, “Under the appeal thing, there are very few Judges that don’t have plenty to do already they’re not going to be very high on substituting their judgment for the judgment of this panel.  It is de novo, I know.”  Butler stated, “Interesting enough, under Arkansas law it is de novo it doesn’t make any difference what happened at this level, he or she is going to know.  I have been trying to look at some case laws whether or not you guys can even testify at that hearing.  No, it doesn’t make any difference what they voted or why they voted the way they did, but then the other side is well you’re kind of may not be considered quote experts you’re at least what we call learned layman because you sit on the Planning Board, you know the rules and regulations, you’ve sit here and listened to these before and so you might be able to come in as what we call a learned layman to offer your opinion to the Court, which you know is not the same as an expert opinion, but kind of a step down from that, no Arkansas cases, but the cases that I read they kind of basically left it to the discretion of the Court if they feel like they want to hear it whether or not and how much weight that they are going to give to it, because really the Court starts from scratch but he or she may want to hear from the Planning Board.  Juliet will have to testify because right now when someone will go to trial it will be like we’re just appearing before them having a meeting and the Judge and matter of fact these things can have a jury, if you want to have a jury they just had a jury trial in Benton County on a Planning issue and I thought how in the world did they try that case to a jury, but they did.  It will be like the Judge and if we have a jury sitting there as if they were the Zoning Board and making the decision for the first time.”

Haley asked, “George, along that line and you may have already explained this, but I think I need it explained one more time, what is the difference in what we are discussing with this quarry and the one that was in Summers (Legacy Rock Quarries LSD)?”  Butler replied, “That Judge Jerry Hunton reversed? We didn’t have zoning then, at that time there was not any zoning, so it was strictly a Large Scale Development and outside of zoning when you have what we call subdivision controls and things like that, if something in this case it was a Large Scale Development that is another species as subdivision, if it meets your minimum criteria which it did on Large Scale Developments we don’t have a whole lot we have more than we did on things like quarries, but still not a whole lot once they meet your minimum guidelines you have to grant it, it has to be granted, you have no discretion.  In zoning even on the Planning side if it was a case of a variance you’ve got some discretion on granting variances.  On the zoning side if someone was seeking to re-zone or they were seeking a Conditional Use Permit then you have a certain amount of discretion, there is an objective component, but there is also some subjectivity to it, too because you decide how much weight you’re going to give to what so on and so forth.  You have some discretion, so therefore no one is automatically entitled to a variance or a Conditional Use Permit they are subject to discretion.”  Haley asked, “Basically, on a Large Scale Development it is black and white on the Conditional Use Permits then we do have the discretion based on safety or you know whatever?”  Butler replied, “Right, just based on the criteria based in the ordinance you have discretion if you feel like it violates any of those and the conditions that have been offered do not cure those violations then you can vote to deny it or if you think that under the circumstances and with the conditions that are being put on it that it is capable of being compatible and all of the other things in the ordinance and so forth.  Again, you know you go to Court and it is de novo and a Judge, I don’t know since I’ve never tried one of these before we had that one appeal from Greenland (Northwest Arkansas Auto Auction CUP) and they appealed it and then they just went away, the appeal has not been dropped yet the case is just hanging there.  I understand the developers have decided not to do it.  I don’t know how a Judge will be looking at this; I know that we’ve had some appeals like from the City of Fayetteville zoning decisions to Circuit Court and what not.  I can go back and look at some of those specifically.  I don’t know if there have been any recently with any of our City Judges, I know there are some older ones like with Judge Butt, but of course he is gone now so I couldn’t talk to him and pick his brain about how he looked at those things.  I’ll have to look and see if any of our current Judges have had any.  Of course, I don’t know who the Judge will be, you don’t know until it gets filed and gets assigned a number, and so I’ll probably wait and see which Judge it is and then talk to another Judge that I know has heard one before to see how he or she has viewed those cases.  What the law says is it is de novo and starting from scratch it will be interesting to hear what he or she has to say about this is how I look at them, I do or I don’t allow testimony from the Board or things like that.”

Laney asked, “Can you do some further research to see if we can do it administratively through our own By-laws.”  Butler replied, “Yes.” 

Richey asked, “I just want to say I was going to try to whenever you all make a motion and a second and then vote.  Sometimes because it is harder to hear on the tape this doesn’t really have to do with this situation in particular, but just in meetings past.  Would it be okay if I have Amanda Kimbel, Washington County Planning Technician, repeat back to you, I have whatever Bob made the motion and Gary seconded, these people voted yes and these people voted no just for clarity?”  Daugherty asked, “Is that after the motion has been made is that where we really need to discuss it as a Board or can discuss it as a Board is that the proper format?”  Richey replied, “It is where you discuss the motion whatever that motion is.  To me, you can discuss the project before then.”  Butler commented, “Right, on the Quorum Court I’ve seen it done both ways where they discuss it before they made a motion or sometimes they’ll do a motion and then there will be a second or they may have discussed it for awhile and then some of them will do a motion and then a second and then there will be more discussion.”  Richey asked, “To me, once you make a motion then your discussion should be on that motion the specifics of that motion, right?”  Butler replied, “Yes.”  Richey stated, “Which in your case is usually the project approval or denial.” 

• Discussion of possible wind farm ordinances in the future

Richey stated, “We’ve had a couple of people approach us about wind farms.  Today, I had somebody call me and say that their neighbor has been approached by a large development company that does wind farms.  We’re looking into some research on them.  Courtney McNair and I have been working on it.  Courtney has done most of the research.  There are things to be worried about as with everything.  They have noise issues related with them, the noise of the generators themselves and then also there’s certain type of kind of like repetitive whooshing noise that the blades make, environmental impacts, setbacks from property owners, fall zones, maintenance, and future abandonment.  A lot of the things that there are to worry about it is kind of similar in some ways to cell towers except they have moving parts.  Right now, George and I have discussed it and if somebody does approach us then it would be a Conditional Use Permit.  I’m going to send a letter to this guy that his neighbor called and said that he knows that he has been approached and just make sure that he knows that it would need to go through a process before it could be approved.  I was a little surprised personally that we have now been approached twice about this in different situations because I had always understood that we were in a pretty marginal area as far as wind goes.”  Laney commented, “It depends on how big the credits get if the House doesn’t pass this bill that the Senate just past they are all going away anyway because the credits are going away.”  Butler stated, “They were about to expire for wind and solar.”  Laney commented, “That gets into a pretty broad policy, clearly they are covered under our current … they would have to be a Conditional Use Permit, but beyond that it becomes to me very big political issue because, again, it’s like you got to go where the wind is.  You can’t pick where the red dirt is, you can’t put an industrial park because the wind blows where the wind blows.  We’re all for greener and we’re all for that.  I hope we don’t have a Global Warming hearing here at the Planning Board and decide.  I would be cautious about trying to come up with a whole bunch …”

Head stated, “I don’t feel any different about a wind farm then I do a gravel pit, it is contentious.”  Daugherty commented, “It can go the same way.”  Richey stated, “I think there are a lot of the same issues that I think we are going to run into like the size of people’s tracts like do you have enough land to put enough wind mills on to make enough money, but you don’t have wind mills right up against somebody else’s property line.  I think there are going to be some issues.” 

Butler commented, “If I had to chose between a quarry, a dirt pit, and a wind farm, I would take a wind farm if I had to chose.”  Head stated, “I wouldn’t want to have to chose.  I guarantee all of them that will be in here talking to us won’t want to chose that either.”  Richey stated, “I just thought that was interesting because the first time we were approached I was like, ‘Well, these are people who are interested in wind farms in general and I thought they might be overly optimistic,’ but apparently they’re not and this may truly be something that is coming to Northwest Arkansas.”

Butler commented, “Winds are too marginal, but maybe if you get on top of a flat mountain.”  Richey stated, “That is what they are talking about is their high points and large open areas where you have a lot of wind and it’s spotty.  To me, I think that we do need to do some research and I think that it would be good like you were talking about with dirt pits let’s at least lay out some basic perimeters and say, ‘Here’s the things that we’re going to be looking at and you better have at least good answers for all these things,’ maybe not a minimum acreage size or whatever.  I think that it is something that just from doing a little bit of research I think that it is complex enough of an issue, but I think that it would … who best to start educating ourselves now in case it really does come up.” 

Laney commented, “I agree and Bob’s point earlier about not stopping commerce in the County and what the more likely scenario is going to be a lot of gas and other kind of drilling and all that, if you really want to talk about something that is likely to happen.  I understand the Fayetteville shale is here it is just a little more expensive to recover so they’re going where it’s not first.”  Butler asked, “Some is in Washington County?”  Laney replied, “That’s what I understand and it is just harder to recover.  I think that the possibility of having … we don’t need to get into our own political opinion about what we should and shouldn’t be regulating, but I think that is a more near term thing then a wind farm in my view.”  Richey stated, “Maybe that is something that we need to look into as well.  I know, I went to a County Road like a County Judge’s conference for the Arkansas Association of Counties and we talked about our road standards and things.  There are a lot of Counties that are hurting really bad because all of their roads are ripped up because of gas drilling rigs and it’s really hard.  How do you address it and how do you weigh that in there?  I think that issue and this issue I think it is more important than ever that we did go ahead and extend zoning to the rural parts of the County because all of these things are going to happen in really rural areas, not where you have the same kind of problems that we have with really dense subdivisions and things like that, but they’re going to be uses that people are not expecting and people have invested in that land for … different people own huge lands that are for hunting and things like that, it is going to change things pretty radically.  I think that it is good that we have a system at least to be able to evaluate it to some degree not that it will be any fun to do it.” 

Daugherty commented, “We won’t be here then.  Our term is about up, Gary.”           

• Any other general Planning Department or Planning Board Business

 Gary Head moved to adjourn. Robert Daugherty seconded.  Motion passes.

Planning Board adjourned.

Minutes submitted by: Amanda Kimbel

Approved by the Planning Board on:

                                                                 ________Randy Laney_______________ Date: __11/06/08________

                                  Randy Laney, Planning Board Chairman

MINUTES

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD

&

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS

November 6, 2008

5:00 p.m., Quorum Courtroom, New Courthouse

Fayetteville, Arkansas

DEVELOPMENTS REVIEWED:                                                                                                              ACTION TAKEN:

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARINGS

Fayetteville Planning Area

a. 250' Self Support Tower – S. Mally Wagnon Road CUP                     Tabled

Fayetteville Planning Area

b. Turner Treehouse CUP                                                                     Conditional Use Permit Approval

County

c.  Smith & Barker CUP                                                                       Tabled

County

d. Crossroads Wireless – Colony CUP                                                   Tabled

County

e. Crossroads Wireless – Dutch Mills CUP                                            Tabled

County

f. Crossroads Wireless – Ray CUP                                                        Tabled

LAND DEVELOPMENT HEARINGS

County

g.  Smith & Barker Minor Subdivision                                     Preliminary and Final Plat Approval

County

h. Teen Challenge Ranch of NWA LSD                                                Final LSD Plan Approval

Fayetteville Planning Area

i.   David Jones Plumbing LSD                                                             Preliminary LSD Plan Approval

Fayetteville Planning Area

j.  Twin Springs Estates Phase 2                                                            Removed from the agenda

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken.  Members present include: Robert Daugherty (came in a little late), Kenley Haley, Randy Laney, and Cheryl West.  Absent: Larry Walker and Gary Head.

Laney stated, “We will postpone the approval of the minutes since we can’t approve it because we don’t have a quorum.  New Business we can’t do.  We can talk about our Old Business or Other Business while we are waiting (Robert Daugherty).  We don’t have to have a quorum to do that.”

OLD BUSINESS

OTHER BUSINESS

• Review possible changes to by-laws

Laney stated, “We could hold on the By-laws because that was something that Bob was particularly interested in.”

• Discussion of Corridor Zoning progress

Juliet Richey, Washington County Planning Director, stated, “The corridor zoning that is what we’ve talked about before is basically going and zoning most of those corridors.  We’re leaving a couple of areas blank.”

Laney asked, “We talked about that last month.  I thought that maybe you had an update.  Has it gone to County Services Committee?”  Richey replied, “It is going to be on third and final reading at the Quorum Court this month (November 13, 2008) and they’ve given me pretty much no feedback.”  Laney commented, “It has been pretty much no feedback from anywhere.”  Richey stated, “Except for you all and the cities we talked to.”  Laney commented, “As far as public or any Quorum Court discussion has been pretty quiet.”  Richey stated, “I hope it will pass.  I do have a little bit of an update.  I met with the City of Fayetteville yesterday to kind of talk about some future like how we’re going to deal with the areas that we are leaving unzoned and how to progress forward in the future.  We also talked about those red dirt pits and quarries that are in that area adjacent to their City limits; I told them we would probably want to get some feedback from them on those.  We kind of had a preliminary discussion.”

Laney asked, “Is there any kind of a timeline associated with us leaving those for future consideration?  Leaving those little barriers unzoned the ones they requested the different cities asked for like the City of Springdale?”  Richey replied, “We didn’t set one.  I’m hoping it will be something we can… we’re not going to start anything before Christmas, but after the New Year I’m hoping it is something that we can get done in like six months.”  Laney commented, “I was thinking of what our role would be, but if it is sometime after the year I would want us to make a different proposal to the Quorum Court.”  Richey stated, “I agree with that.”

Laney commented (to the audience), “We don’t have a quorum yet, so the official voting and things we can’t do.  We’re dealing with some of the miscellaneous stuff waiting on another member to show up, so I apologize to you all that showed up on time.”

• Discussion of Current Development within the County

Richey stated, “That just goes over some of the development that we’ve had lately in the County.”  Laney asked, “It’s safe to say it’s still very slow?”  Richey replied, “Yes.” 

Haley asked, “Do we have very many like subdivisions or splits that have been proposed in the past that haven’t gone through that are just sitting out there?  If we do, they just sit out there forever?”  Richey replied, “No, if it got Preliminary approval they have a certain timeframe in which to start construction on those and then a certain timeframe in which to finish.  When they start construction they put up bonds for the improvements so if it is hanging out there and being a problem then we can fix it.  We’ve had to do that twice already with some that have lapsed.  If they never start construction then their approval lapses after a year.” 

• Any other general Planning Department or Planning Board Business

Richey stated, “We’ve been talking about wind; we’ve had a couple of e-mails about that.  How that works is when people are looking at doing a Large Scale wind farm the first step is putting up a tower; it looks kind of like a cell tower except it has meteorological equipment on that top that measures the wind because obviously they don’t want to invest a lot of money unless they know that the wind is good there.  Usually they keep those up for about a year.  We’re getting our first application for that this month for a meteorological tower out at Sunset, so you’ll be seeing that next month. I don’t expect that to be contentious.  It will be Conditional Use because it is a commercial tower and a lot of what we will be looking at on that is just kind of the same rules that we have that apply to cell towers; is it engineered, is it going to stand up, can it handle the wind and ice loads that are common for this area, is it setback from the road, are there any residences in the fall zone? And things like that.  There may be people that show up that are upset about it, but unless it is the tower itself is endangering someone else I don’t think there is going to be a problem with that use going through.  What that means is potentially in about a year we could be dealing with a full Wind Farm.  That is something to think about and something we’ll have to get ready for and work on.  Courtney McNair, Washington County Planner, and I are actually going to go attend a Wind Energy conference in Oklahoma City in December.  We’ve been doing some research, but we would like to go look into this some more.  I will probably be bringing something to you in a couple of months.  Probably after the first of the year probably the January meeting.” 

Laney commented, “If you would like to tour one ours is pretty near Wichita; it’s not too far.  The Empire Wind Farm if you would like to go see one.”  Richey stated, “Yes, we might need to go see one.”  Laney commented, “It is three and half to four hours away.” 

Richey commented, “I’m going to make some inquiries I’m not really sure where to start maybe with some of the University about the Fayetteville shale the gas drilling that is going on all over the State, not all over the State, but in the central area.  I don’t know if this is true or not, but I’ve heard that the Fayetteville shale formation does extend up here, but it’s harder to access.  It may be coming; just not until it becomes profitable.  I do want to look into that because I know that a lot of Counties had a lot of problems when all of that happened a lot of their roads got torn up by all of the equipment going in and out.  I think that is something that we should look into and also try to kind of prepare see what the problems are that are people are having so if it does come we’ll have something ready and on the books.”

Laney asked, “Can we go back to the agenda?”  Richey replied, “Yes.”

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (from the October 2, 2008 meeting) Kenley Haley made a motion to approve as written. Robert Daugherty provided the second.  Motion passes.

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:

Richey stated, “Item C (Smith & Barker CUP) is also going to be tabled at the request of the applicant; that wasn’t noted on your agenda.  Item G (Smith & Barker Minor Subdivision) is still on the agenda.  Items A (250' Self Support Tower – S. Mally Wagnon Road CUP), C (Smith & Barker CUP), D (Crossroads Wireless – Colony CUP), E (Crossroads Wireless – Dutch Mills CUP), and F (Crossroads Wireless – Ray CUP) are to be tabled and we need to remove Item J (Twin Springs Estates Phase 2) we haven’t had any new submittals on that in three months.  We’re going to have one Conditional Use Permit (Turner Treehouse) and three land development hearings (Smith & Barker Minor Subdivision, Teen Challenge Ranch Final LSD, and David Jones Plumbing Preliminary LSD).”  Robert Daugherty made a motion to approve the agenda. Cheryl West seconded.  Motion passes.

NEW BUSINESS

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARINGS

Fayetteville Planning Area

a. 250' Self Support Tower – S. Mally Wagnon Road CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request)

Location: Section 29, Township 16 North, Range 29 West

Owner/Developer: Jimmie and Bobbye Sexson

Representative: American Tower Corporation – Douglas Konrath (Project Manager)

Location Address: (closest addressed property) 2270 S. Mally Wagnon Road (WC #139)

17.71 acres and 1 unit / Proposed Land Use: 250’ Self Support Tower enclosed in 56’ x 100’ fenced area

Project #: 2008-182 Planner: Juliet Richey, e-mail at jrichey@co.washington.ar.us

Robert Daugherty moved to table 250' Self Support Tower – S. Mally Wagnon Road Conditional Use Permit. Cheryl West seconded.  Motion passes.

All Board members were in favor of tabling 250' Self Support Tower – S. Mally Wagnon Road Conditional Use Permit.

Fayetteville Planning Area

b. Turner Treehouse CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request)

Location: Section 32, Township 17 North, Range 29 West

Owner/Developer: Charles Turner / Sandy Ward

Location Address: 4315 E. Mission Blvd.

.68 acres and 1 unit / Proposed Land Use: Storage / Guesthouse

Project #: 2008-143 Planner: Courtney McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us

REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit Approval for Turner Tree House CUP to allow a guesthouse to be placed on the property in addition to the existing single-family home.  The proposed project is Lot 4 of Holiday Hills Subdivision (4315 E. Mission Blvd) located on 0.68 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: 

Charles Turner currently owns the property.  His daughter, Sandy Ward, will be representing the project.  The proposed project has access off of Mission Highway 45.

The Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow a guest house use in an area where the use of Agricultural or Single Family Residential 1 unit per acre is allowed by right, and all other proposed uses must be reviewed as Conditional Use Permit Requests by the County Planning Board. 

This property has an existing single-family residence and a 2-story storage building on site.

The applicant is asking to use the top (2^nd) floor of a storage building for a guesthouse. This would be a total of 2 single-family residences on 0.68 acres (or 1 unit per 0.34 acres). The applicant is not planning to use the guesthouse as a second residence (proposed to have a kitchen and bathroom), but it could be used as such in the future, so should be considered with this application. According to George Butler, Washington County Attorney, the Planning Board CANNOT place conditions on this project that restrict this proposed guesthouse from ever being used as a second single-family unit, this is why this permit must be considered as a separate, stand-alone dwelling unit.

Construction began before the applicant knew of the County Regulations. The applicant wanted to build a storage building in order to clean up the property and move other items from paid storage units into this structure, and to use the guesthouse for occasional use (See applicant’s letter page B-11). The building stopped on the guesthouse portion of the project while the personal storage building (which does not require a permit) was completed. The applicant is now asking to finish the upper floor out to be used as a guesthouse.

One of the first concerns with this project is that a portion of the building  (about two feet) is in the five-foot utility easement running along the South part of the property. As the storage building was nearly complete (only interior work remained) the first time staff visited the site, the best option was to communicate with the utilities to see if they had facilities in this easement. The applicant had called Arkansas One Call prior to beginning construction, so was certain that no utilities were located in the area that the structure was built. After checking with the utilities, Ozarks Electric, Arkansas Western Gas, and Cox Communications have no issues with the location of the structure (no utilities are located in this UE). ATT wants to vacate the part of the easement that the building sits on. Any lines must be located first and then a decision will be made on how ATT plans to vacate the easement (they have no lines in the easement, they want to give up that part of the easement so that in the future they will know that it is not available to them). This must all be resolved prior to the guesthouse being occupied. In addition, the applicant will be responsible if, in the future, additional costs are incurred by the utility companies because of the location of this structure.

Another major concern of this project is the septic system. Staff was concerned that the lot is not large enough to accommodate an additional septic system to service this guesthouse, and was uncertain if the existing septic system would be adequate. Melissa Wonnacott, Arkansas Health Department, inspected the existing septic system and found it to be working properly. According to her letter (See page B-17) “the additional structure, which will have very little use because it is mainly for storage, should not adversely affect the existing system.”  The new structure has now been connected to the existing system. Ms. Wonnacott also stated in her letter that if the current system ever malfunctions/fails, the applicant understands that a new septic system will be required.

Water facilities from City of Fayetteville Water have already been placed, and they have no further comment (the waterline is not located in the five-foot UE on the South part of the property). The Washington County Road Department has no comment as this project has access from State Hwy. 45. There were also no fire or drainage concerns.

The City of Fayetteville Planning Office had no comments on this project because it would be allowed according to the City of Fayetteville Unified Development Code, Section 164.19, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) (See attached B-18 - B-21).  According to the code, ADUs shall be permitted by right on lots containing 5,000 sq ft or more in residential zones. This property is 0.68 acres or 29,620.8 sq ft. The proposed project is also compatible with the Future Land Use in this area (See page B-28).

The Planning Office received some complaints about trash on this site, and burning on this site. Robyn Reed, Environmental Affairs has contacted the applicant and let them know about the proper way to remove bulky construction waste from their site. If complaints continue after construction is complete (and adequate time to clean up the property is allowed), Ms. Reed will conduct a follow-up inspection.

Staff has received one written comment at this time (See pages B-13 – B-15). The neighbor is concerned with the disputed access easement to the West of this property (See site plan on page B-24), and with burning on this site. In Arkansas it is legal to burn yard waste and brush, the applicant is aware of the restrictions due to the conversation with Robyn Reed. Any other material will not be burned. In addition to the one written comment, staff received a phone call from another neighbor concerned with the disputed access easement.

This disputed easement is NOT giving access to the proposed guesthouse, and therefore does not directly affect this project, however, given the response, staff thought it best to address this issue. There is a gate on the West side of the Turner property that was previously used to access the backyard, but, now the yard and the storage building/proposed guesthouse are accessed by a drive on the East side of this property. The applicant does have some travel trailers located on the North side of the property within the disputed easement. The concerned neighbors want the applicant to remove the travel trailers so that the fence may be moved to the actual property line. It appears that the fence has been in place since at least 2005 (See pages B-29 – B-33).  Staff was unable to find record on file with the Circuit Clerk of this easement. However, as this does not directly affect the proposed project, and the applicant is in the process of trying to locate the original agreement that describes the easement, staff does not feel that this should be a condition of approval, and should be pursued as a matter solely between the property owners.

The proposed project is compatible with the neighboring densities, and should not impede the normal development of this area. Most of the properties in this area with direct access off of AR Hwy 45 are used for dense residential and commercial uses. The Washington County Conditional Use Permit Criteria Checklist (See attached pages B-6 – B-9) discusses in more detail, the compatibility of this project with the surrounding properties.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Conditional Use Permit approval of the proposed Turner Tree House CUP with the following conditions:

1.       Pay application fee $100.00.

2.       Pay mailing fees $75.21.

3.       As the building is within the utility easement (UE), the applicant may be responsible for additional costs to the utility companies if repair or relocation is necessary.

4.       The situation with ATT vacating part of the UE must be resolved prior to the guesthouse being occupied.

5.       If complaints concerning trash or burning on the property continue after construction is complete and adequate time to clean up the property is allowed, Robyn Reed, Environmental Affairs will conduct a follow-up inspection.

6.       If the existing septic system ever fails, it is required that a new system be installed.

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.

Sandy Ward (Charles Turner’s daughter), owner of the proposed project, was present to answer any questions.

Courtney McNair, Washington County Planner, stated, “This project is located in between the City of Fayetteville and the City of Goshen along Highway 45.  It is in the City of Fayetteville’s Planning Area and it is zoned one unit per acre agricultural or single-family.  What the applicant is asking for is to allow a guesthouse use in that one unit per acre area and they’ve already got an existing home on their property.  It is an existing family residence and a two-story storage building right now they want to use this second story of that storage building for the guesthouse use. What happened they originally started building this without the understanding that they needed to come through the County process to do a guesthouse use.  They decided to hold off on finishing out the guesthouse and just finished up the storage use, so even if this project doesn’t get approved as a guesthouse they will still be using the top floor as a part of their storage unit.  The building is in place, it is just asking for that top floor to be used for something different than it is right now.”

McNair added, “This project is located in an area that is on the Future Land Use map called ‘residential compatible to the surrounding densities’ and after a study of the surrounding densities it does seem that this is compatible with the adjacent densities.  There are commercial storage units right across the street.  There is a vacant lot (to the east), but it is within a residential subdivision so somebody could build one house on it because it is in the subdivision.  The Holiday Hills Cottages HPR (Horizontal Property Regime) where the individuals own the homes, but than the land is in one trust essentially where they all share the upkeep and everything, so the property owners own each individual home, but the land is shared.  That is a pretty high density of one unit per 0.19 acres (in the Holiday Hills Cottages HPR).  The Holiday Hills Homes HPR that is one unit per 0.31 acres and our site is asking for one unit per 0.34 acres essentially by adding this guesthouse.  I might need to ask George Butler, Washington County Attorney, about this we had initially had a conversation that said we couldn’t put a restriction on it to make it only a guesthouse because in the future someone else could buy the property and rent it as an apartment, so we were going to consider it as two single-family structures on this one lot essentially.”

Butler commented, “What I had said before is you couldn’t prohibit somebody from renting out their property, however, over the last couple of days I have finally gotten back to that issue and do some more research on it while I’m not completely at that yet I think under this scenario that you could prevent that house from being occupied full-time or rented out.  I’m pretty sure that is what my final opinion will be it’ll be a couple of weeks before I get back to it and finalize it, but in the meantime if you so desire I do think that you can put restrictions on it in terms of how long or how many days out of the year that it could be occupied or something like that.  I do think as a guesthouse, which contemplates intermittent use.  If they want to come back to use it full-time like if they want to move their mother-in-law there to live there full-time then they need to come back to get a Conditional Use.  I think that my final opinion will be you could prevent that from being rented out though they could still rent out their main house it would just be to rent out this one because it supposed to be a guesthouse.  I’m not 100% on that yet, but I think that you can put some restrictions on it if you so desire to allow only to be used intermittently and you’ll have to decide what you mean by intermittently.”   

McNair stated, “That’s something that you can think about, but that is not what I am recommending.  I actually did look at this as two single-family units on this one lot, so that is what my Staff recommendation is for if you want to consider this other.  I haven’t considered it, but if you want to think about that kind of while I am going through the rest of the Staff Report you can, but my recommendation is for two full-time use houses because that is how I understood it when I began the research on this project.”

McNair also stated, “There is a cell tower right across the street, too.  One of our very first concerns was that this is the storage proposed guesthouse there is only about 3’ between the built building and the fence and so we were worried because after some research we found that while Holiday Hills Subdivision (which is what this lot is part of) had no setbacks, so it’s not within a setback, it was in a 5’ utility easement by about 2’ and after speaking to the utilities they are okay with it they have no utilities in there and the only one that had a condition was AT & T Telephone they wanted to vacate part of it and perhaps get another easement at some other location on the property and the applicant and Ms. Ward has been working on that and she actually contacted AT & T and they came out today and so that is going through the process.  That is going to be one of our conditions that that is totally wrapped up before this building is occupied.”

 McNair added, “Another major concern is the septic system.  We didn’t feel like there was a whole lot of room in there between the existing house and the new structure so I asked Melissa Wonnacott, Arkansas Health Department, to go out on site personally.  She went out, she inspected it, and she watched them hook it up and she said everything is fine she submitted a letter as such, so that should not be an issue; if at anytime in the future it is and it does fail they will have to replace it.  That is the same for anybody else if your septic system fails you’re going to have to replace it and so they are aware of that.  Melissa Wonnacott really didn’t feel that there was going to be any issue with that.  As far as the other utilities the water facilities have already been in place, the City of Fayetteville Planning Office had no comments because this use would be allowed in a residential area in the City of Fayetteville.  A lot this size they would allow it by right, so they felt that it wasn’t out of the range to ask for it.”

McNair also added, “We did receive some complaints.  We had some complaints about trash on-site and burning on-site and Robyn Reed, Washington County Environmental Affairs Director / Officer, contacted the applicant and let them know the right way to remove their bulky waste.  The County has bulky waste cleanups in the spring and in the fall and the applicant understands that she can’t burn construction waste.  In Arkansas it is legal to burn your brush and your yard waste, but nothing else, so they understand that.  If it continues after this has been completed and cleaned up then Robyn will do a follow-up.  She thinks that the applicant understands and that there shouldn’t be a problem in the future with that.  Our other concern is a disputed 20’ access easement.  While I don’t feel like it actually impacts this Conditional Use Permit, it had a lot of attention so I thought that we should go ahead and discuss it.  There is a gate that the Turners used to use to bring stuff in and out of their backyard that has actually been closed off by the lady to the west with her fence and I don’t think they’ve used it since.  A condition is that they continue to use the east side of the property to access the guest house if it does get approval tonight.”

Laney asked, “They own the east side of their house, right?”  McNair replied, “Yes, this is on their property.”  Laney asked, “Are you saying they don’t own the west side?”  McNair replied, “The 20’ access easement is in dispute right now.  The applicant submitted something to me where she thought she had an agreement to use that.”  Laney asked, “That’s what I read, but why would we take a position on that?”  McNair replied, “I don’t think we should.  I just thought that you should be aware because we had so many neighbors…” Laney commented, “I thought you said you were going to restrict it where it could only go on the east side.”  McNair stated, “We can remove that condition.”  Laney commented, “It is just a property dispute between neighbors and we can’t make a decision on that.”  Butler stated, “Even I agree we can’t take a position on that if that is in dispute that’s going to have to be… they either have to reach a settlement or they’re going to have to go to Court.”  Laney commented, “That is something they need to work out through the Court system and we’re not that.”           

 Daugherty asked, “Can they use that for an entrance to the guesthouse?”  Butler replied, “I think that since it is in dispute right now that we can’t take a position on it one way or the other.”  Laney stated, “We can’t say, ‘Well, therefore they can’t use the west side because it is in dispute nor can we say they can use it.’  It is none of our business.”  Butler commented, “It’s either they’re going to settle it or they’re going to go to Court and a Judge is going to settle it.”  McNair stated, “For now it shouldn’t effect us because they are using the…”  Laney commented, “That’s what I heard you say.  That’s why I’m saying why should we take a position?”  McNair stated, “We will remove that condition.  It shouldn’t affect it because that is not how they are accessing; it is in dispute.  I don’t want to take a position on it either.”  Laney commented, “We still need to be adjudicating property access disputes, I don’t think.”  Butler stated, “That is correct.”  McNair commented, “Absolutely, I agree with you on that one.  I do think that will probably be brought up tonight, but I just wanted you to know I don’t think we should address that either I think that should be a matter between the neighbors just as Randy said.  The Holiday Hills Cottages have a more of a problem with that access easement.  Looking at the existing house you can just barely see the roofline behind it.  You couldn’t even see it from the front of the property.  As this has had so much attention and they have gone over and gotten all of the utilities corrected, Staff does recommend approval of this Conditional Use Permit to allow the Turner Treehouse Conditional Use Permit with removing condition #5 (Access to the guesthouse must be from the driveway on the East side of this property).”

Ward had nothing to add.

Laney stated, “I guess I would make a comment before we consider it.  This is a case of I think nobody intended to do anything wrong by moving ahead without and we have had changes, but I wouldn’t want anybody to get the idea that this the way to do projects is building without approval and then come in later and get your approval.  I would just point out that I ‘m sure the applicant would testify there has been a lot of cost and time that probably could have been avoided if it came in the front end; that’s my advice to people you’re going to have a risk that it won’t get approved plus you’ll have extra cost and time that otherwise wouldn’t have to be spent.  Just my observation.”

Robert Daugherty moved to approve Turner Treehouse Conditional Use Permit with conditions the exception of Condition #5. Cheryl West seconded.  Motion passes.

All Board members were in favor of approving Turner Treehouse Conditional Use Permit.

County

c.  Smith & Barker CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request)

Location: Section 8, Township 13 North, Range 30 West

Owner/Developer: Cheryl Smith and Charlotte Barker

Engineer/Surveyor: Gore Engineering & Land Surveying - Eddie Gore

Location Address: (closest addressed property) to the west of 10932 E. Devil’s Den Road (AR 74)

3.23 acres and 2 lots / Proposed Land Use: Commercial – beer in grocery store

Project #: 2008-197 Planner: Jessie Pettit, e-mail at jpettit@co.washington.ar.us

Robert Daugherty moved to table Smith & Barker Conditional Use Permit. Cheryl West seconded.  Motion passes.

All Board members were in favor of tabling Smith & Barker Conditional Use Permit.

County

d. Crossroads Wireless – Colony CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request)

Location: Section 18, Township 16 North, Range 33 West

Owner/Developer: Lawrence and Joan Pharr

Representative: Site Excell – Alissa Coffield (Director of Collocations)

Location Address: **At the curve on Highway 59**

84.62 acres and 1 unit / Proposed Land Use: Telecommunications site

Project #: 2008-184 Planner: Jessie Pettit, e-mail at jpettit@co.washington.ar.us

Robert Daugherty moved to table Crossroads Wireless – Colony Conditional Use Permit. Cheryl West seconded.  Motion passes.

All Board members were in favor of tabling Crossroads Wireless – Colony Conditional Use Permit.

County

e. Crossroads Wireless – Dutch Mills CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request)

Location: Section 21, Township 14 North, Range 33 West

Owner/Developer: Harley and Charlotte Webb

Representative: Site Excell – Alissa Coffield (Director of Collocations)

Location Address: 22570 Dutch Mills Road (WC #418 and WC #419)

97.90 acres and 1 unit / Proposed Land Use: Telecommunications site

Project #: 2008-185 Planner: Courtney McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us

Robert Daugherty moved to table Crossroads Wireless – Dutch Mills Conditional Use Permit. Cheryl West seconded.  Motion passes.

All Board members were in favor of tabling Crossroads Wireless – Dutch Mills Conditional Use Permit.

County

f. Crossroads Wireless – Ray CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request)

Location: Section 26, Township 13 North, Range 33 West

Owner/Developer: Lee Roy and Joann Goldman

Representative: Site Excell – Alissa Coffield (Director of Collocations)

Location Address: (closest addressed property) 21679 Hwy. 59 (WC #4424 Res. Dr. Mountain Top)

70 acres and 1 unit / Proposed Land Use: Telecommunications site

Project #: 2008-186 Planner: Courtney McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us

Robert Daugherty moved to table Crossroads Wireless – Ray Conditional Use Permit. Cheryl West seconded.  Motion passes.

All Board members were in favor of tabling Crossroads Wireless – Ray Conditional Use Permit.

LAND DEVELOPMENT HEARINGS

County

g.  Smith & Barker Minor Subdivision (Preliminary and Final Plat Approval Request)

Location: Section 8, Township 13 North, Range 30 West

Owner/Developer: Cheryl Smith and Charlotte Barker

Engineer/Surveyor: Gore Engineering & Land Surveying - Eddie Gore

Location Address: (closest addressed property) to the west of 10932 E. Devil’s Den Road (AR 74)

3.23 acres and 2 lots / Proposed Land Use: Commercial – beer in grocery store

Project #: 2008-196 Planner: Jessie Pettit, e-mail at jpettit@co.washington.ar.us

REQUEST: Preliminary and Final Minor Subdivision Approval for Smith & Barker Minor Subdivision.  The total acreage of the property is 3.23 acres.  The proposal is to split the parcel into two tracts Tract 1 – 1.00 acre and Tract 2 – 2.23 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 solely in the County.

QUORUM COURT DISTRICT:  District 10, JP Jack Norton (D)

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: See pages G-3 though G-10.

BACKGROUND/ PROJECT SYNOPSIS: 

The property (parcel #001-00677-000) is currently 3.23 Acres.  The owners are Charlotte Barker and Cheryl Smith, who are also the applicants.   Property has public road frontage on E. Devils Den Road / HWY 74 (close to 540 – Winslow Exit).  The property does not currently have an address.  The nearest address is located east of the property under review: 10932 E. Devils Den Road, Winslow, AR 72959-9776.   The property is not located within a Planning Area. 

Currently, the total acreage of the property is 2.94 acres, according to survey.  Tract one shown on the survey is 1.94 acres.  Tract two shown on the survey is one (1) acre.  The area encompassed in tract two is scheduled to be heard by the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a Conditional Use Permit Request at the December 4th Meeting.

There are no issues with this project.  The manner in which the property is proposed to be divided has changed since the original submittal but changes have been accounted for and forwarded on to all applicable parties (utilities, D.R., health dept) for review and comment. The survey shown on pg. G-8- is current.  Staff required a statement from the D.R. stating that both tracts are adequate for septic which has been received October 17^th.   

CHECKLISTS:

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Preliminary and Final Plat approval of the proposed Smith & Barker Minor SD with the following conditions being met. 

1.       Any further splitting or land development not considered with this approval must come before the Planning Board.

2.       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.  The Circuit Clerk is not accepting plats that are over 18" x 24".

3.       Proposed land use is contingent upon the conditional use permit and is separate from the property division. 

*The area encompassed in tract two is scheduled to be heard by the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a Conditional Use Permit Request at the December 4^th Meeting.

*The final plat for this approval should have all information related to the CUP removed as this approval is only concerning the property division.

4.       Road tile depicted on the survey should be permitted through the Arkansas Hwy. Commission.  Correct parcel information- checklist item number eight.

5.       Please note Staff will need the filed deed for the one (1) acre piece for the upcoming CUP.

6.       Please correct parcel number on the plat as per Tech Comments.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

SPLITS PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED ON THIS PARCEL: 

The parcel number (001-00677-____) is currently up to 007.  Property division that Planning has on file is Exemption 2002-241.  Four (4) property divisions have already taken place on this parent parcel not including the Family Exemption.  Two (2) of the property divisions are less than five (5) acre.  Additional property divisions did not qualify for the administrative property division process.

Cheryl Smith and Charlotte Barker, owners of the proposed project, and Eddie Gore, Gore Engineering & Land Surveying, were present to answer any questions.

Jessie Pettit, Washington County Planner, stated, “This project is located on the south part of the County.  It is located just off 540 the Winslow exit Devil’s Den Road Highway 74.  It is not in a Planning Area.  The nearest Planning Area is the City of West Fork it is north of the site by quite a bit.  It is in a zoned area agricultural single-family.  It is 2.94 acres according to the survey.  In the Staff Report it said 3.24 acres that is the Assessor’s information so that is the discrepancy there.  The split is to split it up into Tract 1 – 1.94 acres and Tract 2 – 1 acre.  This didn’t qualify for the administrative process due to the parent parcel being divided over four times and more than one of those being less than five acres, so that is why you see it tonight with the subdivision four lots or less.  There were no issues that came up with this project.  The utilities didn’t have any comments that were negative that needed to be taken care of.  We received a septic statement from the Designated Representative stating that both pieces can support a septic system.  As we already mentioned Tract 2 is scheduled to be heard by the Zoning Board of Adjustments at the next meeting (December 4, 2008).  They have been tabled at this meeting that is the one acre piece.  There are just some minor plat corrections that need to be made.  I wanted to clarify that we’re not dealing with any land use tonight it is just the tract split.  The Final plat for this approval should have all of the information related to the Conditional Use Permit removed, building footprint, parking, and etc. as this approval is only concerning the property division.  We will also need the deed filed for the one acre piece for the Conditional Use Permit that is coming up next month and just the minor corrections of the parcels.  Staff recommends approval with the conditions stated.”

Gore commented, “We pretty much agree with everything Jessie said.”

Robert Daugherty moved to approve Smith & Barker Minor Subdivision Preliminary and Final Plat subject to Staff’s recommendations. Kenley Haley seconded.  Motion passes.

All Board members were in favor of approving Smith & Barker Minor Subdivision Preliminary and Final Plat.

County

h. Teen Challenge Ranch of NWA LSD (Final LSD Plan Approval Request)

Location: Section 25, Township 14 North, Range 33 West

Owner/Developer: Teen Challenge Ranch of NWA

Engineer/Surveyor: Steadfast, Inc. – Randy Ritchey

Location Address: 19778 Boys Home Road

7.90 acres and 5 units proposed/ Proposed Land Use: Housing

Project #: 2007-242 Planner: Juliet Richey, e-mail at jrichey@co.washington.ar.us

REQUEST: Final Large Scale Development Approval for Teen Challenge Ranch of NWA LSD.  The proposed project is located on a parcel containing 5.50 acres with 5 proposed units.

CURRENT ZONING: Project does lie within the County Zoned area (Agriculture/Single-Family Residential 1 unit per acre), effective December 15, 2007.  The applicants received a Conditional Use Permit allowing multiple units (with conditions) on the property 2/13/2008. 

PLANNING AREA: This project is located solely in the County.

QUORUM COURT DISTRICT: District 10, JP Jack Norton (D)

BACKGROUND/ PROJECT SYNOPSIS: 

Teen Challenge Ranch of NWA currently owns the property. 

The proposed project has access off of WC #4434 (Res. Dr. English) and WC #431 (Boys Home Road).  

The Preliminary LSD Plan and Conditional Use Permit for this project was granted approval by the Planning Board / Zoning Board of Adjustments on February 13, 2008.

The 5 manufactured housing units proposed for this LSD are in place on the site, as well as their individual septic systems for each unit.  There is an existing farmhouse and other home on the property that also serves as staff and transitional housing at this time.  

At Preliminary LSD it was determined that some upgrades needed to be made, including upgrading a portion of the Residential Drive providing access to the property, as well as interior LSD streets.  The Residential Drive to the site and the private drive within the site have been improved and upgraded by the applicant to accommodate emergency vehicles in all weather conditions.

Other items looked at in this review process include:  septic issues, water issues, fire code adherence, and the impact on the drainage of the site (with the addition of roads and residential structures).

If you remember at the Preliminary LSD stage there were some concerns with property line boundaries between the Umberson’s and the Teen Challenge Ranch.  Since that time both parties hired surveyors to survey their land and presumably came to an agreement on property line boundaries (as new deeds have been filed by both parties recognizing boundaries).  These new boundaries are reflected on the LSD plan in your packet.  Staff tried to reach the Umberson’s by mail and phone to verify that everything was completed to their satisfaction, but have received no response from the Umberson Family.  Therefore, staff is assuming that all is well, as they have signed and filed the new deeds. 

The conditions of the CUP issued last February were as follows:

·         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.

·         This area should be used only for staff housing and housing for other ministry workers/volunteers, (i.e. Visiting church groups, retired volunteers, etc). 

·         Outdoor lighting fixtures should be shielded to prevent shining directly on neighboring properties.

·         Evergreen trees should be planted to provide an adequate screening of the newly added buildings.  The screen should be effective from all directions of sight.  The planting plan should be submitted to the Planning Director for approval before installation.

·         All septic tanks should be approved and installed prior to the occupation of the buildings.

·         The LSD plan shows only part of the parcel.  The split will need to come through the Planning Office but this should not prevent the preliminary LSD from proceeding.  All splits and lot line adjustments must be finalized prior to Final LSD approval.

·         Development should be built according to LSD standards.

All of these conditions have been satisfied at this time with the exception of the planting of evergreens.  Staff will present a copy of the planting plans for this vegetative screening at the November 6^th meeting. The Teen Challenge Ranch will be receiving Loblolly pines form the Forest Service for this aspect of the plan.  The forest service recommends the planting of these trees in the winter while the trees are relatively dormant and the “sap is down”.  Planning staff is ok with this, as long as the condition is placed on the granting of Final Plat that all trees must be planted as per approved planting plan by no later than April 15, 2009.  If trees are not in place by that time, then the Final Approval of this LSD may be revoked for being in violation of the CUP conditions.

At this time, the Final LSD plans reflect most of the other needed information.  All additional issues are minor and are listed as conditions of approval. 

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 Final LSD Plan approval of the proposed Teen Challenge Ranch of NWA LSD with the following conditions being met. 

1. Need signed and stamped letter of certification from engineer that all roads and residential drives improved can support 75,000 pounds in all weather conditions.

2. Show existing utility easements. 

3. Please submit final permit copies for each septic system.  

4. Show monuments/pins at property boundary corners on LSD plan.

5. Please state newest FEMA Map #.

6. The Teen Challenge Ranch will be receiving Loblolly pines from the Forest Service for the screening aspect of the plan.  The forest service recommends the planting of these trees in the winter while the trees are relatively dormant and the “sap is down”.  Planning staff is ok with this, as long as the condition is placed on the granting of Final Plat that all trees must be planted as per approved planting plan by no later than April 15, 2009.  If trees are not in place by that time, then the Final Approval of this LSD may be revoked for being in violation of the CUP conditions.

7.       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:

INFRASTRUCTURE:  Water – The property is in the service area of City of Lincoln Water.

Other Utilities - The lot is in the service area of Ozark Electric and Prairie Grove Telephone.

Darren Reynolds, executive director of the ranch, and Randy Ritchey, Steadfast, Inc., were present to answer any questions.

Juliet Richey, Washington County Planning Director, stated, “This is out by Morrow.  We have heard a Conditional Use Permit (February 13, 2008) on this and we also have done a Preliminary Large Scale Development (February 13, 2008) on this property as well.  It is actually split a little differently now.  The last time they were in there were some property line disputes or discussions perhaps with surrounding neighbors; those have all been resolved.  Deeds have been re-recorded and the lots have been split up accordingly, so everything is good with that.  What is left is a roughly five-acre tract with the development on it.  If you remember it was for, basically, the addition of single-family homes and those are housing the people that work with the young men in their ranch.  Basically, there are just a few things that they needed to take care of to get the Large Scale done.  There were upgrades needed to be made to the road, and the residential drive, and the interior drive and they have completed those.  There were some septic issues, water issues, Fire Code adherence, and impact on the drainage on the site and all of those things have been taken care of.  Basically, the only thing that remains was one of the conditions regarding landscaping.”

Laney asked, “George, could you give me direction on an order question, Bob needs to abstain, but we need him present for the quorum.  I told him that we can vote on this.”  Butler replied, “That is fine.  He is still present even though he abstains.”

Richey commented, “The only thing that was left is basically to do a planting plan.  They were required to plant some evergreens for screening for this and they have not done that yet, but they do have a proposed plan that is going to go around the perimeter and stay out of their septic system area.  Basically, that will be done sometime before April 15, 2009.  The Forestry Service is donating trees to them and the evergreens that they are donating they feel like they need to be planted in the winter time after there have been hard freezes, which is a pretty normal thing for planting trees.  With that being said, I would like to go ahead and approve it with that as a condition.  There are a couple of other conditions that I just need the engineer to give me a couple of documents and I need him to sign and stamp a letter of certification about the roads, show a couple of existing utility easements.  I need to get some final permit copies for each septic system, I’ve seen them and I know that they are approved I just want copies for our file.  They need to show some pins at the property line and the condition about the tree planting.” 

Reynolds stated, “I would just like to thank the County for their patience with us and there have been many, many people who have volunteered time and energy to make this happen.  I just wanted to acknowledge that tonight.  It is a big group effort to make this possible.”

Kenley Haley moved to approve Teen Challenge Ranch of NWA LSD Final LSD Plan with the restrictions recommended by Staff. Cheryl West seconded.  Motion passes.  Robert Daugherty abstained.

All Board members were in favor of approving Teen Challenge Ranch of NWA LSD Final LSD Plan.

Fayetteville Planning Area

i.   David Jones Plumbing LSD (Preliminary LSD Plan Approval Request)

Location: Section 30, Township 17 North, Range 29 West

Owner/Developer: David Jones

Engineer/Surveyor: Jorgensen & Associates - Dave Jorgensen

Location Address: 3990 N. Old Wire Road (WC #87)

6 acres and 1 unit / Proposed Land Use: Shop / Office Building

Project #: 2008-201 Planner: Courtney McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us

REQUEST: Preliminary Large Scale Development Approval for David Jones Plumbing LSD.  The proposed project is located on a parcel containing 6 acres with 1 proposed unit.

CURRENT ZONING: Project does lie within the County Zoned area (Agriculture/Single-Family Residential 1 unit per acre). Conditional Use Permit to allow the use of a shop/ office structure to house a trade-type business on this site was approved on 9/18/08.

PLANNING AREA: This project is located in the City of Fayetteville’s Planning Area. The City of Fayetteville does not formally review this type of Large Scale Development project.

QUORUM COURT DISTRICT: District 9, JP Butch Pond (R)

BACKGROUND/ PROJECT SYNOPSIS: 

David and Beverly Jones Trust currently own the property.  The proposed project has access off of Old Wire Road (WC #87).  There is currently one existing structure on the property, a small barn. An old house was removed from the site. The applicant is proposing a plumbing office and shop that includes one (1) building, a gravel drive, and a gravel parking area.  The Conditional Use Permit also called for a screened area for outdoor storage. This should be shown on the plans.

The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for this project was granted approval by the Planning Board / Zoning Board of Adjustments on September 18, 2008. The CUP allows for the commercial use of a plumbing office and shop (also for use of other similar trade businesses in the future, i.e., electrician business, general contracting business, etc.). The proposed Large Scale Development (LSD) must be built in accordance with all of the conditions set by the CUP approval.

Most of the concerns for this project have been addressed.

Fire flow numbers (1492 gpm) from the hydrant at the curve on Old Wire Road were adequate according to the Washington County Fire Marshal. In addition, notes have been added to the plans indicating that the exit signs and fire extinguishers the Fire Marshal required will be added to the building at construction. Before the building can be occupied, the Fire Marshal will inspect to ensure conditions were met to his satisfaction.

According to the engineer for this project, this development will “produce less than 10 trips a day.” This will not create significant impact on the existing roads. In addition, the sight distance to the corner of Old Wire Road from the proposed driveway entrance is adequate according to Washington County Regulations. According to the Engineer’s statement, the sight distance is approximately 160 feet. For the 25 mile per hour speed limit, the site distance must be at least 115 feet. (See page I-4). The applicant has also increased the Right of Way bordering this property to reflect the City of Fayetteville’s Master Street Plan.

Existing wells on site will be capped according to “Well Driller’s Specification” prior to Final Approval. The septic system permit has been approved for this site.

One of the conditions placed at the Conditional Use Permit Approval was that the Drainage Report at LSD must be to City of Fayetteville standards (regarding increased flows). The engineer submitted this plan and has made corrections that the Washington County Contract Engineer has required. Only one piece of information remains to be corrected, and the Washington County Contract Engineer is satisfied with the Drainage Report.

We have received no comments from neighboring property owners at this time. If any are received prior to the Planning Board Meeting, they will be provided for your review at the meeting.

It appears that a portion of this property is located in a special flood hazard area, panel #05143C0230 F, effective May 16, 2008.  The applicant is aware of this and is not planning any structures for this portion of the site. (See page I-5).

Some Utility Companies have stated that they have lines on or near this property. Those lines with any utility easements must be located on the plans.  All other utility concerns have been addressed.

CHECKLISTS:

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Preliminary LSD Plan approval of the proposed David Jones Plumbing LSD with the following conditions:

1.       Pay mailing fees of $35.97.

2. AWG and COX have lines near this project, they need to be shown (with the easements if they have easements) on the plans.

3. On note #10 there is a misspelling: teh instead of the.

4. This project must adhere to all conditions approved at the Conditional Use Permit Approval.

5. All General Plan Checklist items must be corrected.

6. All Preliminary corrections must be made to the plans. Five copies of the corrected plans must then be submitted to the Washington County Planning Office so that the Approved Preliminary Plans will be on file.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (approved 9/18/2008):    

1.       All outdoor storage areas must be screened by opaque fencing.  Fencing should be either wooden or composite privacy fencing or masonry in nature.  All gates must also be opaque.

2.       Any fleet vehicles must be kept indoors or in the screened area at night.

3.       All lighting must be shielded and in no way directed toward any neighboring properties.

4.       Signage must be kept to a monument style of signage or attached flush to the side of the building and be no larger than 20 square feet.  Signage may not be illuminated.  If monument style signage is chosen, it may be not taller than 5’ in height when measured from the ground.  Placement of monument signage should be at least 10’ back from the ROW. Staff will inspect if monument style signage is placed.

5.       Front of building should be masonry in nature (shown as proposed is fine).

6.       The driveway to the project must be paved/ hard surface extending 20' back into the site to prevent tracking of gravel, etc. onto the County Road.

7.       Must be 25’ from all property lines, and 25’ from any ROW.

8.       Drainage report at LSD must be to City of Fayetteville standards (regarding increased flows).

9.       This development must proceed through the LSD process.

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.

CONDITIONS THAT MUST BE MET AT FINAL LSD APPROVAL:    

1. Before the building can be occupied, the Fire Marshal will inspect the building.

2. Existing wells on site will be capped according to “Well Driller’s Specifications” prior to Final Approval.-Staff will look into this issue further at Final Submittal.

3.       The driveway to the project must be paved/ hard surface extending 20' back into the site to prevent tracking of gravel, etc. onto the County Road. This will be inspected by the Washington County Road Department prior to Final Approval.

4. Other conditions may be added at the Final Plan Review.

INFRASTRUCTURE:  Water – The property is in the service area of Fayetteville Water.  There is a 6” waterline and a tap available.

Other Utilities - The lot is in the service area of Ozark Electric, AT & T Telephone, Arkansas Western Gas, and Cox Communications.

David Jones, owner of the proposed project, and Jared Inman, Jorgensen & Associates, were present to answer any questions.

Courtney McNair, Washington County Planner, stated, “This project received Conditional Use Permit at the September 18, 2008 to allow this Plumbing Shop on this, and so what they are doing now is coming through for their Large Scale Development part of it.  It is located just outside of the City limits of Fayetteville on the east side of the County in the City of Fayetteville’s Planning Area; even though it is in the Planning Area and it is a development the City of Fayetteville doesn’t look at it unless it is an actual division and since they’re not dividing the City of Fayetteville won’t officially review this, but we do still contact them and get their comments.  It is zoned, but it has been changed to Conditional Use Permit.  They have received their Conditional Use Permit to allow this type of business on the property.  It is on that weird curve of Old Wire Road and where Joyce Boulevard intersects it.  What they are proposing is one building, gravel drive, and parking area, and they are going to leave the existing barn.  There was a house, but they have already removed it, it’s gone, but they are going to keep the existing barn.  Most of the conditions for this Preliminary Large Scale Development have been addressed.  Fire Flow numbers were good the Fire Marshal was happy with that.  According to the engineer’s statement they are going to produce less than 10 trips a day on these roads and that is not an insignificant enough impact to require any road improvements.  We were also kind of concerned about the sight distance to the corner, but the engineer also gave us a statement they have 160’ of sight distance and at that speed limit with that curve they needed at least 115’ so they meet the sight distance requirements from the County.  The applicant also increased the right-of-way width, they didn’t have to because it wasn’t a condition, but they wanted to reflect the Fayetteville City Master Street Plan, so they did increase the right-of-way on their side of the property to meet that Fayetteville Master Street Plan.  One of the conditions that the County did put on this at Conditional Use Permit was that they meet the City of Fayetteville’s requirements for the drainage report which is quite a bit more stringent and Clay gave us our okay on it yesterday, so he has looked at all the corrections and he says that everything on that drainage report is good and that they shouldn’t be increasing, so they have done that part of it.  We have received some neighbor comments since I sent these out to you.  Several of these concerns from the neighbors, unfortunately, would have to deal more with the Conditional Use Permit and I don’t feel like since we have approved the Conditional Use Permit we can really say anything about them now because now we are into the Preliminary Large Scale which is not near as free to these kind of objections.  They didn’t want the business in the residential area, but the Conditional Use Permit passed, so it’s allowed there.  If all of the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit are met then we really shouldn’t deny the Preliminary Large Scale Development.  They are concerned about devaluing of their property, it could cause heavy traffic and heavy customer traffic, but the engineer’s signed statement did say less than 10 trips per day and if that becomes an issue then we can revisit that, but the engineer did sign off on that statement saying that it is less than 10 trips per day.  It is not zoned for this is one of their concerns, but it is now (zoned for this use).  It doesn’t meet City Long-Range Plans, but the City I asked them and they were happy with just getting the right-of-way for the street right-of-way for their Master Street Plan.  They are concerned about it being a nuisance or creating dangerous issues on the streets and that most of the neighbors oppose it, so those are some of the comments that we have received after I had written the Staff Report.  Staff does recommend the approval of the Preliminary Large Scale Development Plan for David Jones Plumbing LSD with a few conditions.  Condition #2 (Drainage Report Comments: Add a detail for the pond detail) and Condition #3 (Show screened area for outdoor storage on plans) are no longer valid because they have met both of those prior to this meeting.  They must adhere to all of the Conditional Use Permit conditions and then all of the general checklist which is just our general plat checklist.  I’ve also included on this approval the Conditional Use Permit conditions of approval because those are something that is tied to this Large Scale Development as well.  We have a few conditions just to give them a heads-up at Final they’re going to need.  Before Final the Fire Marshal is going to have to inspect to make sure that all of the buildings are in compliance.  The wells on-site will need to be capped and I actually have to check with Melissa (Wonnacott) to see if that is something that we can do at Final or not; I’ll check with her before we get to that point.  The driveway will need to be inspected by Washington County Road Department before Final.”

Laney asked, “Only because we haven’t done this a lot, why would the Preliminary show it proposed as gravel when it has to be… will we get a Final later that shows it gravel?  Why would we approve it when it is Preliminary?  It says proposed gravel driveway.”  McNair replied, “I kind of cut it off on this slide, but asphalt extended into the site at the very beginning; that’s what we’re talking about.  We’re not talking about asphalting the entire driveway, I’m sorry if that was unclear.” 

Laney commented, “The driveway to the project must be paved and hard surfaced that is what our Condition #6 Conditional Use Permit conditions of approval says (The driveway to the project must be paved/hard surface extending 20’ back into the site to prevent tracking of gravel, etc. onto the County Road).”  Richey stated, “It should be just the first 20’ that is what the Road Department always recommends, so if it is written like that then it is a typo.” 

McNair commented, “This is the one from the approval letter that I thought…”  Laney stated, “It is quoting our September 18, 2008 decision and it says that our decision #6 does say 20’ back into the site.  The other is elevation so that will have to be seen at Final, so we’ll get a different drawing on that.  It supposed to be masonry and we can’t obviously tell from this, but it will be even more important until the Final.  I just want to make sure we’re all communicating.”  Richey commented, “Right, we had that elevation drawing at Conditional Use, he submitted it and we approved it based on that drawing.”

Laney stated, “I just want to make sure that some of our memories at least mine from meeting to meeting.”  McNair commented, “I understand that I have the same problem.”  Laney stated, “Those were my technical questions.”   

Inman commented, “The owner is here with me.  We don’t have any problem with conditions of approval.  We would like to ask about the capping of the wells.”  McNair stated, “That is not until Final.”   

Anita Roberts, adjacent property owner to the west at 3935 N. Old Wire, commented, “I live right across the street from it.  I did try hard to stop it because I really did not feel that it met the requirements for the Conditional Use Permit, but at this point that is neither here nor there.  I am just concerned that now that you’ve got… I get this thing that says Large Scale Development that sounds scary and I want to protect my home, where I live, my neighbors and family.  That is all I want to do, so that it doesn’t get out of control.  I do want to state that I don’t have anything against Jones.  They were our neighbors and friends for years and I still consider them friends.  I don’t want anything bad to happen to them.  I want no ill will.  I just kind of want to protect my home.  I do have one concern it says that the building will be built on a pad that used to be occupied by a chicken house.  From what I can see, the chicken houses are not where this pad where the building is going to be, I don’t know if that is something to be concerned about.  I just need to make sure that you all aren’t going to go nuts and hurt my home.”

Inman stated, “The building actually will be and probably 80% of the parking will be on it and the driveway will be right on the west edge of it.” Laney asked, “On the low pad, is what you are saying?  There is still a concrete pad there?” Inman replied, “Yes.”  Roberts commented, “The two chicken houses were in the very northeast corner along the tree line.”  Inman stated, “They extended over a pipe you can kind of see where the contours were.”

Butler asked, “Did that answer your questions about the pad?”  Roberts replied, “To some extent.”  Butler commented, “Don’t let the words Large Scale Development alarm you.  This is just a term we use for any development or piece of property that doesn’t involve a split.”  Roberts asked, “Do I have any concern that this is just going to bloom out of control and that I am going to be living across a monstrosity?”  Butler replied, “It is going to be just exactly as the Conditional Use Permit allow as the plat showed us.”   

Daugherty stated, “It is basically, restricted to this use or something very similar.  I’ve had questions about it being turned into a convenience store or whatever; I’ve had neighbors call me.  They have to come back before us, so it’s not going to happen.  It has to be restricted to this use or something very, very similar.” 

Daugherty commented, “I’ve had several people call me on this and some real good friends that have called me.  Hopefully, it will be a good project and try to make it as nice as you can because I have some real good friends that are very upset with me, but I am going to make a motion for approval.”

Robert Daugherty moved to approve David Jones Plumbing LSD Preliminary LSD Plan subject to Staff’s recommendations. Kenley Haley seconded.  Motion passes.

All Board members were in favor of approving David Jones Plumbing LSD Preliminary LSD Plan.

Haley asked, “When this is completed do we ever get a final picture of how this looks?”  Richey replied, “Yes.”  Laney stated, “We will before we give Final approval.”  Haley commented, “I’m like Bob I’ve had a lot of phone calls and friends in that area.”  Daugherty stated, “It’s one of those deals where they are very concerned and I can understand it is kind of like a mixed use there and probably is one of these days it’s going to be commercial, but they are very upset with me.  I would like for it to be as pleasing as possible to them because it does affect their values and I understand that.  I’m just asking that you please consider that.”   

Fayetteville Planning Area

j.  Twin Springs Estates Phase 2 (Final Plat Approval Request)

Location: Sections 3 & 35, Townships 16 & 17 North, Range 31 West

Owner/Developer: Gabby Hills Enterprises, Inc.

Engineer/Surveyor: Landtech Engineering, Inc. – Leonard Gabbard

Location Address: West of Twin Springs Estates Phase 1 on N. Double Springs Road (WC #881)

30.45 acres and 23 lots / Proposed Land Use: Single-Family Residential

Project #: 2005-120 Planner: Courtney McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us

Robert Daugherty moved to remove Twin Springs Estates Phase 2 Final Plat from the agenda. Cheryl West seconded.  Motion passes.

All Board members were in favor of removing Twin Springs Estates Phase 2 Final Plat from the agenda.

OLD BUSINESS

OTHER BUSINESS

• Review possible changes to by-laws

Richey stated, “The last time we talked about Staff looking at policy standards regarding these high impact developments like quarries and now possibly wind farms.  I know that Gary (Head) said something about not that we would make it law or whatever right away, but say when we’re looking at these high impact things we’re going to be looking for some big setbacks from surrounding property lines and maybe start quantifying what I mean; like do you have enough room to put like 300’ setbacks around your property because that’s generally what we’re going to be looking for, things like that, that we kind of talked about.  Would you be interested in us going ahead and drafting up some sort of policy for you all to look at?  Maybe at the next meeting or maybe in January and just get feedback from you all what you think is too much or too little.  I hesitate to put too many specific perimeters on it because I think that a lot of it is going to depend on kind of a case by case basis; what’s around it and what the topography is like.”

Laney commented, “My only comment is that the past… it’s like what we just did I mean we have rules that we operate within, so that when something in our opinion… our opinion might tell us otherwise, but we have to swallow hard and vote for something otherwise we wouldn’t want to do, so the problem with putting specifics in there that would almost and I know legally it wouldn’t be binding, George, but almost tell somebody, ‘Okay, if you do these minimum things we’re going to approve your project.’  If you say 350’ like you said case-by-case it may not be appropriate at all, so I wouldn’t want somebody kind of beating us over the head with it, ‘Okay, you drafted these specific things and now you’re reluctant.’  It can be kind of a two edged sword if you put too much of that stuff in there, but that doesn’t speak to the fact what I would like to have further discussion after you propose something.  I’m just giving you a little feedback.”  Richey stated, “Maybe we can just be more vague, large setbacks, I don’t know.”  Laney commented, “The general feeling about it is we have to be careful or we set kind of minimum hurdles that when people jump over it is kind of imposed on us that we’re going to go for it.”  Richey stated, “Maybe I can just write up a document you know when people apply for that kind of thing say here’s the kind of obstacles that you know… or issues that have came up in the past that seem to be specific to these very large projects and not put numbers on it, but setbacks, traffic, and whatever.”  Laney commented, “We might have, George, something like high impact guidelines and they are just simply, they’re not rules of anybody.”  Richey stated, “Just informational.”

Butler commented, “Guidelines that are not binding, but something to give.”  Laney stated, “These are the kind of things that will be considered and looked favorable upon.”  Richey commented, “I’ll just put something together and then I’ll bring it to you all for some review and comment.”  Laney stated, “Take a stab at it, but I’m just expressing my general or narrower world too much.”

Richey commented, “At the last meeting we talked about making a change to have two hearings for anything that was like a quarry or a dirt pit.  On page 3 under Item F (revised By-Laws) all Conditional Use applications for Large Scale Developments, as defined in Washington County Code 11-100(a)(2) (and that refers to all of the high impact Large Scale Developments) shall require two public meetings before approval or denial, unless waived by a majority of the Board members present at the first meeting.  Nothing herein shall be construed so as to limit the Board’s authority to table any matter if it deems such necessary and proper.”

Laney stated, “You use the phrase high impact.  I don’t see that phrase.”  Richey commented, “That is what Washington County Code 11-100(a)(2).”  Butler stated, “We don’t use the word impact in the ordinance that is a matter of I guess slang.  We don’t use the word high impact in the ordinance itself.”  Laney asked, “Typically, it is all Large Scale?”  Richey replied, “No, it is not.  We have two categories (of LSD).”  Butler commented, “One is which we call high impact, but it is worded differently.”  Richey stated, “It has a whole paragraph that describes what it is.”  Laney commented, “That is what we’re talking about here.”  Richey stated, “Yes, quarries, dirt pits, and things.”  Laney commented, “I just didn’t see the words there.”

Laney stated, “The second one is no worries.  I can foresee a situation where it comes in Staff has considered and like sometimes we’ll have Preliminary and Final at the same night because someone requested it.”  Richey commented, “You can do that anyway on these.”  Laney stated, “I’ll just use that as an example in the past people have come in for Preliminary and Final lot split approval and we’ve given both at the same night.  In this instance you can come in as Staff and say the applicants asked for a waiver of the second hearing and you all recommend that we waive it.  We could going in know that we’re waiving it.”  Butler commented, “Yes.”  Laney stated, “That is some flexibility that we would have is all I’m saying.  We could ask that it not be done, but you could ask.  I’m saying that as you done all the work you could say this may look on the outside, but we’re recommending that you waive the second hearing to give you some flexibility.”  

Richey commented, “I don’t really like this.  To me I don’t know that we achieve anything by doing this at all, but it is up to you all whatever you want to do.  I think, to me, it would probably just be better if… I can tell them (applicant) as Staff what I tell everybody that comes in with a project like this and say, ‘These are the types of projects that get tabled because there will be a lot of comment and there’s going to be a lot of stuff going on, so there’s no guarantee that you’re going to get your approval the first time.  I would rather do it that way than to have something in writing and then do a waiver.”

Laney stated, “It’s not the applicant that I am concerned about, it is the neighbors who would know that there would be two hearings.  That is where the whole thing originated.  It is not for applicants, but that the neighbors show up and would expect for it to be dealt with and to have them come back and…  My question was going to be if we pass it this would go in the neighbor notice in the part of the letter I acknowledge the fact that the letter may be getting kind of wordy and lawyerly sounding, but at least they would have written notice that it is a two hearing thing.”

Richey commented, “Unless we waive it, which they’re not going to know.”  Butler stated, “Though it could be waived by the Board.”  Laney commented, “I don’t know about that, but that was the original reason for doing it for our ability to have some notice that this could be a two hearing thing for the public.  The pressure has been felt in the past if we didn’t do something the public feel like we all showed up and we expressed ourselves and you guys are not willing to vote in front of us, so you’re going to waive it and then maybe we won’t come back next month that is kind of the implication.”  Butler commented, “Something like that; they’re going to come back the next time.”

Daugherty stated, “One thing that I’m not so sure on is that sometimes there’s the second time there are less people show up and maybe less emotion.  We may hear the same complaints sometimes twice, but I think that it is very hard when you have a roomful of people that are all against it, it is real hard to vote for or against it really at that point without some time to analyze all the decisions and facts and weigh the emotions in it.  My concern is if we don’t do something like this that we’re going to need some quarries in this County at some point.  You sometimes have to put it where the dirt is and I was talking to a guy the other day in the northern part of the County it is real hard right now to even… My fear is that some point we’re going to end up going to Madison County or something.  It is like oil or anything else, when you don’t have the supply.  Now when it is going to get passed now if it is in the middle of a big acreage I think that is what we’re up against sometimes, so I think that we need to be able to really weigh the facts and to make the best decision that we can.”

Laney commented, “I think two hearings to address the emotion part, but also some new facts come up and if you’re not… again these Boards are made up (used to be volunteers now very poorly remunerated citizens) who don’t have any expertise; we’re not engineers, we’re not anything.  So, you have engineers present something to you and you don’t know, and you would like to be able to contemplate it and get some more advice, and so I think that is part of your concerns as well.”

Daugherty stated, “I would like to know the true exact facts before I vote so that I… I think it takes some of the emotion out of the decision too for me.”

Richey commented, “That’s fine, that’s something that you all can do by tabling anyway.  If you want to do it this way then that is fine.”

Laney asked, “If we want to do it, how do we do that?  I forgot we haven’t amended our By-Laws lately, don’t we have to print it and stuff or something?”  Richey replied, “It has to be presented in writing at this meeting and then you actually vote on it at the next meeting.”  Butler stated, “You have to have five people for it to pass.”

 Haley asked, “By potentially postponing a decision, is that going to be a hindrance to the applicant?  Is it going to slow them down?” Butler replied, “It is going to slow them down, but things can get tabled anyway.”

Laney commented, “That’s why I said they can ask for a waiver, if it was appropriate.”  Butler stated, “The majority of those present can waive that.  If you think, well we’ve heard everything and we know what our decision is going to be there’s no sense in waiting and making everybody come back.” 

Daugherty commented, “I feel like making the most viable best decision I can because if we turn the project down then they have to go to Court and that weighs heavy on my mind.”

Laney stated, “30 more days for a permanent decision.”  Daugherty commented, “I would rather the applicant know that I am going to do the best I can to make the best decision I can before they have to go to Court and so that is my concern on the deal because I think they would rather wait 30 days if they had to rather than go through the appeal process.”

Richey stated, “I understand that.  I guess what I don’t understand is why you all don’t feel comfortable just tabling an item.  To me, if there is information presented that you want to think about or research that we want to do though I don’t understand why you all don’t feel comfortable just making a motion to table it based on whatever has come up that you feel like…”  Laney commented, “It is the same reason you have meetings with your employees one-on-one other than the day you want to fire them because you don’t want to… every time you have this situation… you have the rule for two hearings automatically where you don’t feel like the one time… if you just have one meeting people are going to go home in my opinion feeling like what more do they need to hear.  In their minds they are very emotional they gave you… why can’t you make a decision we told you everything you need to know very loud they repeat it five times and they yell it at us.”  Butler stated, “They may want another 30 days, too, we may be able to gather some more evidence.”  

Daugherty commented, “Sometimes those issues can be worked out or ironed out in that 30 days is my thought process.  If you have a neighbor complaint or you have a neighbor problem they might get together and work it out and so we have less complaints.  For some reason, sometimes tabling feels like we’re fearful of the decision in front of those people and it looks like you know you can make a decision of course they want us to vote their way.  I think that we owe it to the applicant to make the best decision that we can based on the facts not the emotions, that’s what I’m trying to do, but it’s real hard like the night of the quarry the guy that lived within 48’ of the quarry now that weighed on me one that hadn’t really been taken care of in the past.  Probably the determining factor for me was the maintenance in the past whether that was right or wrong that weighed on me when I finally made the decision.  I probably need to make it on facts for sure.”

Haley asked, “If this was set up this way, would we be listening to those potentially heated comments again at the next meeting?”  Laney replied, “Potentially.  We had one that Bob never lets me forget about when we met down there and I was out of town and we were all packed in a little room in the lunchroom and they spilled over and we tabled that where we can move up here and have a bigger hearing and it was about half the volume of the first meeting even though it was the second meeting people just don’t quite have the …”  Butler stated, “That was back before we had zoning and didn’t have the authority to deny it.”

Laney commented, “I don’t know if you want to vote on it, but the consensus up here is we would like to have this.”  Richey stated, “I think actually we have to wait until the next meeting to have it on the agenda to vote on it.  I understand more what you are wanting now.”  Laney asked, “Do you want to vote officially putting it on the agenda or just us nodding enough?”  Richey replied, “I think you all can just nod.  George, on page 2 (of the revised By-Laws) you eliminated Item D (The County Judge shall be an ex officio member of the Planning Board and shall vote only in case of a tie vote at a meeting wherein the entire membership is present and has voted.)”  George commented, “I realized that was on there and I thought how in the world did that ever get in this is the County Judge shall be an ex officio member of the Planning Board and shall vote, so I struck it (in the By-Laws).  He or she can’t be on the Planning Board ex officio or otherwise he or she can testify to the Planning Board if you all wants he or she to.”       

 Robert Daugherty moved to adjourn. Cheryl West seconded.  Motion passes.

Planning Board adjourned.

Minutes submitted by: Amanda Kimbel

Approved by the Planning Board on:

                                                                 ______Robert Daugherty____ Date: __12/04/08________

                                  Robert Daugherty, Planning Board Vice-Chairman

MINUTES

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD

&

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS

December 4, 2008

5:00 p.m., Quorum Courtroom, New Courthouse

Fayetteville, Arkansas

DEVELOPMENTS REVIEWED:                                                                                                              ACTION TAKEN:

LAND DEVELOPMENT HEARINGS

Items to be heard:

Tontitown Planning Area

a. Fred Kirk Pallet Storage Buildings LSD                                                  Final LSD Plan Approval