WASHINGTON
COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
&
ZONING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
January 8, 2009
5:00
p.m., Quorum Courtroom, New Courthouse
Fayetteville, Arkansas
DEVELOPMENTS REVIEWED:
ACTION TAKEN:
County
a. Woody
Minor Subdivision
Preliminary
and Final Approval
County
b. Hulse
Minor Subdivision
Preliminary and Final Approval
County
c. Invenergy Wind
Development, LLC CUP
Conditional
Use Permit Approval
County
d. Invenergy Wind
Development, LLC CUP
Conditional
Use Permit Approval
Fayetteville Planning Area
e.
250' Self Support Tower – S. Mally Wagnon Road CUP
Tabled
County
f. Smith
& Barker CUP
Tabled
Gary Head, Board member serving the longest term, acted
as Chairman because of Randy Laney, Chairman, and Robert Daugherty,
Vice-Chairman, being absent. Head
stated, “We would like to welcome Jim, James
F. Gallagher, to the Planning Board. Thanks
for coming and serving. We
appreciate that very much. Obviously,
the Planning Board has gotten down to such a low level that I get to be the
Chair; I apologize. This will be
the very first time I have to be the Chair. I have served on this committee twelve years and avoided
having to do it for a long time unsuccessfully this evening.”
1. ROLL CALL:
Roll call was taken.
Members present include: Kenley Haley, Gary Head, James F. Gallagher,
Larry Walker, and Cheryl West. Absent:
Robert Daugherty and Randy Laney.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (from the December 4, 2008 meeting)
Larry Walker made a motion to approve as written. Cheryl West provided the
second. Motion passes.
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
Juliet Richey, Washington
County Planning Director, stated, “There are no changes.
Just for the audience, Item E. (250' Self Support Tower – S. Mally Wagnon Road CUP)
and Item F. (Smith & Barker CUP)
will be tabled at the request of the applicants.”
Larry Walker made a motion to approve the agenda. Cheryl West seconded.
Motion passes.
4. NEW BUSINESS
County
a. Woody
Minor Subdivision (Preliminary and Final Approval Request)
Location: Section 16, Township 16 North, Range 32
West
Owner/Developer: Jeremy and Adrienne Woody
Representative/Surveyor: James Gibson / Blew &
Associates, Inc.
Location Address:
14162 N. Wedington Blacktop Road (WC #33)
11.02 acres and 2 lots / Proposed Land Use:
Residential
Project
#: 2008-228 Planner: Jessie Pettit, e-mail at jpettit@co.washington.ar.us
REQUEST:
Preliminary and Final Minor Subdivision Approval for
Woody Minor Subdivision. The
total acreage of the property is 11.02 acres.
The proposal is to split the parcel into two tracts Tract
A – 6.5 acres and Tract B – 4.52 acres.
CURRENT ZONING:
Project does lie
within the County Zoned area (Agriculture/Single-Family Residential 1 unit per
acre).
QUORUM
COURT DISTRICT:
District 10, JP Jack
Norton
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION: See
pages A-4 through A-15.
BACKGROUND/
PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
This project comes before you
because the parent parcel has been divided too many times in order to qualify
for the Exemption Process; the property division now falls within the category
of Minor Subdivision and must be heard by the Planning Board.
The owners of the property are
Jeremy and Adrienne Woody. James
Gibson is the representative for this project.
The subject property is located at 14162 N. Wedington Blacktop.
The property division request is to subdivide a 11.02 acre parcel
(001-12787-003) into two (2) pieces: (Tract A) 6.5 acres and (Tract B) 4.52
acres.
Tract A has adequate public road
frontage on Wedington Blacktop (WC #33) as required by regulations.
Tract B, the piece with the existing home, is proposed to be accessed
through a 60’ ingress and egress easement.
A development that does not have adequate public road frontage (75’
minimum) for all proposed tracts and must rely on an easement for ingress and
egress, is referred to as “private road development”, and must follow the
regulations set forth in private road standards.
The applicant has begun the process of establishing the easement as a
“private road” servicing four (4) or fewer single-family lots in order to
abide by all “private road development” standards.
The name for the private drive will be Stampede Drive,
as approved by 911 Addressing Office. Following
are the remaining items that still need to be met in order to meet all private
road standards:
·
The developer shall be responsible for paying the county
road department for the purchase and installation of a sign indicating that the
road is maintained by the property owners.
·
The private road subdivision developer or applicant shall be
responsible for erecting the street sign stating the name of the private road
prior to final plat approval. The
sign placement must be inspected by the 9-1-1 Addressing Office or the County
Planning Office, and be in accordance with & U.S. Department of
Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devises.
*See page A-8 through A-9 for private road standards in
their entirety.
*See
pages A-10 through A-11 for all private road material submitted to date
(01/02/09)
A few minor issues relating to
water and septic have been resolved.
Water:
Currently, there is a water line running west to east across the southern
portion of Tract A (6.5 acres) servicing the existing house on Tract B (4.52
acres). As per Washington Water
Authority Technical Review Comment, the customer’s existing private waterline
must be in a dedicated easement across both parcels (easement filed) or
the existing waterline must be relocated to the existing utility easement and a
note must be put on the plat stating such.
The property owner has elected to do the latter and has stated such on
the plat. Washington Water
Authority also made the comment: “The property owners must contact WWA for any
additional water service requests and get a plumbing permit and inspection”.
See page A-12 for further information.
Septic:
Planning staff has received a copy of the soils work from
the designated representative, which states, “The pits observed were found to
be suitable for a standard type individual sewage disposal system.”
See page A-12 for further information.
Conversation with the applicant indicates that the potential buyer for
Tract-A (6.50 Acre) intends to use a well as a source of water.
Please note as per Washington County Code, Section 11-56, Lot or Parcel
Size Regulations: “Individual lots or parcels that require both a septic
system and water well shall be of sufficient size to satisfy State Health
Department Requirements.” The
well will need to be 100 feet from all septic systems whether on site or
neighboring homeowner.
CHECKLISTS:
*Please note that if an item is marked inadequate,
staff will usually recommend tabling or denial of a project.
It is up to the Planning Board’s discretion whether or not to agree
with staff recommendation.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Preliminary and Final Plat
approval of the proposed Woody 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.
Pay adjacent property owner
notification fees.
4.
Approval is recommended with the
understanding that the water line will be moved to the existing utility easement
as per plat note.
5.
Abide by all private road standards.
One condition remains to be met to date.
*The
private road subdivision developer or applicant shall be responsible for
erecting the street sign stating the name of the private road prior to final
plat approval. The sign placement must be inspected by the 9-1-1 Addressing
Office or the County Planning Office, and be in accordance with & U.S.
Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
6.
Due to the uncertainty at this
time regarding the desired source (i.e. well or Washington Water Authority tap)
of drinking water and it’s placement on the property please add the following
note to the plat or provide assurance from Washington Water Authority
there are available taps.
“Well placement must be a hundred feet from a
septic system; whether it is the septic system on site or the septic system from
a neighboring home owner.”
Please note if property owner decides to use Washington Water Authority for water service, please contact them for additional water service requested. A plumbing permit and inspection will be required.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
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.
SPLITS
PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED ON THIS PARCEL: The parent parcel #001-12787-000 is currently in
five (5) pieces but has been approved to be divided into six pieces.
Family exemption 2007-048 has not had the corresponding deed filed
therefore the land parcel has not yet been created.
See the following exemption planning project numbers for approval
history.
·
Exemption
(Lot Split) #2004-306
– Survey with the Circuit Clerk filing #2004-00044988 and
#2004-00043786 was approved.
·
Exemption
(Lot-Line Adjustment) #2005-042
–
Survey with the Circuit Clerk filing #2005-00006132 was approved.
·
Exemption
(Family Lot-Split) 2007-048
–
Survey with the Circuit Clerk filing #2007-00008635 was approved.
James Gibson, Gibson Real
Estate, was present to answer any questions.
Jessie
Pettit, Washington County Planner, stated, “Woody Minor Subdivision is located
in the northwest part of the County. It
is outside of any Planning Area. It
is zoned agricultural/single-family. The
main roads nearby the site are N. Wedington Blacktop (WC #33) and Mateer (WC
#610) to the south. The owner of
the property is Jeremy Woody. James
Gibson is representing the project. This
project is a private road development (PRD) because more than one property has
to be accessed through ingress/egress. They’ve
had to abide by all the private road standards, which all of them have been
taken care of with the exception of one. The
survey shows 11.02 acres; the proposal is to divide it into two pieces: (Tract
A) 6.5 acres and (Tract B) 4.52 acres.”
Pettit
added, “The main issues with this one, most of them have been resolved are the
waterline running southwest to the house will need to be moved into the 60’
ingress/egress and utility easement. They
are aware of that. The only other
thing that came up was besides the private road development is water.
Initially, I thought they were doing a water tap, but the buyers are
actually thinking about doing a well. When
you do a well you need to be 100’ from any existing septic, so those are
things I see in the conditions. Staff
recommends Preliminary and Final approval of the proposed Woody Subdivision with
conditions being met. Condition # 5
they are waiting on the Road Department to assign a private road number.
They already have the name of the road, which is going to be Stampede
Drive. This project was not able to
go through administratively because the parent parcel has been divided too many
times, so that is why you see it before you tonight.”
James
Gibson had nothing to add.
Kenley Haley moved to
approve Woody Minor Subdivision Preliminary and Final Plat with conditions.
Cheryl West seconded. Motion
passes.
All Board members were in favor of approving Woody
Minor Subdivision Preliminary and Final Plat.
County
b. Hulse
Minor Subdivision (Preliminary and Final Approval Request)
Location: Section 15 & 22, Township 15 North,
Range 33 West
Owner/Developer: Donald and Betty Hulse
Representative/Surveyor: Clayton Homes – Jim
Stevenson / Alan Reid & Associates
Location Address: 21415 Summers Mt. Road (WC #676)
10 acres and 2 lots / Proposed Land Use: Residential
Project
#: 2008-229 Planner: Courtney
McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
REQUEST:
Preliminary and Final Minor Subdivision Approval for
Hulse Minor Subdivision. The
total acreage of the property is 10 acres.
The proposal is to split the parcel into two tracts Tract A – 5 acres
and Tract B – 5 acres.
CURRENT ZONING:
Project does lie
within the County Zoned area (Agriculture/Single-Family Residential 1 unit per
acre).
PLANNING
AREA: This project is located solely in the County.
QUORUM
COURT DISTRICT:
District 10, JP Jack
Norton (D)
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION: See
page B-4
BACKGROUND/
PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
This property is owned by Donald
and Betty Hulse. Jim
Stevenson with Clayton Homes
is the representative for this project. The
property has public road frontage on Summers Mountain (WC #676) at 21415 Summers
Mountain Road.
This project cannot be split
administratively and must come before the board because it has been previously
split nine (9) times.
Administrative approvals are
completed according to Section 11-79(3) -Exemptions: The division of
land into four (4) parcels, three (3) of which must be at least five (5) acres,
and one which may be at least one (1) acre (can be approved administratively)
Previous divisions for family members shall not be counted toward the four
parcels exempted in this section.
This property has an existing
septic system on Tract 1. An inspection was completed and the system showed no
signs of failure. The soils work was completed for Tract 2 and found to be
suitable for a septic system. The
existing well is 112 feet away from the existing septic system, and the new
system will be designed to be no closer than 100 feet to the well. This meets
Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) regulations. (See attached inspection letter and soils work pg.
B-5-B-7).
Robyn Reed, Environmental
Affairs, has some concerns with the trash on this site. According to the
attached email (pg.
B-8) “The Hulse's will need to removed the trash & junk at their
property site. I will provide them
with a copy of the junkyard ordinance,” but “Please keep in mind that from
my perspective this does not affect the planning process at this time.”
Most other concerns have been
addressed and only minor checklist items remain to be completed.
CHECKLISTS:
*Please note that if an item is marked inadequate,
staff will usually recommend tabling or denial of a project.
It is up to the Planning Board’s discretion whether or not to agree
with staff recommendation.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Preliminary and Final Plat
approval of the proposed Hulse Minor SD with the following conditions:
1.
CORRECT ALL CHECKLIST ITEMS: The
following comments correspond with the Washington County Land Development
Submittal Checklist:
(2) Name of the
land development, date, graphic scale, north arrow, total
acreage and individual tract acreage. “Hulse Minor
Subdivision” (this is not a Tract Split). Remove written scale if it does not
match the graphic scale.
(15) Plat and
deed restrictions: Restrictions, if any, with use and perimeters defined. Plat
restrictions should be certified as to current legality by a member of the
Arkansas Bar. If there are none, add a note
to the plat stating there are none. (Signature Block 6)
(21) Sizes of all
driveway and road tiles shall be stated. Also need to
show the driveways on the plat.
( 27)
Certification of survey and accuracy of survey by the surveyor (Signature
Block 2) Use this wording.
2. CERTIFICATE OF ACCURACY
OF SURVEY:
I certify that the plat shown and described hereon
is a true and
correct survey and that the monuments have been
placed as shown
hereon as required by "Regulations, Standards
and Specifications
for the Division, Development and Improvement of
Unincorporated
Land in Washington County".
Date:_______
Surveyor:__________________________________
(28)
Certification of ownership, title and dedication by the developer.
(Signature Block 3) Use this wording.
3. CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
& DEDICATION:
I hereon certify that I am the owner of the property
described hereon
and I do hereby dedicate all street, access,
utility, & drainage easements
to public or private use as indicated.
Date:________
Owner:____________________________________
2.
Any further splitting or land development not considered with this
approval must come before the Planning Board.
3.
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" and must have one copy
that is 81/2” x 11” for scanning.
4.
Any septic system must be at least 100’ away from any well
(to be in compliance with Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) regulations).
5.
Pay mailing fees $16.35.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Any work completed in
the Washington County Right-of-Way requires a permit prior to beginning work.
Phone # 479-444-1610.
No
stormwater permit will be required by Washington County at this time. Must
comply with all ADEQ rules and regulations.
AWG has a
gas main at Hwy 62 and Summers Mountain Road. Any questions, contact James Boyd
at 479-582-8652.
INFRASTRUCTURE: Water
– Tract A will be on well water. There is a 4-inch water main on the South
side of Summers Mountain Road and a water tap can be purchased from Lincoln
Water. If both Tract A and B would like to purchase a tap, a double-tap may be
available for a slightly lesser cost, please contact Lincoln Water for more
information.
Other
Utilities - The lot is in the service area of Ozark Electric,
Lincoln Water and Prairie Grove Telephone.
SPLITS
PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED ON THIS PARCEL: Parcel #001-09501-003 has nine previous splits.
Parcel #001-09600-003 has nine previous splits.
Jim Stevenson, Clayton
Homes, was present to answer any questions.
Larry Walker moved to
approve Hulse Minor Subdivision Preliminary and Final Plat with conditions.
Kenley Haley seconded. Motion
passes.
All Board members were in favor of approving Hulse
Minor Subdivision Preliminary and Final Plat.
County
c.
Invenergy Wind Development, LLC CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request)
Location: Section 4, Township 13 North, Range 29 West
Owner/Developer: Henry and Vickie Rankin
Representative: Invenergy, LLC - Brandon Ferrall
(Development Manager)
Location Address: 16028 Sunset Road (WC #38 Sunset
Road)
222.32 acres and 1 unit / Proposed Land Use:
Meteorological Tower
Project
#: 2008-218 Planner: Juliet Richey, e-mail at jrichey@co.washington.ar.us
Planner:
Courtney McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
REQUEST:
Conditional Use Permit Approval for Invenergy Wind Development, LLC CUP.
The proposed land use is a Meteorological Tower on 222.32 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 9, JP Butch Pond (R)
BACKGROUND/ PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
The owners are Henry and Vickie Rankin. Brandon
Ferrall,
Development
Manager, with
Invenergy
LLC
is the representative for this project. The
property has access onto Sunset Road (WC #38) via an access agreement through
property owned by the Devore Family, and is located at 16028 Sunset Road.
The
proposed tower is to be approximately 197' in height, and will not exceed
199’ in height. There will be no lighting required for the tower (lighting is
required by the FAA if a tower is over 200' in height), and the tower will be in
place for only 1-3 years for meteorological monitoring (at the end of this time
the tower will be removed from the property).
Invenergy LLC believes that there is a potential for a good wind resource
in this area. This meteorological
tower will be put in place to test that theory.
The tower will collect wind and weather data over the 1-3 year period to
determine whether the wind resource in this area is good enough to look at
further wind development (possibly wind farms or something of that nature). Please see the attached letter from the applicant outlining
his request for these towers for more information (see
pg C7).
It should be made clear that
this Conditional Use Permit is for the use of one meteorological tower only.
If there is a potential for commercial type wind development in the area,
then that proposed development will be reviewed under a different application,
and all property owners will be re-notified according to our ordinances.
The
nearest residence to proposed tower location is approximately 350' away.
This residence is on the Rankin's property. The closest residence on a property not belonging to the
Rankins appears to be a building located on Robert Fow’s and Stephen
Hardcastle's property to the east. This
building appears to be approximately 1/2 mile from the base of the tower.
No
utilities are required for these towers. They
will transmit the meteorological data that they collect via a cellular phone
signal.
If
this proposed use is approved, then the tower will be reviewed administratively
for structural and other standards according to the County’s Communication
Tower Ordinance. Our Communication
Tower Ordinance calls for the owners of residences within 400' plus the height
of the tower to sign an acknowledgement of the tower construction being this
close to their residence. In this
case, that would apply only to the residence on the Rankin's property. The Rankins have signed this waiver. Staff feels that the
establishment, maintenance, or operation of the conditional use will not be
detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or
general welfare.
Due
to the short life-span of these towers (1-3 years), and the fact that they are not
lit, staff finds that a CUP to allow these towers will not be injurious to the
use and enjoyment of other property in the surrounding area for the purposes
already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within
the surrounding area. (If we receive information from surrounding property
owners that states otherwise- and upon investigation seems pertinent- this may
change our statement.
Please
refer to the CUP Criteria Checklists on pages
C4- C6
for more detailed information.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Conditional Use Permit approval of
the proposed Invenergy Wind Development, LLC CUP with the following conditions
being met.
1.
Any other land divisions, commercial structures, or other types of uses
not considered with this submittal must come through a separate CUP or review
process with the County.
2.
The tower must comply with all applicable portions of the County’s
Communications Towers ordinances.
3.
This use is permitted for up to three years from the date of completed
installation. If more time is
needed, then the applicant must request an additional CUP.
4.
The tower height may not exceed 199’ (feet) in height.
The tower may not be lit.
5.
Pay neighbor notification fees ($27.52).
6.
Staff must receive a copy of the valid access agreement with the Devore
Family.
INFRASTRUCTURE: Water
–Washington Water Authority services the area.
Other Utilities
- The lot is in the service area of Ozark Electric and CenturyTel Telephone.
Brandon Ferrall,
Invenergy, LLC, was present to answer any questions.
Larry Walker moved to
approve Rankin Invenergy Wind Development, LLC Conditional Use Permit with
conditions. Cheryl West seconded. Motion
passes.
All Board members were in favor of approving Rankin
Invenergy Wind Development, LLC Conditional Use Permit.
County
d.
Invenergy Wind Development, LLC CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request)
Location: Section 1, Township 13 North, Range 29 West
Owner/Developer: Lane Spears and Robert Spears
Representative: Invenergy, LLC - Brandon Ferrall
(Development Manager)
Location Address: 18687 Kilowatt Road (WC #3102
Res. Dr. Kilowatt Road)
70 acres and 1 unit / Proposed Land Use:
Meteorological Tower
Project
#: 2008-219 Planner: Juliet Richey, e-mail at jrichey@co.washington.ar.us
Planner:
Courtney McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
REQUEST:
Conditional Use Permit Approval for Invenergy Wind Development, LLC CUP.
The proposed land use is a Meteorological Tower on 70 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 9, JP Butch Pond
BACKGROUND/
PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
The owners are Lane Spears and
Robert Spears. Brandon
Ferrall,
Development Manager,
with
Invenergy LLC
is the representative for this project. The
property has access on Res. Dr. Kilowatt Road (WC #3102), just off of Sunset
Road, and is located at 18687 Kilowatt Road.
The same type of tower is
proposed on this site as was proposed in item C. The primary difference in this case is that the tower will be
closer to Sunset Road. The tower will meet minimum setback specifications for
communication towers as per our ordinances, and staff has no issue with the
tower being closer to the road.
The proposed tower is to be
approximately 197' in height, and will not exceed 199’ in height. There
will be no lighting required for the tower (lighting is required by the FAA if a
tower is over 200' in height), and the tower will be in place for only 1-3 years
for meteorological monitoring (at the end of this time the tower will be removed
from the property).
Invenergy LLC believes that
there is a potential for a good wind resource in this area.
This meteorological tower will be put in place to test that theory.
The tower will collect wind and weather data over the 1-3 year period to
determine whether the wind resource in this area is good enough to look at
further wind development (possibly wind farms or something of that nature). Please see the attached letter from the applicant outlining
his request for these towers for more information.
The letter is the same as the one in item C (see
pg D7).
It
should be made clear that this Conditional Use Permit is for the use of one
meteorological tower only. If there
is a potential for commercial type wind development in the area, then that
proposed development will be reviewed under a different application, and all
property owners will be re-notified according to our ordinances.
No utilities are required for
this tower. The tower will transmit the meteorological data that it collects via
a cellular phone signal.
The nearest residence to proposed tower location is
approximately 219' away. This
residence is on the Spears' property. The
closest building on a property not belonging to the Spears' is a building
(not clear whether or not it is residential in nature) located on Rodney Jones'
property to the north. This
building appears to be approximately 630' from the base of the tower.
If this proposed use is
approved, then the tower will be reviewed administratively for structural and
other standards according to the County’s Communication Tower Ordinance. Our
Communication Tower code calls for the owners of residences within 400' plus the
height of the tower to sign an acknowledgement of the tower construction being
this close to their residence. In
this case, that would apply only to the residence on the Spears' property. They
have signed this waiver, therefore staff feels that the establishment,
maintenance, or operation of the conditional use will not be detrimental to or
endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare.
Due to the short life-span of
this tower (1-3 years), and the fact that it is not to be lit, staff
finds that a CUP to allow this tower will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the surrounding area for the purposes already
permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the
surrounding area. (If we receive information from surrounding property owners
that states otherwise- and upon investigation seems pertinent- this may change
our statement. At this time we
have received no comments from any surrounding property owners.)
Please refer to the CUP Criteria
Checklists on pages
D4 – D6 for more detailed information.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Conditional Use Permit approval of
the proposed Invenergy Wind Development, LLC CUP with the following conditions
being met.
1.
Any other land divisions, commercial structures, or other types of uses
not considered with this submittal must come through a separate CUP or review
process with the County.
2.
The tower must comply with all applicable portions of the County’s
Communications Towers ordinances.
3.
This use is permitted for up to three years from the date of completed
installation. If more time is
needed, then the applicant must request an additional CUP.
4.
The tower height may not exceed 199’ (feet) in height.
The tower may not be lit.
5.
Pay neighbor notification fees ($24.08).
INFRASTRUCTURE: Water
–Washington Water Authority services the area.
Other Utilities
- The lot is in the service area of Ozark Electric and CenturyTel Telephone.
Brandon Ferrall,
Invenergy, LLC, was present to answer any questions.
Juliet
Richey, Washington County Planning Director, stated, “This tower is closer to
Sunset Road (WC #38). It is located
on the Spears’ property. This one
is a little closer to structures; however, the structures that it are within
600’ of it do belong to the Spears and they have signed off on it.
We require anybody within 400’ plus the height of the tower to sign
something that says that they are okay with the construction of that site and
they have signed off on it. We did
have one neighbor comment, which the Board received by e-mail, of a lady
concerned about bird issues in the future.
I spoke with her and she just wants to make sure that is something that
we are going to talk about at a later time and it is.”
Walker
asked, “What was the Conditional Use that was different than the other one?”
Richey replied, “The other one had the condition that we needed that
access agreement through the Devore’s and this one since they own all that
land we won’t need that.”
Gallagher
asked, “What was the distance that the building had to be in order to have
sign off on it?” Richey replied,
“400’ plus the height of tower. In
this case, approximately 600’.”
Brandon
Ferrall had nothing to add.
Dwayne
Dennis, adjacent
property owner to the west at 18105 Sunset Road,
commented, “I have
property that joins the Spears property. The
thing I know all this Planning it says something about it has to be fitted into
the what’s surrounding. There’s
a 1,320’ Channel 13 tower right across the road from me and at least two maybe
three other cell towers installed. There
are birds that already fly around them.”
Head stated, “The problem is mitigated you think.
He is speaking in regards to the letters that someone was talking about
having an Avian study, but I assume these towers were to test to see if there is
enough wind to have a wind farm. I
think the Avian study would be in front of a wind farm.”
Richey commented, “When they actually put up the turbines.”
Head stated, “I’ve been to Palm Springs and I’ve seen a thousand of
those in one place and those birds are all around them.”
Haley
asked, “Will we get any report from the data that is collected at the end of
the three years or would there be a need to do that?” Richey replied, “Not unless we create some sort of
regulation that says that we should. It
belongs to that company.” Haley
asked, “Insisting, if we ever got to that point down the road?”
Head replied, “If it is a commercially viable decision.”
Butler commented, “I think the only way that we’ll ever need to know
about it when they actually come in to put in a wind farm.”
Head stated, “You can assume it was enough wind.”
Gallagher
commented, “I would think it would probably be some kind of proprietary
information. They went through all
the trouble gathering it. They
probably wouldn’t want their competitors to know what they found.”
Larry Walker moved to
approve Spears Invenergy Wind Development, LLC Conditional Use Permit with
conditions. Kenley Haley seconded. Motion
passes.
All Board members were in favor of approving Spears
Invenergy Wind Development, LLC Conditional Use Permit.
Fayetteville Planning Area
e. 250' Self
Support Tower – S. Mally Wagnon Road CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request) To
be tabled at the request of the applicant (4)
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
Larry Walker 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.
County
f.
Smith & Barker CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request) To
be tabled at the request of the applicant (3)
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
Larry Walker 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.
5.
OLD BUSINESS
6.
OTHER BUSINESS
Juliet Richey, Washington County Planning Director,
stated, “Last time (December 4, 2008), we kind of ran out of time.
The corridor zoning passage that did pass in November (2008).
I wanted to let the Board know that we will be looking at moving forward
on further studies on areas that we left unzoned here in the next six months.”
Richey commented, “The Board will be getting an end of the
year report at the next meeting from 2008.”
Richey asked, “I want to talk to the Board about
is the discussion regarding looking at future wind farm regulations.
We talked about this a little bit about looking at some basic regulations
that we may want to have in place if commercial wind farms do become something
that we are looking at in the future. The
February 5, 2009 meeting right now there are only three agenda items.
I would like to spend probably like 45 minutes discussing this at some
point. Do you want to tack it onto
a meeting or do you want to have a special meeting to do it?”
Head replied, “I am going to assume that Palm
Springs, California has some of the most restricted rules in the world and yet
they have miles of wind farms. Since
this gentleman (Brandon Ferrall)
is already here I’m sure he can tell us other places in the country where
they’ve experienced all of the things that we’ve never experienced.
I would like to see us look at other people’s work that have spent a
lot of time doing this rather than trying to invent something and so if you can
get us two or three places where they’ve already gone through all of these
issues and invite the lady that wrote the letter from California if she knows of
somewhere that has regulations that she would like to submit to make sure that
we see that and I’m not sure if we can get those by February can we?”
Richey commented, “We’ve actually already got
a bunch. We’ve already started
this. We’re going to bring you
assimilated information to that meeting. Right
now, the way that we have been proceeding is there are arranged different
ordinances and some of them move into the aesthetics
of wind turbines and that’s not something that I am interested in looking into
and I don’t know if it is something that the Board is interested in looking
into or not. I’m looking at more
of kind of the more practical side, which is the way that we approach many
things in the County looking out for the general taxpayer’s dollar, making
sure roads are improved, and also watching out for the farmers who are going to
be the recipients to this and make sure there is an abandonment clause if those
farms are abandoned that the people who built them have to take them down not
the responsibility of the farmer and things like that. That is the path that we’ve been on so far unless the Board
directs me to do otherwise that’s kind of the path that I want to keep going
on.”
Head
asked, “That sounds good. Can we
add that onto a very short meeting already designed for February?” West replied, “I would rather do that.”
Walker stated, “I’m sure in that you’ve
already searched out the noise and elevation.
That’s the things that I’m hearing the aesthetics, noise, and that’s about it.”
Richey commented, “Right, that’s what we’re looking at.”
Gallagher stated, “There is a considerable sized
development that has been there at least 15 years in Livermore, California in
the northern part of the state it’s on a highway between the Bay Area and
Modesto. I used to drive by it all
the time; there were hundreds of them. It’s
not too far from the Livermore Labs.”
Richey
commented, “We’re not interested in doing anything new we just want to pick
out the things that we feel like best fit Washington County and make sure that
we’re covered in that because if these do happen they’re going to be very
large developments. Like anything
you want to make sure it’s done right. We
want it to be something that Washington County can be proud of and not be
something that costs us.”
Gallagher
stated, “I think you are correct that could serve as a good checklist for us
though for ‘Gee, I wish we thought of that.’
They’ve been around the block and they’ve probably amended them more
than a few times. Lets learn from
them we don’t live long enough to make all the mistakes, learn from somebody
else’s.”
Richey
commented, “We’ll plan to discuss
that at the end of the February 5, 2009 meeting.”
Larry Walker moved to adjourn. Cheryl West seconded.
Motion passes.
Planning Board adjourned.
Minutes submitted by: Amanda
Kimbel
Approved by the Planning
Board on:
_____Randy Laney_________ Date: __02/05/09________
Randy
Laney, Planning Board Chairman
WASHINGTON
COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
&
ZONING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
February 5, 2009
5:00
p.m., Quorum Courtroom, New Courthouse
Fayetteville, Arkansas
DEVELOPMENTS REVIEWED:
ACTION TAKEN:
a. The
Orchards at Union Star Road CUP
Tabled
b.
Smith & Barker CUP
Removed
from the agenda
Fayetteville Planning Area
c.
250' Self Support Tower – S. Mally Wagnon Road CUP
Removed
from the agenda
1. ROLL CALL:
Roll call was taken.
Members present include: James F. Gallagher, Kenley Haley, Randy Laney,
Larry Walker, Gary Head, Cheryl West, and Robert Daugherty.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (from the January 8, 2009 meeting)
Kenley Haley made a motion to approve as written. Robert Daugherty provided the
second. Motion passes.
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
Robert Daugherty made a
motion to approve the agenda. Cheryl West seconded. Motion passes.
4. NEW BUSINESS
a. The
Orchards at Union Star Road CUP (Conditional
Use Permit Request)
Location:
Section 19 & 30, Township 14 North, Range 30 West
Owner/Developer:
Triangle Builders Supply, Inc. – Don Watson
Engineer/Surveyor:
Key Architecture, Inc. (KAI)
Location Address: 16488 Union Star Road (WC #224)
59.79
acres and 60 units / Proposed Land Use: Agricultural and Residential
Project
#: 2009-002 Planner:
Juliet Richey, e-mail at jrichey@co.washington.ar.us
Planner: Courtney McNair,
e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
REQUEST:
Conditional Use Permit Approval for The Orchards at Union Star Road CUP. The request is for a
sustainable agricultural community and residential subdivision on a total of
59.79 acres with 60 residential lots and one large common/agricultural lot
proposed. (See applicant’s letter page A-19-A-20).
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
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION:
see page A-6.
BACKGROUND/ PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
This
Conditional Use Permit Request is requesting 60 small residential lots (ranging
from 4000-5000 sq. ft. in size, about 18% of the site) and one
Agricultural/Common Area Lot (about 80% of the site) on 59.79 acres. These lots
do not meet the 1-acre minimum lot size required by the zoning in this area
because most of the site is proposed to be reserved for community agricultural
uses. This property is in an area
where the use of Single Family Residential (minimum lot size of one acre) or
Agricultural, is allowed by right, and the County Planning Board/ Zoning Board
of Adjustments must review all other proposed uses as Conditional Use Permit
Requests.
There
are several concerns that were not addressed to staff satisfaction.
ROADS
The
first concern is the site entrance/exit. After staff visited the site, a
recommendation for repositioning the entrance/exit was suggested to the
developer because of the hazardous nature of the curve to the north of the site.
(see
attached picture, page A-30). The
sight distance provided by the developer is 115’ (turning out of the
entrance). Because of the nature of the curve, staff feels that this is not
adequate. Most vehicle traffic will enter the site from the North, so they must
turn left into the site. If a
vehicle is stopped to make this turn, the sight visibility is much less and will
cause serious safety conditions. The developer has stated that he will work with
an engineer to determine a better position for the entrance, but staff does not
feel that a recommendation for the approval of this CUP is appropriate until
this matter is further investigated. With that said, staff and the developer
would like the Planning Board to review the remaining elements of this project
to see if any other concerns arise and how the Board feels about the general
concept of this project.
The
calculation used to determine the class of interior roads is flawed. Washington
County Standards require that this number be calculated with 10 trips per day,
not 5. The developer must recalculate and correct the class of road that will be
required prior to CUP approval.
A
full traffic study will be required at Preliminary Plat Submittal. This will
also determine the offsite requirements for improvements to Union Star Road.
DECENTRALIZED
SEWER
Rhonda Hulse,
Public Utility Coordinator, has asked that the developer complete and return the
Decentralized Sewer Survey to her prior to CUP approval. All other requirements
need to be met at Preliminary and Final Subdivision Submittal (Ms. Hulse will
determine when she needs this information).
The developer did provide preliminary soils work. It indicated that the
Decentralized Sewer should be place on LkC2 and AnE soils (see attached
report page A-21-A-24). These soils are in a different location than the
developer had originally stated as a possible location for this system.
Therefore, the approximate location of the
proposed Decentralized Sewer System with the approximate
acreage listed must be shown on the plans prior to CUP approval.
WATER/FIRE
The
water provider for this project is Washington Water Authority. They are
requiring an offsite water main extension (8” or 12” to be determined when
engineered gpm flows are completed) from the existing water tank (to the North)
that will tie into the water line along Union Star Road. An easement from the
neighbor to the North will need to be secured at Preliminary Submittal to allow
the waterline to be extended. The project should be able to provide normal water
consumption and fire flow gpms with this proposed extension. Engineered Fire
Flows will be required at Preliminary Submittal.
All
buildings that will have public access must meet fire code and had adequate
parking and access for emergency vehicles shown on the Preliminary Plat. John
Jenkins, Washington County Fire Marshal, will inspect the buildings prior to
occupation. The developer has indicated that the service road to most of these
buildings (the Writer’s Retreat may also need access) will support 75,000 lbs
in all weather conditions. The first submittal showed an underground storage/
storm shelter structure (it was erroneously left off of the last submittal).
John Jenkins stated
that they would need to adhere to the same regulations as other community
buildings.
The
developer also indicated that rainwater might be recycled and used in some
homes. A
Condition of approval should state that a note needs to be added to the plat
that indicates that each individual owner will be responsible for following the
rules and regulations of State Plumbing Code if recycled or rain barrel water is
used because this type of water must be plumbed separately from potable water.
UTILITIES/LOT
LAYOUT
Currently,
the front setback shown on the plat (which also needs to be labeled as a Utility
Easement) is only shown as 15’. This will not sufficiently allow utilities (as
per their comments from Tech Review) to service these lots. The maximum UE
requested was for overhead electrical service at 30’ wide. This needs to be
reflected on the plans. In addition to the front setback, the proposed side
setback is not adequate unless certain fire protection rules are followed.
Washington County requires 20’ between residences. The side setbacks are shown
as 5’, this will only be 10’ between residences. If this little clearance
between buildings is proposed, additional regulations will need to be obtained
from the Fire Marshal pertaining to this situation (prior to CUP approval).
The
minimum road frontage per lot, according to County Standards, is 75 feet. This
can be measured from the Building Setback on the cul-de-sac lots. If the
developer feels that they cannot provide 75’ of frontage, then an alternate
solution must be proposed and approved by staff prior to CUP approval. This
should be dimensioned on the plat.
Setbacks
should also be placed for the remaining property. The developer should show
20’ side setbacks, 20’ rear setbacks and a 25’ setback/utility easement
along the front of the property on the plat prior to CUP approval.
A
rough schematic of the utilities (WWA, Ozarks Electric, Windstream
Communications and the proposed Sewer Lines) shown with proper spacing and
indicating front or rear service must be submitted prior to CUP approval. This
will help determine the proper UE size and help in determining the overall lot
layout.
With
the 30’ front, 10’ side and 10’ rear setbacks/utility easements, staff
calculated that this would leave approximately 1300 sq feet of the lot buildable.
The developer needs to provide a rough schematic of the layout of a typical lot
(house footprint, driveway, out buildings, draft of covenants, etc…).
At
Tech Review, the developer stated that most of the care of the common areas and
agricultural land within the proposed project would be handled by someone hired
by the POA that would live on the property in the existing trailer house. This
would cause the proposed number of single-family homes to be 61 not 60. Staff
has no concerns about one additional residence, but does need more information
about this proposal. The request should include allowing this additional
residence.
DRAINAGE
A
full drainage study will be required at Preliminary Plat Submittal.
NEIGHBORING PROPERTY:
Staff has received two written neighbor comments and
one telephone comment in the past two days. All were opposed to the proposed
project. Concerns include:
•Schools
not able to handle extra children,
•Roads
not able to handle extra traffic,
•The
land is not good for quality (quantity) food and trees,
•Not
enough acreage,
•Are
the homes for sale, rent or sharecrop type,
•Overuse
of the land,
•Illegal
persons living there,
•Extra
dogs and cats in an area where cattle is raised,
•Extra
produce is not needed in this area,
•Will
the tax base change,
•How
will the decentralized sewer be maintained,
•What
if the power goes out to this type of sewer system,
•This
will contaminate the groundwater that most of the neighbors access for their well
water,
•Runoff
from this property will be put on another property,
•Odor
and health issues from sewer,
•Have
they obtained permits,
•and
Has WWA agreed to service the lots with water.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends TABLING the Conditional Use Permit
for the proposed The Orchards at Union Star Road CUP. However, staff would like
feedback at the meeting from the Planning Board with regards to the concept of
this proposed CUP.
CONDITIONS
recommended for this CUP so far (items in bold have NOT been addressed yet):
1.
The site entrance must be reworked so that the serious safety situation
is resolved.
2.
The calculation used to determine the class of interior roads is flawed.
Washington County requires that this number be calculated with 10 trips per day,
not 5. Recalculate and correct the class of road that will be required.
3.
Dimension the sight distance from the interior intersection to the
entrance of the project.
4.
Cul-de-sac roads cannot be any longer than 1200 feet.
5.
The existing 15 –foot access easement for the property to the East
cannot be blocked in any manner.
6.
As there is only one entrance to the site, the entrance must be divided.
This must be a minimum of 40 feet wide with each drive lane a minimum of 20 feet
wide.
7.
Need approximate location of the proposed Decentralized Sewer System with
approximate acreage.
8.
Must complete and return the
Decentralized Sewer Survey to Rhonda Hulse prior to CUP approval. All other
requirements need to be met at Preliminary and Final Subdivision Submittal (Ms.
Hulse will determine when she needs this information).
9.
An easement across the subdivision property must be dedicated for the
location of this waterline.
10.
All buildings with public access must meet fire code and have adequate
parking and access for emergency vehicles.
11.
Access roads must be able to support 75,000 lbs in all weather
conditions.
12.
Any fire code requirements for
community storm shelters must be followed. Show the underground storage/storm
shelter structure on the plans.
13.
A note needs to be added to the
plans that indicate that each individual owner will be responsible for following the
rules and regulations of State Plumbing Code if recycled or rain barrel water is
used because this type of water must be plumbed separately from potable water.
14.
Add a note that “No Parking”
signs will be placed along 20’ wide roads within subdivision.
15.
Show hydrant locations (max.
500’ apart).
16.
If the side setbacks allow
residences to be placed closer than 20 feet apart, the developer must follow all
additional fire code requirements.
17.
The minimum road frontage per lot, according to County
Standards, is 75 feet. This can be measured from the Building Setback on the
cul-de-sac lots. If the developer feels that they cannot provide 75’ of
frontage, then an alternate solution must be proposed and approved by staff
prior to CUP approval. This should be dimensioned on the plat.
18.
No more than 61 single-family
homes (each on individual lots with the exception of the caretaker’s
residence) will be allowed to be located on this property.
19.
A rough schematic of the utilities (WWA, Ozarks Electric, Windstream
Communications and the proposed Sewer Lines) shown with proper spacing and
indicating front or rear service must be submitted prior to CUP approval. This
will help determine the proper UE size and help in determining the overall lot
layout.
20.
The developer needs to provide a rough schematic of the layout of a
typical lot (house footprint, driveway, out buildings, draft of covenants,
etc…).
21.
At Tech Review, the developer stated that most of the
care of the common areas and agricultural land within the proposed project would
be handled by someone hired by the POA that would live on the property in the
existing trailer house. This would cause the proposed number of single-family
homes to be 61 not 60. Staff has no concerns about one additional residence, but
does need more information about this proposal. The request should include
allowing this additional residence.
22.
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.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water –Washington Water Authority services the area.
Other Utilities
– The lot is in the service area of Ozark Electric and Windstream
Communications. A decentralized sewer system is proposed for this project.
INFORMATION NEEDED FOR PRELIMINARY:
1.
A full traffic study will be required. This will determine the offsite
requirements for improvements to Union Star Road.
2.
Any decentralized sewer information that Rhonda Hulse requires at this
stage of development must be completed.
3.
Engineered Fire Flows must be submitted and must be adequate to provide
normal water consumption and fire flow gpm.
4.
An easement agreement with the neighbor to the North must be completed in
order to extend the water line from the Washington Water Authority tanks to the
proposed development.
5.
John Jenkins will inspect all public buildings prior to occupation to
ensure they meet fire code.
6.
Any setbacks that do not meet County Standards will be required to ask
for a variance.
7.
Need detailed parking and access plans shown to the public buildings. The
fire access cannot be blocked.
8.
Full drainage study.
9.
Offsite water line extension must be completed and connected to the water
line at Union Star Road. (minimum 8-inch, but a 12-inch line may be required).
10.
Any gravel drives that are connected to the cul-de-sac roads must be
paved 20 feet in from the cul-de-sac.
11.
More conditions will be added at Preliminary Review Stage of this
proposed project.
Don Watson, Triangle
Builders Supply, Inc., and James Key, Key Architecture, Inc.
(KAI) were present to answer any questions.
Juliet Richey, Washington County Planning Director,
stated, “This project is located southwest of the City of West Fork on Union
Star Road (WC #224). It is in the
zoned area agricultural/single-family residential one unit per acre.
Union Star Road is off of Highway 170.
The site is approximately 60 acres; it is 59.79 acres.
Union Star Road intersects (to the south) with Bethlehem Road (WC #237).
The only existing subdivision in the area is Honey Hollow Subdivision,
which was created in 1979 and it is very large lot subdivision. Lots from 1.5
acres to 20.9 acres.”
Richey
added, “At the time that I mailed the Board members’ packets and e-mailed
the Board members the Staff report we did not have any comments from neighboring
property owners. We have received
several comments since that time. The
Additions to ‘A – The Orchards at Union Star Road’ includes a letter from
the applicant that he sent today as well as several comments from neighbors. The
site itself has two existing homes on it and then several existing outbuildings
that they are proposing to use for community buildings for this development.”
Richey
also added, “Basically, what you have is right when you come into the entrance
to the property they are proposing to have two cul-de-sac streets that will have
60 residential lots on them. They
are proposing that the minimum lot size be 4,000 square feet (somewhere around
an eighth of an acre). There are
several existing ponds on-site and then they are also proposing a pond in the
future.”
Richey
added, “The general gist of this is that they want to do a sustainable type
community. As you know our
ordinance allows you to do by right subdivisions with lots no less than an acre
in size. Because they are proposing
all of these smaller lots, that’s why they need to come through for
Conditional Use. What they want to
do is make the density of families who live there approximately the same as it
would be with one-acre lots by having 60 residential lots and they want to
preserve much of this area that is left over as working agricultural area. They have different things shown (on the site plan):
community orchards, meadow garden, pond, commons areas, and areas where they are
going to grow vegetables and things like that.”
Richey
also added, “In a lot of ways I feel like the general concept is very much in
line with what we talked about when we passed zoning and what our County Land
Use Plan says. We want to preserve
agriculture in the County first and foremost, and we also want to do things that
allow people to live in single-family residences.
In this case, there are multiple items because they are requesting such
small lots and it is a different setup than we’re used to seeing there have
been several issues that have come up that we need to get some resolution on
before we go ahead and pass that Conditional Use and that is important because
we have these basic subdivision regulations that are meant for the larger lot
sizes and things like that. When
you have a kind of different configuration like this there are things that are
usually covered in the regular subdivision code that we need to take care of
upfront on this Conditional Use to make sure that while the idea is solid to
create a community like this that we’re not going to create any issues or
problems because we are doing a different configuration.
What I want to say upfront, basically, Staff is in support of the general
idea. I just want you to know that
because we’re fixing to go through a lot of things where I’m going to say
there’s an issue with this and there’s an issue with that.
I think that most of them can be worked through.”
Richey
added, “The primary one that we’re concerned about is the site visibility at
this entrance. They don’t have a
lot of frontage on Union Star Road; they have about 154’ of road frontage in
the curve. That is the primary
thing that I’m not sure what the solution is going to be at this time.”
Laney
asked, “Just to make sure I know what it is we’re seeking to do.
I think that needs to be real clear to everybody.
We’re not going to vote, as I understand it?
You’re asking for just feedback?”
Richey replied, “I’m asking for feedback from you all on everything
else essentially, except for, on the site visibility issue.
The Planning Department and applicant have asked if you could give
feedback on the general direction that this project is going and then if it is
positive and it is something that they feel like is feasible in this area or
that you feel like is feasible in this area, and you communicate that, then the
applicant is going to go and pursue some engineering options to try to rectify
this problem (sight visibility).”
Laney commented, “Then (they will) come back for a
formal request. That’s what I
want to be clear on.”
Richey replied, “Yes.
I’m going to go through the issues we have right now.
The first and foremost issue is the site entrance and exits.
After the Staff visited the site, a recommendation for repositioning the
entrance and exit was suggested to the developer because of the hazardous nature
of the curve to the north of the site. This
is going to be the way that most people come from (Highway) 170 and make a left
turn into this subdivision. A
better option is to come up Bethlehem Road (WC #237), which is down by Winslow
exit. Some people may come in that
way, but we’re concerned about the hazardous situation turning left in here
and also turning left out of this subdivision.
Because of the nature of the curve we feel like the sight distance is not
adequate. The developer stated that
he will work with an engineer to determine a better position for this entrance,
but Staff doesn’t feel that a recommendation for the approval of the
Conditional Use Permit is appropriate until this matter is further investigated.
They also used the wrong calculation to determine the class of interior
streets. Washington County requires
this number to be calculated again with 10 trips per day.
Of course there would be a full traffic study that would be required at
the time of Preliminary Plat submittal.”
Richey
added, “Another issue that has come up and I know that we’ve got quite a bit
of public comment about it is the decentralized sewer. Many of you (Board members) - not all of you were here when
we’ve had a lot these come through, - but some of you were. Decentralized sewer is something that we’ve worked out
pretty well in the County. It is
regulated by ADEQ (Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality) and you have to
have a licensed wastewater operator that runs that sort of plant. We don’t have a lot of concerns with the actual operation
of them. The County did have some
concerns about the financial means for those, and the County setup a set of
ordinances where if you are going to do a decentralized sewer then you have to
go through some steps to submit financial information and there are bonds
required until the POA (Property Owners’ Association) takes over and things
like that to keep it in good financial shape so that if something breaks there
is money there to fix that. The
developer did provide preliminary soils work and it is indicated that the
decentralized sewer could go on this site.
The soils expert recommended it be placed on some certain soils and they
are in a different location than the developer originally stated as a possible
location for this system so we need to see some revised plans that show kind of
the area where the system will go as well as the rest of their
infrastructure.”
Richey
also added, “The other issues that we have are with water and fire.
The water provider for this project is Washington Water Authority.
There are two existing water tanks on top of this mountain. Washington Water Authority said that if the applicant can
acquire an easement from the people to the north to bring the lines straight
down across their property and then onto the applicant’s property and then
create a loop system that would feed this development and then connect back into
the existing line on Union Star Road, that there would be sufficient water both
to meet Fire Code and for drinking water on-site.
As far as any other fire issues, all of the buildings that will have
public access, which would be the community buildings that they indicated, those
are going to have to have access for emergency vehicles shown they have to be
able to hold up 75,000 pounds in all weather conditions.”
Richey
added, “Another issue is that the developers indicated that rainwater might be
recycled and used in some homes and it would meet Arkansas plumbing code as long
as the condition of approval would state. That
note needs to be added to the plat that each individual owner would be
responsible for having that plumbed separately or correctly and whatever
capacity they would like to do. Some
other issues we have because this is a different type of configuration is the
utilities. Currently we need to
work out and get the setbacks and utility easements shown that are going to be
able to house all of the separate utilities and also the sewer lines for the
decentralized system. We’ve asked
them to basically give us a schematic that’s going to show all of those
utilities being housed and how much room that’s going to take to make sure
that the 4,000 square foot minimum lot size is still going to be enough to where
they can actually build a house on it after you get all those property utility
lines in place, so we’re expecting him to bring that back as well.”
Richey
also added, “We need to see if they are going to request something different
than the minimum road frontage per lot, which is 75’, we’ve also not gotten
an answer from them on that yet. The
only other thing is at Tech. Review the developer stated that most of the care
on the Common Areas and the agricultural land within the proposed project would
be handled by someone hired by the POA that would live on the property in an
existing manufactured home. This
would cause the proposed number of single-family homes to actually be 61 instead
of 60, which moves you a little farther away from your one single-family unit
per acre, however, we don’t feel that the addition of one residence is a
problem for us, but it is something that the Board should think about as you are
assessing this issue.”
Richey
added, “We did receive a lot of neighbor comments within the last two days.
I’ve outlined their concerns. One
concern is that schools are not able to handle extra children; we actually
contacted West Fork schools and spoke to the Superintendent to see if that would
be a problem if they are having capacity issues in their school. Diane Barrett,
which is the West Fork School Superintendent, said that they would encourage any
growth in the community and the school is not overcrowded as of now.
Of course in the future it could be possible as the district grows they
may need new facilities, but they do not have any facility issues right now.
Other issues and concerns that have been brought up roads will not be
able to handle extra traffic; we’re looking into that.
The land is not good for quality (quantity) of food and trees, there’s
not enough acreage, people want to know if the homes are for sale or rent or
sharecrop type, overuse of land, issues with illegal persons living there, extra
dogs and cats out in the country area where livestock is raised, extra produce
not needed in the area, concerns about the tax base, how the decentralized sewer
will be maintained, concerns regarding the decentralized sewer if the power goes
out, whether or not the decentralized sewer would contaminate groundwater as
many of the neighbors have access to well water, whether runoff on this property
will be put on another property, odor and health issues from sewer, have they
obtained permits, and has Washington Water Authority agreed to service the lots
with water.”
Richey
also added, “We do recommend tabling the Conditional Use right now.
I would like to talk to you about the conditions that so far we complied
that we would be recommending for a project like this.
Condition #4 (Cul-de-sacs roads cannot be any longer than 1,200 feet);
that has to do with Fire Code and Road Department specifications and right now
they are showing them right at 1,200’. I
realize that’s a lot of information.”
Walker
asked, “Did you say there’s an easement to the east?” Richey replied, “Yes, to the end of the southern
cul-de-sac, the people to the east use it to access their property from time to
time. I understand, although I
haven’t verified this, that people that own this adjacent property also have
another access that goes down to the south, so this is not something that they
use everyday, but they did want to keep it intact.”
Walker
asked, “Is that something that’s going to be in the future; the road to the
Commons Area?” Richey replied,
“It is not shown on the first plan.” Walker
commented, “I’m looking at the aerial.”
Richey stated, “We may need to have more roads that access these two
pieces as well. We’re still
trying to get more information on exactly what the uses are going to be, but
essentially anything that is going to be a common use building I think that some
of them are going to be used for storage, but something that people congregate
in you know how community meetings then it is going to have to have that fire
access.”
Daugherty
asked, “Is the intent to sell these or rent?”
Richey replied, “I believe that the intent is to sell.”
Don
Watson stated, “Our plan is to sell lots primarily to individuals.
I can give you a lot of information that I have prepared to speak about.
I represent Triangle
Builders Supply, Inc. We’re the
owners of the property. The way
that the Orchards concept was born was out of the three concepts that have come
up recently, or maybe not so recently, in our Country and our Counties’ lifestyle
changes: the concept of community, the concept of sustainability, and the
concept of agriculture. Where
people want to know where their food comes from and they prefer to buy it
locally or even raise it themselves. That
was part of our three-legged concept with agricultural sustainable community.
We have experience in community building by giving you an example of one
in Rogers, Arkansas, it is called Azalea Trails Apartment Community.
About seven years ago or so that was a rundown City had condemned project
full of drug users and peddlers. We
took it over and emptied it out and changed it into a 55+ community that is now
a thriving community. The people
there really enjoy their camaraderie that they have been
able to build on-site, and it is one of the few complexes in Northwest Arkansas
that enjoys an occupancy rating excess of 95%.
A lot of our people who live there have been there from the word go six
or seven years ago. Some of them
ask us for five-year leases in advance.”
Watson
added, “These are kind of the communities that we like to talk about.
So far as the type of structure that might be built on these lots - we
think it will be simple but elegant. The
design to part of it would be we would like to refer to it almost living off the
grid. There are a lot of elements that we can introduce that we may
even put into covenants and restrictions package we haven’t developed that
yet, but these are very things that might very well become part of a rule sort
of speak for the construction and people who build homes there.
We want to avoid the mini mansion syndrome; the large expanses of roof
and the large lots where people have to tend lots of grass instead we’ll give
them gardens to work in if they wish if they don’t then we’ll have someone
hired to take care of that for them. One
of the items that come up is the availability of fresh food grown on the place
where you can sit on your porch and watch it.
A gentleman by the name of Mark Cain who comes to the Farmer’s Market
in Fayetteville and has for many years. I
met him when my dad and I used to work on the market back in the ‘70’s, but
Mark has a deal where he brings packages of food to subscribers to Fayetteville
for $20 a week during the growing season. I was kind of astounded that he was
able to do that and keep it going. This
is an opportunity for people who do not only have that fresh food, but to
actually participate in the growing of it.
That was part of our concept with the agricultural and sustainability
concept. We’re going to keep the
land disturbed at an absolute minimum that means that if possible we’ll try to
build on piers - not big foundations. That’s
not going to be a rule that I’m going to stick hard and fast at this moment,
but the least amount of soil disturbance possible would be what we were going to
ask the builders to use. Those
practices are pretty common nowadays and they can do it.”
Watson
also added, “The design of the project is kind of designed to meet the needs
of demographic we call the empty nester. The
average age of the current farming individual who refers to himself as a farmer
in Washington County today is 56.7 years that’s up from 54 ten years ago.
That’s probably the demographic that we’re looking at in this
particular project. The design of
the project our goal was to maintain as much land and agricultural as possible. The current design yields 75% of the land to remain an
agricultural use whether that be timber, orchards, vineyard, gardens, Common
Areas, and etc. Overall, there
would be about 80% of the land remaining undisturbed except for the gardening of
course. The intention of creating a
simple and elegant atmosphere for people to live in and the lot prices in this
project will probably be in the $50,000 per lot category.
The monthly fee to keep up the Common Areas, the farming enterprises, and
the community sewer system is probably within a range of $150 a month.
Sustainability is not going to come cheap in this case.
It will be people who really want to live in this manner that we will
invite and will probably want to pay up. In
summary, our request at this time is for a Conditional Use only with regard to
the lot size. We’re not asking
for any variances of any other kind at this moment.
We intend to build and to develop everything using the National Building
Code, the Southern Building Code, and the County building ordinances and codes
and regulations. With regard to the
community sewer system whatever it takes whatever that means. Our experience and knowledge of this kind of system that they
will probably outperform the City of Fayetteville’s west side plant.
For all of those negative things that you might hear what about the
smell, what about the ground pollution, and etc.?
These kinds of systems by and large exceed the common systems that there
are now like the one in Fayetteville.”
Walker
asked, “I’m going from the agricultural side, who did the surveys on the
soil types for the vineyards, orchards, for all the crops? I mean is the soil and the conditions adaptable to these
types of crops?” Watson replied,
“We haven’t had any formal studies done except...” Walker asked, “How do
we know it’s going to work?” Watson
replied, “I have submitted the plans to several members of the Sustainable
Group at the University of Arkansas and have received comments from them.”
Walker asked, “What were they?”
Watson replied, “Mostly they were commenting to me that it looked like
because of their familiarity with the soils around that we would be able to do
some forms of the pecan trees if we used the local variety.
They mentioned that there were some very good varieties of pear and apple
that we could use that would be minimal care type that would work.
I can’t remember the exact varieties that were involved with there, but
they certainly said blueberries and blackberries are going to work great.
I haven’t got a definitive answer on grapes yet, of course that is kind
of a luxury, but it is our wish that certainly vegetables from that standpoint I
don’t think we’re going to have any problem with that.”
Walker
asked, “Clarify to me then who takes care of these orchards and vineyards?
Does the residents of these houses do they have their own little plot?”
Watson replied, “I’m certain that some of them probably will on their
own lot.” Walker asked, “What
if they don’t? Then it becomes
nonagricultural.” Watson asked,
“The lot?” Walker stated,
“The whole project.” Watson
commented, “No, I was just referring to their own individual lot in that
case.” Walker stated, “I’m
talking about the orchards, vineyards, and gardens.”
Watson commented, “That’s all going to be taken care of by the funds
that we’re going to generate and pay for the permanent care on-site.
In other words we’re going to hire a farmer and put him in that mobile
home and he’s going to work full-time.”
Walker asked, “Where is that going to sit?”
Watson replied, “It’s right at the end of the community room.
Out of $150 a month per lot we’re going to be able to afford some good
help.”
Daugherty
asked, “Will you as owners maintain that help or does the POA as a group
decide who they hire to manage this?” Watson
replied, “It’s not a real question that we’ve tried to answer yet.
We are primarily in the conceptual stage and when that finally comes
around my guess is the way that it would work is that we’re looking right now
we as the owner of the land for that person that we’re going to put in place.
Whether they stay after the POA is put in place or not will be up to a
Board that runs the POA.”
Gallagher stated, “You said that the reason that
you’re here is because of the lot size.”
Watson commented, “The Conditional Use was our only question that we
wanted to ask at this point. If we
can’t do that then we’re pretty much done; if we can’t get that under
one-acre lot approved. As far as
all the other technical issues that Juliet has brought up and that are in your
minds right now; we won’t turn a spade or do anything until we have some idea
and that would be an approval of Conditional Use for the smaller lots.”
Gallagher stated, “Not always is it the size of the lots, but it is
also the configuration of the lots because of the narrow frontage.
Aren’t the lots minimum 75’? These
appear to be in some cases less than 50’.”
Richey commented, “Right, and there’s also the issues with setbacks
and utility easement minimums that haven’t been worked out as well.”
Gallagher stated, “Although, I like the idea of the sustainable
community and the concept you’re talking about; I’m concerned about the
density and the closeness. There
aren’t many cities that have a less 5,000 square foot residential lot.”
Watson commented, “That may have been true in the past, but what’s
being built these days if you look at the communities like Seaside in Florida.
We’re involved in several projects in Rock Port Texas right now that is
zero lot line. This is the way that
the new urban design is going.” Gallagher
asked, “Even with zero lot line are they not more than 5,000 square feet of
surface?” Watson replied,
“No.” Gallagher asked, “How
small are those lots?” Watson
replied, “A lot of them are under 4,000 square feet.”
Gallagher stated, “I’ll wait on these other technical issues because
obviously that is not something to address at this moment.”
J.R.
O’Kane, adjacent property owner to the northwest at 16006 Union Star Road,
commented, “I’m a resident. I live about less than a mile from this project.
I’ve lived there for 25 years. I
don’t have any prepared remarks on this except to say that I am alarmed at
seeing this. We live in that area
because it is a very beautiful and a very quiet rural area.
It doesn’t need saving. This
is not a project that has gone bad that needs somebody to come in and
reinvigorate it. It is not an urban
area; it is extremely rural. It is
woods, pastures, and meadows. It’s
a very lovely area. Looking at this
plan the first thing that comes to my mind is that first of all it is an
admirable undertaking; grow your own food.
This is all kind reminiscent of the ‘60’s and early ‘70’s when a
lot of people tried this. A lot of
people found in trying this that it simply didn’t work; there was somebody who
wouldn’t going to work in the pasture; there was somebody who wouldn’t do
this; there was somebody wanted to move a trailer house on and bring his family
and so on and so forth. The first
thing that hits me this will triple or quadruple the amount of traffic and the
amount of road wear on Union Star Road. Union
Star Road is not all that well kept there’s potholes and dips; it’s patched
together. It’s only recently
become a paved road in the past several years.
It’s going to put a lot more traffic on the road and it is going to
significantly alter the quality of life of everybody on the road with these
extra people, the extra lights, the extra dogs, the extra cars, the extra use of
resources. The thing that I have to
ask immediately is what is in place in perpetuity to
keep this from being a tightly pact cheaply built low run slum if it doesn’t
go the way it supposed to go? Go
back in history and you’ll find that very few of these communal operations
have actually worked. It usually
just winds up with a few people owning all of the land or everybody just
dispersing and leaving shells behind. Also,
I might mention that my wife is here she’ll have her own comments to make, but
not all of the people who adjoin this property have been notified about this.
Jill Ballenger never received… she’s my wife’s cousin she recently
bought the land and she has not been advised of this.”
Richey
stated, “Ms. Ballenger is not within 300’ notification area.”
The audience commented that is incorrect she abuts the land.
Laney stated, “We’re not going to vote tonight anyway on the
project.” The audience stated that she owns the land to the north where
the water towers are. It just
happened at the end of the year. Richey
commented, “I guess the tax records haven’t been updated that is where we
get our information.”
Bob
Watson, adjacent property owner to the west at 16418 Union Star Road, stated,
“I have 40 acres due north of this conception that they are planning to try to
put in. I am fully against it like
J.R. O’Kane says I’ve lived there since ’74 and it’s our quiet
neighborhood and if you put 60 families in my back door it’s not going to be a
quiet neighborhood. Another thing
that the road that O’Kane spoke of if they start this project County you
better be ready to rebuild Union Star Road because last year they were out there
and dug out where it caved in with just what little bit of traffic was on it. If you run the dump trucks and concrete trucks over Union
Star Road being a hazard to the people out there you’re going to have to
rebuild the road because it will collapse, I’ll guarantee you that.
I’ll speak for Richard Chase (16347 Union Star Road to the southwest)
he is sick today. He joins right at
their driveway. He is fully against
it because of same things basically that I’ve said.
The County had the thing a house per acre one dwelling per acre they’re
going to stack 60 of them on 4 acres and then they’re talking about the
orchards and the gardens; they better put a 8’ fence around the entire thing.
I’ve lived there since ’74 and the deer will completely wipe out the
people that they bought this property from the north.
I planted grapes, fruit trees, and everything down there, they eat them
instantly. I have beds in my front
yard and the deer will come up within 6’ of my front deck and eat the stuff
out of it. They think they’re
going to have an orchard this is a fantasy somebody out of a fairy tale book has
come up with. It is something that
is virtually impossible unless they put an 8’ fence around it and that way it
is going to be a jail. I want to
say I am totally against it for those reasons.”
Frances
Matlock, adjacent
property owner to the north at 16190 Union Star Road, commented, “My husband
and I previously owned the land directly to the north where the water tanks are.
We just recently sold that. I
have several concerns. I don’t
know if it has been checked with ADEQ or whomever you need to check with about
the watershed. It is a fantastic
system from what I understand the septic system and whatever they want to put
in, but it does have to be maintained and it has to have somebody to be able to
maintain it 24 hours a day. What is
going to happen? We don’t have any power out there now.
None of us have had any power since a week ago Tuesday morning at 7:30.
What are they going to do then? Washington
Water Authority from what I understand has approved it.
All they need is an easement from Ms. Ballenger; I can’t speak for her
one way or the other whether she will allow this easement or not.
These additional tanks were built to accommodate future growth.
This kind of future growth wasn’t in their plan so I don’t know what
it is going to do to other potential property owners out there.
Water is impossible to find. My
husband was a water well driller out in that area and you’re darn lucky if you
hit water and then if you do hit it you’re darn lucky if it’s good, so again
that can have an impact. I’m just
concerned with the number of people, the traffic on the road, the road is very
fragile there is no centerline painted down this road you just kind of stay over
to the one side and hope that nobody else is over on that same side and meeting
you. If it is going to be older
people from what I understand so there probably won’t be any impact on the
school system. West Fork school
system is stretched to say the least. Have
they applied for
NPD potential discharge of pollutants? Without
power how it’s going to run?”
James
Key stated, “I am an architect with Key Architecture, Inc. (KAI).
I am
working on this admirable concept alternative to County larger acreages
concept Mr. Watson provide people’s looked at Triangle Builder a lot of
concerns intent Mr. Watson covenants control POA not unlike sewer systems
accommodate natural easement across property.”
Key
stated, “The dedications and the assurances for access to be maintained from
the adjacent property owners that have the easement across this property.
I’m here to say that I think all of that will be taken care of
appropriately and obviously you will have the final say on if those covenants
were acceptable and they would be filed and they would be a permanent record to
control this. I wanted to say that
I think it is a good alternative to pursue.
I would like you to give it your attention and see if it is something
that could be thought of as a likeable alternative for Washington County.”
Walker
asked, “Concerning the lot sizes, I’m thinking that most of these will
probably have two vehicles, where are they going to park?” Key replied, “Not necessarily, there’s the thought of who
are going to be the residents here.” Walker
asked, “How many families in the U.S. have less than one vehicle apiece in
Northwest Arkansas?” Key replied,
“There’s also talk about these roads 10 vehicle trips per day.”
Walker asked, “The question that I’m asking is where are you going to
park the residents?” Key replied,
“They will be parked on the lots with the structures would be my
understanding. Have an individual
single-family lot.” Walker asked,
“This typical house drawing that you have drawn, is this a carport on one
side?” Key replied, “Carport on
one side.” Walker asked, “So,
the carport is how wide?” Key
replied, “The carport would be 8’ to 10’ wide likely 10’ to12’.
It could accommodate a single car and have another car that’s not under
the carport in the driveway in the apron approaching that carport.”
Walker
asked, “How wide are the houses?” Key
replied, “It’s been awhile since I’ve looked at that plan true fully, I
don’t know if those were shown to be 24 x 45, true fully I don’t know.
The lots I think were shown to be somewhere in the range of 50 x 90, 50 x
80 lots 4,045 square feet. Again,
they vary considerably on the map; the cul-de-sac lots, obviously, are wider.
You’ve got some near the entrance that are wider and shallower.”
Walker commented, “24’ house with a 10’ carport on it is 34’ plus
20’ setback is 54’.” Key
stated, “We can talk about the details of the structures.”
Walker commented, “We’re here to talk about lot sizes and houses on
small plots and that’s what I’m concerned about.”
Key asked, “Is the concern being that there’s not enough room to fit
those on a lot?” Gallagher replied, “That’s one of the concerns, yes.”
Walker stated, “I can’t make it add up.”
Key commented, “I think it could be done and as to whether there’s
actually going to be two vehicles per residence that’s yet to be determined.
Don’t know if we’re talking about single individuals that would be
living alone; these are small homes is the intent. There would be covenants and design criteria established for
sustainable designs and sustainable materials desirable features.
Again, we have not gone to the extent of designing those structures yet
because we are still at a conceptual stage and as Mr. Watson said if the idea to
not approve Conditional Use for these lot sizes it does need to move forward
there is no reason to consider about trying to design the structures for this.
I think there are currently four or five structures on this property as
well as two gas wells and three water wells and three ponds and quite a few
features and elements. We
considered a lot about what could be done with all of this.
There are 15 or 20 water storage tanks with multiple thousands of gallons
of water storage capacity on this site; fuel storage tanks capacities.
Storm shelters a variety of things that do currently exist on this
site.”
West
asked, “Have you had people come to you wanting this type of development?
Our County is full right now of developments that are sitting empty.”
Key replied, “I don’t think they’re full of this type of
development.” West stated,
“That’s what I want to know if people come to you saying, ‘We would really
like to see this go in.” Key
commented, “I have not. I have
not been promoting this development to anyone.
It is still in a very conceptual stage and that is something that has
been between I and the developers. We’ve
just been working on a conceptual standpoint; it has not been marketed; it has
not been presented to… I’m
involved on a Steering committee at a local Green Building Council western
section of the Arkansas chapter. We
talked about presenting it to them and inviting them out for a BBQ, but we’ve
determined that it’s been premature to do that at this point.
Again, if there’s not support from the County Planning Board on a
concept like this then we would look at what else can be done with this 60
acres. It could be sold as is with
multiple residences. It could be
divided into a few smaller tracts and sold that way. I don’t think that it would be practical to come back and
ask for a subdivision submittal with 60 individual one-acre lots and this 60
acres covered with roads and septic systems.
Obviously, in this market there is not a demand for a lot more standard
residential lots. Our feeling is if
there is a demand for this type of alternative living arrangement where someone
could have access to orchards, vineyards, and agricultural opportunities that
they wouldn’t have because they can’t afford a 40, 50, or 60 acre farm and
maintain it themselves.”
Richey
stated, “I just want to explain something.
I’ve been telling Mr. Watson this as well this Conditional Use permit
this is the stage where I understand that there is a balance between how much
stuff you want to work out, but you say that you want a Conditional Use based on
lot size, well there’s more that goes along with that than just with lot size
and the reasons that we have minimum lot sizes and certain square footages are
exactly for these reasons because they accommodate enough room for somebody to
have a shed and park their cars off the street and things like that.
I understand to some degree that you all don’t want to put extra work
into it, but I don’t understand how you can expect Staff or the Planning Board
to say that they’re okay with something if you haven’t presented the
solutions to all these problems. We
worked out the utility easement stuff that the utilities requested and after you
put that all the easement spaces that are required on a 4,000 square foot lot
you end up with 1,300 square feet of build able space and that’s it.
I think that raises some pretty valid questions that people have to have
answers to before you can expect them to do anything.
You’re saying we’re going to have approval over your covenants and
restrictions and that’s not true. The
only time that we have discretion on is at this stage.”
Key
asked, “You don’t have to approve the Preliminary Plat before we can build
it?” Richey replied, “We do,
but that’s not covenants and deed restrictions.”
Key asked, “Isn’t the Preliminary Plat where these details are worked
out? That was our belief.”
George Butler, Washington County Attorney, replied, “Not on a
Conditional Use. When you’re
asking for a Conditional Use you’ve got to have things have got to be much
more concrete so that they can craft a set of conditions that they feel like
they can set. Craft a set of
conditions that will make this thing work and I think that is the problem right
now it is all too conceptual.” Key
commented, “I apologize.” Butler
stated, “Normally, there would be things worked out at Preliminary Plat, but
this is zoning and under our zoning ordinance to get a Conditional Use Permit to
have smaller lots allowed they’ve got to have some concrete information so
that they can come up with some concrete conditions if they’re going to grant
it.”
Richey
asked, “Because you can’t meet our basic lot size regulations and in turn
like our basic utility easement sizes and things like that, do you
understand?” Key replied, “I
definitely do. I think ultimately
our thought was that we wanted to get approval for being able to build 60 units
on 60 acres without having to have one unit on one acre.
Obviously, it has gone into a lot more detail of what is wanted in terms
of the Preliminary information. Again,
in looking through the County ordinances our thought we come before you with a
conceptual idea that we get grace on and be able to move forward to present a
Preliminary Plat to you with all these items worked out and presented to you on
how we would like to work them at that stage they may not be acceptable to the
water department or the street department we come back we finesse it we resubmit
a Preliminary Plat that works out these issues.”
Butler commented, “The problem with that is the conditions have to be
imposed right now.” Key stated,
“We need to know what you want. I’m speaking for the owners at this point and that wasn’t
my intent here tonight. We have to
know what you want so that we can bring that back to you.”
Laney
commented, “For those of us who sit through the months and months of public
hearings about how we wanted to zone the County we came across this issue which
was the people who owned rural land who thought that they might sell it someday
and be able to do lots on it like other people that was their lifesavings.
We heard from a lot of property owners who wanted to be able to develop
their land, but then we also talked about trying to preserve the County and
it’s beauty and I think that what we’ve got is the beginning of a well done
planning and organizational concepts for the whole County, but we get into areas
where it’s first time we’ve done something.
What you’re saying is correct we don’t really have a procedure for
this. What we’re going to end up
doing tonight I’m sure is tabling this because we don’t have sufficient
information, but I don’t think that should stop us from giving you feedback on
the idea that you have to have 60 houses on 61-acre lots and my personal view on
that is absolutely not, I would rather see some clear green space in the County
rather than having my original idea wouldn’t it be an ugly County if we all
had one acre lots all over the entire County.
It wouldn’t be the beautiful place that we all think it is, so I’m
open to the idea it’s just that we can’t say much more than we’re open to
the idea at least I can’t until you get more.
We don’t want you to walk away saying they really liked these very
small lots or this or that and why it has to be… I don’t mind giving you
feedback, but the other thing we can’t really be held to anything because the
neighbors they haven’t been able to see anything either.
They don’t know really what they’re reacting to other than just a
concept, so that’s why it has to stay fairly vague and all we can really do
officially is probably table it, which is probably what the motion that we’re
going to make, but I do think it is worth while because this is a concept that I
hope we see more and more of people wanting to do different things other than
have every lot have one acre so there is a big difference between one lot and
these one acre lots these really small ones and there’s all kinds of
variations. All of these questions
about POA’s and septic systems and all that I believe that all can be worked
through and we’ll have to work through it going forward, but we just don’t
have enough information tonight to really be able to respond to that.”
Key
stated, “I appreciate you taking the time to listen to me as well and I do
understand that this is a very novel concept that you haven’t seen before and
just as we have experienced we’re not sure on how to approach it to you and
present it to you.” Laney
commented, “We don’t have a very good procedure for it, so we’re just
working through it.”
Jennifer
O’Kane,
adjacent property owner to the northwest at 16006 Union Star Road, stated,
“I’m a neighbor on Union Star Road. My
main concern is that this does not become another Heavenly Valley Road
development. I think you’re
familiar with that Highway 74 and 540. There
were ads in the Star Shopper for $100 down and $100 a month buying land and
people ended up constructing visqine, laff, and cardboard homes and there were
children living in these homes and it basically was a slum.
That’s my biggest concern that that does not happen in the
neighborhood. I’m also concerned
about pollution light pollution, noise pollution, and noise of dogs, kids, and
ATV’s. The property adjoining to
the east is full of old logging roads and already the property owner there has
kids coming in on ATV’s running around those roads, so I imagine a development
of 60 homes there are going to be some kids and kids love to get their backsides
over four wheels and there’s just a perfect place for them to do it there, so
I consider dogs and maybe there won’t be that many kids we don’t know, but
maybe there will be. I can’t
imagine that there will be 60 homes with fewer than 120 adults and possibly 100
kids and how many dogs and how many ATV’s?
The increase traffic on the road is a big concern this is a tar and chip
road that was put over gravel that was rolled out this is not a thick macadam
road and as Bob Watson said there are huge areas of it that are collapsing and
having to be dug out and rebuilt. A
concern that I haven’t thought of until I got here is the access to Union Star
Road to me from that property it looks pretty limited it doesn’t look like
they have a lot of choices, but that dangerous corner that was pointed out at
the beginning unless they get right-of-ways from the neighbors and it sounds to
me like the neighbors at this point aren’t especially willing.
Juliet mentioned the word preserve in her introduction and we neighbors
also want to preserve what we have there now.
We don’t want to live near high density housing that’s why we live
there and I would also like to just throw out the question that Ms. West
presented as well don’t we have enough developments sitting empty now in
Washington County?”
Joan
Hays, adjacent
property owner to the northeast, asked, “I have a question for Don.
As I understand it they are going to own their lots individually, but
they’re going to own the rest of the property as
tenants in common, is that the idea?”
Watson replied, “Well, it would be the Common Areas as tenants in
common. If you’re a member of the
POA then you
have rights.” Hays asked, “I have to be a member of the POA to live
there?” Watson replied, “Oh,
yeah.”
Hayes
commented, “I feel a little awkward at this because I have very strong
feelings about property owners’ rights, but as an adjoining property owner I
like the neighborhood as it is. I
do know that it’s not always going to stay that way the world is changing.
I think that it is an interesting concept, but I grew up where my family
literally raised most of our food on our farm.
I think we had quite a bit better soil conditions then we have down
there. We found it difficult to do
much gardening haven’t tried to do much, but flowerbeds and stuff with that
soil I usually have to add a lot to it. I
do have a lot of problems with unwanted people on my property, that’s not to
say that these people are going to be the ones to cause me more problems, but
when you have rural property you have that problem.
I have hunters, fishers, and who knows what else.”
Walker
stated, “It’s not that I’m totally opposed to a concept similar to this,
but I do not believe that we have enough information nor am I convinced that the
lot sizes will accommodate the vehicle parking and the house and everything
else.”
Larry Walker moved to table
The Orchards at Union Star Road Conditional Use Permit indefinitely until we
have more concrete information. Robert Daugherty seconded.
Motion passes.
Daugherty
commented, “I like the concept, but like you said we just need more
information and a more definite plan.”
Gallagher
stated, “I too like the idea of what they’re proposing to do here, but I
just don’t think that the proposal is fleshed out enough where we can
understand what its likely impact is. I
would if this does come back to us want to hear from the Road Department about
the road conditions and so forth as well as the engineering of how to get people
on and off of that road at that looks like the end of a hairpin turn.”
Laney commented, “All of that would be appropriate.”
Head
stated, “I think probably John Jenkins, Washington County Fire Marshal, should
be asked about the fire safety issues being that far from the station or those
kind of issues.” Laney commented,
“Before we were voting on something other than tabling it.”
Head stated, “Yes, sir.”
All Board members were in favor of tabling The
Orchards at Union Star Road Conditional Use Permit.
Richey
commented, “I’ll find out the information from Ms. Ballenger. I’ll need to go ahead and send her a certified letter.
For the rest of the adjoining neighbors I’ll send you a non-certified
letter to the same address as I sent before to let you know if this is something
that is going to be heard at the next agenda.”
County
b.
Smith & Barker CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request) To
be removed from the agenda due to applicants wanting to pursue obtaining a
permit with ABC
prior
to the CUP hearing.
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
– grocery store
Project
#: 2008-197 Planner: Jessie Pettit, e-mail at jpettit@co.washington.ar.us
Robert Daugherty moved to
remove Smith
& Barker CUP
Conditional
Use Permit from the agenda. Cheryl West
seconded. Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of removing Smith & Barker CUP
Conditional Use Permit from the agenda.
Fayetteville Planning Area
c. 250' Self
Support Tower – S. Mally Wagnon Road CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request) To
be removed from the agenda at the request of the applicant
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
remove 250'
Self Support Tower – S. Mally Wagnon Road CUP Conditional Use Permit from the agenda.
Cheryl West seconded. Motion
passes.
All Board members were in
favor of removing
250' Self Support Tower – S. Mally Wagnon Road CUP
Conditional Use
Permit from the agenda.
5.
OLD BUSINESS
6. OTHER BUSINESS
Juliet Richey, Washington County Planning Director,
stated, “There is a Planning Commission training on March 11 in Hot Springs.
We would be willing to pay your fee to go to that class.
It’s from 9:00am to 4:00pm. Nobody
from my office is planning on attending, but we would be willing to pay for your
class to go if anyone is interested in going.
I think they usually do one every six months and they alternate between
Northwest Arkansas and central Arkansas. You
could also wait and go in six months there would probably be another one up
here. If you are interested in that
you can send me an e-mail and I will get you more details on that.”
Richey commented, “This is something that we’ve
talked about a couple of times and we kind of took it off until Randy got back
to the meeting and I don’t know if you all want to discuss that or not tonight
or if you want to wait until next time.”
Laney asked, “This has to do with our ability to table and have
hearings, and etc. I don’t know
we beat it around and we don’t seem to be having a lot of luck on coming up
with a plan. I think you know my
thoughts. Where has it been since I
was here?” Walker replied,
“About where it was.” Laney
stated, “I think tonight I tried to make it clear upfront.
I should have just used the word ‘table’ and it should have been your
recommendation that we’re going to recommend that we table it for tonight and
then everybody would understand. Like
I said we don’t have procedures. This
is kind of our hang-up we don’t have procedurally way for people to… can’t
be so informal that they want to bounce an idea off of us I mean that’s way
too informal, but the idea that something is a little different than we’ve
seen or heard before somehow we just need to not make people think they’re…
that its all going to be done in one night.”
Richey commented, “The applicant knew that.” Walker stated, “You got to say indefinitely.”
Laney commented, “The gravels and all kinds of stuff we end up with
this quite a bit.” Richey stated,
“It was made clear to the applicant beforehand.”
Walker commented, “There wasn’t enough information.”
Richey stated, “I realize this is a very large
packet of paper and we didn’t get quite as far as we wanted to for this
meeting. The first three pages is a
synopsis that we put together for you of general concerns with commercial and
large wind towers and turbines. Everything
else is sample ordinances. If you
want to look over the sample ordinances before next month we’re going to do an
Excel spreadsheet comparison of them next month.
If you want to read it ahead of time to get a better idea of what we’re
going to be talking about and if you don’t then you don’t have to.”
Laney asked, “Does all of these address commercial and not individuals,
which is more likely to happen in this County I think?”
Richey replied, “Some of the ordinances have some stuff about small
wind in them, but generally we’re just talking about commercial, but I mean
kind of have to pull whole ordinances. What
we’re interested in addressing as far as I know is large wind so that’s
primarily what these are about. I’m
really not interested in regulating small wind at all unless you all are.” Laney commented, “That’s more likely to happen (small
wind). Then you get into what’s
small and what’s big, but I don’t want to open a can of worms.”
Richey stated, “I think that when we do the large wind ordinance
we’ll have to have like some sort of wattage cutoff.
The industry, from what I’ve read, has a pretty good definition of what
equates small wind and large wind. Once
you bump it to a certain size of turbine no person is going to be purchasing a
turbine of that size.” Laney
commented, “Based on a conference I just went to what’s going to
revolutionize this the next very short term is battery capacity.
What the problem is now in an area like Northwest Arkansas we don’t
have sufficient wind to make it commercially viable because it doesn’t blow
consistently enough, you have to go to Kansas or Oklahoma for that.
The problem for the industry is it can get really windy here a few days,
but then it’s not for a while, so the problem is being able to store the wind
until you really need it and that apparently is what the industry is going for.
You need to think in terms of storage facilities because these can have
the equivalent of an one or two megawatt electric facility each windmill because
in the near future they will have enough battery capacity to do that.
It will make this a lot more viable in areas that couldn’t do it before
because they are just coming up with so much more better battery technology.
These ordinances are always behind where the technology is. You think you get it then it changes on you real fast.
That’s just my observation.” Richey
asked, “Do you all want to go through this list of concerns?”
Laney asked, “Are they in the material?”
Richey replied, “Yes, it’s the front page.”
Laney stated, “You don’t have to go through them.”
Richey commented, “It’s a pretty good synopsis, it’ll only take you
like five minutes to read these three pages. It kind of goes through all of the
things that are going to come up that we need to think about how to address.”
Courtney McNair, Washington County Planner, stated,
“There’s an article about the legal issues at the end of this packet and a
picture that kind of depicts what it may look like here in the Ozarks.”
Gary Head moved to adjourn. Robert Daugherty seconded.
Motion passes.
Planning Board adjourned.
Minutes submitted by: Amanda
Kimbel
Approved by the Planning
Board on:
____Robert Daugherty________________ Date: ___03/05/09_______
Robert
Daugherty, Planning Board Vice-Chairman
WASHINGTON
COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
&
ZONING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
March 5, 2009
5:00
p.m., Quorum Courtroom, New Courthouse
Fayetteville, Arkansas
DEVELOPMENTS REVIEWED:
ACTION TAKEN:
a. Stables
on the Hill CUP
Conditional Use Permit Approval
b.
The Orchards at Union Star Road CUP
Removed
from the Agenda
1.
ROLL CALL:
Roll call was taken. Members present include: James F. Gallagher, Kenley Haley,
Larry Walker, Roy Hummel, Cheryl West, and Robert Daugherty. Absent: Randy
Laney,
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (from the February 5, 2009 meeting) Cheryl West made
a motion to approve as written. Larry Walker provided the second.
Motion passes.
3.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
Cheryl
West made a motion to approve the agenda. Larry Walker seconded.
Motion passes.
4.
Honor Gary Head for his years of loyal service to the Washington County
Planning Board.
Juliet
Richey, Washington County Planning Director, stated, “Gary is sick, we will do
this next month.”
5.
Introduction of Roy Hummel, new Planning Board member
Daugherty
stated, “We have a new member, a member that I have known for a long time Mr.
Roy Hummel. I first got to know Roy
when he was officiating years ago. I
remember him running up and down the court.
He has been a public servant for as long as I can remember. Roy, I just
want to welcome you to the Board. He
will be a great addition to our Board.” Hummel
commented, “Thank you, I appreciate it.”
6.
NEW BUSINESS
Elkins Planning Area
a. Stables
on the Hill CUP (Conditional
Use Permit Request)
Location: Section 15, Township 15 North, Range 29
West
Owner/Developer: John and Brenda Fallen
Location Address: 10600 S. Whitehouse Road (WC #43)
180 acres / Proposed Land Use: A venue for weddings,
receptions, and special events
Project #: 2009-018 Planners: Jessie Pettit and
Juliet Richey, e-mail at jpettit@co.washington.ar.us
REQUEST:
Conditional Use Permit Approval for Stables on the Hill
CUP. The request is for a venue for
weddings, receptions, and special events on a total of 118.90 acres property
site. The property is the site of a
stable/ barn structure designed by local architect Maurice Jennings.
The proposed number of guests at these events will be for between fifty
and two-hundred people. The events will primarily be on weekends, during evening
hours, between the months of March through November.
Owner/ Applicant’s Conditional Use Permit letter of request is on page
A-26 and clarification on uses requested is on page A-32.
A written confirmation is needed prior to Board meeting regarding a
change in parcels originally requesting the CUP.
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 Elkins Planning Area.
QUORUM
COURT DISTRICT: District 9, JP Butch Pond
BACKGROUND/
PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
The owners are John and Brenda Fallen.
The property is located at 10600
S. Whitehouse Road (WC#43).
This project originally involved several parcels for a total of 80 acres:
#001-06302-000 (118.90 acres), #001-06305-000 (36.10 acres), #001-06305-004 (5
acres), and #001-06316-000 (20 acres); however, to date (02.27.09) the owner/
applicant has decided that only #001-06302-000 (118.90 acres) will be used for
the conditional use permit, as per a phone conversation with the owner/
applicant. The property is in Elkins Planning Area.
The project is in Elkins Fire Dept. service area.
The property is in the service area of the following utilities: Mt.
Olive, Ozarks Electric, and Windstream.
The
main issues with this conditional use permit request have been fire safety and
septic issues of the existing structure. The
proposed number of guests (50-200)
for the CUP and conversion of a
private building to a public building pose some serious issues that have been
addressed. The structure is
currently private and the CUP is proposing it be available for public use.
Following
is a brief description of the structure, see photos on A-22-through A-23. The bottom floor of the 41’ x 72’ wood-frame structure
was originally designed to house Thoroughbred racing horses. There are stalls
along the south side of the building with latch doors that are currently
operated from the outside of the building.
The east and west side of the building have large sliding doors.
There is a standard sizedoor on the north side of the building addition
to a smaller sliding door that
leads to the outside the building through a breezeway to the silo.
The silo contains a spiral staircase.
This spiral staircase provides the existing access to an apartment above.
The bottom floor also contains a bathroom and a small kitchenette
(microwave and small fridge). The
upstairs apartment is complete with kitchen and bathroom and contains an
upstairs porch looking east.
The
owner/ applicant is proposing that the downstairs will be public for the
weddings, receptions, and special events while the upstairs will only have
limited access. It would only be
made available to the bride and groom and other similar type small parties of
(1-2 people) The kitchen will not be made available for use for food prep or
cooking for the events. It would be
off limits. This is an important
item to note because additional health department and fire regulations would
come into play when kitchens are used for food preparation for the public.
This determination has also been made for the kitchen downstairs.
The kitchenette is limited to only appliances in place now (microwave and
small fridge) for the CUP request.
The
Fire Marshal made an initial assessment of the site on 01.14.09 (see A-28) prior
to the projects submittal. Elkins
Fire Chief also assessed site on 02.20.09 with County Fire Marshal after the
project was officially submitted. Please
see letter (A-30) regarding code requirements from Elkins Fire Department; all
code requirements will need to be addressed.
The Fire Marshal’s initial assessment and Elkin’s Fire Department
comments overlap at times. Elkins’
references code while the Fire Marshal provides some elaboration on site
specific issues. Regardless if
whether an item was mentioned in the Fire Marshal’s initial assessment, all
2002 Arkansas Fire Code requirements will need to be addressed as per Elkin’s
letter (A-30)
A final meeting took place
(03.04.09) to combine the comments of both Fire Officials and provide
clarification. Those present at the
meeting were as follows: Elkins Fire Chief (J.D. DeMotte
& Kevin ), City of Elkins (Don Cryder), Washington County Planning (Juliet
Richey & Jessie Pettit) and County Fire Marshal (John Jenkins).
Following are the fire safety issues that have been brought forward by both Elkins Fire & the County Fire Marshal. Some of these items will be included as conditions of CUP approval.
·Tanker
support will be employed for potential fire fighting purposes.
·The
onsite road condition is currently adequate for fire truck accessibility.
It will need to stay in good condition to accommodate fire apparatus
(responsibility of the property owner).
·
If
the gate to the property is ever locked it will require
a knox box
and the owner/ applicant will be required to fill out a form with the
Elkins Fire Department. The knox
box will be required for both the gate and
the building for access in the event of a fire.
·The
Elkins Fire Department is pleased to see that the structure is equipped with a
fire-smoke detection system. The
system will be required to be tested by a certified personnel in the presence of
the Elkins Fire Department.
·The
Elkins Fire Department has agreed to provide the Planning Office a letter of
completion once all code requirements have been completed.
·Owner/
Applicant must abide by all rules set forth by County Fire Marshal and Elkins
Fire Department and the State Fire Marshal.
·MAIN
LEVEL/ DOWNSTAIRS FIRE SAFETY
a.
Lighted exit signs (combos –exit sign
combined with emergency lighting) must be installed on the
four main exit doors (2 large sliding barn doors on west and east end of
barn, and the northern smaller sliding door)
and the middle stall door on the east side of the barn.–. Exit signs 1003.2.10, 1003.2.11
Means of egress illumination and 1003.211.2 Illumination emergency power
b.
Make one of the stall doors (preferably one in the middle of the building)
accessible from inside. It would be
best if both the top and bottom portions of the door opened at the same
time. (single action/ panic
door; only requiring 15 pounds of force) A
lighted exit sign must be placed above this door. Exit signs 1003.2.10, 1003.2.11 Means of
egress illumination and 1003.211.2 Illumination emergency power
and 1003.3.1.9 Panic and fire exit hardware
i. The actuating portion of the releasing device shall extend at least one-half of the door leaf width.
ii. A maximum unlatching
force of 15 pounds.
c.
Keep kitchen limited to only appliances like you have now.
Addition of a stove, etc. would change things significantly.
d. At least two extinguishers must be placed at both ends of the
building near both main (large) doors.
·“Pull”
signage text in addition to graphic arrow with the direction of pull on all
sliding doors.
·Silo
stairwell access beyond the point of the catwalk will be denied it must be roped
off to all public.
·NO
PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE UPSTAIRS PORTION OF THE BUILDING WILL BE ALLOWED UNTIL THE
APARTMENT MEETS THE FOLLOWING:
a.
Emergency Lighting
(upstairs)–
1003.2.11
Means of egress illumination and 1003.2.11.2
Illumination emergency
b.
Exit signs (upstairs)
installed over the all points of egress to the outside
– The exit sign within the apartment (egress east side of building to balcony)
will not be required to be lit due to the emergency lighting required above.
The exit sign above the door on the north side of the building (egress to
breezeway) leading to silo is required to be
lit). 1003.210 Exit Signs
c.
Fire escape/ staircase
added to the eastern (rear) balcony.
1010.16.1
through 1010.16.7 Fire escape stairs
d.
Additional fire extinguishers are
required (upstairs) one on both ends of the building.
e.
Emergency back-up
lighting must be added to the existing silo in addition to a lighted exit sign
to the side of the door at the base of the silo (point of egress).
1010.16.1 through 1010.16.7 Fire escape stairs, Exit signs
1003.2.10, 1003.2.11 Means of egress
illumination and 1003.211.2 Illumination emergency power
f.
Posted evacuation site
beside the point of egress to east balcony.
·REFER
TO PAGE A-30 OF STAFF REPORT (LETTER FROM ELKIN’S FIRE DEPARTMENT 02.23.09)
FOR FURTHER EXPLANATION OF ALL 2002 ARKANSAS FIRE CODE REFERENCES.
SEPTIC
The
existing septic permit (#14645) was received by the Planning Office 02.20.09
(See A-36 through A-38) and forwarded on the Health Dept.
The system was initially thought to be inadequate for the CUP use.
Further clarification regarding the current system and its suitability in
relation to the CUP has been evaluated by a D.R. and the information has been
forwarded on to the Health Department and the Health Department has reviewed the
information. To date, if there is
not a full time residence in the apartment, it has been determined that the
current system- along with an additional 2000 gallon tank and automatic
distributing device will be sufficient to meet CUP needs.
Please see A- 39 & A-41 for information in its entirety (as the
terminology can be misinterpreted without a full understanding).
State plumbing code for public buildings will also need to be abided by.
Conversation between the State Plumbing Inspector and Owner/ applicant is
underway. Planning
staff will recommend six to eight months to have all septic information
completed.
State
plumbing code for public buildings will also need to be abided by. The property
owner is required to meet state plumbing code for public buildings along with
all other state codes. Conversation
between the State Plumbing Inspector and Owner/ Applicant is underway. The Planning Office does not have a list of requirement but
it would include things such as compliance with ADA bathrooms, number of
bathrooms for each sex, drinking fountain and mop buckets. Mt. Olive will be conducting the plumbing inspections; a
confirmation will need to be received by the Planning Department once all
requirements have been met.
The
County Road Department has the following comments on the project: (a) any
work that may need to be done in the County road right-of-way will require a
permit from the Road Dept. (b)
Based on the number of attendees in the CUP request (50-200 per event) the Road
Dept. will require a paved apron for the driveway.
This can be asphalt (hot
mix) or
concrete. This needs to be 20 feet
(minimum) in depth beginning at the edge of the pavement.
Staff
would recommend this be completed within thirty (30) days of the CUP approval
(or prior to any events taking place). (c)
There must be sufficient sight visibility at the driveway and road. Planning staff has assessed the points of ingress and
egress and have found that they are adequate at this time; although staff
recommends conversation take place with the neighbors to the
west side of S. Whitehouse Rd. (Mike & Brenda Price) in order to
maintain the adequate visibility. Staff
would recommend that the vegetation on this side of the road be maintained/
cutback in order to keep the sight visibility good.
Other
issues addressed and considered in the CUP proposal in order to provide
compatibility with the surrounding community are signage, noise, alcohol issues,
assessment of surrounding existing land use compatibility, and adjacent property
owner comments.
Signage-
The
signage proposed by the applicant/ owner would be approximately 4’ x 6’
etched on a large boulder. The sign
is not proposed to have any lighting. The
sign is proposed to be located at the end of the driveway. Staff concludes that the proposed signage is appropriate.
Staff does require that in no circumstance shall any signage (onsite or
offsite) be placed within the County road right-of-way.
Noise & Hours of Operation - The noise volume of events has
been addressed by the owner/ applicant. Mr.
Fallen does not foresee noise being an issue.
Mr. Fallen is not open to hosting events such as Bikes,
Blues, and BBQ where noise is at times excessive. The existing structure/
stable proposed to be used for weddings and special events on weekends is
situated in the center of the property providing a buffer between itself and the
neighbors. The noise should be kept
at a reasonable level as described in (A-32). The hours of operation should be quite close to information
provided to planning 11:00 p.m. is the estimated shut down time as provided by
the owner/ applicant. Events
Primarily on the weekends.
Alcohol-
Due to the comments provided by the
Sherrif’s Department Staff recommends no sale of alcohol (cash bar) be allowed
on the premises. The owner/
applicant should make every attempt to prevent underage drinking and intoxicated
drivers from being on the roads.
Assessment
of Surrounding Existing Land Use-
Even
though the proposed land use is different from the existing surrounding land
uses (i.e. residential/ agricultural) staff has concluded that is can be
compatible with the surrounding area with conditions listed in the staff report.
Conditions such as fire safety, adequate septic, safe ingress / egress
and other listed above provide proper compatibility.
In addition to conditions for providing compatibility, the CUP
proposal will retain the rural/ agricultural type character of the community.
The large size (118.90 acre) parcel site of the CUP request is remaining
intact; thereby preserving rural open space a goal talked about within the
adopted County Land Use Plan.
There
are 15 properties w/in 300' of the exterior boundary of the project site.
All uses appear to be either agricultural or single-family.
The average property size is 29.00 acres (adjacent parcels under the same
owner were considered as one property). See
page A-15 for map visual of existing land-use of adjacent property owners.
The half mile analysis of existing surrounding land use was not much
different than the neighboring land assessment within 300’ with the exception
of two existing churches. Staff has
concluded that the CUP proposal is in keeping with the rural community context.
The church use, from staff’s perspective, is quite similar to the CUP proposal
in that it serves as a gathering place for people (weddings, community social
events, celebrations and the like).
Adjacent
property owner comments- Staff
received one formal written adjacent property owner comment which is opposed to
the CUP proposal (See A-32 through A-33). The
neighbor voices concerns of unwanted noise, traffic, and alcohol issues.
A couple of informal adjacent property owner’s comments voiced similar
concerns. In addition to concerns
already mentioned, the author of the formal comment received also feels that the
CUP proposal is incompatible with the two nearby church uses.
Staff has addressed all these concerns within the staff report.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Conditional Use Permit approval
of the proposed Stables on the Hill CUP with the following conditions being met.
1.Fire Safety conditions must be completed prior
to operation.
a.
The onsite road condition is currently
adequate for fire truck accessibility. It
will need to stay in good condition to accommodate fire apparatus
(responsibility of the property owner).
b. If
the gate to the property is ever locked it will require
a knox box
and the owner/ applicant will be required to fill out a form with the
Elkins Fire Department. The knox
box will be required for both the gate and
the building for access in the event of a fire.
c. The fire detection system will be required to be tested by a
certified personnel in the presence of the Elkins Fire Department.
d. Owner/
Applicant must abide by all rules set forth by County Fire Marshal and Elkins
Fire Department and the State Fire Marshal for fireworks displays.
e. The illustrative fire safety floor plans for both the main
and loft levels are to be considered as part of the conditions for this project
f. The
Elkins Fire Department has agreed to provide the Planning Office a letter of
completion once all code requirements have been completed.
Main level/ downstairs conditions
i. Lighted
exit signs (combos –exit sign combined with emergency lighting) must be
installed on the four main exit doors (2 large sliding barn doors on west and
east end of barn, and the northern smaller sliding door) and the middle stall
door on the east side of the barn.–. Exit signs
1003.2.10, 1003.2.11 Means of egress illumination and 1003.211.2 Illumination
emergency power
ii. Make
one of the stall doors (preferably one in the middle of the building) accessible
from inside. It would be best if
both the top and bottom portions of the door opened at the same time.
(single action/ panic door; only requiring 15 pounds of force)
A lighted exit sign must be placed above this door. Exit
signs 1003.2.10, 1003.2.11 Means of egress illumination and 1003.211.2
Illumination emergency power and 1003.3.1.9
Panic and fire exit hardware
iii. Keep
kitchen limited to only appliances like you have now. Addition of a stove, etc. would change things significantly.
iv. At least two extinguishers must be placed at both ends of the building near both main (large) doors.
vi. “Pull” signage text in addition to graphic arrow with the
direction of pull on all sliding doors.
vii.
Silo stairwell access beyond the point of the catwalk will be denied it must be
roped off to all public.
Upstairs
/ Loft Level Floor Plan- No public access to the upstairs portion of the
building until the following conditions have been met.
i. Emergency
Lighting (upstairs)–
1003.2.11 Means of egress illumination and 1003.2.11.2 Illumination
emergency
ii. Exit
signs (upstairs) installed over the all points of egress to the outside
– The exit sign within the apartment (egress east side of building to balcony)
will not be required to be lit due to the emergency lighting required above.
The exit sign above the door on the north side of the building (egress to
breezeway) leading to silo is required to be lit).
1003.210 Exit Signs
iii. Fire escape/ staircase added to the eastern (rear)
balcony.
1010.16.1 through 1010.16.7 Fire escape stairs
iv. Additional fire extinguishers are required (upstairs),one on both
ends of the building, one on either end of the building.
v. Emergency back-up lighting must be added to the existing silo in
addition to a lighted exit sign to the side of the door at the base of the silo
(point of egress).
1010.16.1 through 1010.16.7 Fire escape stairs, Exit signs 1003.2.10,
1003.2.11 Means of egress illumination and 1003.211.2 illumination emergency
power
vi. Posted evacuation site beside the point of egress to east balcony.
2.
Septic. The
current system along with an additional 2000 gallon tank requirement and
automatic distributing device will be sufficient to meet CUP needs as per
Designated Representative’s Recommendation approved by the Health Department
(A-40 through A-41). A time frame
of 6-8 months will be allowed for completion of the additional 2000 gallon tank
requirement and automatic distributing device.
3. Plumbing Code
confirmation of completion.
The property owner is required to meet state plumbing code for public
buildings along with all other state codes.
Mt. Olive will be conducting the plumbing inspections; a confirmation
will need to be received by the Planning Department once all requirements have
been met.
*This
must be completed prior to any events being held on the property (as per state
plumbing inspector).
4. Ingress
/ Egress. An apron on the
driveway will be required as per Road Department Comment. This can be asphalt or
concrete. This needs to be 20 feet
(minimum) in depth beginning at the edge of the pavement.
•The
must be complete within 30 days of CUP approval (or prior to any events taking
place). This must be inspected and
approved by the County Road Department.
5.
Road Right-of-Way & Permits. Any
work that may need to be done in the County road right-of-way will require a
permit from the Road Dept.
6.Signage.
Any other type of signage not within the CUP proposal must be approved by
planning staff. The signage
proposed by the applicant/ owner would be approximately 4’ x 6’ etched on a
large boulder. The sign is not
proposed to have any lighting. The
sign is proposed to be located at the end of the driveway.
In no circumstance shall any signage (onsite or offsite) be placed within
the County road right-of-way.
7. Alcohol
for free acceptable. Alcohol for
sale not acceptable. The
owner/ applicant should make every attempt to prevent underage drinking and
intoxicated drivers from being on the roads (i.e. educate in brochures and other
advertising rules of the site). As
a part of the enforcement of this condition, staff asks that language stating
the above be placed in the rental contract, and that copy of that contract be
given to the Planning Office as proof of compliance.
8. Noise
& Hours of Operation.
The noise should be kept at a reasonable level as described in (A-32).
The hours of operation should be quite close to information provided to
planning. 11:00 p.m. is the estimated shut down time as provided by the owner/
applicant. Events Primarily on the
weekends
9.Kitchen.
Keep
the downstairs kitchenette as is. The kitchenette is limited to only appliances
in place now (microwave and small fridge) for the CUP request.
The kitchen upstairs will not be for public use.
In regards to food and prep, catering is the only solution with this CUP
proposal.
10.Septic
area must be roped or fenced off in entirety to prevent parking in this area.
11. Confirmation of all material must be received and agreed
upon must be received otherwise staff recommendation is void.
12.
All development and use rights available in the base zoning category
(Agricultural/Single-Family-1 unit per acre) still apply throughout the
property.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Please see
extensive information in the staff report if desire A-7 through A-51.
Other
Utilities – The lot is in the service area of Ozark Electric and
Windstream Communications.
John and Brenda Fallen,
owners of the proposed project, were present to answer any questions.
Juliet Richey, Washington County Planner, stated, “This is located out in
the Sulpher City area of the County. It
is not far from the intersection of Black Oak (WC #57) and Whitehouse (WC #43).
Originally, in the Board members’ packet the owner included all of his
parcels, which is approximately 180 acres in the request.
He decided to just change it to the 118 acres that will be included in
this request; probably even all of that is not going to be utilized, but it all
is one parcel number. It doesn’t
have any effect on the notifications that have already gone out.”
Richey commented, “Mr. Fallen and his wife bought a piece of property with
an existing barn, it is a very beautiful barn, not what you think of as in a
normal just agricultural barn. They
want to be able to use that to host weddings, family reunions, and those types
of special events on the weekends. Basically,
you’ll see you have the entry to the site.
There’s a long driveway to the property that comes out to the actual
barn. There is one other structure
on the property and that’s kind of an existing shop/storage area; I think he
uses it to store hay and things like that.
There is a septic on-site. The
parking will be kind of roughly along the drive kind of the northeast area of
the site.”
Richey added, “It is right on top of the hill. It has some really nice 360°
views. Basically, when we looked at
this there are several things that were of a concern because we were
transitioning from something that was created for private use initially that is
going to be holding events and be basically an assembly area. There is a downstairs area and then there is the silo
structure, which actually has a staircase into it and that is the only entrance
to the upstairs area. You actually
have to exit the building and go up these stairs and then across to the upstairs
area. I’m going to talk about
things in the main floor, the downstairs area, and then things in the loft area
upstairs. The silo actually has
steps that go on past the second floor up for rooftop access, but the property
owner is going to be restricting access past that point.”
Richey also added, “The main concerns that we had for this project had to
do with fire issues because you are going to have occupancy in this building for
the events and then also with the septic making sure that that is going to be
adequate to house all of the people. Many
of the things that we looked at are fire issues.
You do have visibility here; what we did suggest is that Mr. Fallen speak
with the property owners (the
neighbors to the west side of S. Whitehouse Road Mike & Brenda Price) to make sure that the cedars right
on the fence line are maintained and trimmed so that sight visibility will
remain good in that area. Then you
have good sight visibility headed back towards Black Oak Road.
This is an agricultural/residential area.
There are many large acreages in the area and also a few churches;
Sulpher City Baptist Church and Covenant Word, so you also have these churches
in the area where people also have weddings and events like that.”
Richey stated, “On the fire issues we met with the Washington County Fire
Marshal (John Jenkins) and the Elkins Fire Chief (J.D. DeMotte) and went through several things that would need to
happen. The ground floor,
basically, the areas where they wanted to have lighted exit signs combined with
emergency lighting those are going to be above… there are three main doors
downstairs. There are a series of
stalls and one of the stalls is going to be outfitted as an emergency exit; that
is going to have an exit sign and lighting as well.
The emergency lighting that is what is activated if the electricity goes
off you have those lights that come on I think a 90 minute duration so that
people can find their way to those exits.”
Gallagher asked, “Can you tell us some dimensions or square footage of
this? How big is this?
It is kind of hard to tell from the drawing.”
Mr. Fallen replied, “I think it is about 73’ long and 45’ wide or
something like that.” Richey
commented, “When we first went out there it was 41’ x 72’.”
Gallagher stated, “3,000 or 4,000 square feet each floor.” Richey commented,
“The upstairs is going to be smaller because…” Gallagher stated, “It’s
got a hole in the middle.” Richey
commented, “Right, there’s basically a large atrium area.”
Richey
stated, “The fire extinguishers they have asked that those fire extinguishers
be placed at either end. The sliding doors, that’s the way that they were
installed, they are large sliding doors; the Fire Department feels that
they’re probably going to be opened a majority of the time that they have
events. The events are usually
proposed to run in the fall, spring, and summer and not in the winter. They don’t have heating and cooling down there, so probably
the majority of the time those doors are going to be open, but also as a
precaution they asked that there be pull signage on those sliding doors with a
directional arrow. There will need
to be a lighted sign at the silo entrance and then emergency lighting inside the
silo as well so that someone could see to get down.
That’s the bottom floor.”
Walker
asked, “Is this strictly going to be used this way, there’s no animals going
to be kept in the building?” Richey
replied, “I think that they said not kept.
Somebody might bring a little horse in to take a picture or something,
but not actively kept livestock.” Walker
commented, “Not used as a stable.”
Richey
stated, “As far as I know it never has been used as a stable.
Somebody built this to raise Thoroughbred horses and then they never did
and then they (Fallens) bought this from them several years later.
The upstairs, there will be a lighted exit sign.
There are some conditions before the upstairs can be used and I think
they’re primarily thinking that it will be used by the bride and groom; if
they want to stay, there is an efficiency apartment type set up and maybe for
the bride and groom to get dressed. This
is not going to be a public area where people are milling in and out.
Before the upstairs can be utilized fire extinguishers will have to be in
place; there will have to be exit lighting.
There’s nowhere to put a lighted exit sign on one of the windows
because basically it is all glass and logs, so there is going to be an unlit
exit sign and then an evacuation plan, like you see in a hotel that tells you
where to go, and there will also be emergency lighting and then a fire escape
metal staircase will be installed from the balcony for that exit as well.”
Gallagher asked, “That is accessed through the pair of doors, the
exit?” Richey replied, “Yes.
That is what is required on the second floor.”
Richey
commented, “A couple of other things on fire, as far as fire flows tanker
support from the Elkins Fire Department will be employed for potential fire
fighting purposes. The on-site road
condition is currently adequate for fire truck accessibility and it will need to
stay in good condition to accommodate the fire apparatus and that would be the
responsibility of the property owner. If
the gate to the property is to be locked then they will require a knox box and
the owner/applicant will be required to fill out a form with the Elkins Fire
Department and that knox box will be required to have a key for both the gate
and the building for their access in the event of a fire.
The Elkins Fire Department has agreed to provide the Planning Office a
letter of completion once all of the code requirements have been completed.
They will be doing inspections out there and get back to us when
everything is ready to go.”
Richey
added, “There has been some question about fireworks and whether firework
events out here will be a public firework display or not.
I believe that the County Fire Marshal and the Elkins Fire Department are
in discussion with the State Fire Marshal to see and, basically, whatever they
decide is what will need to be abided by by the property owner.
He has indicated that he doesn’t want large fireworks, but only smaller
kind of over- the-counter firework display.
There is a kitchen in the downstairs area, but it is very small and it
does not have a stove or anything at this time, it just has like a sink,
microwave, and smaller refrigerator and they will need to keep it at that level,
if they incorporate a stove or anything then that would cause for more fire
conditions, but they don’t have any intention of expanding that.
The food preparation and everything would have to take place off-site
anyway as far as health code provisions.”
Richey
also added, “The septic, we talked a little bit about the septic, basically
the system that was put in was oversized to begin with and the DR feels like it
will be adequate for what they’re trying to do. The DR (designated representative) is a professional that does soils work and septic
system design did feel that it would be better if there is a 2,000-gallon tank
and an automatic distributing device because you are going to get the load on
the septic tank all at once instead of being dispersed throughout the week.
What we thought is because it actually meets code right now that since
they’re having to do a lot of changes that we thought it would be good to
require that be installed, but go ahead and give them 8 or 9 months basically
for one operating season to make some money, make sure that this is going to
work the way that they want, and then get that installed for us.
Just to be clear, it meets code as is, it would just be a better
situation if we had the 2,000-gallon tank, so we want to do that just not
require it right upfront. The State
Plumbing Code for public buildings will also need to be abided by. Ray Eaton, Mount Olive Water, and Odie Bean, Area Plumbing
State Plumbing Inspector, have outlined what needs to be done for that.
This is something that is looked at because this is a transition from
what was a private building to they’re going to be having the events there and
used by the public. Those conditions had to do with ADA bathrooms, the number of
bathrooms and lavatories for each sex, drinking fountains, and mop buckets.
The State Plumbing Code Inspector did say that all of those changes would
have to be made before any events can be held there.”
Richey
added, “As far as roads, the County Road Department said that because of the
number of attendees like we do for most commercial projects they will need to
pave the 20’ in-depth apron right where their driveway connects to the road to
keep gravel and things from tracking out onto the road.
That needs to be in place the Road Department said 30 days from the
Conditional Use Permit approval, but they also said or prior to any events
taking place. The signage proposed
by the applicant would be basically etched on a large boulder at the end of the
driveway and is not proposed to be lit. Basically,
that is appropriate to us. As long
as it is out of the right-of-way and not lit, we feel like it will fit in with
the surroundings and not detract from the community.
Noise and hours of operation – the noise volume of events has been
addressed by the owner, Mr. Fallen, he doesn’t foresee noise being an issue. It is a very large piece of property, it is surrounded by 180
acres he is not looking to host events such as Bikes, Blues, and BBQ where you
have excessive noise. Like I said,
the events are going to be weddings, family reunions, and things like that.
We feel like because it is situated in the center of the property that
there is going to be enough area around it to buffer it from the noise.
As a condition we say that the noise should be kept as a reasonable level
and that the hours of operation should be close to the information provided to
the Planning Department, which was he said 11:00pm would be the estimated shut
down time, also like we said before the events are primarily on the weekends.”
Richey
also added, “Alcohol – this is a dry township, which means to have any sell
of alcohol whatsoever you would have to have a private club license.
Basically, the Sheriff’s Department said that they are fine with
alcohol. They want to make the
recommendation that they would not recommend that there will be sale of alcohol
on the property and we support that and also that the owner/applicant should
make every attempt to prevent underage drinking and intoxicated drivers from
being on the road. Basically, as a
condition what we stated that, basically, if he could educate in the brochures
and advertising rules of the site and just say that if they do have alcohol at
events that they do try to keep underage drinking out and make sure that they
don’t have a lot of drunk drivers on the road.
As a part of this enforcement we would like for that language to be
placed in the rental contract, so that we know that he is conveying that
information to the renters and we would just like to see a copy of that contract
as proof of compliance.”
Richey
added, “We did have some comments from adjacent property owners and their
concerns were noise, alcohol, and things of that nature, basically, we feel like
these have been addressed. We put
conditions in place to keep these from getting out of hand and we feel like with
conditions that it is not going to be an issue. Yes, there will be some traffic that comes to the events, but
there’s traffic that goes out to the churches and things out there now as
well. It is not too much traffic
for the roads to handle and it is not going to be everyday.”
Richey
also added, “There is not an actual Land Use Map for the area.
It is in Elkins’ Planning Area. They
didn’t have any comments besides what their Fire Chief said.
Basically, we just say compatible with surrounding uses.
I feel like that is what they have achieved. I think we’ve gone through all of the recommendations.
Condition #10 (Septic
area must be roped or fenced off in entirety to prevent parking in this area)
Mr. Fallen just told me right before the meeting that they actually already have
that gated off. That shouldn’t be
an issue.”
Hummel asked, “I’m serving because I have a great deal of
respect. I’ve worked with most of
everybody up here at one time and Juliet your reputation.
Is that zoned A1 right now and they want a Conditional Use Permit?
Why would you want to Conditional Use 118 acres when you’re only going
to use 20 acres?” Richey replied,
“It is a policy of ours, I guess you can fault the Planning Department for
that though. We like to zone by the
parcel. That parcel that he’s
looking at is 118 acres and part of it holds access to the site.
We like to zone by parcels because we feel like if you don’t as the
years go by the clarity of what portion was actually zoned without having a
survey or something could be ambiguous.”
Hummel asked, “Does that prevent him from ever developing around it?”
Richey replied, “No, I mean as far as…”
Hummel asked, “It’s a Conditional Use and I know that you told me
that your Conditional Use is forever, so if they wanted to take 40 acres of that
and then have a development on it, could they do that?”
Richey replied, “Yes, I guess we could add a condition that said ‘All
other things that were allowed previously in the zoning category, the
agricultural/single-family category, are still allowed as well.’
Basically, that is what it would be anyway unless he chose to re-zone a
part of it later on, which he could do.”
Hummel asked, “You’re saying you can re-zone a parcel of land that
has already been zoned Conditional Use?”
Richey replied, “He could. Right
now the way that it is, he would just have to get another Conditional Use
that’s the only other zoning category. We
only have one zoning category right now.”
Hummel asked, “SF1.” Richey
replied, “Right, single-family/agricultural.”
Daugherty stated, “Basically, he would have to come back for
Conditional Use probably if he wanted to…”
Richey commented, “If he wanted to do anything besides single-family or
agricultural, which is what is allowed in that base zoning to begin with.”
Walker asked, “Are we changing that when we approve this?”
Richey replied, “We can add something on there that says that all of
that is still allowed.” Gallagher
asked, “We got a roughly 100 acre tract of land.
The only thing that he can do on there by right is build another
single-family home on there if he wants to split lots, if he wants to build more
than one, or if he wants to change lot sizes, they all have to come back
here.” Richey replied, “Right, yes.”
Gallagher stated, “The Conditional Use Permit is really just an overlay
of the agricultural/residential district. It
is still underlying zoning, it is still agricultural/residential.”
Richey commented, “The same. Yes,
that’s how I would interpret it.” Gallagher
stated, “Even if he did decide he wanted to have 40 acres that he wanted to
develop as 20 residential properties he would still have to come back here for
lot splits and all of the other approvals regardless of whether this was
approved or not approved.” Richey
commented, “Right.” Gallagher
stated, “We’re really not changing anything for him.”
Hummel asked, “You’re saying that Conditional Use does not change the
use of that?” Gallagher replied,
“The underlying zoning. It is
still a residential/agricultural lot regardless of what Conditional Uses are
laid upon top of it.” Hummel
asked, “Why go through a Conditional Use then?”
Walker commented, “That’s a good question.”
Gallagher replied, “Because we’re approving this particular thing. We’ve got a site plan, we’ve got conditions for that use
and so forth. We’re just
approving the use not changing the zoning on the site.”
Richey stated, “Right, the base zoning remains the same and then he has
a Conditional Use to also have an event venue essentially on his property.”
Walker asked, “I’m a little confused, anytime any of us have a
family reunion or we have an event a church group that comes whether we’re
charging or not. Are we governed by
Conditional Use? What’s the
difference?” Richey replied,
“If it is a charging event, this is a commercial use you are making money off
the property.” Walker commented,
“I make money off my cows. That
is agricultural.”
Daugherty stated, “Basically, if it boils down it’s a business
then that’s the reason they’re coming as a Conditional Use.”
Richey commented, “Right, it’s a nonagricultural business.”
Daugherty stated, “If you were doing it consistently for a business.”
Walker asked, “If you decide to put in another tractor lot in Morrow,
Arkansas?” Daugherty replied,
“You probably couldn’t do that without Conditional Use.
That’s for commercial purposes. That’s
the reason that they did that to prevent stuff like that without approval.”
Fallen commented, “I have been concerned about that also.
That’s just farmland now with cows on it.
None of that is going to change with cows and horses.
The only thing that may change is eventually we hope to build a house out
there.” Richey stated,
“That’s fine, that’s allowed, that’s not a problem.”
Fallen commented, “We don’t want to have to change.
We’re not asking for any change. All
we’re wanting to do is to be able to do weddings and receptions in that
building within the guidelines of the County’s requirements.”
Richey stated, “That’s what if this is approved will allow you to do.
You can still build a house and have a farm, all of that is already
allowed by right. You don’t need
any special permission to do that. It
is because he is having a business here that it is a Conditional Use and you can
see why because you’re having an influx of people on a weekly basis.
Probably, there are some people that have parties at their house every
weekend where they have I don’t know 50 to 200 people I don’t know.
Usually not, usually people if they have family reunions or whatever it
is a couple of times a year it’s not on a weekly basis you know 9 months out
of the year. That’s why this is
seen differently.”
Daugherty commented, “I think it boils down basically to the
intent. It is intended to be a
business so that’s the reason they come before us.”
Hummel asked, “Aren’t you saying, I can understand a Conditional Use
on 18 or 20 acres wherever the barn is going to be wherever it’s at and the
driveway and stuff, aren’t you changing that whole thing to Conditional Use
for exactly what they’re doing? I
think that they have a nice setup and everything.
I’m just having a hard time getting it passed.”
Richey replied, “Here’s the thing, the parcels that we are permitting
part of the conditions for this use is that people are using the driveway and
because this is a certain use the Fire Department has to use the driveway to
access this in case of a fire, so part of the conditions are that they have to
maintain that driveway.”
Walker asked, “If it burns today the Fire Department is going to
have to use that driveway anyway, so why do we have to upgrade that?”
Gallagher replied, “Because today there won’t be 100 men, women, and
children.” Walker stated,
“It’s still one building that’s going to burn.”
Gallagher commented, “This is about life safety not about the
property.” Walker stated, “The
ambulance can get there, too.”
Haley asked, “That was my question, if I think this is where this
is, is this right behind the old Austin Reed place?” Fallen replied, “Yes, right on the hill.
Lucille Harris used to be the owner for many, many years.”
Haley commented, “I haven’t been out there in a year or two, but that
road it is paved, but it is not a very good road as far as the pavement.”
Fallen stated, “They chip and sealed that probably 3 or 4 years ago.”
Haley commented, “I don’t know that the extra expense of paving that
driveway.” Richey stated,
“He’s not paving the driveway. He’s required to pave a 20’ apron like we do on all
commercial high traffic.” Haley
commented, “I misunderstood that.” Walker
stated, “I did, too because he doesn’t have to bring it up to the standard
to handle the 75,000 pounds.” Richey
commented, “He does it is already built like that.
It is a gravel driveway it is built very well.
Somebody put base under it; it is a very well built road.”
Fallen stated, “They were going to pave it from what I understand and
then they had a change in plans about the time they finished up this building
and then kind of walked off of it.”
Richey commented, “I guess if the Board wants to get into this, I
mean, if you want to say whatever 50’ from the centerline of this road, which
is part of the conditions. Without
a survey it is hard to specify exact areas, like here’s the septic, parking
may be all up and down here, part of the weddings may be held outside, and
putting a Conditional Use on it is not going to keep anybody from doing anything
that they could do before.”
Hummel asked, “Could he sell if he wanted to 20 acres to me with
the Conditional Use on it, would I be limited then to what I could do?”
Richey replied, “I think that if he wants to sell 20 acres to you;
you’d have to get a lot split approved, get easements and everything, and you
wouldn’t be limited in what you could do, basically, I guess if you wanted to
lease him that area after you owned it to still use sometimes for his parties or
events then it would still be able to go with that if need be, but if you tell
him you don’t want…” Hummel asked, “I want to build two houses on it.”
Richey replied, “You could do that because it is a separate piece of
property.”
Fallen asked, “Talking about being able to sell 20 acres or
whatever that is on that Conditional Use Permit, I can do that, can’t I?”
Richey replied, “You have to get it split off through our office, but
yes.” Fallen asked, “It would
have to go through just the same lot split as any other piece of property?”
Daugherty replied, “Correct.” Richey
stated, “As long as it didn’t do something to compromise your use; like if
you sold off the 20 acres with your septic system on it or something that would
probably be a problem. Nothing that
is going to conflict with the basings that we have put down here as
conditions.”
Larry Walker moved to
approve Stables on the Hill Conditional Use Permit with staff recommendations.
Gallagher asked, “What kind of parking are you going to have
there? Is there going to be a
parking lot built or are you just parking on the grass or are you going to build
a gravel lot? ” Fallen replied,
“Right now it is just grass just right beside the driveway. We’ll angle in toward the fence down through there.
Later, I may put some SB2 there and maybe even some outdoor lighting of
some sort kind of depending on as soon as we get into this I can kind of see it
a little bit more about what we’re going to need.”
Gallagher asked, “There were some concerns from neighbors about noise,
it seems like you’re awfully far from another building, but being on top of
that hill I don’t know whether or not they’re going to be able to hear that
down there, that concerns me just a little bit, I don’t know how that’s
going to work. We’ve got this floor plan is this the way that it is going
to remain for the events or are you going to modify this floor plan at all?”
Fallen replied, “I pretty much will locate additional bathrooms on that
first floor there somewhere and that hadn’t been determined yet, but it is
pretty much going to stay the same. I
want to keep it the look as it’s got right now.”
Gallagher asked, “The stall partitions are going to stay up as planned
right now?” Fallen replied,
“Yes, as planned right now.” Gallagher
asked, “Is there going to be any limit on how many people can be in here?” Fallen replied, “We’re trying to not book anything over
200 people.” Gallagher asked,
“None of the events are going to be on the second floor everybody other than,
what Juliet talked about earlier, the bride upstairs changing clothes or
something. The public events are
going to be down on the grade floor, right?”
Fallen replied, “Right, there will be limited access to the second
floor. We won’t let tons of
people upstairs.”
Kenley Haley seconded.
Motion passes.
Richey commented, “Since George Butler, Washington County Attorney, is not
here tonight would the Board want to add a condition and I’ll double check
with him to make sure that everything that goes with base zoning,
single-family/agricultural and all of that, stays intact with the Conditional
Use Permit, so that way there’s no question.
I don’t think that there should be any issue, but George is not here
and that way if we add it; that is the way it is.”
Walker stated, “I’m like Roy I
wouldn’t want to hamper him in wanting to develop future property so if the
Conditional Use like Roy is talking and it could very well be, if it just says
118 acres this is all that can happen there I don’t think that is what the
owner would want. I think we need
to find out for sure because if it doesn’t he may want to come back and say
this 5 acres is all I want Conditional Use on.”
Fallen commented, “Exactly.” Richey
stated, “We’ll just add it to where all of the base zoning rights stay the
same. That way you’re covered no
matter what.” Fallen commented,
“That is fine.” Jessie Pettit,
Washington County Planner, asked, “That will be an additional condition?”
Richey replied, “Yes.”
Daugherty stated, “That will be
part of our motion and second.”
All Board members were in favor of approving Stables
on the Hill Conditional Use Permit.
Richey commented, “We’ll send Mr. Fallen a letter that has all of the
conditions clearly stated on it tomorrow.”
Fallen stated, “Good deal. I
want to thank everybody.”
Hummel
asked, “What if he changes his mind and the business doesn’t go?”
Gallagher replied, “Then the use goes unused, it just lays there.”
Walker commented, “Essentially, if you bought it and wanted to do the
same business you could do the same business without even coming here.”
Haley stated, “He could still use it for Conditional Use as in a
retreat center for executives.” Richey
commented, “Right, we made it broad based.”
b. The
Orchards at Union Star Road CUP (Conditional
Use Permit Request) To be removed from the agenda at the request of the applicant
Location: Section 19 & 30, Township 14 North,
Range 30 West
Owner/Developer: Triangle Builders Supply, Inc. –
Don Watson
Engineer/Surveyor: Key Architecture, Inc. (KAI)
Location Address: 16488 Union Star Road (WC #224)
59.79 acres and 60 units / Proposed Land Use:
Agricultural and Residential
Project
#: 2009-002 Planner:
Juliet Richey, e-mail at jrichey@co.washington.ar.us
Planner: Courtney McNair,
e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
Cheryl West moved to remove
The Orchards at Union Star Road CUP Conditional
Use Permit from the agenda. Larry Walker
seconded. Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of removing The Orchards
at Union Star Road CUP Conditional Use Permit from the agenda.
7.
OLD BUSINESS
8.
OTHER BUSINESS
·
Planning Commission Training March 11, 2009 in Hot Springs 9:00 – 4:00
Juliet
Richey, Washington County Planning Director, stated, “I just want to remind
you all that there is that Planning Commission training March 11 in Hot Springs
if any of you all want to go. I do
have information on that.”
·
Current Development update
Richey
stated, “This is for Mr. Hummel since he is new.
We pass out a spreadsheet every month that just of kind of let you know
what development that we have pending in the County, what we have going on.”
·
Planning Board / Zoning
Board of Adjustments discussion on clarification of Washington County zoning.
·
Excel spreadsheet comparison of Wind Farm ordinances
Richey
stated, “Courtney McNair, Washington County Planner, has spent the last month
researching wind farms. Basically,
what she has done is we went through and on the first page we did look for
States that are close to here and a lot of them don’t have enabling controls
in their Counties, so we didn’t really find a lot of ordinances that we could
use. We’re looking at Illinois,
Pennsylvania, New York, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and North Carolina.
Basically, this is just kind of our comparison of what all they require
for each thing in their ordinance. The
last month we passed out kind of the things that we were looking at that we
thought might be concerns and this basically breaks down different types of
concerns and goes through them. I
don’t know if this is something that you all want to do at the meeting
tonight. If you want to come back
next time and tell me what your feelings are.”
Daugherty
commented, “Personally, I would like to let Randy have an opportunity to look
at this and of course he may know more about this than I.
That’s my personal opinion I would like for him to be involved in it,
too.” Richey asked, “I know
that it looks really boring and like hard reading, but it’s not too bad,
really. I do want you to note that
at the top it says ‘type’ and you’ll notice that some of these are
ordinances that are in effect in these communities and some of them are model
ordinances that were written, basically, for people to model them after so that
is something to keep in mind while you’re reading.
Courtney and I were going to sit down with this also over the next month
and kind of pick out the ones that we felt like were more reasonable for each
category, but I would like for you all to look through it.
Do you want to talk about it at all tonight?” Daugherty replied, “That is the desire of the Committee.”
Walker replied, “I think Randy has spent a lot more time.”
Daugherty stated, “I think we would like time to look at this and then
let you come back with your recommendations and, hopefully, Randy will be here
and then we can discuss it at that point.”
Gallagher
asked, “Before we go, is there anything in particular that you want to call
our attention to that you think is either important, controversial, or anything
else?” Richey replied, “Just so
you know we think that some of these are a little over the top, but we thought
it would be good for you to get a good idea of what a lot of different people
do.” McNair commented, “If you
notice I’ve got them labeled across the top A-G and then down the sides 1-40
something. If you kind of look at
one and then say well I think C sounds more reasonable to me if you all will
kind of think about that for next time and maybe highlight it on your sheet just
so that I can have something to kind of compare off of ours.
Some of these are extremely out of left field and that’s not the ones
that we are going to be recommending. We
just wanted you to see.” Richey
stated, “As usual, we want to take a common sense approach to this.
We really are all about that.” Hummel
asked how to compare. Richey
commented, “They’re not all apples to apples.
A megawatt, like each turbine is rated for whatever how many half a
megawatt up to 2 megawatts, I think is the normal range.” Hummel
asked, “$50.00 per megawatt.” Richey
replied, “You could be talking about say if it is a whole bunch of 1.5
megawatt turbines then you’re only talking about $150.00 per turbine instead
of $500 or $1,000.” McNair
stated, “Application fees, that might be something we need to work out as
we’re working the ordinance and we see how much it’s going to require Staff
review. That’s how Juliet and
George formed all of the other fees was just based on how much input Staff has
to do to get these projects through approval.”
Gallagher commented, “I do think you need to make
it a task analysis, if you will, so that we are charging some that are
commensurate
we’re not overcharging them and taking money for something that we are not
providing and conversely we’re not subsidizing them by not charging a
sufficient fee to pay for the costs that are actually evaluating.” McNair
stated, “This is not small wind. We
have no wish to regulate that as we’ve stated before, that’s more of an
agricultural personal use and should be allowed under our current zoning.
This is only large commercial wind farms.”
Richey commented, “We’ll get to a point where we’ll probably do
some sort of cut off by megawatt, but essentially these are going to be people
that are selling power to AECC or SWEPCO. This
is not somebody who has a turbine at their house that their meter runs backwards
when it is really windy.” Walker
stated, “If you put one up that’s large enough to produce more electricity
than you use then it goes back to the grid.”
Richey commented, “That’s right, but you don’t have 400 turbines
and you require a whole substation. Usually
it is a cut off on the actual size of that machinery.
These huge turbines, you would have to have three cranes to put them
up.” Walker stated, “I think it
was either Gary or Randy at the last meeting that said that the technology on
storage of electricity is what is really going to make or break the future for
individual and smaller type stuff.” Daugherty
commented, “I think Randy is the one who said that.
He knows a little bit more about this than I do.”
McNair stated, “If you all want to think about it and if you want to
send me e-mails if you thought about it before the next meeting I would be happy
to include those.” Richey commented, “Courtney has done a lot of work on
this.” Daugherty stated, “Great
job.” Gallagher commented,
“You’ve clearly done a lot of work already and we appreciate it.”
·
Discussion on whether Board would like to make any additions to the
By-laws
·
The June 4, 2009 Planning Board / Zoning Board of Adjustments meeting
has been rescheduled to Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 5:00pm.
Please mark your calendars
·
Any other general Planning Department or Planning Board Business
Cheryl
West moved to adjourn. James
F. Gallagher
seconded. Motion passes.
Planning
Board adjourned.
Minutes
submitted by: Courtney McNair / Amanda Kimbel
Approved
by the Planning Board on:
____Robert
Daugherty__________ Date: ___04/02/09_______
Robert Daugherty, Planning Board Vice-Chairman
WASHINGTON
COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
&
ZONING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
April 2, 2009
5:00
p.m., Quorum Courtroom, New Courthouse
Fayetteville, Arkansas
1. ROLL CALL:
Roll call was taken.
Members present include: Kenley Haley, Larry Walker, Roy Hummel, Cheryl
West, and Robert Daugherty. Absent:
James F. Gallagher and Randy Laney.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (from the March 5, 2009 meeting) Larry
Walker made a motion to approve as printed. Kenley Haley provided the second.
Motion passes.
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
Juliet Richey, Washington
County Planning Director, stated, “We do have one change to the agenda.
Mr. Butler (George Butler, Washington County Attorney) wanted us to go
ahead and update the By-laws. We’ve
had a couple of discussions a few months back and even though we’re not going
to go back into that, he did find just a technical correction that need to be
made and so if we can just add that under Other Business.”
Cheryl West made a motion to approve the agenda. Kenley Haley seconded.
Motion passes.
4. Honor Gary Head for his years of loyal service to the
Washington County Planning Board.
Daugherty commented, “Gary
is not here so we can’t honor Gary.”
5. NEW BUSINESS
6.
OLD BUSINESS
7.
OTHER BUSINESS
Courtney
McNair, Washington County Planner, stated, “What I did is I sent out that
comparison and then I wrote you guys a recommendation; a very preliminary
recommendation. I hope some of you
all had time to think about that, but I would kind of like to briefly go over
the ones where I had a recommendation or I had a comment either from a wind
developer or other sources. Utility
companies have commented back to me on some of these recommendations, so I would
like to go over those with you all.”
McNair
commented, “(1) Application Fee – We’re not quite there yet.
(2) Controls and Brakes – I need to obviously do some more research I
apparently erroneously thought redundant and two type braking system were the
same thing; they are not. I will
update you all when I have more information.
(3) Electrical – Nobody had any problems with the electrical - that
they just follow all applicable codes. (4)
Color – The color seem to be in line with what they’re going to do anyway;
non-intrusive flat paint; one color. (5)
Height - We’re not recommending a restriction on height for towers in this
area because of our unique terrain and I think that some of these towers are
going to have to be pretty tall to take advantage of our marginal wind.
If you all aren’t comfortable with that let me know, but I don’t
think that we should restrict the height of the tower.”
Haley stated, “Compare it to like a cell phone tower.”
Richey commented, “A lot of the cell phone towers that we’ve seen
recently are between like 150’ – 300’.
I don’t know how this is all going to end up, but it has been suggested
that the actual tower height itself will be around 300’ plus the blade, so
you’re looking at maybe 400’ or so feet.
What they’re looking at right now is ridge top wind development.
Of course this is only one company that we’ve really talked about
in-depth what sort of proposals they might be making, so it will be along ridge
tops and they would be very tall. We
do have some pictures and I think we’ve talked about this a little bit in the
past of what that might look like. Obviously,
this is going to look very different than it does you know if you’re driving
through Kansas and it’s flat for miles and miles and you have windmills.
I certainly don’t think its negative it’s just going to look
different on the landscape.” Walker stated, “I’ve seem them in Hawaii and they
weren’t on flat – on a side of a mountain and they looked fine.”
McNair
added, “(6) Visual – This is going to be one of the harder ones that we have
to discuss. I have some pictures
that deal with fencing and they’re pretty wide open they don’t have a lot of
the out buildings that cell towers do. I
don’t think that I’m quite ready to say we should screen.
You can’t screen the tower. You’re
not going to be able to, but for the equipment around it I’m not even sure
that we need to at this point because these towers are going to lease some
property. I’m not sure that any
neighboring properties are going to be able to see, but I want to do just a
little more research and maybe a little bit more visual research to see what I
think needs to be done on that. (7)
Advertisements – No advertisements is my recommendation.
I think that is in line with what we have along 540 we don’t allow big
billboards to go up there. Obviously,
if the company wants to put their name on it that is fine, but I don’t think
that we should use these things as giant moving advertisements.”
Walker
asked, “All wiring or all transmission lines from those towers will they be
buried?” McNair replied, “We
are not going to recommend to make that part of our ordinance, but in speaking
with the company that has applications in…” Walker commented, “I
personally would like it to be a requirement.”
Richey stated, “There’s basically two areas where you’re going to
have transmission or you’re going to have lines.”
Walker commented, “I’m speaking from the turbine or the windmill
itself I know that they come down to a little bitty building or collection at
the bottom.” Richey stated, “Transformer.”
Walker commented, “From there to wherever the transfer station is…”
Richey stated, “Substation.” Walker
commented, “I would like to see that underground.”
Richey stated, “Invenergy, the company that we talked to, they always
do theirs underground; it seems to be pretty common.”
Walker commented, “Everything that I’ve seen, you don’t see a bunch
of power lines running from every…” McNair stated, “Until you get from
like a substation and then transfer it to a big one.”
Walker commented, “If I had it my way that would be underground, too,
but that’s not feasible, I don’t think, cost-wise.”
Richey stated, “Right, so you’re saying that when we do get to that
part that…” Walker commented, “I don’t have a problem once you get to
your substation because to get into the grid and everything it’s probably
going to have to go overhead, but I wouldn’t want to see all these windmills
and a bunch of highline wires mingled in and hooked all together.
I would like to see all of that go underground to a substation and then
from there.” McNair stated,
“That seems in line.” Walker
commented, “It’s clean and neat looking then.”
Daugherty stated, “I agree with him on that.”
West commented, “I like that idea.”
McNair also added, “(8) Lighting – Staff recommends that lighting meet FAA
requirements and any other lighting must be shielded from surrounding
properties, pretty standard, it gives them an option of putting up security
lights if they want as long as they’re not shining on somebody else’s
property. Most of these
Invenergy
said they don’t do any
other lighting other than what is required by the FAA, so they probably won’t
have any, but we’d like to give them that option as long as they shield it
properly. (10) Warnings –
Voltage-warning signs and guy wire reflectors.
I’m not even sure that we’re going to have any guy wires.
Clay Grote, Washington County Contracted Engineer, is supposed to be
getting back to me on kind of what’s a typical warning sign or reflector sign
to keep people from running into these with tractors, or however that works.
I haven’t heard back.” Walker
stated, “As far as fencing and screening, that’s a different issue than
fencing the property. I would want
the property fenced – perimeter to keep people out because there is climb
prevention. Most of the ones that I’ve seen I don’t think you can
climb them unless you get inside of them anyway.”
McNair commented, “Right, that’s what we’ve found.”
McNair
stated, “I’m going to address perimeter fencing, too. (11) Fall Zone – Staff is not going to recommend an
additional fall zone outside of just a regular setback.
Fall Zone means typically if the tower were to fall straight over would
it land on your property or on your neighbor’s house. I think with setbacks that we’re going to require it’s
going to more than cover that fall zone. The
terminology fall zone is really not exactly accurate anymore since most of these
towers collapse within themselves so they feel like it maybe scares people when
you use that terminology, but I think with adequate setbacks we can completely
make sure that the fall zone is within the setback.”
Walker commented, “The only time I would be concerned about fall zone
is during erection.” McNair
stated, “Right, that is a good point.” Walker commented, “The erection both of the crane helping
set it up and the tower itself, so you need enough setback to be able to take
care of that issue, because the crane is really tall.”
McNair asked, “Really tall, as tall as the tower?”
Walker replied, “It has to be taller than the tower.”
McNair
commented, “(12) Climb Prevention – We had quite a bit of feedback.
Like Larry said, and this is what we’ve heard from Invenergy, and from
everybody else you can’t climb them. You
have to be able to get inside that little door and those are where the stairs
and the ladder is to the top of the tower.
I think Staff is going to make a recommendation that if they are
climbable on the outside then we have to do some sort of fencing, but as long as
they are this monotype pole, with the equipment for climbing stored on the
interior, I don’t think we need to fence around each individual tower.
Perimeter fencing is a different thing.
I think I would like to research a little bit further because these
companies are going to be leasing from several different properties.” Richey stated, “You’re talking about thousands of acres,
probably.” Daugherty commented,
“Yeah, that’s going to be hard.” Walker
stated, “I’m talking about where the towers themselves are; your fall zone
outside that tower. All I’m
thinking is security as much as anything for these people.” Richey commented, “We can talk about it; it may be that
they can mark it No Trespassing. We’re
talking about really big rural areas and probably a lot of them have some sort
of farm fencing in place, but a lot of them may be going through wooded areas
that have never been developed and I don’t know the feasibility of fencing off
huge perimeters.” Daugherty
asked, “What have you seen elsewhere on fencing?”
Richey replied, “You’re taking up a lot of agricultural fields.”
McNair stated, “There’s no fencing.”
Walker commented, “Fencing becomes an aesthetic ugly because if you
don’t maintain it and can’t keep the grass and stuff away from it, it can
get to be a mess.” McNair stated,
“Let me look into it.” Richey
commented, “I’m not sure that it’s going to be completely feasible.”
Walker asked, “How do they feel about security, I mean they think they
are secure enough standing out there by itself?”
Richey replied, “I’m not sure. We
can discuss that more with there are a couple of different wind companies that
we are talking to and we can get some feedback from them on that.
The ones that we’ve seen personally have been behind farm fencing, but
those were in Oklahoma in agricultural fields.
They had farm fencing and on that fencing they would have some No
Trespassing signs, but those fences weren’t keeping anybody out.” Walker
stated, “Going back to my argument last time about putting too many
regulations on something to keep it from coming in I might hesitate of making
them fence the perimeter for cost sake. If
it kept us from getting an energy source that would be viable to the community
if the fencing kept it from it then I may not want to have that stipulation on
there.” McNair commented,
“I’m more than happy to look into it and see…” Walker stated, “I’m
more interested in the security for them.”
Daugherty commented, “I think what you need to look into and see how
secure they think they are. If they feel comfortable with it then I think we should
be.”
McNair
stated, “Unless they have any exterior climbing stuff, I don’t think that
we’re going to have to do individual fences around these things.”
Walker commented, “That fall zone it could be only during construction
phase, too.” McNair stated, “It
could be. Most fall zones are about
what setbacks are anyway, they just typically have a second definition for it,
which like I said frightens some people because they feel like, but these fall
zones don’t typically exceed those setbacks anyway.
Maybe during construction if people have signed a waiver for their homes
to be within that setback then we might need to think about how to further
protect them if anything were to fall. If
they signed a waiver to be closer in that setback than allowable and kind of
sign a waiver that says I know my risks. I’ll
think about that and we’ll ask George Butler (Washington County Attorney)
about construction fall zones.” Walker
commented, “I just know in my business like a wall we have a fall zone during
construction and then after the building is attached to it, it kind of goes
away.” McNair stated, “That
makes sense.”
McNair
added, “(13) Primary Structure (residences, commercial, ANY STRUCTURE WITH
DAILY OCCUPATION) – I have this defined as like a residence, commercial,
school, anybody who has daily occupation not stuff like horse barns, hay barns,
or tool sheds. If a guy has a
cabinet shop on his property that’s what I would consider a primary he goes
there everyday and builds cabinets or something.
That’s what I’m saying a primary structure is and these are very up
for discussion as far as setbacks go. Setbacks are a hard thing to try and
figure out. You don’t want to put
too many setbacks on so that then the developers feel squeezed, but you don’t
want to leave property owners without some protection.” Walker asked, “How did you come up with the 2.5 times?”
McNair replied, “That one came from another ordinance it seemed to…
most of them seemed to graduate a little higher most of them started at about
1.1 and that’s pretty much your typical fall zone is the height of the tower
plus a little bit.” Walker asked,
“You’re talking about other wind farm?”
Richey replied, “Those ordinances that we passed out where we looked at
different communities.” McNair commented, “Several of them did a graduated setback
system. I’ve had discussions 2.5
might be a little much maybe 1.5 to 2.5 somewhere in there, but the reason for
an increased setback in a non-participating property is because if they are
non-participating they need to be able to Well, my neighbor is putting up this
huge tower, but it is 300’ from my house, they need to have some sort of
protection and some sort of say, and if they want to sign a waiver that’s
something that is always going to be an option. I think that we do need to work on that number; I’m not
sure where it needs to be. I like
the original; 1.1 is your most basic height of the tower plus 10% to keep people
safe.” Walker asked, “Why does
that say 1.5 and the print out you gave us says 2.5?”
Richey replied, “Those are two different categories.
Setbacks in general: these are going to be the setbacks that are required
if people are not on board with the project and that means that either you have
a windmill on your property and you are fine with waiving your minimum setback,
if you live on a neighboring property and you have a windmill or you don’t
have a windmill. Basically, there are three different categories; primary
structure: this is going to be the setback from a structure like a school, a
house, somewhere you are at everyday that’s at 150% unless you want to waive
it and make it closer and that is going to be the property owner’s purogative.
Then you have primary structure on a non-participation property that is
the largest setback and that’s going to be 250% unless they want to sign a
waiver and then it can be closer. Then
you just have adjacent property lines, okay so
this is not a setback from an actual structure, but just from just adjacent
property lines and the idea here is basically to just keep the fall zone, if you
will, within a participating property unless the neighbor wants to sign a
waiver.” Walker asked,
“You’re saying a setback from a residence (I’m looking at (13) Primary Structure (residences, commercial,
ANY STRUCTURE WITH DAILY OCCUPATION) does that meet 150% or 1.5 then we go down
to (14) Primary structure on Non-Participation Property then it’s 2.5?”
Richey replied, “That’s right on a non-participating property.”
Walker asked, “What if I have a resident and I’m on a
non-participating property so you’re saying that (13) is participating
people?” Richey replied,
“That’s right. If you’re a
participating person you basically get a different minimum setback than a
non-participating person.” Walker
stated, “In other words if I’m participating in the wind farm then I get a
1.5 setback, but if I don’t want to participate it’s got to be 2.5.”
Richey commented, “Right, the idea is if you’re leasing your land
you’re probably somewhat on board with the idea, and if you’re not leasing
your land and you’re not a participant, then the idea is that you’re
possibly are not as on board and not as interested in having them near your
home, but on any level you can waive that.
Basically, what we’re doing is we’re offering people kind of a
minimum protection and if they want it fine, and if they don’t want it they
can waive it.” Hummel asked,
“But as non-participating I give up the right to ever build on my property in
this fall zone?” Richey replied,
“No, that’s not true this is going to be from existing structures.
We do this with cell towers as well.
The idea is that if you’ve already built your house and there was no
tower looming over you when you built it, and so now a tower is coming in, so
that offers you some separation from that tower because your house is already
built. The idea is; once the tower
is up you can see the tower. Probably
you can measure the distance and you can decide whether or not you want to place
your primary structure within a certain number of feet.”
Hummel asked, “If that’s not participating you’re telling me I
can’t if the ordinance says that.” Richey
stated, “No, I’m not telling you anything.
You can build wherever you want after it’s up.
We’re relaying restrictions on where people can put towers in relation
to existing homes.” Walker
commented, “I can kind of see what Roy is saying though we need to be very
careful how we word that because it might work two ways.”
Richey stated, “Well, but it doesn’t, and we’re not going to word
it that way, and our cell tower ordinance it’s the same thing.”
Walker asked, “If I want to build within 250% of that tower then I
can?” Richey replied, “You can
do whatever you want.” Walker
commented, “My insurance company or somebody may say, ‘We’re not going to
insure that because you’re too close to that tower and fall zone.”
Butler stated, “It’s your right to do that and decide it’s okay
I’m going to take that risk.” Walker
commented, “Can I build on top of a water line got an easement through?”
Richey replied, “This is not an easement this is a setback from a
tower. It is offering people
protection basically if they want it because once your residence is there it’s
not like you can decide to move it later. We’re
saying that if your residence is already here and somebody wants to put up a
tower it has to be x amount of feet away from you.”
West stated, “It’s not restricting you to build right next to it if
you want to.” Richey commented,
“That’s right, what we’re assuming if you come in later you can see the
tower and then it’s up to you and you can make the decision whether you want
to put your house within 250’ of it or not.”
Walker stated, “That’s why when they come in they got to have a bunch
of marginal land to give them the protection to meet the setbacks.”
Richey commented, “Or have you have to have a lot of people on board in
the perimeter of the project.” Daugherty stated, “The bottom line it’s
just meant to restrict the people installing the towers nothing to restrict the
existing property owners and that’s the way it should be worded and that’s
the way that we’ll try to word it.” Richey
commented, “We’ll make sure that it reads that way.”
McNair
stated, “Like I said, I did get some positive feedbacks from these setbacks,
they said as long as you have a waiver that we can take to people, you know
you’re going to allow us to set it closer if they don’t mind then we’re
fine with whatever protection. If a
property owner just really feels like they don’t want to have anything to do
with it then they’re adequately protected by these setbacks.
We also had some people who thought that these were way too
restrictive.” Haley commented,
“My thought is probably need to err on the side of caution, and I would rather
be too restrictive and come back in five years and go I wish we would have done
whatever much more.” McNair
stated, “It’s a real balancing act because you do want to do that, but then
you don’t want to be so restrictive that it’s going to restrict.”
Haley commented, “I think just from a few things my perspective we’ve
learned a little bit about setbacks in the last few months perhaps we need to be
cautious.” Richey stated, “We
don’t really talk about this in our ordinance, but from our research it is
pretty common practice that these wind companies give payments to people in some
cases that don’t even have towers on their property they call it like their
‘good neighbor’ payment. We
understand that you don’t have a wind tower on your property, but you have to
look at it everyday and therefore, we’ll be giving you x amount of dollars a
year.” Walker asked, “That 250%
or 2.5 times is from an existing structure of some type?
It’s not just from property line.”
McNair replied, “Yes, from a structure the property line is the 1.1.”
Walker asked, “Does it say that?”
Richey replied, “Primary structure on non-participation property.”
Butler
asked, “I’m assuming these wind farms are going to have to go through the
Conditional Use process?” Richey
replied, “Yes.” Butler
commented, “The reason why I ask is the Quorum Court approved some regulations
awhile back where we exempted something utilities; I forgot how we worded that,
though.” Richey stated, “Yes, I
believe that this would not be exempt. We
did not exempt utility generation like power generation.
We exempted substations. I’m
pretty sure that we kept the larger facilities…” Butler commented, “Still
subject to the Conditional Use Permit.”
McNair
also added, “(16) Public Roads, and (17) Railroads - Moving on to some more
setbacks public roads and railroads we felt like were the same thing.
I don’t have a suggestion yet I’m waiting to talk to the Road
Department; it’s been pretty hectic for them lately so when I have feedback
from them I will let you know. In
our Cell tower it is the height of the tower plus 20’.
I don’t know if that is adequate for a wind tower; I have to find out.
I also have a call in to the State Highway Department because they might
have a setback that they want as well, but one of the gentlemen who gave us
comments and said, ‘Well, some of them don’t have any setbacks at all or
almost none from roads. Juliet and
I went to Rutherford, Oklahoma and there was some setback, but it was pretty
minimal, but these towers are not as near as tall.
It may have been that fall zone area; we didn’t measure it.
They are pretty close to the highway.
I’ll have to get back to the State Highway Department and with our Road
Department to see how they feel probably they’re not going to want them within
a fall zone of their road because if it does fall they don’t want the road
blocked and they’ve also talked about a graduating system where obviously if
it is a residential drive maybe it needs to have less of a setback than if
it’s a major collector in the County, so we’re working on that one.”
Richey
stated, “George, I just looked it up and the following are not exempt,
‘power generation facilities,’ so that’s what this would be.”
McNair
stated, “(18) Transmission Lines and other Utilities – So far I’ve only
received one comment back and that was from Prairie Grove Telephone and they do
think that setbacks need to be preserved from other utilities because at least
out of each other’s fall zones and perhaps some interference, and he was
worried about lightning and the possibility of it striking the tower and
grounding and then messing up utilities that were in the vicinity; I haven’t
found that yet, but I’m going to keep looking for him.”
West commented, “That’s a good question.” McNair stated, “Yes, that’s a very good question and I
just haven’t found anything on it yet. He
does want some setbacks and I’m waiting to hear back from more like Ozarks
utilities about how they feel maybe in that situation where they already had a
little County electric line going through and then a wind tower comes in I
wonder how they feel about that situation.
(24) Noise Levels – We talked to Invenergy and they seem okay with 50 decibels.
50 seems to be a quiet restaurant, normal conversation, a home interior,
and an office. We’re talking
quiet conversational noise is about what 50 decibels is and Invenergy seemed to
think that is low the wind tower’s range like that’s not restricting them to
much they don’t usually put out 50 decibels of sound.
We’ve got some work to do on how we’re going to measure this
pre-construction and post-construction that’s not going to happen for a little
bit, but they didn’t feel that it was too restrictive.”
Walker asked, “This is the wind turbine people?”
McNair replied, “Yes, they felt like their equipment could definitely
stay under 50. I was just talking
to Dave Reynolds, Smith 2 Way, and he was saying that the City of
Fayetteville’s noise ordinance is a little louder than that so I might look up
some of our local noise ordinances and just see what they feel.”
West asked, “Per tower and have a whole bunch of them doing that.”
McNair replied, “Right, if they have a whole bunch it could build
up.” Richey commented, “You got
to remember they’re usually spaced like a quarter of a mile away from each
other.” McNair stated, “Pretty
far away. Usually the only time
that we’ve heard and Juliet and I tried really hard to go and hear one of
these at Rutherford, Oklahoma and we stood there in the howling wind trying to
hear anything other than the howling wind and it just wasn’t happening, so
we’re hoping that we can find a different less windy day.” Walker asked, “How close could you get to those?”
Richey replied, “We were probably about 50’ away from those.”
Walker asked, “No fencing?” Richey
replied, “There was a cattle guard and it had a No Trespassing sign so we
didn’t feel comfortable. We were
in a County vehicle. Invenergy has
actually invited us to go out and look at a couple of their projects. Their closest projects are in Texas near Lubbock.
Apparently, on a day when the wind is blowing 20 miles an hour is not a
day to go see if you can hear what kind of noise a turbine makes.”
McNair commented, “Invenergy didn’t seem to think that was too
restrictive, but if you would like for me to research it further; I can, if
you’re okay, because Invenergy feels okay with it.”
Richey stated, “I think we need to do a little bit more research.”
McNair commented, “This is all very preliminary all of it is very, very
flexible.”
McNair
added, “(25) Shadow Flicker – Here’s an interesting one.
I gave you some sun charts. The
sun changes position in the sky, as most of you especially farmers know that
during the summer it is higher and in the winter it is lower and so because of
this you can cast different shadows in the summer and the winter time and spring
and fall as well; you’re going to get different shadows all year long.
There’s a phenomenon called shadow flicker where when the turbine blade
is spinning the sun can past through at just a right angle that it could cause a
strobe effect on somebody else’s property, maybe part of the leased property,
at very specific times of the year. It’s
not very likely in our area, but it is still a possibility and it is still
something that we need to consider. It’s
more likely to happen in northern hemispheres where the sun changes a little
more. We’re still working this
out because we had some… they balked a little at the 30-hour maximum that we
put down. They don’t mind the
language they should site their towers in a way to produce minimal shadow
flicker impacts on surrounding structures, but they didn’t like not to exceed
30-hours per year. I kind of like
it because it gives us a quantifiable, what does it mean when you say that
you’re going to produce minimal shadowing or flicker effects?”
Walker asked, “How are you going to police that and who is going to
police it?” Richey replied,
“Who from the Planning Department gets to go sit in somebody’s living room
for 30 hours? We’re working on
that, but it is hard unless you do quantify things that can be hard to make sure
that things are done.” Walker
asked, “Is it possible to turn it so that there is none?”
McNair replied, “They try really hard not to cause this, but
occasionally.” Daugherty asked,
“What kind of hours did they recommend?”
McNair replied, “They didn’t; they just wanted we decided to
minimally impact.” Richey stated,
“I think they were worried about kind of the same things you are if they were
going to have to go sit somebody’s living room for 30 hours and tally it.
I understand that so we’re going to have to think about it a little
more and try to figure out a way to make sure that they really are limiting it
and not just saying, ‘Yeah we’re siting this to limit this problem.”
Daugherty commented, “If we could just find a way to reduce the amount
of time. I don’t see how you’re
going to monitor that in that number of hours.”
Dave
Reynolds, Smith 2 Way Radio, stated, “I don’t know about the time range, but
I’m looking at this and if you have to do a survey on the property and you
know what you’re going to build it and where it’s at this is an easy
calculation. This is something you
just supply a calculation certified by a professional engineer.” Daugherty commented, “That might be a great suggestion.”
Reynolds stated, “As far as what’s too much and what’s too little I
have no idea. You can say where it
goes or if it shadows on your property or does it shadow your kitchen window.”
Walker
commented, “This kind of goes back to our sun deal as far as the setbacks.
I mean if they position the tower where it is not flickering on a
residence that is already there then when you build something in that, that’s
your problem.” McNair stated,
“That’s your choice.” Richey
commented, “I see what you’re saying. Maybe we can write it to where… I don’t know, I wonder
how restrictive it would be to say that you can not do any shadow flicker on an
existing residence when you’re talking about a calculation, I don’t know
we’ll have to look into that.” Reynolds
stated, “What you’re looking at, too, is if you got a 300’ tower with a
150’ blade so you’re 450’ in the winter time with the low sun and low sun
shed that’s going to cause miles of shadow for the last hour or so.”
Richey commented, “I see what you’re saying and then maybe limiting
the hours would make sense as far as the calculation level, but maybe that can
be used in the calculation portion, but not particularly as an enforcement
portion.” Walker asked, “I
wonder if that why some of them are shut down at different times of the day?”
Richey replied, “Actually, I’ve heard people say that they do if
there’s an area where it does cause shadow flicker then they will shut them
down.” Walker stated, “Because
any of those fields that you’re in they’re all not turning at the same time;
I’ve never seen.”
Stephan
Pollard, PhD-Environmental Dynamics Chief Operating Officer, commented, “I’m
a wind developer and I can comment if I’m permitted to. For any number of reasons why those things would not turn
sometimes they don’t turn just because of self protect measures they need to
do something because it’s going too fast so they’ll turn off and wind is not
constant across the whole field you got different gusts in there and things like
that.” Walker asked, “They’re
not turned off on purpose then, probably?”
Pollard replied, “That can be arranged, too, depending on factors it
might be times of day for example where migratory birds particularly prevalent
or bats or protected species for instance and so they are working on it now on
things like that. We turn it off a
little bit here and there or slow it down and things like that.”
McNair stated, “(26) Minimum Ground
Clearance – I asked Clay Grote to look and see if there is a safe minimum
we’re talking from the spinning blade how far off of the ground should that
be? Clay is supposed to get back to
me on that.” Walker asked,
“Won’t that be determined by their height and their wind production; I
don’t think ground clearance will have much to do with where that flow is,
right?” Richey replied, “A bare minimum.” McNair commented, “We’re saying we can restrict that.
Like we don’t want the tip of the blade whooshing by somebody’s head
so 6’ isn’t going to be enough.” Walker
stated, “I don’t think that’ll ever happen.”
Daugherty commented, “I don’t think that will be a problem.”
Richey stated, “Not if you’re building a 300’ tower.”
Daugherty commented, “If they’re going to spend the money they’re
not going to do that.” Walker
stated, “Sure wouldn’t want to hit a rock.”
McNair commented, “We’re going to see if there is an industry
standard for that and get back to you.”
McNair commented, “(27) Well Water – was
mentioned in one ordinance and it was where I think they had some areas where
they were drilling down and putting these things directly on the bedrock and it
was effecting something to do with the wells or it could effect something to do
with the wells. I don’t think
we’re going to have that issue here and so I don’t think that we should
include it and if it becomes a problem in the future we could, but I really just
don’t see that anything that they are going to be doing to the site is going
to be effecting wells in the area.” Walker
stated, “The only thing that I can think of off is if the bedrock has layers
or a stratus of rock that’s in between the bedrock and the surface that is not
substantial to hold if they had to blast that or anything then you might get
into a little bit of wells situation, but I don’t see a big deal.” McNair commented, “I will look into blasting for footings
and stuff like that.”
McNair added, “(28) Use of Public Roads –
What Staff recommends is pretty much the standard for and the Road Department is
not here, but like standard for any other development where they go in they have
their engineer calculate what’s going to happen during construction and
what’s going to happen afterwards and then the Road Department and then sit
down with our County Engineer and they mesh numbers and come up with what needs
to happen to the road before, during, and after construction. We’re not asking that they build super highways into these
sites it’s just the standard roads stuff.”
Walker stated, “There again I’d caution about getting overboard.”
Richey commented, “What we’re trying to do is just like any other
development a lot of these are going to be in a very rural area and they may be
on roads that are smaller and they can be gravel roads.
The construction equipment that is going to have to come in and put these
up could be fairly intense. Basically,
we don’t want them tearing up the existing County roads at the cost of the
general taxpayer, so they’re going to have to quantify if those roads will
hold it or if they won’t. We just
want them to make sure that the general taxpayer is not picking up the tab for
them taking out roads during construction.”
Daugherty asked, “Is that constant with what other areas are requiring? So probably those companies would be used to that then.”
Richey replied, “Yes, we haven’t had any negative feedback on
that.” Butler stated, “Once
these things are built the traffic is going to be negligible.”
Richey commented, “It’s just going to be construction for the most
part.” McNair stated, “As Dave
said a guy in a truck going out to check maintenance stuff, but nothing
significant once they’re in.”
McNair also added, “(29)
Maintenance/Financial Reports – Rhonda Hulse,
Public
Utility & Asst. Grant Administrator, does
all of those financial reports for like the decentralized sewers and I assume
we’re going to do something similar to how she runs those to make sure
there’s money there for maintenance and make sure there’s money there for
anything that could come up, but that’s going to be a more technical issue
that I haven’t gotten into yet. (30)
Physical Modification of the Tower – I suggest we do something kind of like
with our cell towers if it is going to be a major modification, change the
height of the tower, then it needs to come back through review, but if they’re
doing routine maintenance or anything like that I don’t really see the reason
to make them come back in maybe to give us reports and let us know that they are
going to be doing construction so that if we get calls, but changing out a blade
or something that needs to be replaced as long as it is the same general piece I
don’t see any reason to make them go through the whole review process again;
that’s pretty standard as well. (31)
Signal Interference and (32) Coordinate with Local Fire/EMS – I’m trying to
get statements from John Luther, Department of Emergency Management Director,
and John Jenkins, Washington County Fire Marshal.
John Jenkins didn’t seem to be too worried about fire, but he did say
that the only thing is if something happens in the top of the tower and they
have to go rescue; he’s thinking about that.
John Luther is thinking about signal interference and he tried to explain
it to me, but it’s pretty interesting. I
think I’m going to have to get it in writing before I can explain it to you.
Especially making sure these towers aren’t put in the line of sight for
certain emergency response towers to make sure that they’re not missing up
somebody when they call 911.”
McNair
stated, “(33) Material Handling, Storage and Disposal – This is typical
solid waste be removed promptly in accordance with all law.
Hazardous material removed promptly in accordance with all law.
Robyn Reed, Environmental Affairs Officer, was saying that if they were
going to be changing oil onsite and it was going to be an interesting process.
She said that she wanted to learn more about it.
Sometimes they do a secondary containment if there’s going to be
something like oil onsite, but these are so different because they are up in the
air.”
McNair
commented, “(34) Birds, Bats, and other Natural Resources and Wildlife
Issues.” Walker asked,
“Migratory zone; you see a bunch of dead birds on the ground?”
Pollard replied, “You won’t, not here because we’re not in any
significant fly ways.” Walker
asked, “Do you in a fly way any more than any other structure?”
Pollard replied, “I think the bird issue is pretty much gone away;
it’s been a myth more or less. The bat thing is another story and it varies by the species
of bats some have them have different habits than others and there’s a locale
in Indiana somewhere that happened to be right smack dab in the middle of a zone
where there was a lot of bats, so they noticed a lot of bat kill there.
The bat issue is probably more pronounced in the eastern half of the
United States then it is in the west, but because there are three endangered
species of bat in Arkansas they’re going to be looking all over US Fish and
Wildlife and Game and Fish will all be on this.”
McNair commented, “In Washington County.
It’s just up to us if they want to…” Daugherty stated, “They’re
probably strict enough.” Pollard
commented, “Larry had a question about security and I can tell you what our
principle issue is especially with this part of the country people getting out
their shotguns and shooting at them.” McNair
asked, “The landowners?” Walker
replied, “No, anybody and see if they can get one of those blades going
around; it’s a sport.” Pollard
stated, “That is probably more of a concern than anything.”
Walker asked, “How would you propose?”
Pollard replied, “Depending on how far back from access points are and
I can think of a locale or two that is remote enough that if the County had a
road going through it and then maybe the County would consider…” Walker
stated, “Gating that road or patrolling the road more.”
Daugherty commented, “Video surveillance maybe.”
Pollard stated, “I think a lot of this is education, basically, if you
stop the production of this turbine you are hurting your fellow landowners, the
County coffers, and everybody else.” Walker
commented, “It would be like the ice storm (no electricity).”
West stated, “Remember the ice storm.”
McNair
added, “(35) Public Participation – Obviously we’re going to have public
participation and I don’t think we’re going to require anymore than we do
for any other development, but of course we would encourage communication on the
forefront, which I think is pretty necessary and I think like they can’t get
to us before they’ve talked to some owners and gotten some people on board.
I just think that is the way the process works, so that shouldn’t be a
problem.”
McNair
asked, “(36) Liability Insurance – George, did you think that was something
that we should write in?” Butler
replied, “Yes, but my first thought was for one thing I would think they would
want to have it anyway. We want to
be sure that they have it. Then,
probably when they drop it we want to be sure for financial reasons or something
they decide to drop or let it lapse because if somebody gets injured because of
a tower we want to be sure that there is money there to…
I’m sure the tower owners want to have insurance.”
Walker asked, “Are you talking about after construction?”
Butler replied, “Yes, after construction.
You always got insurance during construction, but after construction.
Typically, what do you all do in terms of liability insurance?”
Pollard replied, “I can’t answer that question.
I mean we’ll have it.” Walker
stated, “Workman’s comp would cover about anything.”
Butler commented, “Employees during construction.”
Walker stated, “Even if you have a maintenance man out there working
you got to be covered by Workman’s comp.”
McNair asked, “Should we require a larger amount?”
Butler replied, “I think that we need to find out more about it and the
different things that people typically insure for and types of claims that you
get. Somebody’s climbing up
there, which you say you can’t do, if they’re climbing up there then
that’s their own fault if they climb up there and hurt themselves or a tower
falls on a person.” Walker asked,
“Does OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) require landing
surfaces every so far in these towers?” Pollard
replied, “I honestly don’t know.” Walker
commented, “Most climbing you have to have a rest area every so far because if
you were happen to climb it.” Reynolds
stated, “I don’t know about the wind turbine towers as much I know with cell
towers we don’t do things like that.” Walker asked, “You don’t have to have a rest area?”
Reynolds replied, “No, there’s special OSHA regulations for climbing
of that type.” Pollard commented,
“They probably extend to the turbine towers, too.”
Reynolds stated, “I would think so they are very, very subtle.”
Pollard commented, “There’s a rung ladder on the inside and these
guys are wearing harnesses and they’re clipped on.”
McNair stated, “We’ll think about that a little more and I’ll get
George some more information so he can better inform all of us.”
McNair
also added, “(37-42) Decommissioning Plan – I’m still working on where we
think that should start like twelve months; no power generated?
We’re definitely going to want a report that says you’re working on
it, but I don’t know if that means that we’re going to force you into taking
it down, so I’m trying to find some better ordinances on that.
(43-45) Remedies for Violating Ordinances – George will have a…
we’ve got a standard one, but of course he will apply it to the…” Butler
commented, “By law we’re limited on terms of what we can do in terms of
fines and then usually we will provide for civil enforcement.”
McNair
stated, “(46) Length of Permit – I don’t think that we need to do a permit
length only one of the ordinances that I reviewed looked at a permit length. I feel like the major modification issue like if they really
need to replace this tower they need to come back through us anyway, so I
don’t think we should.” Walker
asked, “What if they replaced it with the identical same thing?” Richey replied, “Probably it would be an administrative
process. We’re not talking about
coming back through you all, but…” Daugherty commented, “Let’s make it
simple.” McNair stated, “If
they are doing something where they are increasing the height of the tower to
get a better wind that would come back through, but because these things are
going to…” Walker commented, “Cost so much up front they’re going to
cross their ‘i’s’ and dot their ‘t’s’.”
McNair stated, “Yes that’s what I’m saying.”
Reynolds
commented, “As far as cell towers go, there’s some very specific guidelines
from the FAA and the FCC on what is a major modification as versus with
percentage of the height of the tower, what you’re adding and what you’re
not, and what you’re removing and what you’re not.”
McNair asked, “Is that in our cell tower ordinance?”
Reynolds replied, “No, it’s not.
I think there is something in there about modifications or something, but
there’s a great detailed explanation on the federal level.”
Pollard stated, “Yeah, things like that above 200’ any change you
would have to report to the FAA.”
Haley
asked, “I don’t think any of us are really familiar at all hardly with
these. The ones that I have
pictured in my mind are like Palm Springs there’s flat desert and then
northern California there’s rolling hills.
The terrain in Northwest Arkansas; are we going to be clearing trees?
How many acres are we talking about with say an average one of these?
How is that going to work?” Richey
replied, “Just from things that we’ve looked at you may have to do some
clearing on ridge tops if they’re not already cleared.
It didn’t sound like more than an acre would probably be disturbed for
each windmill. If you’re burying
lines underground I’m going to go ahead and assume that you’re going to be
disturbing some land, but the same thing if you’re doing overhead lines.” Walker commented, “You’re going to cut the trees down.”
Pollard stated, “The footprint is about an acre.”
McNair commented, “One to three acres disturbing per windmill.”
Haley asked, “How many windmills are we talking about?” McNair replied, “We don’t know.
It could be a lot.” Walker
asked, “Is that acre or three acres or whatever is that only mainly for
construction and for protection of the tower or is that involved in the
actual…?” Pollard replied,
“Just so that you can drive around and get a crane in there.”
Walker stated, “It’s mainly for construction purposes because it’s
going to be so high above trees that the trees won’t effect the wind.”
Pollard commented, “It does effect.”
Walker stated, “Not that much.”
McNair commented, “They don’t like them to be tree right up to them.
I’m sure there’s some perimeter that they feel safe.”
Richey stated, “They build an interior road system as well just kind of
a small private road system that’s going to go between windmills as well.”
Pollard
commented, “By the way I should say that I am not with Invenergy,
I’m a competitor of theirs we share the same interests that is increasing
renewal energy supply in this country. As
it happens the wind resource a vast majority of the County of Washington is
there’s marginal the range is mostly from marginal up to something that looks
a little bit better than that; that’s where people are looking now.
As it happens probably 80% to 90% of that land underneath that wind
resource is already been cleared of pastureland, anyhow, so very little I
don’t imagine a whole lot of many tree removal happening at all because
farmers are already up there and they cleared most of it.”
McNair stated, “But it is possible and it could take like I said the
average is one to three acres to get these things in there.” Butler commented,
“We’ve got a lot of Natural Forest.”
McNair stated, “Yes, that is kind of the area that it’s going in is
Natural Forresty.” Richey
commented, “A lot of the ridge tops are cleared areas because they tend to be
more flat then people are using. It’ll be interesting to see how it comes out.”
Walker
stated, “I think you did a great job.”
West commented, “Yes, you did.”
McNair stated, “I’ll revise and get back to you.”
Daugherty commented, “Just give us the condensed version.” McNair stated, “I tried, that was condensed.” Daugherty
commented, “Very good.” Haley
stated, “Yes, very good.”
Richey
stated, “We talked about doing a little bit of general training and it is
unfortunate that Mr. Gallagher couldn’t be here tonight, but I wanted to go
ahead and go over just the basic things. We
deal with two different types of approvals; you have your general Planning
approvals, which include subdivisions, minor subdivisions, replats, and Large
Scale Developments. I put these in
red and green because we started this awhile back and it’s been awhile since
we’ve talked about it, but I thought that we could use a refresher on that.
When we send out these reports to you all of the General Planning is
going to be in red we have a red letterhead for that and then the Conditional
Use Permit approvals we put in green and that was our subtle way because I know
that this is confusing for you all and I understand that you all only do this
once a month. Every month is
different and it’s hard to keep straight how to deal with things.”
Richey
commented, “The red is supposed to tell you during your General Planning
approvals is that they’re objective and that means even though you want to
start using your emotions; stop-don’t do it.
We have to adhere to a checklist. You
all do a good job with that for the most part.
Those approvals are objective; there’s a list of requirements you know
we have a subdivision and a Large Scale Development checklist and essentially if
all of those requirements are met then legally you have to approve the project.
Most of the requirements, since I know you don’t want to look at huge
checklists tonight, deals with impact on County roads, construction of interior
roads, drainage on and off site, adherence to the Arkansas Fire Code, and a
whole slough of other technical requirements.”
Walker
asked, “All of that is set in stone by County ordinances?”
Richey replied, “That’s correct.”
Butler stated, “You either have met or you hadn’t.”
Daugherty asked, “If they met it, basically, do we need to…?”
Butler replied, “We have to approve it.”
Daugherty stated, “Otherwise it could go to Court.”
Walker asked, “Can we make sure that those people out there know
that?” Richey replied, “We did
that for awhile, but I think I did fall out of it saying this is…” Walker
stated, “I’m talking about even in print.”
Richey commented, “I understand what you’re saying and maybe we can
find a better way to communicate that.” Walker
stated, “Take the tension off of us is what I’m trying to say.”
Richey commented, “I know and the thing is, is that it could be
possible that if it did have to do… something is brought up that has to do
with one of these technical requirements that could be a reason for you to table
it or deny it.” Butler stated,
“If you felt like it was not clear that they had met that.”
Richey commented, “The checklist item.”
Haley asked, “What if say a road has drainage in particular you felt
like they had met all of that and then someone from the audience brought up a
valid point; would that be you would research it more?”
Richey replied, “Yeah, that could be a reason to table it.”
Butler stated, “It is always possible that someone will bring up
something that got missed.” Walker
asked, “I can remember in the last two or three years since I’ve been here
somebody brought up they’re building this road on my easement or they’re
building this road on my piece of property.
That’s really not our problem is it?
There was a dispute.” Butler
replied, “If there’s a dispute then we’re not in position to resolve those
disputes if there is a dispute.” Walker
asked, “My point is, was that reason enough stuff to say, ‘Okay we’re
going to table this until they get their dispute settled?”
Butler replied, “Our regulations don’t provide for that if there is a
dispute.” Richey commented,
“Usually it comes out at Preliminary Plat because you have Preliminary,
construction, and then Final. Usually,
what we try to say even though I don’t know that we could actually table
something based on that… Usually,
what we say is you get your dispute resolved before you go to Final Plat and
usually people do that they don’t want to have a disputed property if
they’re trying to sell a lot. Usually,
it comes up at Preliminary and we say, ‘That’s great you’ve got until this
time’ and then you figure it out.” Daugherty
stated, “Just make it clear to them that they’ve got to do that before we
approve Final.” Richey commented,
“I don’t know if we’ve ever had a road on a disputed line.”
Walker stated, “The one I’m thinking about this guy said his property
came to this curve and this guy was trying to build a road through there.”
Richey commented, “The one that I remember was off of Hughmount Road
(WC #706) and Weir Road (WC #94) (The Estates at Hughmount CUP).”
Walker stated, “This one was out by the City Tontitown.”
Richey commented, “The nursery (Spring Creek Nursery LSD), I haven’t
thought about that in years. I do
kind of remember that now.” Walker
stated, “If it’s red we vote.” Richey
commented, “What you should do if something comes up and you think it might be
valid just ask me or George whether this is related to a valid checklist
item.” West asked, “Could you
just switch the colors because green is go and red is stop.
If it’s green it’s got to go no control.” Richey replied, “Sure, we can do that.” Butler stated, “Red no discretion and
green discretion.” Richey stated,
“It was supposed to be go with your discretion, but I see what you’re
saying. We can change it to
whatever color you want.”
Richey
commented, “Just as a refresher when we do subdivisions sometimes they’re
going to be in City’s Planning Areas and in those areas for subdivisions the
Cities also have to review and approve that subdivision.
We require that they review and approve it prior to it coming toward us.
Usually, we have some sort of feedback in the interim Staff will work
with that City to do that. To
further complicate matters, we also have on the map the hatched area that goes
around the Cities and in that area that is a one mile buffer and in those areas
the County Judge entered a Court Order I believe in 2001 that said in those
areas the subdivision roads will be built to the City’s standards and the City
is going to be responsible for those inspections of those roads.
They always have to meet County minimum standards and the County always
performs a final inspection because ultimately we do accept those in the end
because they’re not part of the City.”
Haley asked, “So they build them to the City standards, so I would
assume that the County is responsible for keeping them up to the City
standards?” Richey replied,
“Yes, but they have maintenance bonds and things that relate to the expense of
those roads. We limited that
because some of the Cities have Planning Areas that go far beyond a mile, so we
limited that within a mile because we said, ‘Alright, it’s probable that
these streets may actually be annexed in some reasonable foreseeable future.
Where as if its like four miles on the west side of the City of Lincoln
we’re just going to guess that that’s probably not going to be annexed in
the next two years.”
Walker
asked, “Do Cities’ ordinances and Cities’ government override County
ordinances?” Butler replied,
“County ordinances don’t apply in City limits.
It only applies in the unincorporated portions of the County.
If a City annexes an area we’ll say it was an area that was zoned
something in Washington County when it gets annexed into the City it’s zoning
can change and it ends up falling under their regime.”
Walker asked, “I’m going to site a specific thing that I’m thinking
about if it is a Washington County road that goes through a City Planning Area
an existing major County road; did we pass a new ordinance about driveways
backing out on those roads? Does the ordinance supersede what that City allows to
happen?” Butler replied, “Our
ordinance does not apply inside a City.”
Walker asked, “What about their Planning Area?”
Butler replied, “That ordinance will apply in their Planning Area
unless they have something in their subdivision regulations that address it, but
we amended that and you’re talking about the on the backing out it won’t be
a County road anymore once they annex it, it’s a City road it’s no longer a
County road, and they annex an area and they take in the road, the road becomes
theirs it’s no longer a County road. The
backing out ordinance is not going to apply inside the City if they annex it.”
Richey asked, “Do you have a case in point?”
Daugherty replied, “Viney Grove road.” Richey
stated, “I believe that is the issue that caused us to get that ordinance.”
Walker commented, “I think you’re right and the mailboxes there are
as well. The County has no
governing in that…” Richey stated, “We can’t do it, that was built
before…” Butler commented, “Unless it was subject to be grandfathered
in.” Walker stated, “There’s
some of that Planning Area that outside that now.
So, if a developer comes in there and decides and the City has okayed it
already and I think the City of Prairie Grove has learned their lesson there.”
Daugherty commented, “If it is in the Planned Area then our rules
would...” Walker stated, “If the City is getting ready to annex it.”
Butler commented, “If it’s in their Planning Area then our ordinances
are going to apply unless it’s something that’s in their subdivision
regulations.” Walker stated,
“That says that they can back out onto the street.”
Butler commented, “If its part of their subdivision regulations.” Walker stated, “That’s a hazard.” Richey commented, “Usually, people don’t plan for that to
happen. Usually, that is some sort
of loophole. It’s a lack of
Planning. That’s covered now and
I was not here when that happened because I remember Judge Jerry Hunton
specifically talking about how terrible it was and that was why they passed that
resolution.” Walker stated,
“Yeah, you were here when those houses were built because they were built
after I came on the Board and you were here when I came on.”
Richey asked, “I remember him talking about that a long time ago.
I thought that ordinance was in 2004?
I came in 2005.” Daugherty commented, “It may have been before.
The older you get the faster time flies.”
Richey asked, “I don’t think that will happen again.
We do have an ordinance in place now.
Does that make you feel any better?”
Walker replied, “It makes me feel better until I know that a City can
annex that Planning Area in and then do whatever they want to, that bothers
me.” Richey stated, “You should
talk to your City Planning Commission.” Walker
commented, “I’m not in the City and I don’t want to be in the City.”
Butler stated, “A lot of people get brought into the City even though
they don’t want to.”
Richey
commented, “I passed out some flowcharts, which I personally am not really a
fan of flowcharts, but lots of people like them.
You can read how our process works or just maybe something you want to
reference later then that is there.” Butler
stated, “This is a nice little flowchart.”
Richey commented, “It is pretty good and this is something that we pass
out to people when they’re applying. Lets
you know, basically, you have to check and see if you’re in a Planning or
Growth Area and if you have zoning and then once you’re through those hoops
then kind of how you proceed through everything.
Just so you know and I hope that you all know this and I realize
sometimes that we don’t talk about it; when I was giving my report to the
Quorum Court on the Red Dirt Pit the other night I thought about this and I
thought ‘I wonder if they just think I just write this or that they understand
that there’s months and layers of research that go into it and I’m giving
them the condensed version.’ Rest
assured we do review everything we have. Technical
Plat meetings where we meet with utilities, other County Staff, and other State
and Local agencies to review each thing and that’s how we’re getting our end
product when we give it to you. When
we’re looking at these Planning issues where I basically told you couldn’t
use any discretion, we have internal policies almost everything that you get
whether it’s a subdivision or a Large Scale Development chances are that
there’s probably one little thing no matter how many times they’ve revised
it they probably have one little thing that still needs to be done, accidentally
left off a signature block, they didn’t pay fee, or whatever.
Basically, we have internal policies, internal to our department, as to
like it’s done enough you all can go ahead and approve it and they can add the
signature block later we’ll check and make sure its there and then we’ll
sign off on it, so we’re always going to be recommending things with
conditions. We have these policies,
if we think that its something that is going to be detrimental that they don’t
have it figured out by this point then we’re going to tell you and we’re
going to recommend that it be tabled or whatever, but it is ultimately up to you
as a Board to decide that, so if there is something that we feel like is fine,
but you feel like its not fine then obviously it would be at your discretion to
table it because technically they have not checked off that item.”
Richey
stated, “I’m going to talk a little bit about Conditional Use Permits. This is for everybody and especially for Mr. Hummel because I
feel like I probably should have told him a little more last time because I feel
like it was confusing to you because you’re used to working in the City of
Farmington and they do things a little bit differently there.
Beginning in 2006 the County did implement zoning within Washington
County and at present we have only two zoning categories:
agricultural/single-family residential one unit per acre and
agricultural/single-family residential one unit per two acres and that area is
in Goshen where you can only have one unit per two acres and that was out of
respect for their subdivision ordinance which that is the minimum density that
they allow, so that’s how that came to be.
There’s also a few areas in the County that remain unzoned at this time
and we’ve also discussed implementing a base commercial zoning category, which
we’re still working on, but are several months away from that.”
Walker asked, “I don’t see the no zoning?”
Richey replied, “They’re very small.”
Walker asked, “Why are those not zoned?”
Richey replied, “Those are areas that we want to look at for going
ahead and putting down a base commercial zone.”
Walker asked, “Are those the corridor areas that we talked about?” Richey replied, “Yes.”
Butler commented, “We had entire strips unzoned at one time those
corridors and we’ve come back and zoned.”
Walker asked, “Why did we leave those unzoned?”
Richey replied, “Those were areas that were in a City’s Planning Area
or adjacent to a City. That City was interested in seeing commercial development
in.” Butler stated, “They are
still mixed in their usage.” Walker
asked, “I don’t understand why can that be left unzoned?”
Butler replied, “We don’t have to zone all the County.
In fact we started off we only zoned within certain miles within the
Planning Growth Areas then expanded to the whole County, but we can zone all or
part of the County. We started out just zoning like within the Growth Areas or
within certain number of miles of the City’s limits.”
Walker asked, “Who determines what’s what?” Richey replied, “The Quorum Court, they’re the one that
passed the zoning ordinances.” Walker
asked, “They can say this parcel over here is not going to be zoned and this
parcel is?” Richey replied, “We’ve talked about all of this as we’ve
gone through the zoning.” Walker
stated, “I knew that we talked about the corridor, but then I thought that we
came back with the corridors and anything that wasn’t in that City’s
Planning Area then we took in as zoned and it was zoned.”
Butler commented, “We left the corridors unzoned at the time because
they were just kind of self-developing on their own without any problems like
(Highway) 62. Transiting from
residential to commercial because the highway got a bit wider and busier.”
Daugherty stated, “Over a period of time it’s going to become
commercial and should be commercial.” Walker
commented, “I agree with that. I
guess I’m just shocked that we left some areas unzoned.”
Richey stated, “We’re working on them for further study, but because
they were areas that wanted to be looked at for commercial we did not want to go
ahead and limit the commercial right now while we’re doing study on them.”
Walker asked, “Did not the voters vote on?”
Butler replied, “No.” Walker
commented, “So the Quorum Court did it.”
Butler stated, “It could have been subject to a referendum nobody tried
to. It wasn’t referred and nobody
tried to initiate a referendum.”
Richey
commented, “Basically, in the zoned areas you have agricultural uses that are
allowed by right and then single-family residential homes with a minimum lot
size of one acre or around City of Goshen two acres.
That is all allowed by right nobody has to ask for permits or anything.
Only when you get into other uses like multi-family or very small lots or
commercial uses that you all have to review them.
This process is more discretionary and it applies to the approval of the
use on a parcel of land. The idea
when we passed zoning is not to eliminate all other uses in the County, but to
make sure that those other uses that come in respond to their surroundings, do
not create dangerous situations, take future Planning into account, and Staff is
going to try to find conditions that are going to help lessen the impact that
allow for proposed development and protect the neighborhood to reasonable degree
at the same time. We’re not
always going to agree on things. There
are going to be times that you all feel like there are no conditions that make
it to where it will be an acceptable use and that’s fine, that’s your
discretion.”
Richey
stated, “I feel like there has been some confusion in the past, not maybe
necessarily with you all, but from the audience and I need to find out a way to
present this better. People feel
like we made this ordinance and we just said just residential and just
agricultural and they feel like when we look at anything else that we are
undermining our ordinance and making variances and things like that and it is
not true, what we said was we’ll allow certain things by right and then we
allow other things by Conditional Use Permit process.
Here’s an example I use you live in a house on an acre out in the
County your neighbor wants to put in a tire shop, that falls under a Conditional
Use because the way I look at it tire shops in general its not necessarily bad,
however, if you let in all tire shops without any restrictions then you could
end up with a situation in where you have piles of tires in the front yard that
are catching water you have a mosquito problem.
People are in there using air wrenches at 2:00 in the morning.
You could have a whole slough of problems or you could have someone who
comes in and they generally run 8:00 – 5:00, they store all of their tires
inside, it’s a neat and tidy business, they don’t have a gaudy signs and
lights that shine in their neighbor’s window, and things like that.
Basically say we’re not against tire shops in general, tire shops could
be a great neighbor to live next door to you, however, we would like to put some
conditions on these; no outdoor storage, limit your hours of operation
generally, if you have signage it needs to be tasteful and it probably
shouldn’t be neon lighting that flashes in the middle of the night when people
are trying to sleep, that’s where we’re going with this ordinance.
We’re not creating variances and we’re not disrespecting our
ordinance. It’s a way to evaluate things and take uses and make them
to where they do fit into an area.”
Walker
asked, “We’re zoned agricultural/single-family dwellings everywhere but
Goshen. I’m going to put a tire
shop in and the only type of tires that I’m going to deal with is for
agricultural vehicles. Am I still a
commercial because I’m selling the tires?”
Butler replied, “Yes, we define agricultural in the statute.”
Walker commented, “You see where I can construed that, that is a
valuable agricultural commodity building.”
Richey stated, “Next month you all are going to have something before
you that is a commercial agricultural type use where someone is interested in
having a business move out into the County where some of them bring in raw
poultry litter and they compress and bale it and wrap it in plastic and then it
is sent back out.” West asked,
“What location are we talking about?” Daugherty
replied, “Cincinnati.” Walker
asked, “What is the difference in that and Cheryl raising poultry and selling
poultry?” Richey replied, “When
we wrote our definitions of agricultural we did not define litter baling.”
Walker asked, “I need the description of agricultural.
That is almost agricultural. What
if a meat processing plant wanted to come in?”
Richey replied, “That would not fall under sheer agricultural.
I’ve had people approach me about they want to do a large scale
slaughter house and if they want to do that… we have basic agricultural
operations that we’ve exempted, but if you have a large…
We’re not talking about you slaughter your own animals to eat or
anything like that as far as chickens and taking them and selling them at the
Farmer’s Market.” Walker
commented, “I know, but all of these things that we’ve talked about to me
are agricultural based.” Butler
stated, “You’ll just have to look at your definition of agriculture.”
Walker commented, “I don’t know how you would take those out of the
definition.” Butler stated, “Just follow your definition in the
ordinance is all you have to do.” Walker
commented, “Tractor sales to me is totally agricultural.”
Richey stated, “Generally these things are compatible with agriculture,
but there are some things that we want to look at.” Daugherty asked, “Did somebody complain about the one that
was going in at Cincinnati, was it complaint driven or is this something that
they applied to do?” Richey
replied, “We caught their address application.”
McNair commented, “We look at all address applications for floodplain
and so when we get an odd one where they requesting an extra address for
something like a fertilizer supply thing then we call them and ask them some
more questions. That’s how we
approach it.” Daugherty stated,
“There will probably be some complaints over that one, but it is a pretty good
project, really.”
Richey
commented, “If you have recommendations on looking at expanding those
definitions or whatever then we can certainly look at that.”
Daugherty stated, “I’m okay with it.”
Richey commented, “Criteria for allowance of Conditional Uses, you all
are familiar with this, so these have quite a bit of discretion built into them
this is what you’re going to see in the spreadsheet that we pass out every
time to you all.”
Richey
stated, “Our By-laws say we can’t vote on this until next time, but just so
that you see it in writing.” Butler
commented, “This was just something that we discovered remember we were
talking about changing the By-laws about whether or not we were going to require
certain Large Scale Developments to go through two hearings and all that kind of
stuff. I found this in there at the
same time and I thought how did that get in there, so that was part of that and
then we ended up not voting on it. Juliet
and I got in a discussion about it again the other day, so we need to go ahead
and amend that. It says, ‘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.’ I can’t believe
that has been in there all of these years and I don’t think that’s even
legal that the County Judge be a member of the Planning Board.
We need to strike that.” Daugherty
asked, “We’ll need do that at the next meeting?”
Butler replied, “We’ll have to do it at the next meeting because you
have to have a certain amount of notice for the Quorum Court.”
Walker
stated, “That was one thing when we were going through all of this training
session. We discussed this issue
about these real controversial issues to give us more time you know we talked
about just tabling them and they have to come back the next time.
Then, we talked about giving you (Juliet) the last say after everything
has been presented in case… the way I think we ended up leaving it is if I
feel like it needs to be tabled I can table just table it for no reason at
all.” Butler commented, “You
have to state a reason.” Walker
stated, “I don’t have enough information.”
Butler commented, “That is fine or I feel like I need to… I think I
need more information or I need to think about it and sort through what I think
is fact versus emotion and speculation. Randy was going to have a rule that would be automatic and we
had a long debate about that and I think we decided we’re not going to do it
automatic and I think the way that we left it finally was if you run into a
situation like that and not prepared to make a recommendation either because you
feel like you need more information or you feel like you need some time to think
about it then you say to table it.” Daugherty
stated, “It’s been my experience on the Board that usually the second
meeting is not as emotional as the first.” Butler commented, “You’ll have a chance to step back.”
Walker stated, “Everybody else has had time to step back.” Daugherty
commented, “If I think that it is very controversial and there’s some issues
that we would like to…” Walker stated, “Then I go back to what Gary said
that night, about delaying the project and these people spending the money, but
this is a long term deal when we make a decision.
Like if this man wants to build a huge windmill farm and I need another
month to think about it well he’s going to invest enough money that one month
is not going to make or break him in this long term investment, I don’t think.
I know he’s going to lose a little money.”
Daugherty commented, “The other side and it makes sense, too, I think
another month is not too long for them to wait because the appeal process can be
very expensive and time consuming. If
we take another month and do approve it and then they don’t appeal it then
it’s well worth his time to wait that extra month to get approval in my
opinion.” Walker asked, “What
is our consensus here?” Butler
replied, “You approach it case by case.”
Daugherty stated, “If you feel like it is emotional and you need more a
real reason for more research or more time to separate facts from emotion I
think it’s...” Walker asked, “Legally, we can say that I don’t have
enough information or I emotionally can not vote on this tonight?”
Butler replied, “I feel like that I need more time to think about this
and sort some things out before I vote on it.
Table it and you come back, of course, when you come back you’re going
to have discussion and vote.” Daugherty
commented, “The other thing it does is probably gives the developer a chance
to address some of the issues that maybe they can come up and say I understand
the concerns and I will do this and this and I will commit to doing this.
A lot of times if I know that they’re going to commit to doing it then
I’m probably going to vote yes or maybe otherwise I might not have voted for
the project because they wouldn’t commit to that.”
Walker asked, “In doing this then it’s not a indefinite table it is
a…” Butler replied, “Table it until the next meeting.”
Walker stated, “But you could table it indefinitely.”
Haley commented, “That basically kills it.”
Richey stated, “You’d have to have a reason to table indefinitely.”
Haley asked, “You can’t bring it back up, can you?”
Walker replied, “Three quarters, three fourths of the Board motion to
bring it off the table.”
West asked, “Can I ask a question about the Red Dirt? Where are we? Update us real quickly.” Butler replied, “The attorneys told me that they did plan to appeal and the appeal has not been filed, yet. The Big Red Dirt Pit, of course, they just missed their appeal, so there is no longer a pending lawsuit. The attorneys for the surrounding property owners have indicated to me that they were going to appeal.” West asked, “It will go to the Circuit Court?” Butler replied, “It will go back to the Circuit Court and we don’t know which Judge it will be because it will be a brand new lawsuit.” Walker asked, “Are we kind of out of it then?” Butler replied, “Well yeah, you’re out of it because the Circuit Judge regardless of what you do or what the Quorum Court did he hears it de novo makes his decision independently of what the decision was made.” Walker asked, “You don’t have to defend Juliet, then?” Butler replied, “Right, don’t have a conflict anymore.” Daugherty asked, “If from now on will the appeals from what ever we decide go to the Quorum Court?” Butler replied, “Yes, I was going to prepare an ordinance like the deadline how much time you got to appeal from Planning Board to Quorum Court and how much time does the Quorum Court got to hear it, and so I’m bringing them those ordinances. First thing I got to ask them is do you all want to continue to be the Board of Appeals if you do then here’s an ordinance that we need to have to establish this how long you have to appeal from the Zoning Board to the Quorum Court, how you go about doing it, and when the Quorum Court is going to hear it. We didn’t have any of that in place, but nevertheless it was remanded back to us (the Quorum Court). After, I understand how the Judge reached that conclusion, it was intentional, but for it to have happened that way that is the way it ended up being, but he just caught that on his own, none of the lawyers picked up on it, or thought it, or brought it up.” Richey stated, “The Quorum Court needs to decide if they want to continue to be the Board of Appeals. They kind of are by default right now, but they need to make that decision.” Daugherty commented, “I really think that they ought to be.” Walker stated, “I do, too.” Daugherty commented, “They sit the rules and I really think in all fairness to the developer they need to hear it and then if they end up going to Court they go to Court.” Butler stated, “The fact that the Quorum Court is now going to be the Board of Appeals is not going to stop continuous issues from this Big Red Dirt Pit from going to Court.” Daugherty commented, “If there’s money available. You may get into cases where you have either a group of people that doesn’t have the funds that maybe will go onto Court, but that may not happen.” Butler stated, “It doesn’t cost anything to go to the Quorum Court, so they could find themselves… they will have to experience for awhile of getting a lot of things they consider frivolous.” Daugherty commented, “At least it gives a person that doesn’t have the funds to fight it some kind of appeal process.” Butler stated, “The odds are those types of things are going to Court.” Daugherty commented, “Exactly, most of the time they will end up in Court if they are that emotionally involved.” Butler stated, “I’ve forgotten how many quarries and dirt pits I’ve sit through. This is my first time under zoning and there’s not a single one that hadn’t been contentious.” Walker commented, “I want to commend our Staff tonight on a great presentation, great training, and good information. I thought it was great.”
Richey
stated, “Courtney who just gave you the good presentation on wind she attended
a Floodplain class in Conway this past month and took the certified Floodplain
Manager exam and passed. I would
like to say that now all four of the people in our office are all certified
Floodplain Managers and you all should be proud.”
Daugherty commented, “Yes, very proud.”
Haley asked, “We don’t need to do anything like that do we ever,
Juliet?” Richey replied,
“No.” Butler commented,
“You’re actually the Board of Appeals for floodplain issues, but we’ve
never had an appeal.” Richey
stated, “Generally, people don’t develop in floodplains on a regular basis
because it cost them money they have to get flood insurance, but basically we
have certain regulations if you do develop in a floodplain then there’s
certain things that you have to do to make sure that your structure is not going
to wash downstream and take out bridges and things like that.
Most of the floodplain permits that we do had to deal with people
building bridges, private bridges, and things like that in the floodplain to
make sure that they are not when they build that bridge restricting flow and
backing up water on someone else or things like that.”
Larry Walker 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:05/07/09
Robert
Daugherty, Planning Board Vice-Chairman
WASHINGTON
COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
&
ZONING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
May 7, 2009
5:00
p.m., Quorum Courtroom, New Courthouse
Fayetteville, Arkansas
DEVELOPMENTS REVIEWED:
ACTION TAKEN:
a.
Replat Lots 9, 10, and 11 Sundowners Good Earth Estates
Tabled
b.
White River Fertilizer Supply CUP
Conditional
Use Permit Approval
c.
Historic Skillern Farmhouse CUP
Tabled
d.
Smith & Barker Backwoods Beer
and Goods CUP
Conditional Use Permit Approval
e. Rogers Group Quarry Expansion CUP
Tabled
1.
ROLL CALL:
Roll
call was taken. Members present
include: James F. Gallagher, Kenley Haley, Larry Walker,
Roy Hummel, Cheryl West, and Robert Daugherty. Absent: Randy Laney.
Robert
Daugherty acted as Chairman due to Randy Laney being absent.
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (from the April 2, 2009 meeting) Cheryl West made a
motion to approve as written. Larry Walker provided the second.
Motion passes.
3.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
Larry
Walker made a motion to approve the agenda with the tabling of two items Item A
(Replat
Lots 9, 10, and 11 Sundowners Good Earth Estates) and Item C (Historic Skillern
Farmhouse CUP).
Roy Hummel seconded. Motion passes.
4.
NEW BUSINESS
County
a.
Replat Lots 9, 10, and 11 Sundowners Good Earth Estates (Preliminary and Final
Plat Approval Request)
Location:
Section 35, Township 15 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer:
Connie Robbins
Engineer/Surveyor:
DVDoyal Land Surveying - Daryl Doyal
Location
Address: 12727, 12765, and 12799 N. Billingsley Road (WC #210)
10.1
acres and 2 lots / Proposed Land Use: Residential
Project
#: 2009-037 Planner: Jessie Pettit,
e-mail at jpettit@co.washington.ar.us
Larry
Walker moved to table
Replat Lots 9,
10, and 11 Sundowners Good Earth Estates Preliminary and Final Plat at
the request of the applicant.
Roy Hummel seconded. Motion passes.
All
Board members were in favor of tabling
Replat Lots 9,
10, and 11 Sundowners Good Earth Estates Preliminary and Final Plat.
County
b.
White River Fertilizer Supply CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request)
Location:
Section 32, Township 16 North, Range 33 West
Owner/Developer:
Hollis and Alice Scarbrough Trust – Robert and Jennifer
Sample
Representative:
White River Fertilizer Supply - Tracy Argo
Location
Address: 11808 and 11812 N. Hwy. 59
31.73
acres and 1 unit / Proposed Land Use: Litter Baling
Project
#: 2009-038 Planner: Courtney McNair,
e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit Approval for White River
Fertilizer Supply CUP to allow a chicken litter baling operation on a
property zoned Agricultural or Single-Family Residential with a maximum of one
unit per acre. The
total acreage of the property is 31.73 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
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water
– City of Lincoln Water; Electric-Ozark Electric; Phone- Prairie Grove
Telephone; Gas-NA; Cable-NA
BACKGROUND/
PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
The
property is owned by Hollis and Alice Scarbrough Trust – Robert and Jennifer
Sample. The property is located at
11808 and 11812 on North AR Highway 59. The applicant for the project is Tracy
Argo with White River Fertilizer Supply.
White
River Fertilizer Supply would like to request a Conditional Use Permit to allow
a chicken litter baling operation on a property zoned Agricultural or
Single-Family Residential with a maximum of one unit per acre. In the “chicken
litter baling” process, raw chicken litter is delivered by semi-trailers,
unloaded, compressed with a special machine, wrapped in plastic, and stored
until it is shipped out on semi-trailers. The finished bales look similar to
round hay bales. Please see the applicant’s letter for more information on
baling chicken litter. (See
attached B-12)
The
existing facility was used as a truck dispatch center, but it appears, based on
aerial photography, that it has not been used as such for several years. More
recently, the property was used as a cabinet shop. The surrounding properties
are rural residential, agricultural (several poultry farms with multiple poultry
houses) or undisturbed land.
The
developer is proposing to use the existing 8,500 sq ft building (2,500 sq ft for
office space and 6,000 sq ft for warehouse and baling). One new building called
a “stacking shed” is proposed with this Conditional Use Permit. A stacking
shed according to the applicant is “a simple structure, it is a concrete floor
with 4' tall concrete stem walls. Above that are metal beams with metal siding
and roof. It is meant to hold raw litter. These structures are very
common on farms that have chicken houses as the farmer uses it to stockpile
his/her litter until it can be sold or spread on the property.” (See
attached B-21)
TECHNICAL
CONCERNS:
Water/Fire
Issues:
Lincoln
Water services this property and two water taps are available. There is a
six-inch line running along the West side of Highway 59 (opposite from the
project property).
John
Jenkins, Washington County Fire Marshal and Willie Lemming, Cincinnati Fire
Chief, require that a hydrant be placed at the entrance of the project site due
to the commercial nature of the requested use. Initially, Lincoln Water was not
in favor of a hydrant being placed at the entrance of the site because they felt
that the line is intended to serve residences with potable water, and because of
the possibility of the hydrant being misused. After research, Lincoln Water will
now allow a hydrant in this location. (See attached B-23)
Lincoln Water also feels that any hydrant on this line should
only be used for fill and not for direct pumping because the line could collapse
under the pressure. Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Lemming have stated that a sign will be
placed on or near the hydrant stating that the hydrant must be used for fill only.
There
is an exiting hydrant located North of the project site at Breeze Rd., WC 689,
and Highway 59. The driving distance between the hydrant and the building
is approximately 3,800 ft (0.72 miles). There is another hydrant located at
Cluck Rd., WC1006, and Donnie Jackson Pit Rd., WC 814, with a driving
distance of approximately 3,600 ft (0.68 miles). (See attached B-66)
This
issue is not fully resolved at this time. A decision must be finalized prior to
CUP approval. Any required equipment must be installed and inspected prior to
operation.
John Jenkins consulted the State Fire Marshal to determine
the necessity of the fire hydrant. They agree that a hydrant must be included
for this project, but will allow the hydrant to be located across the street
from the site entrance. This will reduce the expense because the applicant will
not be required to bore under the highway to place the hydrant (the original
condition). A sign must still be
placed on or near the hydrant stating that the hydrant must be used for fill
only. The hydrant must be installed and inspected prior to operation.
Septic:
There
is an existing septic onsite. In order to determine if the current system was
adequate, the applicant had to have it inspected. The statement from Wiggins
Environmental, Inc. (A Designated Representative (DR) of the Health Department
to perform soils work and inspect existing septic systems) says that “the tank
is small though adequate and has modern sanitary “T” baffling, the lines
appear adequate.” There are no additional septic issues at this time, but if
in the future “surfacing should occur, new lateral lines must be designed and
installed.” (See attached B-37-B-40)
Electric/Gas/Cable/Phone:
This
commercial use will require a larger electric line (Three Phase Line) than the
standard for residences. Ozarks Electric has designed the new three-phase line
to serve this facility and has all easements in place to construct the line.
Construction of the new line has not started at this time.
There
are no other utility issues (gas, cable or phone) with this project.
Roads/Sight
Visibility/Ingress-Egress/Parking:
This
property has access off of Highway 59 via a 30-foot access easement along the
South line of the property. The driveway is currently not entirely located in
this easement, but the applicant is proposing to relocate the driveway so that
it will be fully within the easement.
As
this project is located off an Arkansas State Highway, the Washington County
Road Department has no comment on the impact to the road. A 20’ paved entrance
exists onsite to help reduce gravel from the driveway being pulled onto the
road. There is no concern with sight visibility on this project.
The
applicant has stated that the driveway and parking will support 75,000lbs in all
weather conditions to meet fire code.
Drainage:
Clay
Grote, Washington County Contract Engineer, reviewed this proposal. Initially he
had some concern about the drainage off of the outdoor storage area and the
potential for the sealed bales to become compromised and release litter with
runoff. However, Mr. Grote feels
that as long as the applicant complies with all of the Environmental Affairs and
ADEQ requirements, the drainage will be properly addressed.
Environmental
Concerns/Hazardous Materials:
Robyn
Reed, Environmental Affairs Director, has some concern about the potential of
outdoor litter spills. Two separate plans are required to reduce pollution: a
clean up plan and schedule, and a spill containment plan. In addition, all
unbaled litter must be stored inside.
The
clean up plan and schedule are required for areas around the exterior of the
building (the entrance drive and the loading and parking areas) to address any
litter spilled or dropped on the ground. Robyn Reed, Environmental Affairs, has
received and approved the “ White River Fertilizer Supply (WRFS) Exterior
Clean-up Plan”. (See attached B-17)
The outdoor storage area needs to have spill containment plan which will need to include a barrier around the exterior to prevent runoff. The “WRFS Outdoor Storage Containment Plan” has been submitted. Ms. Reed is requiring one change to this plan for approval. Staff expects the change will be completed prior to the meeting and will update the board at that time. The barrier will need to be in place within one week of CUP approval.
(See attached B-16 and B-25-B-29)
The
applicant is also required to get an Industrial Stormwater Permit from Arkansas
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) prior to operation. Currently, the ADEQ is in the process of renewing their
permit application with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). They are
unable to issue permits until the EPA approves them. The earliest expected
approval date for the permit applications is in June 2009. It is not legal for
this business to operate without this permit; however, staff feels that this
should not affect the CUP process as long as a condition is in place to address
this situation.
Staff
has recently received photographs (See attached B-56-B-59) of this site where
the applicant already has several bales located. Some of the bales have been
compromised and litter is spilling onto the ground where it could potentially
pollute the runoff from this site. The applicant has been contacted and agreed
to store the torn bales inside until he can repair them. The applicant can
provide pictures showing the bales have been moved, or Robyn Reed and Courtney
McNair will inspect the site prior to the meeting. The applicant must clean
up the Cincinnati site prior to CUP approval .-All litter has been
cleaned up and bales patched.
In
addition, because the applicant is already storing bales onsite, he will have one
week from the date of CUP approval to install the approved (by Robyn Reed)
spill containment plan around the “outdoor storage area.” All bales must be
stored in the outdoor storage area or inside the building.
Other:
This business is currently located at a site in the Lincoln Industrial area. Some concern has been raised about how the Lincoln site will be cleaned up once the business is moved. The applicant has stated that in agreement with the owner of the Lincoln site, after all material is moved, he will be responsible for bulldozing and reseeding to restore the area. This should be completed prior to operation at the Cincinnati location.
The
proposed project needs to be generally located within the areas shown on the
site layout plan. Any additional buildings or expansion will be required to
request an additional CUP with Washington County. (See attached B-64)
The
requested hours of operation are Monday-Friday from 7:00am-7:00pm with
occasional production running until 11:00pm including Saturday production. Staff
would like the applicant to define “occasional.”
The Board should determine if the definition of occasional is acceptable.
The
applicant does not plan on signage at this time, but has agreed that if in the
future a sign is to be placed, he will comply with staff conditions. Staff is
recommending the sign not exceed 12’ in height (to the top of the sign), and
be less than 35 sq.ft, and not directly illuminated. (See attached sign example B-33). This
recommendation is based on previous on-premise sign research conducted by
Planning Staff and the number of residences adjacent to the potential sign
location. Planning Staff shall approve signage prior to installation. Also,
because this sign will most likely be placed along Highway 59, the applicant
must place the sign in a designated easement (the sign will not be allowed in
the access easement without permission from the property owner who owns the land
the easement passes through), as this property has no direct road frontage. No
sign shall be placed in the Right-of-Way.
Any
exterior lighting shall be shielded from surrounding property and residence.
COMPATIBILITY
CONCERNS:
Surrounding
Area:
(See
attached B-65 and B-67 and B-43)
The
property adjacent to the North of this site is Agricultural/Residential. To the
East, the property is Agricultural. To the South, the property is Agricultural.
And, the properties to the West are Residential (1 unit/3 acres and 1 unit/8.17
acres).
Most
of the property within a ½ mile of the project property is Agricultural,
Residential, or Agricultural/Residential. At least two of these sites are Dairy
Farms. Approximately 300 feet South on Highway 59, there is a small Farmer’s
Market. There is also a cemetery approximately 2500 feet North along Highway 59.
Within
two miles of this site, there are approximately 67 poultry houses on
approximately 8 poultry farms.
County’s
Land Use Plan (written document):
3.
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
Again, the goal of retaining the rural aspects of the county should
remain a priority. Other goals to
be met in general commercial land use one:
a.
Provision of accessible, convenient and attractive
commercial locations, while avoiding or minimizing commercial development where
inadequate or substandard infrastructure exists;
b.
Location of general commercial development at the
intersection of major roads for convenient access, and to discourage strip
commercial development;
c.
Identification of areas within the county for future
general commercial development;
d.
Encouragement of attractive, safe and sanitary
commercial development with adequate fire protection, utilities, and access;
e.
Discouraging the indiscriminate mixing of commercial
development into residential and agricultural areas; and,
f.
Provision
of safe, adequate, and regulated access to commercial areas.
In order to realize these goals, the county should take the following
actions:
a. Adopt
zoning regulations, and update subdivision regulations to guide commercial
development;
b.Encourage planned, integrated commercial areas by discouraging spot
commercial development in residential neighborhoods and agricultural areas, and
the stringing out of commercial development along roads;
c. Adopt
a future land use map, which identifies potential commercial locations;
d. Adopt
codes to insure safe and sanitary development
e.
Through zoning, restrict the location of new general
commercial development to commercial nodes and/or with certain conditions;
f.
Restrict non-commercial, incompatible uses from locating in areas
designated for general commercial uses;
g.
Assure traffic safety by guaranteeing sufficient
off-street parking, off-street loading facilities, and well-located ingress and
egress points;
h.
Provide adequate physical screening, and open areas to
serve as a buffer between the commercial uses and abutting residential areas or
agricultural areas; and,
i.
Encourage attractiveness by designing areas to
integrate with residential areas.”
Staff
feels that the proposed project will reflect the goals for establishing
commercial areas in Washington County.
The
project is located in an easily accessible area with Highway 59 providing the
main transportation route, the utilities are in place, and a fire protection
solution will be in place prior to operation. The applicant is asking to use an
existing building that has been used as a commercial business in the past. The
buildings and outdoor storage area are generally located within the center of
the project property so that the project does not threaten neighboring
properties with encroachment. While other large commercial businesses do not
exist in this area, there are several large agricultural operations nearby. (See
attached B-44)
Future
Land Use Plan
(See
attached B-68-B-69 and B-44)
The
Washington County Future Land Use map does not extend to this property;
therefore, the County Zoning Map will be used in its place. The Washington
County Zoning Map shows the site as "Agricultural/Single-Family Residential
1 unit per acre".
The
request is for a commercial use, which does not reflect the Future Land Use in
this area. Despite this, several large agricultural operations do exist both
adjacent to the site and in the surrounding area. These operations are not
classified as commercial, but have some features similar in nature to aspects of
the CUP request. These operations have outbuildings and shops, have large
equipment onsite, and have outdoor storage of supplies.
Impact
on Surrounding Properties
(See
attached B-43-B-44)
This
request will be creating similar traffic and noise existed in the past when the
building was used as a cabinet shop and previous to that a truck dispatch
center. The project is contained in the center of the property, so should not
have a large impact on surrounding properties. In addition, the Environmental
Affairs office and the ADEQ will regulate the runoff from this property.
Containment and clean up of any litter has already been required as a condition
of approval. This should protect surrounding properties from harmful materials
entering their property from this project.
NEIGHBOR
COMMENTS/CONCERNS:
(See
attached comments pages B-45-B-59)
At
the time of this report, staff has received five comments.
Three
of the comments are in favor of this project.
One
comment received, is not in favor of the project and has provided detailed
information. A letter was submitted outlining concerns including: smell, health
concerns associated with runoff and water contamination, diminished property
values, future expansion of the business causing the other concerns to be
increased, and the possibility of the business using waste from municipal sewer
systems to create different blends of fertilizer. The neighbor also submitted an
article from the “Lincoln Leader” newspaper highlighting the applicant’s
business inside of Lincoln. The applicant states in this article that the
business has only had one smell complaint, whereas the applicant’s letter says
they have had none, and the applicant describes the possibility of using waste
from municipal sewer systems. Several photographs of the site in Lincoln and the
site in Cincinnati were also submitted showing broken bales and spilled litter.
Another
neighbor called in with a concern about the possible contamination of the well
that provides their drinking water. It is 300 feet deep and the neighbor is
concerned about phosphorus leaching into the groundwater and entering the well.
This neighbor has also submitted a written comment in favor of the project as
long as the proper steps are taken to address this concern. Robyn Reed,
Environmental Affairs, is researching to verify which department will regulate
the phosphorus levels and staff will update the board at the meeting. (See attached B-31)
Staff has received two
additional neighbor comments.
One is in favor of the project but has concerns about odor and well-water
contamination.
The other is opposed and has concerns about the dust from the chicken
litter and the odor.
Staff
can address some of the concerns.
At
this time, the applicant is not asking to use any waste from municipal sewer
systems, they will be using chicken litter only. The statement about this waste
is a future possibility that staff will review if/when the applicant decides to
incorporate this into the business. If wastes from municipal sewer systems are
to be used, an additional CUP will be required by Washington County.
All unbaled chicken litter will be stored inside and not be
subject to the elements. The stacking shed is fully enclosed. This should reduce odor
and dust from the chicken litter. The Environmental Affairs Department and ADEQ
will regulate the runoff from this project. Environmental Affairs has required
that the outdoor storage area have a containment barrier, and that all outdoor
areas have a plan and schedule in place to clean up any spilled litter.
Because the applicant is
already storing bales onsite, he will have one week from the date of CUP
approval to install the approved (by Robyn Reed) spill containment plan around
the “outdoor storage area.” All bales must be stored in the outdoor storage
area or inside the building.
The proposed project needs to be generally located within the areas shown
on the site layout plan. Any additional buildings or expansion will be required
to request an additional CUP with Washington County.
Staff has also researched
well-water contamination from chicken litter in response to several comments
from concerned neighbors:
All wells in Arkansas are regulated by the Arkansas Well Water
Commission. Staff spoke with Mr. Jay Johnston, Professional Hydro-Geologist,
about this project. He stated that it is located in the “Boone Formation.”
The “Boone Formation” wells are from fractures in the limestone which allow
the rapid transportation of water that can cause it not to be filtered well.
However, as long as the business is located more than 100 feet from any well, he
did not feel it would have a significant impact on the water quality of those
wells.
Individuals may choose to have their wells tested prior to the business
being located in this area for the current levels of nitrates, other nutrients
(such as phosphorus), and bacteria to determine if any degradation occurs.
However, since there are several poultry and other large farms in this area, it
would be difficult to determine the source of degradation.
Based on the photographs that show broken bales and spilled litter,
staff has required that the applicant clean up the Cincinnati site prior to CUP
approval, staff will update the Board at the meeting about this situation. This
has been completed, all litter was cleaned up and all bales have been patched.
The
proposed project needs to be generally located within the areas shown on the
site layout plan. Any additional buildings or expansion will be required to
request an additional CUP with Washington County.
Based
on the photographs that show broken bales and spilled litter, staff has
required that the applicant clean up the Cincinnati site prior to CUP approval,
staff will update the Board at the meeting about this situation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Conditional Use Permit approval of the proposed White
River Fertilizer Supply CUP with the following conditions:
1.
If at a future date, dryers or other heating equipment is to be used at
this facility, an additional Conditional Use Permit may be required.
2.
A hydrant is required across the highway from the entrance of the site.
The hydrant must be installed and inspected prior to operation.
3.
A sign must be placed, near to or on the hydrant, stating that the
hydrant must be used for fill only.
4.
All interior roads, and the turnaround area, must be able to support
75,000lbs in all weather conditions. These must be inspected prior to operation.
5.
Bales must be stored a minimum of 20’ away from any structures for fire
safety.
11.
Based on information submitted by the applicant, the clean up of the
current Lincoln business should be completed prior to operation at the
Cincinnati location.
12.
The proposed project needs to be generally located within the areas shown
on the site layout plan. Any
additional buildings or expansion will be required to request an additional CUP
with Washington County.
13.
The hours of operation are Monday-Friday from 7:00am-7:00pm with
occasional production running until 11:00pm including Saturday production.
14.
Signage should not exceed 12’ in height (to the top of the sign), be
less than 35 sq.ft, and not directly illuminated (up-lighting is acceptable).
15.
Planning Staff shall approve signage prior to installation.
16.
Signage must be placed in a designated easement.
17.
No sign shall be placed in the Right-of-Way.
18.
Any exterior lighting shall be shielded from surrounding property and
residences.
19.
Any lot splits or lot line adjustments on this property must be approved
by Washington County.
20.
This CUP allows the baling of chicken litter only. Baling any other waste
material will require an addition Conditional Use Permit.
21.
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 Washington County.
Tracy
Argo, White River Fertilizer Supply, was present to answer any questions.
Courtney
McNair, Washington County Planner, stated, “This project is located on the
west side of the County, northwest of the City of Lincoln.
It is not in a Planning Area. It
is zoned agricultural/single-family residential one unit per acre, which is why
it had to ask for a Conditional Use Permit.
The applicant is asking to allow a chicken litter baling operation to go
on this property. In the chicken
litter baling process raw chicken litter is delivered by semi-truck unloaded and
then compressed in a special machine and then wrapped in the white plastic and
shipped out. Some of it will be
stored on site, but then shipped out.”
McNair
commented, “It is directly off of Highway 59 via an access easement. That building is existing. That is the building that they do
propose to use; it’s an 8,500 square foot building with 6,000 of it for the
warehouse and 2,500 of it for an office. The
only building that they are proposing is what is called a stacking shed, which
is really nothing more than walls and a roof to hold some raw chicken litter.
All raw unbaled chicken litter will be stored inside.”
McNair
added, “Our two main issues with this were Fire and Environmental concerns.
With the fire the Fire Marshal and the Lincoln Water people were in
disagreement, but they have resolved that and they are going to require a
hydrant. The Fire Marshal, John
Jenkins, and the State Fire Marshal have agreed that the hydrant does not have
to be at the entrance of the project. It
can be across the road, which is where the waterline is located, so it will save
the applicant some expense of having to bore under the road and the applicant is
in cooperation with this agreement. He
feels much better about this arrangement then having to bore underneath the road
to put it at the entrance. As this
is a commercial use that fire hydrant was necessary so that if there ever was a
fire in the future employees and other properties will not be in danger. It is too far of a driving distance from the nearest fire
hydrants and that is why the Fire Marshal felt like it was necessary to put the
one across from the entrance. Additional
fire concerns are similar to other projects.
You need to have adequate driveways that will support 75,000 pounds in
all weather conditions. Storage of bales need to be 20’ away from the building same
thing if they were to catch on fire you don’t want to risk catching your
building on fire and you have to be able to fit your fire truck in between them
and the building if you need to put out a fire in either location.
Typical Fire Code regulations must be followed: fire extinguishers and
exit lighting, which John Jenkins will inspect before operation.
The septic onsite was small, but adequate for the amount of employees
they are proposing, which is five. They
need to upgrade their electric to three-phase electric.
Ozark Electric already has all the easements in place they just haven’t
started construction on that, yet.”
McNair
also added, “There is not a problem with sight visibility as it is located off
of Highway 59 and they have plenty of wide open space.
There is an existing 20’ paved entrance, which is what the Road
Department has been requiring off of County Roads, but as this was a State
Highway we can not require it, but it does exist.
We went and measured it and it is in good shape, so that will help keep
the gravel off of the highway, too. They
are going to relocate their driveway because it was a little bit out of the
easement, but they were planning on doing that, so the applicant is agreeable to
that condition as well.”
McNair
stated, “Our other concerns were Environmental because we’re dealing with
raw chicken litter. There were
quite a few comments from neighbors who were concerned about the environmental
impact of the chicken litter being stored onsite.
Robyn Reed, Environmental Affairs Director, has required that the
applicant submit a containment plan, which has been amended where they are
purposing to use fiber logs, which are
those straw filled tubes that you can place around the exterior to keep any
loose chicken litter from washing into the creek to the east of this site. She has also required a clean up plan where they visually go
inspect the site at the end of each shift and have materials on hand that they
can use to scoop up any spilled chicken litter to make sure that it is put back
inside, so that it will not get into the run-off.” McNair commented, “The
other environmental condition is called an Industrial Stormwater Permit from
ADEQ (Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality). Right now, ADEQ is in the process of revising their
application, so no Industrial Stormwater Permits can be given at this time.
The applicant knows that they can not operate until they have this
Industrial Stormwater Permit, but we feel like they can go ahead and get their
Conditional Use Permit because we don’t know how long its going to be before
ADEQ starts issuing those Stormwater Permits again Robyn Reed has requested that
the applicant have his barrier in place within one week of approval of this
Conditional Use Permit, so that they are not doing anything harmful in the
meantime in between Conditional Use Permit and actual operation.
The applicant has also agreed to this.
He has been very cooperative and he thinks they’ll have the barrier up
and ready before the one week time limit is up.”
McNair
added, “We had some site pictures from a neighbor that showed some of the
bales split and some chicken litter spilling on the ground.
Staff did go and verify that there were some split and there was chicken
litter. The applicant went and
cleaned it up and I have photographic evidence.
He patched all the bales that had holes in them.
He generally has been very responsible about making sure that he’s
trying to keep his chicken litter out of the run-off for this area.
He also has a site in the City of Lincoln and one of the conditions is
that he clean up that site in Lincoln, which he has already made an agreement
with the owner to do so. He is not
protesting that we’re making him clean up these sites or anything to that
nature.”
McNair
also added, “Other issues, the operating hours are Monday – Friday 7:00am to
7:00pm with an occasional use until 11:00pm including Saturday if they have a
rush order or a late delivery. If
he puts up signage we would like him to follow our recommendations and have
Staff inspect it. He is not at this
time planning signage, but of course as his business grows he may want to
include signage so that he is more recognizable.
The exterior lighting needs to be shielded from his neighbors. The surrounding areas are mostly agricultural and
residential. There are some large
farms and some smaller residences along Highway 59.
There is a cemetery (Old Union Cemetery) and a little Farmer’s Market
very close to their entrance right down the road to the south.
I did a study of all the chicken houses in the area because some of the
neighbors were concerned about the odor and chicken litter run-off and such like
that, so I did a study of the area just to see if that was compatible with the
surrounding. I found 67 easily identifiable chicken houses within a two
mile radius, so I do not think that it will be adding a significant impact
compared to those 67 other chicken houses.”
McNair
stated, “I feel like this is compatible with our Land Use Development Plan.
It is easily accessible and has fire protection in place or will have (it
needs to be there before he can operate.) There
is not a Future Land Use map in this area it does not go out that far, so we
used the County’s zoning as a Land Use tool.
The project is not compatible with the one unit per acre for agricultural
or residential, but many of these large farms have the same types of equipment
and on-site buildings that this project is asking for.
Large equipment to move things just as large farms usually have.
The bales resemble the round hay bales, so they won’t look out of
place. Neighbor comments: As I
described before several of them were concerned.
We only had two opposed to this the rest of them were in favor, but
didn’t leave really many comments. A
few of them had concerns about their wells.
I spoke to Jay Johnston from the Arkansas Well Water Commission.
He is a professional Hydro-geologist.
He talked to me about how the Boone formation works and that he doesn’t
feel that since his business is located more than 100’ from any of those
surrounding wells that it will impact them significantly.
However, the neighbors always have the option of going and getting their
wells tested prior to this business, but with so many other large farms and
chicken houses in the area it will be really hard to determine where the source
of contamination was if their water ever was degraded.
He really didn’t feel like it would be a problem since it is situated
far enough away. In the initial
Staff report we said that the applicant had to clean up the Cincinnati site
where the litter was spilled, which he did and we showed you pictures of it all
cleaned up. Staff does recommend
Conditional Use Permit approval with conditions.
I have a couple of different ones: the hydrant is required across the
highway from the entrance and it must be installed and inspected prior to
operation. The outdoor storage
contamination plan has been updated, but it will need to be installed within one
week of Conditional Use Permit approval. All
bales need to be stored either in that outdoor storage area or inside.
The proposed project needs to generally be located within the area shown
on the site map. Any additional
buildings or expansion need to come through an additional Conditional Use Permit
as is standard with everything else, so we’re not asking for anything that’s
not standard. They had also talked
about doing a lot split or a lot line adjustment, which will need to come
through Washington County as well, but not as a Conditional Use Permit.”
Haley
asked, “Did you contact the City of Lincoln, they were previously in the
Industrial Park there, to see if they were pleased with their operation there or
if they had previous problems?” McNair
replied, “They had had one odor complaint, but the operation in the City of
Lincoln was more of an in-progress testing facility.
They were working with the University of Arkansas to come up with
different ways to bale the litter, store it and to figure out what the best ways
were. They had some initial
problems and they have come to the conclusion of which plastic wrap doesn’t
break as easily and how to stack these things so that they do not fall.
Part of the agreement is that they completely clean up the Lincoln site
before they start operating this one. They
did have an odor complaint and it looked bad for a while where they had some
bales that had fallen and things, but that was in a testing situation.”
Haley asked, “What was the justification for needing hours of operation
from 7:00am – 7:00pm instead of like 8:00am – 5:00pm?”
McNair replied, “I do not have that information you can ask Mr. Argo,
he’s the applicant.”
Argo
stated, “We’re just trying to cover our bases in case we get lots of orders.
We don’t want to run two eight-hour shifts, but a twelve-hour day for
one crew. That’s an acceptable
amount of work for those guys. Occasionally,
I don’t see that we’re going to run past 8:00pm ever, but if a truck shows
up late somebody needs to unload it or load it.”
Gallagher
asked, “This maybe more for John Jenkins, do we know what the water main size
is that we’re talking about placing this hydrant on?”
Jenkins replied, “6 inch.” Gallagher
asked, “Do we have any flow tests on either of the other two hydrants?”
Jenkins replied, “No, sir we don’t.
The biggest part of that was that they’re 3,350 feet away.
This sticks with our standard procedure on a commercial application that
we at least try to have a hydrant close or have some other means as tanks or
reservoirs or what have you. The
hydrant is definitely the cheapest out of all of those especially being that the
source is right across the road; it would be ridiculous to require anything
else. This is without a doubt the
cheapest and best solution to the problem.”
Gallagher
commented, “I understand, I’m not questioning whether or not we should have
a hydrant. I just wanted to get a
sense of what might come out of it if you had a sense of how well it would flow
once it’s installed.” McNair
stated, “It’s not enough to pump directly from these would be signed saying
only for fill, but you still need to have a close fill source so that you can
get your tankers back up there if it’s ongoing, but it wasn’t enough for
just pumping fire flow.” Jenkins
commented, “The minimum is a 1,000, however, with the tanker support from
Lincoln, Prairie Grove, and Cincinnati you’re able to tack on an additional
800 gallons a minute plus the hydrant so it does make it adequate for this
particular application.”
Haley
asked, “Define the occasional because that might mean one Saturday and six
months to someone and something else to someone else.
Secondly, was the current site for your research in Lincoln not condusive
to what you’re doing now?” Argo
replied, “The occasional most generally when we run on a Saturday it is from
7:00am to noon and then we let our guys have at least a day and a half off of
the weekend. We’re going to abide by whatever you say.
If you say nothing past 7:00pm,we’re going to abide by that.
The site in Lincoln that was a leased facility.
That baler had been sitting in that facility for almost three years.
It had been ran three hours when we picked it up.
The University and all of the various people associated with it fell out
they had a big argument the whole thing came to a stop.
We picked it up in July part of the USDA requirement for gathering
information was that it be ran four months.
We ran it from October 31 until the last day of February four months and
one day. Accumulated all the
information and the experiments and tried to buy that facility.
We didn’t get it bought. We
eventually did find this facility and got it bought. I would like to make one comment and that was on Item #8 (The “WRFS Outdoor Storage Containment
Plan” must be changed so that straw bales are not used prior to CUP approval.
The barrier will need to be installed within one week of CUP approval and all
bales must be stored in the Outdoor Storage Area or inside).
We have
already put the barriers in place instead of waiting any length of time.
We went ahead and did it immediately whenever we got the notice.
We’re quite proactive with ADEQ. The
inspectors in Fayetteville they will be walking through the Lincoln site with us
and they will be pre-inspecting the site in Cincinnati before operation.
Jamal, who is the head of the Wastewater Division, he’s seen this
project since it was started in five-gallon buckets, and so he’s been well
aware of what we’re doing for over three years now.”
Daugherty
asked, “This is the project that Dr. Goodwin of the University started?”
Argo replied, “Yes, this project is based on nine years of research
from the University of Arkansas and in particular Dr. Goodwin has been the lead
professor on that project. The prototype baler has been in development for over 5 years.
When I got it, it had been ran 3 hours, it would run about 12 tons a day.
Now I can run it about 220 tons a day.”
Hummel
asked, “How much does those bales weigh?”
Argo replied, “They weigh an average of 3,300 to 3,600 pounds a
piece.” Hummel asked, “Do you load them with a forklift?”
Argo replied, “We have an attachment that we load those with.
Kind of looks like the front end of a praying mantis.
A lot of the farmers that we ship those bales to do handle them with
forklifts only. When you handle
them with forklifts 50% of the time you poke holes in them.”
Hummel asked, “Have you changed the plastic that covers those to a
heavier…?” Argo replied, “We
experimented with 6 varieties of plastic at the Lincoln facility.
From 150 all the way down to 115 gauge.
Once we drop below 125 gauge the expansion of the rice hulls from the
compaction that alone would break the plastic.
We’ve now gone back up to higher than 135.” Hummel asked, “I read where you were going to plant a bunch
of trees. How far is the creek from
where you are at?” Argo replied,
“The creek is quite a ways over past the Dairy Farm (to the north).”
Hummel asked, “Didn’t you say in one of your correspondence with
Staff that you were going to plant a bunch of trees?”
Argo replied, “Yes, sir.” Hummel
asked, “Have you done that?” Argo
replied, “We have 350 trees that are coming tomorrow half of those are White
Oaks and half of them are Pine. Through
the local ANRC office they have a program to plant trees and share the cost, so
that any phosphorous runs off of that hill all of those trees will grab it and
suck it up.” Hummel asked, “How
large are those trees?” Argo replied, “They’re about two foot tall right
now.” Daugherty asked, “Most of
this probably is being shipped to other parts of the state?”
Argo replied, “The vast majority of it ships to Oklahoma.
They want to sue us, but they want it.” Haley asked, “How much
additional traffic are you anticipating generating?”
Argo replied, “The traffic on the road out there these same trucks are
rolling by there everyday they’re just going to other locations.
On average we can take about ten semis in and we can load 10 semis out,
so it’s 20 a day if we’re running at full capacity.”
Daugherty asked, “How often do you run at full capacity?”
Argo replied, “We haven’t for months.
Part of the deal with USDA was we needed to run for four months find out
what was going to happen. Try to
gather some data. At no time did we
ever run more than 14 semis a day, although, we feel we can run 20 – 22
max.” Haley asked, “Are there
any shoulders on Highway 59?” Argo
replied, “Shoulders beyond the white line about 3’, but a place where a guy
can pull a whole semi over, no.”
Thelma
Jean Erlich-Holland,
adjacent property owner to the southeast at 11703
Donnie Jackson Pit Road,
stated, “My home is right on the southeast corner. You can see the buildings from my house through the tree
lines; when the leaves aren’t on you can see it real good. I worked in chicken houses for 27 years.
Eight for a farm in Summers and 19 for another farm with chicken houses,
which is a mile from there. I have
a bad lung infection from working in those houses.
If any of that litter gets into the air, which I’ve been real sick here
lately anyway, it’s going to hurt me even worse with my lungs. I am on
retirement because of it. I
didn’t bring any papers or anything showing a doctor’s statement.
It is really close to my house. I’m
concerned about the air quality and all that.”
Walker
asked, “What direction are you from this property, southeast? What’s the prevailing wind?”
Erlich replied, “It blows just different ways.”
Walker asked, “Most of it is southwest though, isn’t it?”
Erlich replied, “Probably, in the winter we get a lot of the north
winds also that comes from that way.”
Robert
Patton, adjacent
property owner to the west at 11954 N.
Highway 59,
commented, “I’m on the corner. We’re
just inside of it we can see everything that is happening there.
We get all kinds of noise. My
main thing is if we knew that place was going in there we wouldn’t have bought
the property and we wouldn’t have moved in there.
I work in a dust hazard area, at T Foods and I deal with flour, sugar,
and everything and it is all dust hazard explosive and that is the same thing it
is all dust hazard. If dust will
get in there and it dries and the wind picks it up and it gets static
electricity in it, it will explode and that’s what happened in Oklahoma City
when they had that bombing. They
used fertilizer and fertilizer explodes. That
is my main concern right there. The
smell and the explosion.”
Don
Johnson at 2099 N Double Springs Road,
asked, “The reason that I am here I was invited to a meeting on this very
subject of pollution of chicken litter it was done at the John Brown University
probably 60 people two guest Senators. We
were advised by Delia Haak from Siloam Springs she was the director.
They were coordinating $350,000 of our tax money to analyze the effect of
chicken litter in the watershed going into Oklahoma.
It is a considerable lawsuit and I don’t know the status of it; it was
asked at the time and it was pending. This
seems like an isolated piece of planning. I
haven’t heard a word of the Illinois River Watershed Partnership.
There’s another organization, the Heron Company, are you familiar with
this?” McNair replied, “No.”
Johnson stated, “Apparently, that is their business hauling off chicken
litter in trucks. My personal
concern will I have a bale dropped on me it sounds like they’re going to
Oklahoma. Oklahoma is the one that
is complaining about us putting chicken litter on our farm and leaking into the
water going into Oklahoma. It just
seems incomplete Planning.”
Walker
asked, “The litter is put inside a building before you bale it, is that
correct?” Argo replied, “Yes
sir.” Walker asked, “So, the
litter is never stored outside on the ground?”
Argo replied, “Not raw litter.”
Walker asked, “Raw litter that’s what I mean.
Once it’s baled then it’s stored outside?” Argo replied, “Yes.”
Walker asked, “So the litter is never allowed to stay outside get
rained on and get wet?” Argo
replied, “No sir. It meets all
covering containment laws.” Walker
asked, “How do you contain the dust inside this building as you’re baling
it?” Argo replied, “We water it
so that it’s not dusty. Plus, it
also helps with compaction. We add
about 6% moisture to what comes to us naturally.”
Walker asked, “Is there a chance of leakage of run-off water from the
building in the baling process?” Argo
replied, “We built concrete block walls inside of it and filled it with 100%
solid and sealed it 4’ high so that that can’t happen.”
Daugherty
asked, “Could you address the explosion possibilities?
Do you know if there are any possibility?”
Argo replied, “I’m pretty sure that is commercial era 1846
for one of those products not natural chicken litter.
Chicken litter in general contains about 60 pounds of nitrogen per one
ton and it will smolder, but it will not burn violently that I know of.”
Walker asked, “Wasn’t that ammonia nitrate
that they used?” Argo replied,
“Yeah, 82% nitrogen and ammonia nitrate.”
Walker commented, “You can’t get that out of litter.”
Argo stated, “Right, it’s 82% per ton and chicken litter is 3.75% per
ton, it’s a huge difference.”
McNair
asked, “The stacking shed is totally enclosed?”
Argo replied, “A stacking shed is open on one end.
We have blueprints as to the proper way to build them and they are
located…hundreds of them within the County.” Walker asked, “That is where
you dump the litter as it comes in, in the stacking sheds?”
Argo replied, “Farms that have stacking sheds when they take the litter
out you get about 150 tons per chicken house.
If you have ten houses you’re getting 1,500 tons per clean out.
A good sized stacking shed will only hold about 400 tons and a lot of
these guys just take it out of their chicken houses put it right in their
stacking sheds and then when they want to fertilize their fields they take it
out of the stacking shed and they put it on their hay ground.” Walker asked, “Are you going to have stacking sheds?”
Argo replied, “We’ve proposed that we want to build a stacking shed.
It’s concrete has 4’ concrete stem walls, metal trusses, and all
metal.” Walker commented,
“Slops so that the run-off will not come out of the building?”
Argo stated, “It also has a 20’apron on the front of it with 2’
high side walls. We’ve learned
through talks with Mark Simmons that as these trucks unload the length of that
truck has to be on a solid surface. Otherwise,
it will filter into the gravel and then when it rains it comes back to the
surface. So, where the truck
actually unloads the belts have to be on solid surface.” Walker commented, “And contained with concrete stem walls
on the side.”
McNair
stated, “I was just verifying with Robyn that that was okay with Environmental
Affairs. I would like a copy of the
stacking shed plans.” West asked,
“When you get a load of litter how long does it take you to get it baled like
a semi load?” Argo replied, “A semi load contains about 23 to 25 tons
average and an eight-hour day we do about 220 –240 so it’s less than an hour
if we’re right on top of it. However,
because of the clean out schedule we try to keep about 200 tons on hand at all
times it allows for consistent production regardless of the clean out schedule.
As they change from one farm to the other there can be a 6 to 8 hour lag
in delivery.” West asked, “Once
you get it baled it is moved out pretty quickly then I take it?”
Argo replied, “We’ve concentrated so much on production in the last
four months that we didn’t have a good sales team in place.
Now, we’re starting to sell lots, we’re talking 30 – 40 farmers a
day. Most of the farmers that we do deal with have 5,000+ acres.
We’ve turned in 2,000 tons for transport subsidy for next week that’s
two thirds of what’s in Lincoln.”
Haley
asked, “Being fairly new, I probably should know this when a commercial
development goes in and the operating hours 8:00am – 5:00pm versus 7:00am –
7:00pm how do we determine that? Is
it a case-by-case basis? I’m
thinking if I’m a neighbor and he’s running until 8:00pm?” McNair replied,
“You as the Board can choose to change that.
That was just what he requested and it wasn’t exceptionally late in my
opinion, but you do not have to accept any condition you can change or modify
because this is a Conditional Use Permit it is a case-by-case basis.
It’s to the Board’s decision to decide.
If you would feel better with 5:00 he’s going to go with 5:00 at this
point. He’s been very cooperative
and he already said that if that’s the restriction then he will follow it.”
Daugherty asked, “Tracy, can you function satisfactorily if we go from
like an 8:00am – 5:00pm operation? How
much is that going to hinder you?” Argo replied, “I would prefer 7:00am –
5:00pm, but if you limit me to 5:00pm I will abide by that.”
Walker commented, “I would rather see him run longer hours
and have less litter stored personally. Any
farming operation we work more than 8-hour days. To me this is an agricultural operation.
It is no different than me getting on my hay baler and running until I
have to get off. He probably
doesn’t make much more noise than my three tractors running out there.”
Argo stated, “A lot of the farmers that we’re talking to right now
are running 24/7 they call me from their tractors at 11:00 at night.
They’re not slowing down for anything right now.”
Walker commented, “I’m kind of acquainted with the poultry industry
when a guy is cleaning out houses and bringing you litter they don’t shut down
at 5:00 because that grower has got to get birds back in to keep their schedule
going.” Haley stated, “The
difference is that’s not every day, Larry.”
Argo commented, “67 chicken houses that equates to 14,000 tons of
litter within two miles of us. The
fact that we have 200 tons of litter on-site that is a minor percentage compared
to what’s there.” Daugherty
asked, “Are some of these hours that are required are they more seasonal?”
Argo replied, “Springtime is the vast majority of clean out happens.
We are on schedule with Tyson and Simmons so we know what’s coming year
around and about 40% of that does happen in the month of March.” Daugherty asked, “That’s what I thought it would be
seasonal. It wouldn’t be year
around that you would need to operate that long?”
Argo replied, “Right.” Walker
asked, “What is our Staff recommendation right now on operation,
7:00am–7:00pm?” McNair replied,
“7:00 am - 7:00 pm and I wanted him to define occasional if we could put a
number. Occasional to him might
mean three days or occasional to us might mean six months so I would like you
all to figure out are you okay with him occasionally running once or twice a
week over his scheduled hours.” Walker
asked, “I don’t know how you would ever police that because I mean who is
going to go out there and say he ran…?”
McNair replied, “Neighbor complaints.
If he’s running obviously everyday then we’re going to get phone
calls to that affect, but if he has a sort of general idea of how occasional is
then we have something better to explain to neighbors in that case.
Once again, it is the Board’s decision this is a Conditional Use
Permit.” Walker stated, “Me
personally I don’t see any difference than Tyson’s processing plants in the
middle of Springdale or when Campbell Soup ran 24 hours a day. I guess I don’t see a lot of difference.”
McNair commented, “The difference is that this is in an agricultural
and residential area.” Walker stated, “It is an agricultural business.”
McNair commented, “It’s not, it is a commercial business.”
Walker stated, “You can’t get chicken litter from nothing but an
agricultural project.” Butler
commented, “It doesn’t fit our definition for agricultural how it is defined
in the ordinance.” Walker asked,
“I think our definition is wrong. Do
we have to make a decision on the occasional?” McNair
replied, “No, you can leave it open at occasionally if you want to.”
Hummel
asked, “When you’re baling this, I’ve never seen a baling operation for
litter so I’m imagining things, you’re picking it up with a front end loader
bucket and dumping it in this machine. Doesn’t
it get pretty dusty and if that dust comes out it depends on where the wind is
from. Whether the lady (Thelma Jean
Erlich) down on the corner or the guy (Robert Patton) up on the corner depend on
where the wind’s coming from that direction that day it’s going to get some
to their place.” Argo replied,
“Sir, if the wind blows from the north to the south there’s two Dairy Farms
with open manure pits on the north end of us.
It is hard to say we’re the source of that smell when those Dairy Farms
are there with open pits. Perhaps
some of it is us.” Hummel asked,
“You ever think about two wrongs don’t make a right.
I don’t know I can’t visualize.
I happen to agree with Larry on this I think that it is an agricultural
operation period. I don’t think
there is any room for discussion on it. It
may not fit our definition, but chicken litter is agricultural I guess it is
side-lined commercial because you’re selling it, but if you’re spreading it
on my pastures it’s agricultural, but you’re saying there’s not much dust
out?” Argo replied, “There’s
not very much dust.”
Daugherty
asked, “Tried to limit it inside the building by wetting it or whatever?”
Argo replied, “We actually dump it on a conveyor system.
That conveyor system has a watering system on it and we regulate that
from the panel of the machine to add or subtract water to it.
It is the dustiest point as when we pick it up and put it in there.
This is a one-of-a-kind machine in the world there are no other ones.”
Hummel asked, “What keeps that from molding after you get it inside an
airtight bag?” Argo replied,
“You would have to talk to Dr. Goodwin about that.”
Walker stated, “If you close the air off it shouldn’t mold.”
Daugherty commented, “I would imagine it would be a lot like hay I
would think like our silage bales that we have.” Argo stated, “The temperature does elevate for
the first five days to about 102 degrees at that point all of the e-coli and
salmonella are dead and it reverses to where it is ambient.”
Daugherty commented, “I envision or see this to be just like the silage
bales when we open them up the grass will be just as green as it was
when we cut it and just as good. It
if is airtight and probably use a very similar apparatus to load it I’m sure
as we did the silage
bales something that kind of grabs it.”
Gallagher
asked, “Now you’ve raised the question in my mind, I’ve seen the hay
baling process where the bales will spontaneously ignite and burn for days.
Does this burn, will it ignite like that, and how do you deal with it?”
Argo replied, “I’ve tried to sit it on fire before and I can’t
hardly get it to burn. The
temperature in the bale, which these are through the University they put probes
in them and the temperature never exceeded 102 degrees over a three-year period,
so I don’t know that is hot enough to combust it.” Walker asked, “What
percent moisture is inside the bale?” Argo
replied, “When we’re done with it it is about 30%.” Walker stated, “A
bale won’t burn until it gets 50% to 60%.”
Dr.
Art Brown asked, “University of Arkansas Department of Biological Sciences.
I’m an extreme ecologist principally.
I’ve been working at Illinois Water drainage for 35 years studying
water quality. I came here to
address the other issue the quarry because I live by the quarry, but this caught
my attention. Has there been a
Hydrological study done here? Is
this within the floodplain of the river? If not, any material that leaves this
site is it going to go into the river either by going into the soil and
traveling horizontally or by sheet-flow across the surface of the soil into the
river? If I was a member of the
Planning Board I would certainly want to know about that before.”
McNair replied, “I can address a couple of those.
This is not located in FEMA regulated floodplain.
A Hydrological study has not been completed, but the applicant is
proposing to plant trees to help rectify any additional run-off that gets past
the barrier that Robyn has required. In
addition the ADEQ is going to require similar containment fields to keep it
on-site and the applicant has gone above and beyond and has proposed to put in
trees himself, but that was not a Staff recommendation that was just something
additional that he felt he needed to do.”
Connie
Hall, adjacent property owner to the west at 11954
N. Highway 59, commented, “Robert (Patton) and I live in the line of it trees only
2’ away. Right now we have a
30-year mortgage we would have never bought it if we knew a chicken litter
dumping ground was going in. I have
two girls that will be smelling the chicken litter. July 4 we will not have
friends and family over to have to smell it and we already smell it and hear
noise. The sound is like a constant
lawn mower; I don’t like idea of it. Animals
have sharp claws that can rip the bales. I’m
sure you wouldn’t like it next to you.”
Joshua
Bailey stated, “I am a law student. If
you allow this it is going to completely undermine the integrity of this zoning
ordinance. I just want to
accentuate the whole reason for even having a Land Use Plan or system.
The reason that it was zoned single-family residential and agricultural
was to put a buffer or protect certain I guess to segregate certain types of
land uses single-family residential and then commercial, industrial, and things
like that. If you allow a rock
quarry next to…” Daugherty asked, “We’re talking about White River Fertilizer Supply do you have comments on this particular
issue?” Bailey replied, “I
thought we were talking about the rock quarry.”
Daugherty commented, “No, sir.”
Haley
stated, “I’m going to vote against this because the applicant has not
convinced me about the semi trucks that large of number on that highway.
Also, with the dust, it may be partly my ignorance I’m not that
familiar with that, however, I would request that the Board does chose to pass
it that they would put a condition identify what they mean by occasional and
that the hours be cut down from 7:00.”
Larry commented, “I’m the opposite because I know what it takes to get chicken houses cleaned out, how often, and how a few times with rain coming in you can’t hardly do it. It is another option for most poultry farmers to be able to go and if we’re trying to clean up the watershed most of this litter is going to be put into bags and shipped out of the country. The off side is I’m not going to be able to buy chicken litter it is going to cause my chicken litter to go up.” Daugherty commented, “I understand that.”
Larry Walker moved
to approve White River Fertilizer Supply Conditional Use Permit per Staff
recommendations. Cheryl West seconded. Motion
passes.
Kenley Haley and
James Gallagher voted against White River Fertilizer Supply Conditional Use
Permit.
Fayetteville’s
Planning Area
c.
Historic Skillern Farmhouse CUP (Conditional
Use Permit Request)
Location:
Section 31, Township 17 North, Range 29 West
Owner/Developer:
Albert and Jean Baltz
Location
Address: 3470 and 3502 E. Skillern (WC #536)
5.326
acres (use limit 2 acres) and 1 unit / Proposed Land Use: Event planned groups
Project
#: 2009-039 Planner: Courtney McNair,
e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
Larry
Walker moved to table
Historic
Skillern Farmhouse Conditional Use Permit at
the request of the applicant.
Roy Hummel seconded. Motion passes.
All
Board members were in favor of tabling
Historic
Skillern Farmhouse Conditional Use Permit.
County
d. Smith & Barker Backwoods Beer and Goods 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
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit Approval for Smith & Barker CUP-
Backwoods Beer and Goods. The
proposed land use is retail grocery and beer store on one (1) acre.
The store will offer the following goods and services: groceries, cold
deli, access to an ATM, faxing / copying, and beer and malt beverages to be
consumed off site. There will be no
seating. The business is
geared towards purchasing goods to be consumed off site.
The proposed store hours are 5 a.m. -12 p.m. and 24
hours if need be in emergency situations. Please
see page D-34 for Applicant’s Conditional Use letter of request and follow-up
correspondence that provide clarification and changes on project details (i.e.
changes in CUP request from the original request letter).
See also pages D-19-D-24 to view the site plan that provides details on
the CUP request.
A correction should be noted on D-45, Adjacent Property Owner
Comment of the staff report.
The
staff report currently reads “In Addition to the written comment staff
received a phone call from adjacent neighbor Thomas Pinion. Mr. Pinion voiced concerns of septic being adequately
designed for. Other concerns
related to the beer sales which have been withdrawn from the submittal.
Mr. Pinion doesn’t have a problem with the project other than concerns
voiced.
The underlined portion of the comment written above is not correct.
It was written at a time when
the sale of beer was withdrawn from the application and was not
appropriately updated. The CUP
does include beer sales and Mr. Pinions concerns as a result are
consumption of alcohol on
neighboring properties, specifically driveways and the littering as a
result. Mr. Pinion doesn’t have
a problem with the project other than concerns voiced.
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
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION:
Please see extensive information in the staff report if desired page D-9 through
page D-81.
BACKGROUND/
PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
Following
are some details on the property requesting the Conditional Use Permit.
The property (parcel #457-00002-000) is currently Lot Two of Smith and
Barker Mini Subdivision. The
property is an acre in size. The
owner of the property is 2 C’s Incorporated, which is made up of Charlotte
Barker and Cheryl Smith who are also the applicants.
The
property has public road frontage on E. Devils Den Road / HWY 74 (close to 540
– Winslow Exit); there is good visibility from the project site.
The property address is 10964 E. Devils Den Road Winslow, AR 72959-9776.
The property is not located within a Planning Area.
The
property is located within the township of Lee’s Creek; a wet township in
regards to alcohol.
The
existing surrounding context is residential/ and undeveloped property with the
exception of a dirt pit in operation north of the site within a quarter mile.
See pages D-17-D-18 for surrounding context visual.
There is no applicable information on the Land Use Map for this area;
therefore staff generally references the current Zoning Map as one of many tools
when making land use decisions.
Please
note, there will be no Large Scale Development review or approval required of
this project due to the property being a size that does not exceed one (1) acre.
Part of “Large Scale Development” (LSD) definition in the code is
that the property is larger than one (1) acre.
This CUP request will be the only time this proposed development will be
viewed by the board if approved.
There
are adequate utility services available for the use requested.
There
are no significant drainage issues (see statement from Engineer/ Surveyor D-56).
Fire
Safety issues have been addressed (see pg. D-39 through D-41).
Throughout
the review process, the applicant and staff have worked to resolve many
important issues related to this project. Currently,
there are no issues that have not been addressed by staff conditions.
The only item at present that Planning staff and the applicant disagree
on is the appropriate signage for the CUP.
Alcohol
In
the past there was much discussion regarding the sale of alcoholic beverages as
a part of the proposed commercial use requested of the site.
The applicants have obtained a conditional retail beer permit from the
Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Division (ABC).
Please see attached letter (D-36) from the ABC regarding this permit for
its wording in entirety.
The
Sheriff’s Office currently has no comment on the CUP; objections did exist
earlier but those objections have been withdrawn. If further information on this matter is desired please see
page D-35 through D-38 and D-54 (Tech Comment from April 14, 2009).
Adjacent
property owner comments have voiced concern regarding the sale of alcoholic
beverages. See pages D-43 through
D-44 for adjacent property owner comments in their entirety.
The concerns include:
(a)
the sale of alcohol to underage children or persons who would furnish the
beverages to underage children,
(b)
motorist driving under the influence
(c)
increased burden on law enforcement
(d)
consumption of alcohol on neighboring properties and debris/ littering as a
result.
Staff
perceives the alcohol aspect of this proposed commercial business to be in the
hands of the ABC. Following is an
excerpt from the ABC Administration website (http://www.arkansas.gov/dfa/abc_administration/abcadm_index.html)
“The duties of the Alcoholic
Beverage Control - Administration Division are to receive applications for and
issue, refuse to issue, suspend or revoke permits to manufacture, wholesale,
retail and transport alcoholic beverages in Arkansas. We also promulgate and adopt rules and regulations necessary
to comply with alcoholic beverage control laws of the State, and in addition,
conduct hearings for the purpose of cancellation, suspension or revocation of
any and all alcoholic beverage permits.”
Signage
The applicants chose the option of directly
illuminated, free-standing pole sign but desire a size that is larger than what
is recommended by staff. The
applicants desire a directly illuminated 17’+ pole sign that has a sign face
surface area of 32 sq. ft. (8’ in length x 4’ in height)
Staff
is ok with the size requested, but at that size- staff recommends indirect
illumination. If the applicant is
set on a directly illuminated style of sign- then staff recommends that it be no
more than 24 sq ft in size (sign face).
See
page D-32 through D-33 for the recommendation in it’s entirety.
Following is an excerpt from the recommendation for the free-standing
pole sign only. Additional signage research and staff summary regarding
revisiting the issue of signage is provided in pages D-69 through D-82.
Pole Sign / Freestanding
*either monument or pole but not both
Surface
area of sign. Surface area
should not exceed 32 square feet if indirectly illuminated and 24 square feet
if directly illuminated.
Height
& Setback of sign.
Pole sign
should not exceed 17 ft in height. A
low profile style sign is preferred.
The
sign should be a minimum of ten (10) feet from the south property line, the east
property line, and the west property line.
The south property line is denoted on the survey as the right-of-way line
in addition to serving as the property line. *Utility recommendations supersede all general sign setback
requirements.
*Note
twenty-five feet back from the front property line (southernmost property line
near Hwy 74) is a utility easement and a 30 feet existing power line easement.
*Discussion
with Washington Water regarding signs within utility easements indicated
that permanent structures within easements are always susceptible to being
removed (i.e. fair-game) if work dictates. If one decides to take that risk it is recommended that it be
a minimum distance of eight (8) to ten (10) feet from the water lines.
This is a condition of approval.
*Discussion
with Ozark Electric
regarding pole signs in utility easements indicated there must be a minimum
horizontal distance of fifteen (15) feet between the edge of the sign and any
nearby lines or power poles. There
must be a vertical distance of fifteen (15) feet between lines and edge of the
sign. This is a condition of approval.
Other
important issues
Staff
and the applicant are in agreement on all of the following remaining issues
(Please see staff recommendations for further details that address these
issues):
(a)
septic
(b)
fire-safety
(c)
parking and ADA accessibility
(a)
hours of operation
(b)
noise should not be an issue for the proposed use at hand
(c)
light pollution- security light should be shielded
(d)
vegetative semi-screen/ buffers.
*Note, some of the plant screening details for the location west of the
parking area should be finalized post construction
(e)
dumpster screening
(f)
complete site plan information
(g)
other utility issues.
Neighbor
Comments
·
Staff has received (1) written
comment the neighbors to the east, Mr. and Mrs. Camp (see pg. D-43
through pg D-45). This neighbor is opposed to the project due to the following
concerns: possible trash/debris that could accompany the commercial land use
request, the potential for inadequate parking which could provide the potential
for people parking on hwy 74, and the potential for the disruption of the
peaceful quality of life they have enjoyed for years. The inclusion of alcohol in the goods provided in the
commercial CUP request is a concern already discussed.
·
In addition to the written comment
staff received a phone call from adjacent neighbor Thomas Pinion.
Mr. Pinion voiced concerns of septic not being adequately designed for a
commercial building, although he is not opposed to the project if septic is done
properly. Mr. Pinion also voiced
concerns associated with the inclusion of alcohol in the CUP.
Alcohol concerns of adjacent property owners have already been outlined
in earlier text.
Offsite
Signage Regulations
It
is important that the applicant/ owners of the project site be aware of
off-premise signage regulations along scenic corridor 540, as per Ordinance
96-1.
Off-site
(or bill-board) signage along I-540 has been deemed an “Off-premises sign
exclusion zone” according to Washington County Ordinance 96-1.
This means that all off-premise signs visible from Hwy 540 – a
designated scenic corridor-shall be prohibited except as may be approved
pursuant of the “Logo Sign Program” or
“Tourist Oriented Directional Sign” (TODS) Program of the Arkansas
State Highway Commission. See Attached material D-58 for wording in its entirety and
visit http://www.arkansashighways.com/Environ/Beautification.htm for more
information.
Conclusion
Please
see staff conditions for further mitigation of negative impacts to the rural/
agricultural/residential community. Project
review/research leads staff to reach the following conclusion:
the Conditional Use with recommended conditions does not appear to be
injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the surrounding area for
the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property
values within the surrounding area. Supplemental
information is provided in page D-9 through D-81 of the staff report.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Conditional Use Permit approval of the
proposed Smith & Barker “Backwoods Beer and Goods CUP with the following
conditions being met.
1.
Any other land divisions, commercial structures, or other types of uses
not considered with this submittal must come through a separate CUP or review
process with the County.
2.
SITE PLAN. Site plan must be
signed by engineer/ surveyor on the final copy.
All information on the
site plan is a binding for the condition of the CUP.
(a)
“Driving and parking surface to be constructed to support 75,000 pounds
under all weather condition.”
(b)
“6 x 8” Dumpster with opaque fence surrounded with opaque gate”
(c)
parking plan shown with ADA. Parking stops should be place for parking
spots on the north side of the parking lot for safety reasons.
Please show these on the site plan.
(d)
noise generated from the site will be minimal as such of a grocery store
and will not be a nuisance of neighbors
3. VEGETATIVE
SEMI-SCREEN/ BUFFERS
(a)Vegetative
semi-screening on the east façade of the building (as per site plan) must take place prior to
operation. Install height of
specimens must be four (4) feet in height and spaced according to site plan.
Staff agrees with the applicant’s proposal of Rose of Sharon (Hibiscus
syriacus) specimen for this location.
(b)Existing
vegetation west of the parking area.
Existing
trees must be protected (roped-off) during construction.
Vegetation at this location will be assessed post construction by
planning staff and a recommendation regarding possible supplemental plantings
given at that time. The following
will be used as guidelines.
a.
If small tree (approx. Height 30’, deciduous or evergreen)
Install size 1 ½ -2” caliper or 4-5ft in height
Maximum spacing – 15’
b.
If medium to large shrub (evergreen type preferred)
Install size 3-4 ft
Spacing 4-5 ft depending on the species.
Monument Style / Freestanding
Surface area of sign.
Surface area should not exceed 32 square feet if indirectly
illuminated and 24 square feet if directly illuminated.
Height & Setback of sign.
Freestanding
(monument style) should not exceed 8 ft in height.
The
sign should be a minimum of ten (10) feet from the south property line, the east
property line, and the west property line.
The south property line is denoted on the survey as the right-of-way line
in addition to serving as the property line.
The sign location shown on the site plan needs to be moved five (5) feet
east so that the sign is ten (10) feet from adjacent property lines. *Utility
recommendations supersede general sign setback requirements.
*Note
twenty-five feet back from the front property line (southernmost property line
near Hwy 74) is a utility easement and a 30 feet existing power line easement.
If
a monument style freestanding sign is chosen, the type that is supported by one
(1) or more upright supports is recommended as opposed to the entire bottom of
the sign being affixed to the ground. Work
done in the easement area may be cause for temporary sign removal.
Thus making the sign with upright supports more practical in regards to
temporary sign removal.
*Discussion
with Washington Water regarding signs within utility easements indicated
that permanent structures within easements are always susceptible to being
removed (i.e. fair-game) if work dictates.
If one decides to take that risk it is recommended that it be a minimum
distance of eight (8) to ten (10) feet from the water lines.
This is a condition if a monument style sign is chosen.
*Discussion with Ozark Electric
regarding monument signs indicates construction of signs within in utility
easements is at your on risk. Existing
power lines have an existing 30’ utility easement.
Any signage that is installed in electric easement will have to be
approved by Ozark Electric. There
are height requirements on signs near electric lines (NESC). Discussion with
Ozark Electric regarding signs in utility easements indicated there must be
a minimum horizontal distance of fifteen (15) feet between the edge of the sign
and any nearby lines or power poles. There
must be a vertical distance of fifteen (15) feet between lines and edge of the
sign. This is a condition of approval.
Sign illumination.
Any
illumination of the sign should not be flashing / fluctuating.
If direct illumination is used it is restricted to light bulbs rated at
150 watts or less. Indirect
illumination is preferred. Sign
should meet state electric code.
Sign placement and display
should not interfere with auto safety.
No sign should be erected at a location or in a manner where they would
create a traffic hazard. (i.e. block visibility of automobiles at the points of
ingress/egress)
Prohibited signage.
The
following signage is prohibited: roof
signs, signs affixed to trees and revolving, rotating or moving signs.
Maintenance of sign and
premises surrounding signs. The
sign shall be maintained so that it is remains structurally sound, does not
create a visual blight or eyesore and the area surrounding the sign is kept free
of rubbish and weeds.
Sign removal.
In the event the business ceases operation for a period of time in of 60
days. The sign property owner shall
remove any sign identifying or advertising said business or any product sold
within 30 days.
*Please
note, ABC regulates the hours beers and malt beverages are available for sale.
Following are hours available for the sale of beer and malt beverages
under the permit obtained:
Monday
through Friday 7a.m. to close
Saturday 7 a.m. to 12 midnight
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Septic
A
septic permit for the use has been approved by the Health Department. See page
D-47 through D-49 for permit approved. The Health Department has received all updated information to
date (i.e. new floor plan submitted 04.21.2009) and the permit issued remains
valid. The applicants have given
the number of fifty (50) cars per day as traffic for the business.
This is a number that is referenced on the approved septic plans.
If the number of car trips and bathroom users exceeds this number causing
a failed system the Health Department and Designated Representative must be
contacted and proper revisions will need to be made.
The conditional use permit has been presented as a business where a
consumer makes purchases and leaves; not a dine-in site.
The applicant states that there will be no seating or reason for people
to loiter on the premises. A
properly designed septic to accommodate commercial use is a concern that was
voiced by an adjacent property owner.
Parking & ADA Accessibility
Staff
has come to the determination that the number of spaces shown on the plan is
acceptable. This determination is
based on couple of things. It is
based on the square footage of the proposed building in combination with staff
research on how municipalities within Washington County assess parking needs.
The determination is also based on the applicant’s addressment of the
issue of adequate parking spaces for the CUP request given on 12.16.09 via email
(See- D31 for applicant addressment of the issue in it’s entirety).
“…number
of parking spaces. 10 should be
adequate since we are not offering any reason for people to loiter; no seating,
no games, no hot deli”
Staff
is recommending that one (1) parking stall is to be in compliance with American
Disability Act as shown on the current plan.
Please note, wheel-chair access to the building and within the building
should be maintained. All access
points should be ramped 10:1 so that a wheel chair is not impeded.
A written statement is needed from the applicant stating that the
proposed commercial CUP will be built to ADA compliance.
INFRASTRUCTURE: Water
–Washington Water Authority services the area.
Other
Utilities - The lot is in the service area of Ozark Electric and CenturyTel
Telephone.
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 Conditional Use Permit is
located in the south part of the County. Before
I get started I would like to make one correction in the Staff report (Attachment
A page D –45) and adjacent property owner comment should be corrected -
other concerns related to the beer sales, which have been withdrawn from the
submittal - the beer sales are included in this submittal this was from an old
Staff report that had not been updated so I just wanted to make that point
clear.”
Pettit
commented, “This Conditional Use Permit approval for Smith & Barker
Backwoods Beer and Goods the proposed land use is retail grocery and beer store
on one acre. The store will be
offering the following goods and services: groceries, cold deli, access to an
ATM, faxing / copying, and beer and malt beverages to be consumed off-site. There will be no seating.
The business is geared towards purchasing goods to be consumed off-site.
There has also been a change in proposed store hours since your Staff
report it was 6:00am – 12:00pm and 24 hours if need be in emergency
situations. They would like to
change that to 5:00am.” Daugherty asked, “It will be going from 5:00 to 12:00, is
that correct?” Pettit replied,
“That is correct.”
Pettit
added, “Following are some details on the property requesting the Conditional
Use Permit: it is not located in a Planning Area.
Of course, it is located in a zoned area, agricultural/single-family
residential one unit per acre. This
shows the project site in the larger context (referencing slide on PowerPoint
presentation.) It is located just
west of City of Winslow right off 540 the Devil’s Den exit E. Devil’s Den
Road. The project site is located
right off scenic 540 and I’m talking about off-site signage along I-540 has
been deemed an off premise signing exclusion zone according to the Washington
County ordinance. This means that
all off premise signs visible from 540 designate a scenic corridor shall be
prohibited except as may be approved by pursuant of the Logo Sign program, and
those are those signs with the smaller signs within it letting you know
there’s something on this exit.”
Pettit
also added, “In regards to the Future Land Use Map this is another one of
those situations where the Land Use Map doesn’t go that far out into the
County and there’s no special flood hazard area on it so we refer to the
zoning map. In regards to the
existing Land Use the context surrounding the site is mostly residential and
rural undeveloped wooded parcels with the exception of one property to the north
of the site which there is a dirt pit in operation there.”
Pettit
stated, “We’ve been working with the applicants on this project going on 6
months so a lot of the issues have been addressed and a lot of the information
has been put on the site plan. The
property is located in regards to the alcohol part in Lee’s Creek a wet
township. Important issues that
have been addressed during this length of time that we’ve had the project are
septic, fire safety, parking, ADA accessibility, hours of operation, noise,
light pollution, vegetative buffers semi, dumpster screening, and other utility
issues.”
Pettit
commented, “The main one that has kind of stalled this project in the past is
alcohol. At this point in time they
have received their retail beer permit from the ABC (Alcoholic Beverage Control).
Previously, the Sheriff’s Department did have comments.
At this point all comments have been withdrawn so that is not an issue at
this point. The ABC has their own rules in place to govern the sale of
alcoholic beverages; that will govern this commercial development.”
Pettit
added, “In regards to neighbor comments and the sale of alcoholic beverages
this has been a concern we received two neighbor comments one in writing and one
just a conversation over the phone. The
sale of alcohol to underage children or persons who would furnish the beverages
to underage children, motorist driving under the influence, increased burden on
law enforcement, consumption of alcohol on neighboring properties and
debris/littering as a result have been concerns from adjacent property owners.
In addition to that the Camps, the neighbors to the east, they have a
nice residential set up there. One
property over to the east they were concerned about their basic quality of life
noise and peace and quiet that they have enjoyed over the years they could not
be here tonight. They did mention a
fence would be nice there’s not a fence on the east property boundary right
now and that’s not in Staff’s recommendations.”
Pettit
also added, “The main disagreement on this between what Staff recommends and
what the applicants would like is the signage.
The applicants would like a sign that is larger and directly lit then
what Staff recommends. I would like
to make that clear before I go over the Staff recommendations.
There are adequate utilities available.
They have received a septic permit from the Arkansas Health Department.
This is a State road; we did not receive any comments from the State
Highway Department. We are
requesting that we get a copy of the permit to put the culvert in.
We did contact Boston Mountain Fire Station they didn’t have any
comments. John Jenkins, Washington
County Fire Marshal, has addressed fire issues and those are carried over into
the comments. There are no
significant drainage issues. We have received a comment from the engineer regarding
drainage that there are no significant drainage issues.
In conclusion, project review research leaves Staff to reach the
following conclusion the Conditional Use with recommended conditions does not
appear to be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
surrounding area for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish
and impair property values within the surrounding area.”
1.
Any other land divisions,
commercial structures, or other types of uses not considered with this submittal
must come through a separate CUP or review process with the County.
2.
2.
SITE PLAN. Site plan must be
signed by engineer/ surveyor on the final copy. All information on the site plan is a binding for the
condition of the CUP.
(a)
“Driving and parking surface to be constructed to support 75,000 pounds
under all weather condition.”
(b)
“6 x 8” Dumpster with opaque fence surrounded with opaque gate”
(c)
parking plan shown with ADA. Parking stops should be place for parking
spots on the north side of the parking lot for safety reasons.
Please show these on the site plan.
(d)
noise generated from the site will be minimal as such of a grocery store
and will not be a nuisance of neighbors.
3.
VEGETATIVE SEMI-SCREEN/ BUFFERS (a)
Vegetative semi-screening on the east façade of the building (as per site
plan) must take place prior to operation. Install
height of specimens must be four (4) feet in height and must be spaced according
to site plan. Staff agrees with the
applicant’s proposal of Rose of Sharon (Hibiscus syriacus) specimen for this
location. (b) Existing
vegetation west of the parking area. They have existing trees in place and
those would be roped off during construction and then Staff is recommending that we be able to go out there post construction
and make a recommendation or requirement for supplemental plantings if need be,
but we are requesting that that be done post construction.
4.
SIGNAGE – ON SITE.
Monument
Style / Freestanding
Surface
area of sign. Surface area should
not exceed 32 square feet if indirectly illuminated and 24 square feet if
directly illuminated.
Height
& Setback of sign. Freestanding (monument
style) should not exceed 8 ft in height.
The
sign should be a minimum of ten (10) feet from the south property line, the east
property line, and the west property line.
The south property line is denoted on the survey as the right-of-way line
in addition to serving as the property line.
The sign location shown on the site plan needs to be moved five (5) feet
east so that the sign is ten (10) feet from adjacent property lines. *Utility
recommendations supersede general sign setback requirements.
*Note
twenty-five feet back from the front property line (southernmost property line
near Hwy 74) is a utility easement and a 30 feet existing power line easement.
If
a monument style freestanding sign is chosen, the type that is supported by one
(1) or more upright supports is recommended as opposed to the entire bottom of
the sign being affixed to the ground. Work
done in the easement area may be cause for temporary sign removal.
Thus making the sign with upright supports more practical in regards to
temporary sign removal.
*Discussion
with Washington Water regarding signs within utility easements indicated
that permanent structures within easements are always susceptible to being
removed (i.e. fair-game) if work dictates.
If one decides to take that risk it is recommended that it be a minimum
distance of eight (8) to ten (10) feet from the water lines.
This is a condition if a monument style sign is chosen.
*Discussion
with Ozark Electric regarding monument signs indicates construction of signs
within in utility easements is at your on risk. Existing power lines have an existing 30’ utility easement.
Any signage that is installed in electric easement will have to be
approved by Ozark Electric. There are height requirements on signs near electric lines (NESC).
Discussion with Ozark Electric regarding signs in utility easements indicated
there must be a minimum horizontal distance of fifteen (15) feet between the
edge of the sign and any nearby lines or power poles.
There must be a vertical distance of fifteen (15) feet between lines and
edge of the sign. This is a condition of approval.
Sign
illumination. Any illumination of the
sign should not be flashing / fluctuating.
If direct illumination is used it is restricted to light bulbs rated at
150 watts or less. Indirect
illumination is preferred. Sign
should meet state electric code.
Sign
placement and display should not interfere with auto safety. No sign should be erected
at a location or in a manner where they would create a traffic hazard. (i.e.
block visibility of automobiles at the points of ingress/egress)
Prohibited
signage. The following signage is
prohibited: roof signs, signs
affixed to trees and revolving, rotating or moving signs.
Maintenance
of sign and premises surrounding signs. The
sign shall be maintained so that it is remains structurally sound, does not
create a visual blight or eyesore and the area surrounding the sign is kept free
of rubbish and weeds.
Sign
removal. In the event the business
ceases operation for a period of time in of 60 days. The sign property owner shall remove any sign identifying or
advertising said business or any product sold within 30 days.
Condition
#4 Signage and this is the one that there was disagreement upon. Right now, they’ve decided to go with the 17’ pole sign
and they would like to have the 32 square foot that is directly illuminated and
Staff was recommending that it be a 24 square feet if directly illuminated.
So, that one is probably up for discussion.
This will be the only time that you see this if approved due to the
acreage size not exceeding one acre.
5.
PARKING. In the event
parking overflow takes place on a regular basis, the applicant/ owner will be
required to expand parking to accommodate. Staff is recommending that any
parking lot expansion plan would require staff’s approval.
If the parking expansion does not gain staff’s approval, the project
would need to come back through the Planning Process, whether it is a
Conditional Use Permit Request or Large Scale Development or both.
The Large Scale Development would come into play if the parking expansion
would not fit on the one-acre. In
that case applicant/ owner would need to secure adjacent property.
Commercial developments over an acre are classified as Large Scale
Developments by Washington County Planning definition.
6.
ADA / ACCESSIBILITY. An ADA
parking spot of sufficient size is now shown on the site plan.
Please note, wheel-chair access to building and within building must be
maintained. All access point should
be ramped 10:1 so that a wheel chair is not impeded.
A written statement is needed from the applicant/ owner stating that the
Commercial CUP will be ADA compliant.
7.
WATER / STATE PLUMBING.
Approval of new construction plumbing plans from Little Rock and food
service plan must take place prior to construction.
Planning staff will need to be provided with see a copy off the approved
paper work prior to operation. The
applicants have been holding off on this step and are seeking CUP approval
first.
8.
SECURITY LIGHT.
The security light will need to be shielded in a manner that will not be
a nuisance to neighbors or a hazard to passing motorist.
9.
FIRE- SAFETY.
Lighted exit signs are needed at all points of ingress egress to the
building. Fire extinguishers are
required. The applicants should
contact the fire extinguisher company to determine sizing and placement for the
fire extinguishers.
10.
SEPTIC. In the event the
septic system fails the Health Department and the Designated Representative must
be contacted and proper revisions will need to be made. Planning staff must be provided updated information for their
files regarding any revisions. If additional septic area is required it must fit
on the CUP site or the project would need to come back through the Planning
Process, whether it is a Conditional Use Permit Request or Large Scale
Development or both.
Condition
#10 They have indicated that it is get your stuff and go.
The septic permit is based off the number of 50 cars a day and Staff felt
that it was important to acknowledge that if something does need to be fixed
then we need to know about it and if it doesn’t fit on the one acre proper
accommodations will need to be made.
11.
DRIVEWAY PERMIT FROM THE ARKANSAS HIGHWAY TRANSPORATION DEPARTMENT.
Provide Planning a copy of the driveway permit verifying the proposed
18” CMP within 30 days of CUP approval.
12.
HOURS OF OPERATION. Store
hours are 5 a.m. -12 midnight and 24 hours if need be in emergency situations
(i.e. search and rescue).
*Please
note, ABC regulates the hours beers and malt beverages are available for sale.
Following are hours available for the sale of beer and malt beverages
under the permit obtained:
Monday through Friday 7a.m. to close
Saturday 7 a.m. to 12 midnight
THE
BUSINESS WILL BE GEARED TOWARD PURCHASING GOODS TO BE CONSUMED OFF SITE; THERE
WILL BE NO DINE IN SEATING PROVIDED.
Condition
#12 Hours of operation this is the one that was updated from 6:00am – 12:00pm,
but it is now 5:00am instead of 6:00am.”
Daugherty
asked, “Staff is okay with 5:00am – 12:00pm?” Pettit replied, “Staff is
okay with that.” Daugherty asked,
“The 17’ (sign) in height you’re okay with that?”
Pettit replied, “This was a really difficult one for Staff because
there are residences in the area and it is zoned agricultural/single-family
right now, yet at the same time it is on a main traffic corridor and yes Staff
is in support of that. It is a
difficult one though.”
Hummel
asked, “Washington Water Authority sign off on it to get water through the
driveway? I thought that they
hadn’t really signed off on it yet. Do
they have to?” Pettit replied,
“In regards to Washington Water Authority there’s water availability at this
location there’s 3” waterline and an 8” waterline running along the south
border of this site along Highway 74. Due
west of the project site the 8” line will hook into a smaller line at the
intersection of Winn Creek Road (WC #228) and Highway 74.
Discussion between Washington Water and the applicants have begun
regarding the possible cost share of tying into bigger waterlines.
Nothing conclusive was decided. Washington
Water needs a portion of the drive that goes over the waterline to be thicker
than 6” as stated on the plat and they have updated their plat to reflect
that. They have had discussion regarding that, but in terms of cost
share nothing conclusive was decided, but the fire flows John Jenkins is okay
with the fire flows with NFPA 1142 rural fire fighting will also apply based on
the fire flow. Staff did prefer
lower profile sign a monument or something attached to the building, but in our
original signage recommendation we did include the pole sign and that’s what
they decided they wanted to go with, but I would like to say that Staff does
prefer a lower profile sign.”
Haley
asked, “Hours of operation and 24 hours if need be in an emergency situations,
what would deem an emergency situation?”
Pettit replied, “That was based off of their original letter of
request. They want to make their
site available in terms of Search and Rescue you’re close to Devil’s Den and
things of that nature; that’s what deem an emergency situation.” Gallagher asked, “How far away from the intersection of
Winn
Creek Road (WC #228) and E. Devil’s Den Road, do you have any idea?”
Pettit replied, “I don’t have in regards to feet from where you exit,
but there’s only a few properties between where you get off and this one
starts.” Gallagher asked, “The other direction the hydrant is at Winn Creek
Road (WC #228) is what I read, is that correct?”
Pettit replied, “Right.” Jenkins
stated, “It seems like it was 500’ or less.”
Gore commented, “400’ or 500’.”
Jenkins stated, “Yes sir, it was 500’ or less that was the
consideration for not moving it.” Gallagher
asked, “Is this Stickler or Boston Mountain?” Jenkins replied, “Boston
Mountain and Stickler combination. Boston
Mountain would be the first Fire Department.”
Pettit
commented, “Courtney just pointed out that it is midnight not noon on the
hours of operation. I mislabeled
that.” Daugherty asked, “It is
5:00am to midnight?” Pettit
replied, “Correct.”
Gore
stated, “I am the engineer. The
owners have changed their mind on the sign they want to accept what the Planning
Office is recommending.” Daugherty
asked, “When you say accept 24 square feet, is that what you’re saying?”
Gore asked, “32 it’s 4 x 8, isn’t that right?” Pettit asked,
“Would that be the directly lit?” Gore
replied, “Yes, we agreed to that, too.”
Pettit asked, “The 24 square feet?”
Gore asked, “I thought it was 4 x 8?”
Pettit replied, “That is what they’re proposing for the directly
lit.” Gore commented, “We
agreed to the not directly (lit).” Pettit
asked, “Go with the larger size?” Gore
replied, “Yes, the 4 x 8.” Gallagher
asked, “When you say directly lit you’re talking about externally
illuminated?” Pettit replied,
“Right, directly lit the light being within; indirectly lit you have the sign
and you might have some lights shining on the sign to illuminate.”
Gallagher asked, “What we’re going to have is external illumination
on the sign not internally illuminated signs?”
Pettit replied, “Correct and they get the larger square footage with
that.” Haley asked, “That’s
still on a pole sign, originally preferred.”
Pettit replied, “That was in my original recommendation, but I
preferred the lower profile signs, but it was on the table for my
recommendation.” Gallagher
asked, “What’s the top height of that sign?”
Pettit replied, “17’.” Haley
asked, “Will that be visible at all on 540?” Pettit replied, “It is
probably visible if you’re going north, but not if you’re going south.
It is the way that the topography works.”
Gore
stated, “Washington Water Authority has signed off and they are going to give
us a tap; they’ve guaranteed that. We
went over that with Mr. Jenkins.” Hummel
asked, “Is it going to be big enough for fire flow?”
Jenkins replied, “We’re still within our 500’ to the hydrant at
Winn Creek Road (WC #228)
on the 8” line.” Gore
commented, “Of course on the 5:00 am to midnight the grocery store part is
going to open at 5:00am, but the Alcohol Beverage Control said that they can’t
start selling beer until 7:00am until midnight.
They want to open at 5:00am to catch the people going to work early in
the morning. The only grocery store
they had around there was in Winslow and it burned in 2002. That would be the
only store around. We’ve agreed
with all the other conditions.”
Walker
asked, “Will it fly if they can’t sell beer?”
Gore replied, “They’d rather sell beer.
They have their beer license already.”
Walker stated, “There’s been more people killed with drunk drivers
then there have been with chicken litter that’s kind of where I’m going to
be voting.”
Gallagher
asked, “Did I understand you correctly it is going to be a gravel lot?”
Gore replied, “No, it is going to be concrete 6” of base and then
6” of concrete over that. It is
going to be built better than a street.” Richey asked, “George, do you want
to address alcohol?” Butler replied, “ABC preempts us on issues of sale of
alcohol and so we can’t deny them the right to sell alcohol.
That decision had been made by ABC.
The statute says that they may take local ordinances into consideration
and they were aware of our zoning ordinance and they allowed it any way.
This came about the same time where they decided to let two convenience
stores in Fayetteville sell beer on 6th Street for the first time,
even though, they’re not actually necessarily in the right zone as far as sale
is concerned. ABC does as a State
agency has preempted virtually all regulations there are some minor things.
We can do like we have an ordinance on the book about Private Clubs when
they can open and how late they can stay open.”
Daugherty asked, “Basically, we don’t control whether they can sell
it or not?” Hummel replied, “We
can control it on where the Conditional Use Permit is granted.”
Butler commented, “We can’t attach a condition to a decision you
can’t sell beer because we’re preempted by State law from doing that.
ABC has total control over that.”
Daugherty asked, “Should we use that as a reason to vote against it,
then?” Butler replied, “You can’t. You
can vote against it for whatever reason you want to I guess, but if you voted
against it because it’s selling beer and it fails because of that, of course
you all realize that this can go to the Quorum Court and then on to Circuit
Court.” Walker stated, “It will be off my shoulders when somebody buys beer
there and goes out and kills somebody’s kid.”
Haley
asked, “The sign that is at the storage unit on the east side of 540 towards
Greenland exit, how big is that sign and how tall is that sign?”
Richey replied, “I would say that it is probably taller than 17’.
I’m not sure what the face of that sign is.”
Haley asked, “That is the type of sign that this proposal is…?”
Richey replied, “That one is directly illuminated, so it’s
illuminated from within so it kind of glows and this one would be a pole type
sign where it would be it would stand up like that on a pole, but it’s not
going to be as tall as that. It
would be indirectly illuminated, which means you’d have to shine a light on
it, which usually makes them less intrusive than if you have the ones that are
directly illuminated from within.” Haley
commented, “My thought process if this is not going to be seen from 540 and I
think mainly it would be drawing from more local clientele.
I don’t see that that type of a sign is really necessary, so I am
really leaning towards the Staff’s original recommendation of the lower
profile sign. I don’t really see
any justification for a larger brighter sign.”
Daugherty asked, “How do you feel about that if we went with a lower
profile?” Pettit replied,
“Staff would prefer that, but the applicants desire to have the pole sign.” Daugherty asked, “Something you would prefer though?”
Pettit replied, “I would prefer a lower profile sign, yes.”
Richey asked, “Would you be recommending like a monument type sign?”
Haley replied, “That’s what I have in mind just something built up on
a stand.” Richey stated, “I
don’t know if we have a minimum height on monument signs that you originally
recommended. The sign’s face
would be the same.” Pettit
commented, “I do (have a maximum height for monument signs) if you go to page
D-33 (Attachment B page D –33) of your Staff report.
If you’re looking at the monument signs the surface area should not
exceed 32 square feet indirectly illuminated.
24 square feet if directly illuminated.
The height is 8’.” Daugherty stated, “I think that’s the one that I would
prefer, too, if I were voting for one.” Pettit
asked, “You would prefer Item I on page D-33 of your Staff report monument
style and all the kind of specifications listed below that?”
Haley replied, “That is correct.”
Kenley
Haley moved to approve Smith
& Barker Backwoods
Beer and Goods
Conditional Use Permit with
the exception to the condition of the low profile sign indirectly illuminated
monument style sign. James Gallagher seconded.
Motion passes.
Larry
Walker voted against Smith
& Barker
Conditional Use Permit.
County
e. Rogers Group Quarry Expansion CUP (Conditional
Use Permit Request)
Location:
Sections 4 & 9, Township 16 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer:
Owners- J & A Mining, John David Lindsey Development, Mark Rich, Developer-
Rogers Group; Terry Sossong
Location
Address: Hamstring Road (WC #842)
150
acres / Proposed Land Use: Limestone Quarrying
Project #:
2009-035 Planner: Juliet Richey, e-mail at jrichey@co.washington.ar.us
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit Approval for Rogers Group
Quarry Expansion CUP.
The total acreage of the proposed development is 150 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 and District 11 JP Mary Ann Spears
BACKGROUND/
PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
The
property is owned by J & A Mining, John David Lindsey Development, and Mark
Rich. The Developer is Rogers Group
– Terry Sossong. The property is
located on Hamstring Road (WC #842) and Riches Road (WC #841).
No access will be taken off of Riches Road.
All hauling will access through the current “Stephen’s Red Dirt
Farm” entrance onto Hamstring Road.
Currently
there is an approximately 45-acre piece of land that is a grandfathered quarry
onsite. This site is leased to the
Rogers Group, who operates a quarry within this area. The Rogers Group has requested to expand their operations to
an additional 101.2 acres adjacent to this grandfathered quarry site.
They wish to mine limestone in this expansion area (much of which has
been or is currently being mined for red dirt) as the red dirt plays out in the
future. They anticipate the rock to
be approximately 170’ in depth in this area.
Please see the attached letter of request (pgs
E11- E17) in addition to the packet of information submitted by Roger’s
Group (pgs E-43) for more details regarding this request.
As
with the Big Red Dirt Farm CUP that you heard last fall, Staff has found that
when transitioning from the use of red dirt excavation to limestone quarrying
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 Austin Powder, a blasting company with offices in
several states- including Arkansas, will be conducting the blasting for this
pit. Austin Powder does blasting
for all of Rogers Group- including the existing grandfathered quarry onsite and
the Roger’s Group Lowell quarry.
No
explosives are kept onsite, and blasting is completed on an as-needed basis, at
the grandfathered quarry site. The frequency of blasting is anticipated to be
once or sometimes twice per week.
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 south of this site (Big Red dirt Farm LLC),
currently conducts blasting of pinnacles within their pit and has received a CUP
from Washington County to transition to the use of a quarry (although this
decision is currently under litigation).
Blasting
is monitored by the Arkansas Department of Labor and MSHA.
Records of each blast are required to be kept for a minimum of three
years. The State has set maximum
vibration levels to protect surrounding home owners, wells, and springs.
Blasting
is typically measured in PPV (Peak Particle Velocity).
This measures the vibration rate within the ground.
A seismograph can measure this. The
state maximum PPV level is 1.0 inches per second.
Rogers Group has indicated that their blasts typically average 0.5 inches
per second or less.
The
Rogers group has submitted several information documents detailing blasting in
general, and their specific intentions for blasting on this site. Pleas see pgs E-11 and E-43.
In
summary- I feel that although blasting is a concern, 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 Big Red Dirt Farm red dirt operation and possible Quarry to the
South, and there is already blasting at the 45 acre grandfathered quarry onsite.
I
do not think that eliminating blasting on the proposed quarry expansion CUP site
will make an overwhelming difference to the area, as there is already a
considerable amount of blasting in the area.
The
applicant has restricted themselves to blasting times to between 9:00 am- 5:00
pm, Monday- Friday. Staff agrees
with this limitation, and will include it as a condition.
Crusher:
noise, dust suppression
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.
ADEQ
requires an air permit to run a crusher onsite, and limits the amount of dust
put off by quarry operations. Rogers
Group has an ADEQ Air Permit in place for the Crusher onsite.
This Crusher (or one similar to it) will be used to crush rock in the
expansion area, as well. See ADEQ permit information page E-33.
Staff
is comfortable with ADEQ’s regulation of Air Quality in regards to the
crusher. Staff will also require a
general dust suppression plan for the entire site as part of the Large Scale
Development Plan process (Site Plan review process required prior to expanded
operation if this CUP is approved).
Reclamation
Like
the Big Red Dirt Farm’s Quarry plan. Roger’s
Group plans to reclaim much of the Quarry site as a lake. They have submitted a
quarry plan to staff, see pg E-17
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.
Although
the applicant has submitted a reclamation plan to this office, we are awaiting
some clarification of certain factors on the map, elevations, etc.
Staff anticipates that conditions similar to those recommended for the
adjacent Big Red Dirt Farm CUP, as outlined below, however, we may have updates
for you at the May 7th meeting based on new information received from
Roger’s Group prior to that time.
Tentatively
proposed condition: 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. This should be completed similar to ADEQ Regulation 15.308
(A)(4)(a). Also-If a lake is to be left as part of the reclamation plan,
provisions must be made by the operator to assure that a pH factor of six (6) to
nine (9) is maintained unless otherwise authorized by ADEQ.
Other
Important Issues:
Traffic-
As
mentioned previously, all access will be taken off of Hamstring Road- only,
utilizing the current entrance to Stephen’s Red Dirt Farm/ Roger’s Group
grandfathered quarry.
An
official traffic Study will be required at the Preliminary Large Scale
Development level if this CUP is approved.
However, staff has had preliminary discussions with the applicant
regarding truck traffic at this site. Please
see the flowing excerpts from email conversations with Roger’s Group’s Terry
Sossong:
(Juliet Richey) I
will need information on the traffic count/impact that the quarry and all
proposed expansions will have on Hamstring Road.
(Terry
Sossong) The average
traffic volume expected is 50 to 100 trucks per day. We are currently
running less than that but should grow to that as business in this area
recovers. As far as impact on Hamstring road, it will be normal wear and
tear. I assume as part of this process that repair costs to Hamstring as
they are needed will be split between Big Red Dirt Farm, Stephens Red Dirt Pit
and Rogers Group. The paved road appears to be holding up well from its
paving/widening several years ago.
(Juliet
Richey) Is this number an increase
from what has run from Stephens historically? I understand you are
saying it is more than right now, however, I imagine it is slower now than it
has been in the past.
(Terry
Sossong) The
trucking at Stephens peaked at 700 to 750 trucks per day, and several years ago.
We are currently doing approximately what the existing mining operation did,
which is 50 to 100 trucks average per day.
The
County Road Department generally agrees with the cost splitting stated above-
unless issues can be directly attributable to a certain entity.
Staff
anticipates placing a condition similar to that placed on the Big Red Dirt Farm
CUP as follows: 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.
Setbacks
The
applicant has offered a combination of 100’ and 200’ setbacks on various
property lines.
Staff
anticipates requiring a minimum of 150’ setbacks from the property lines of
all adjoining property owners. Exceptions may include the property of Mark Rich,
as a portion of his land will be leased to Roger’s Group as part of this
project.
Staff
is still working with the applicant to pinpoint the exact boundaries of proposed
excavation. Since some of the
boundaries of the project are well within the property lines of property owned
by JA Mining, and Lindsey Development, the project may already be far enough off
of some property lines as it is.
Staff
will update you on this at the May 7th meeting.
Neighbor
comments and proximity
As
you will see from the lengthy document attached- there have been numerous
comments on this project. Staff has
noticed that many comments appear to have come from areas outside of the ½ mile
notification area. While staff
feels that all comments should be considered, staff would like to map out the
proximity of comments received from the proposed expansion area. Due to the numerous comments received- this is not a map that
Staff will have completed until the Meeting on Thursday.
At that time staff will present you information on this at that time.
Please
see maps on pgs
E20- E24 that Staff has created to show you the proximity of area structures
to this proposed CUP.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is
still working on additional research for this project regarding:
Blasting and University land,
Springs and wells in the area,
Setbacks and buffers,
Reclamation details- including elevations after red dirt is
excavated.
However,
below are some conditions that we are currently considering:
1.
Limit the times of blasting to 9:00 am- 5:00 pm, Monday- Friday; and rock
crushing to between 7:00 am- 6:00 pm, Monday- Friday.
2. Setbacks, fencing, berming and buffers
3. 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. This should be completed similar to ADEQ Regulation 15.308
(A)(4)(a). Also-If a lake is to be left as part of the reclamation plan,
provisions must be made by the operator to assure that a pH factor of six (6) to
nine (9) is maintained unless otherwise authorized by ADEQ.
4. 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.
5.
All ADEQ permits or Notices of Intent (NOI) must be in place and approved prior
to operation
6.
Any future structures must be approved by the Fire Marshal prior to construction
and must meet the Arkansas State Fire Code.
7.The
County Fire Marshal should be consulted prior to blasting during an official
burn ban.
8.
All conditions must be adhered to or in place prior to Final Large Scale
Development approval.
INFRASTRUCTURE: Water –Washington Water Authority.
Other
Utilities - The lot is in the service area of Ozark Electric, AT &T
Telephone, Arkansas Western Gas, and Cox Communications.
J
& A Mining, John David Lindsey Development, and Mark Rich, owners of the
proposed project, Terry Sossong, Rogers Group, and Matt Pilz, Vibra-tech , were
present to answer any questions.
Juliet
Richey, Washington County Planning Director, stated, “I wanted to kind of make
a statement because of some things that were talked about earlier and usually
get brought up at hearings like this. Lots
of people say that we are compromising our ordinance by allowing Conditional
Uses. I wanted to explain the way
that our ordinance is set up, basically, when we zoned the County what we said
is that there can be areas where we feel like residential at certain densities
and agricultural is allowed by right, which means that we don’t feel like you
have to ask any permission to do that, that is what is allowed to you by right,
but also we said all other uses that are not, you know, these agricultural and
single-family residential uses that we’ve laid out, should go through a
Conditional Use Permit process to see whether or not they should be allowed.
And if so, what conditions they can be allowed with.
I just wanted to make that distinction.
It is not an exception; it is not a variance.
Conditional Use Permits are the way that our ordinance was set up to
work. That doesn’t necessarily
mean that every use can be compatible or not; I just wanted to make that
distinction to you all so that you understand that.”
Richey
commented, “This is located in the western part of the County just outside the
City of Fayetteville. Many of you
are familiar with this area. It is
directly north of the Big Red Dirt Farm that you all heard a few months ago. You can see that it is not in either the City of Farmington
or the City of Fayetteville’s Planning Area and it is in a zoned area.
The site looks bigger on this map. This
has to do with all the property lines of any parcel it is touching.
In a moment you will see that the actual proposed area to be mined area
is going to be smaller than this site because they’re not using entire parcels
of property. They’re leasing or
purchasing smaller pieces within property lines.
The way that it has been presented is 101.2 acres is their expansion
area. We got some corrected acreage
today that is actually 98.31 (acres) and the information that I was waiting on
when I originally sent out the Staff report was some exact locations of the
exterior, basically, perimeter of the mining area and we did get those today.
I haven’t had time to look at all of them.
Basically, because they’re not going all the way to the property lines
in some instances I need to know exactly where the mining was going to be and
where it is not proposed to be so that I could propose setbacks from other
people’s homes and property lines.”
Walker
asked, “Can you overlay that (picture) with the other one?”
Richey asked, “Because it’s darker?
Are you having trouble reading it?”
Walker asked, “Put that inside the property bound the first one you
showed? You can’t overlay that
can you?” Richey replied, “No,
I can kind of show you. The first
one here is the exterior property boundaries.
Does that make sense?” Daugherty
and Walker replied, “Yes.”
Richey
added, “The property is owned by several individuals; it is owned by J & A
Mining, John David Lindsey Development, and Mark Rich.
The developer is Rogers Group and the gentleman that we’ve been talking
with is Terry Sossong, which is a vice president of Rogers Group.
The property is located on
Hamstring
Road
(WC
#842) it also has frontage on Riches Road (WC #841) through Mark Rich’s
property, but there will be no access
taken off of that road. They are
proposing to only take access through the current entrance onto Hamstring
Road. To further clarify this: if
you’re driving down Hamstring Road you’d pass Big Red Dirt Farm and then you
would see a sign that said ‘Stephens Red Dirt Farm’ and that’s where it would be. Basically,
Rogers Group has an existing quarry that is approximately 45 acres that was
grandfathered in prior to zoning. Stephens Red Dirt operates the remainder of this out here and
what they’re looking to do is to expand into this area that is being mined for
red dirt. As this red dirt plays
out, they want to expand rock quarrying into that area. Most of this area that they’re wanting to quarry in the
future, with the exception of this area, has been or is currently being mined
for red dirt. This parcel (to the
west) belongs to John David Lindsey, who is one of the operators of Stephens Red
Dirt, however, the gentlemen (Dr. Clayton) that sold it to Mr. Lindsey still
lives in this home and he will until he passes on; that’s what I understand.
They anticipate the rock to be approximately 170’ in depth in this
area. You saw a letter of request from Rogers Group in your packet.
As with the Big Red Dirt Farm Conditional Use Permit that you heard last
fall, Staff found that when transitioning from the use of red dirt excavation to
limestone quarrying that the primary differences between dirt pits and quarries
are as follows: blasting of rock, crushing of rock material, and differences in
the reclamation requirements by the Arkansas Department of Environmental
Quality.”
Richey
also added, “I don’t know what is making that noise (over the microphones.)
If I knew how to fix it I would. I
wanted to show you the approximate distance of structures in the area; this is
also in your packet. The closest
home that appears to be not owned by someone involved in this business or the
applicant is a home on Hamstring
Road that is about 320’ away owned
by Mr. Scott and then there’s another home right next to it that’s about
360’ away I guess right now it is currently owned by Wells Fargo Bank.
There are a couple of other homes that are within about 600’.
I think the 400’ is the next closest and then everything else is about
600’ or in the thousands. Hamstring Road goes around
the northern part and then you have houses that back up onto it.
This is a large elevation change I think it is probably 100’ - 150’
where this wooded part starts it goes up the hill or the mountain - whatever you
want to refer to it as.”
Richey stated, “The differences that we talked about were
the blasting, the crushing, and the reclamation.
The applicants have indicated that Austin Powder, which is a blasting
company with offices in several states including Arkansas, will be conducting
blasting for the pit. Austin Powder does blasting for all the Rogers Group
including the existing grandfathered quarry on-site and the Rogers Group Lowell
quarry. No explosives are kept
on-site and blasting is completed on an as needed basis at the grandfathered
quarry site. The frequency of
blasting is anticipated to be once or sometimes twice a week. There is some blasting in red dirt operations as we’ve
discussed in the past to take down pillars of rock that are exposed while mining
red dirt, however, this blasting is not comparable in longevity to a quarrying
operation. The existing red dirt
pit directly to the south of this site currently conducts blasting of pinnacles
within their pit and has received a Conditional Use Permit from the County to
transition to the use of a quarry, although, as you probably know this decision
is currently in litigation. Blasting
is monitored by the Arkansas Department of Labor and MSHA.
Records of each blast are required to be kept for a minimum of three
years. The State has a maximum on
vibration levels to protect surrounding homeowners’ wells and springs.
Blasting is typically measured at a peak particle velocity and this
measures the vibration rate within the ground.
The seismograph can also measure this.
The State maximum PPV level is one inch per second.
Rogers Group has indicated that their blast typically average .5 inches
per second or less. The Rogers
Group has submitted several informational documents detailing blasting in
general and their specific intentions for blasting on-site; those where included
in your packet. They are also here
tonight with their blasting company. I
think they want to talk to you some more and give you more information about
that. There are State regulations
in place to limit the intensity of blasting and there will also be blasting in
the immediate area due to the close proximity of the Big Red Dirt Farm operation
and possible quarry to the south and there’s also already blasting on the 45
acre grandfathered quarry on-site. So,
like we talked about previously as well, basically, eliminating blasting in this
area is not going to in the expansion area wouldn’t eliminate blasting in that
entire region, but because this expansion area is something that they’re
looking at for expansion over time then it could effect the longevity possibly
of blasting in the area, however, if the Big Red Dirt Farm keeps their quarry
permit then the longevity will probably be even more on that site than proposed
on this one.”
Richey
commented, “I really don’t know what to do about that noise (over the
microphones). The applicant has
restricted themselves to blasting times at between 9:00am – 5:00pm, Monday –
Friday. Staff agrees with this
limitation and will include it as a condition.
I do want to say that I did go out and witness a blast this week. They blasted on Tuesday.
I parked just on the side of the road of the residential drive with my
windows rolled down in my car. I
think that it is something that if we can work it out, I think it would be good
for maybe you all to witness a blast as well.
I’ve talked with Rogers Group about that. It was not what I was expecting.
You can definitely feel it and you definitely know when it happens and
there is a noise and there is a vibration.
The day that I was there it was very short and the noise was not very
loud. I also asked them to submit
me, basically, seismograph readings that state how that blast compares with
other blasts that they’ve done in the area and see what their average blasting
is. I think that would be a good
idea for when we go look at a blast for you all as well. I don’t know if something that we would want to get into is
looking at limiting like the peak particle of velocity of blast or anything like
that. It was a good experience and
I’m not going to say it’s not like nothing happens, but it was not like an
explosion that you would see on television or anything like that and I don’t
know if you all know anything about blasting, but I’m just trying to convey it
to you, and it is hard to convey, but I do think that you should go see it or
hear one.”
Richey
added, “I’m not ready to make a recommendation tonight because there are a
few more things that I want to look into, although, they did get me additional
information - I still want some time to study it and I’ve asked them to also
revise some other maps. I think it
would be a good idea for you all to go out to the site and see this site as
well. I have some pictures, but I
think it is hard to get a feel for this site unlike the Big Red Dirt Farm, which
you could pretty much see the whole thing from the street if you stood in Hamstring
Road. This is a pretty different situation you can’t even see it
from this part of Hamstring Road where the entrance is and when
you pull in you will be able to see the part that is the grandfathered quarry operation and understand what that looks like and
then also understand the area of how they are going to progress out from there
as they do their quarrying. I guess
what I have to say about the blast is yes you can definitely tell something
happens, but I do not feel that it is catastrophic as maybe sometimes is
expressed, but I think it is something that you all should look at for
yourselves and I’m trying to speak delicately and it’s hard because it is
hard to quantify something like that and that’s why I think that we should try
to set up a time in the upcoming week that you can go out and witness one.”
Richey
also added, “The other items the crusher, noise and dust suppression, rock
will be crushed on-site at the quarry to create different types of rock.
A machine called a crusher performs this task. As a crusher will create some noise while in operation Staff
feels like that we should definitely place conditions on the site to limit the
times of the crusher operation right now we’re saying between 7:00am
– 6:00pm Monday –
Friday. ADEQ requires an air permit
to run the crusher on-site and that permit limits the amount of dust put off by
quarry operations. Rogers Group has
an ADEQ air permit in place for the crusher on-site.
This crusher is the one we use to crush rock in the expansion area as
well; basically, they have a whole moveable crusher and rock plant that they
move along as the quarrying progresses. Staff
is comfortable with ADEQ’s regulation on air quality in regards to crusher.
Staff will also require a general dust suppression plan for the entire
site as part of the Large Scale Development plan process and that is something
that we require on all dirt pits or quarry operations.”
Richey
stated, “I’m asking them to make some changes to the reclamation map to
clarify some things. What they’re
looking at is: after all of this is quarried out that this will become a lake
area and the sides would be re-vegetated (the part that was not mined out.) There are some different things that I want to see on this,
but that is the general idea. The
differences that we talked about between red dirt and quarry reclamation as far
as ADEQ rules, basically, you can make a lake when you have a quarry.
ADEQ does not require you to slope walls at all for a lake. We do want to
have the walls sloped and Rogers Group does as well.
They want to do it to be able to maintain plant and animal life within
the lake, as well as deal with health and safety issues, but, basically, you
would have to have a 3:1 slope an appropriate level above your average water
height for the lake and below and that would allow animals or people if they
fell in to get out. The other
things that we would look at are monitoring the PH of the lake that would have
to be monitored and also that everything else that was not in the lake would
have to be regarded and re-vegetated when it was reclaimed.”
Walker
asked, “How deep is it when it’s finished?”
Richey replied, “It’s about 135’.
Of course, that’s going to vary a little bit it gets shallower toward
the dam. I think it would go like a
100’ or maybe like 90’ towards where the dam is.
That’s one of the things that I’ve asked them to clarify is give me
an approximate elevations of all of that and how its going to tie in to existing
contours because something that we would definitely look at doing before we made
a recommendation would be to leave setbacks between the mining operation and
other people’s property lines that are adjacent to this and in those we would
want to know if they’re not going to mine these then we need to see how
they’re going to connect back to those undisturbed areas and some sort of
reasonable slope. That’s
something that we don’t know yet because we are still working on those
setbacks.”
Walker
asked, “We talking about a lake, but how many years down the road before it
will be a lake?” Richey replied,
“I think they’re saying about 30 years.”
Terry Sossong commented, “Between 20 to 30 years.”
Walker asked, “The bottom of the lake will still be limestone?”
Richey replied, “I assume. Traffic
issues. As I mentioned previously, all access would have to be taken
off of Hamstring Road
only. We will require an official
traffic study at Preliminary Large Scale Development if this is approved.
However, we have had Preliminary discussions with them regarding truck
traffic on this site and they expect their average traffic volume to be 50 to
100 trucks per day if they’re working full swing.
I asked them what that was in comparison to what Stephens has run out of
that same area in the past and they said that Stephens peaked at 700 to 750
trucks a day when we were in the middle of the building boom.
They’re anticipating 50 to 100 (trucks).
Basically, as far as the road goes we would recommend to place a
condition on it similar to what we did with the Big Red Dirt Farm, basically,
any damage or destruction to the public roads accessing this proposed use that
can be attributed to the user in question should be repaired or replaced at the
user’s expense as at such time there maybe deemed by the governing entity.
Basically, what that means is this portion of road that connects Hamstring Road to the City of Fayetteville part of this is inside the City of
Fayetteville, so we did get comments from them, and that is one comment that
they wanted us to include was that they would be able to require either of these
entities to repair this portion of road that is within the City.
Along this portion if it is just general wear and tear where it starts
falling apart, and it is not directly attributable to anyone would probably be a
situation much like the one that got it paved.
Where these two entities would go along with the County and have that
repaired. If there’s ever
something that is directly attributable to them, say like right in front of it
where they turn in, and if that starts having failures or falling apart, then it
is obvious because of truck traffic going into this road then that would be the
responsibility of Rogers Group and Stephens Red Dirt Farm.”
Richey
stated, “Setbacks is something else that we discussed with the applicant. They’ve offered a combination of 100’ and 200’ setbacks
on all property lines that do not belong to an applicant or an owner of this
project. We’re looking into that
I don’t know if we’ll be okay with 100’.
I was thinking of a minimum of 150’ and certainly 200’ in other areas
would be appropriate. I would have
to give you more updates on that as I get into looking at the GPS points that
they sent me today. I think we
talked about pretty much all the recommendations that we’re looking at so far.
Other issues that we would want to look into more is blasting and
University land. We’re in
discussions with the University to make sure that the blasting is not going to
effect a project site that they have. I think we’ve pretty much got that squared away and I will
get that communication to you all as soon as I get it finalized.
Springs and wells in the area: I am still doing more research on that.
What I found so far - I don’t believe that they will be impacted, but I
do want to do further research and I want to talk to a gentleman at the Well
Commission at the State. Setbacks
and buffers and reclamation details: I drew this up very quickly this red line
is based on the new GPS points that I got today these are going to be the
finalized boundaries of the project site as you can see they are a little bit
different and the yellow that we had before, basically, it squares off since
that one is a little bit closer this pulls it back a little more from the road.
Like I said I’ll give you more information on that.”
Richey
commented, “Here is a picture of the current quarry operation.
This is in the grandfathered area on-site. This would be standing kind of on the western part of that
grandfathered site and looking east. I
think it would be very important for you all to go out and visit this site, and
I hope that is something that we can discuss tonight what would be a good time
to do it if you all want to do it as a group, it would obviously need to be a
public meeting. We could have the
press there and I think it would be good if we discussed it tonight and that way
the neighboring property owners would know as well, and of course we would send
out a courtesy mailing of that date to all the property owners within one half
mile to also let them know about the finalized date and time. Also Rogers Group they would need to accommodate us coming on
site in a large group and so they would need to know what a good time would be.
To me you can’t understand visually what’s going on through pictures
and maps like we could with the other quarry.
A lot of this is because of the scale of this quarry and also the way
that it is situated in the landscape is completely different and the way that it
relates to the residences around it. Earlier,
I was talking about the crusher, and basically removable rock plant portion and
this is the part that moves around the site as they quarry.
Like right now they are doing blasting and so the further you get at some
point they’ll move their plant further, too.
I was trying to tell you all how you can’t really see anything from Hamstring
Road. If you keep going on Hamstring Road keep going north to where you kind of come around to the north side of the site you
can see the elevation difference. I
was standing on the road you look across the field and then there’s a hill
going up. All of this I think that
you need to see in person to understand it.
Right now, behind where those trees are is where there is red dirt
operation going on. That is the
part that they would be looking into expanding the quarry to.
What I am interested in doing is preserving everything that we have on
the buffers right now and then even back like say 200’or whatever is
appropriate so that this view would not change for those neighbors.
We have had quite a few comments on this, as you all know, because you
got a copy in the mail and I got you the additional ones that we’ve received
since then. Unlike a lot of
projects that we’ve had in the past we ended up with 131 comments and many of
those were from outside the one-half mile area, but I did want to go ahead and
mark on here for you all the pink areas are the people that we got letters from
within this area. All of these are
opposed with the exception of this one who was in favor.
So you can see I have 131 comments; many of them were from outside the
area and not to say that those should be discounted, but I feel like you all
should know and understand which property owners live adjacent or near to this.
I’m going to e-mail you all a copy of this so that you can know and
compare it with the comments that you have and I will actually just scan in
those comments to you so if you want to look at those differently then you
could.”
Gallagher
asked, “How many notices did you send out?”
Richey replied, “I was over 100 I want to say it was around 130
something.” Gallagher stated,
“You got about 100% back. They
weren’t the notices that you got back.”
Richey commented, “206 out, I’m sorry.
That’s actually all I have on my presentation to you all.
I don’t recommend that we move forward with it tonight and I do think
it would be wise if we could set up some times to go to this site and maybe
experience a blast. I do think that
it would be beneficial for us to get comments from both sides and see if there
are things that we haven’t looked at that we need to consider.”
Daugherty
stated, “I agree with Juliet. I
think that since the public is here that we ought to go ahead and listen to
their comments. They have made a
special trip here, and get some more facts that maybe we need to do some
research on so that we could be working on those before we reach a final
decision.”
Hummel
asked, “I agree with you 100% because I’m not ready by any means because
there is lots of question marks that I’ve got.
Do you think and I’ve been back in on the back of the old red dirt side
to listen to it. Do you think those
blasts are always the same? Aren’t
some of them louder than others?” Richey
replied, “I think that is true and that’s why I said that I think that the
blast that I monitored I requested and they are going to get me, basically, they
have a seismograph on-site and they keep records of them and I want to see how
that one compares to ones that have been in the past.
I know that some of them have been louder and stronger than others
because even back before we began these quarry reviews I know I got calls when
some were louder and stronger. I
can’t remember if that was this site or from Big Red, but I do think they
vary. There is a maximum cap that
the State has, but I guess maybe that’s what I was going to see if we want to
look at putting some sort of maximum cap on the power of the blast and that’s
something that we should consider and if you all go monitor a blast then I think
that we should get the rating on that and see how it compares to with their
average blast as well.”
Gallagher
asked, “More of a point of order. If
we’re going to have a public hearing tonight and listen to all of these people
that have come out here, which we ought to do, will we be able to continue the
public comment in the next meeting?” Richey
replied, “Yes, it will have to be a public hearing.”
Daugherty commented, “This will just give us more time to do research
and hear what concerns they have.” Gallagher
stated, “My concern was that if we have public comment tonight that we don’t
close the public hearing and preclude the public from responding to anything
that we learn in the next day, week, month, however, long it takes us to do
this.” Daugherty commented,
“We’re going to give them ample time to make comments whenever we do decide
to reach a decision.” Gallagher
stated, “That’s good because I’m sure there are people that are here
tonight who may not be able to make future meetings.”
Haley asked, “Do we have any of the like the dirt pit or quarry sites
in Washington County that have been reclaimed that we could also look at?”
Richey replied, “I don’t know. I
can find out.” Gallagher commented, “I am aware of a small one that is
west of this on Wedington right after you past Harmon or 85th Street
now.” Haley asked, “If we
don’t have anything of similar size in Washington County that’s been
reclaimed do we have something in any kind of sort of proximity?” Richey
replied, “I don’t know. I can
do that research and get back to you on that.”
Gallagher stated, “The one that I am thinking of, though, is really an
apples and oranges comparison it’s not even close.”
Haley commented, “Exactly, and that’s when you said that I thought we
would be best to…” Richey stated, “I don’t know of any large reclaimed
quarries in this area, but I’m going to find out and if nothing else I
can…” Gallagher commented, “Maybe our applicant can do some research on
his own and let us know where we can find something like it.” Daugherty
stated, “There might be a model out there somewhere that we could go by.”
Richey commented, “I know there are some San Antonio there are several
quarries that have been reclaimed and made into different developments.
I don’t know of any close to here.”
Terry
Sossong stated, “I am with the Rogers Group.
First I wanted to thank you for giving us the time to do this
presentation tonight. I personally
am the chairman of the Conway Planning Commission so I understand very well what
you are trying to accomplish here. I
am representing the Rogers Group in this request for the addition of limestone
reserves at the
Hamstring Road
location. I have a couple of other
people here to help me with this process; Van Medlock, who is also with Rogers
Group and is an Environmental Engineer, and then Matt Pilz with Vibra-tech, and
they do the monitoring - not the blasting, - but we have a third party
monitoring company that monitors what the blasting company does.
Rogers Group; we’re a company that conducts aggregate, and that’s
stone, it can be sandstone, limestone, those types of things and road
construction that is two primary businesses.
We’re 101 years old. We’ve
operated in Arkansas for the past 13 years.
A little bit of history, the Hamstring Road site currently has 45 acres, as she has mentioned, grandfathered for
limestone quarrying and we currently operate a quarry at this site. We’ve been
doing that for a year and a half. All
necessary permits were obtained as required for the site and all items have been
followed as agreed upon with Washington County. No issues with permit violations have occurred at the site
since it began operation and we’ve tried to comply.
We paved the road into that site, which has made a significant difference
on the amount of materials that are brought out onto Hamstring
Road from
the operations that occur there. The
County requires 250’ (from the R. O. W.) we’ve paved it over a quarter of a
mile, so we really think that that makes a difference.”
Sossong
commented, “We are requesting the approval of approximately 98 - 99 acres of
additional land to be zoned for future quarrying of limestone at this Hamstring
Road
quarry location. I want to stress
that the request is to add additional reserves to the existing operation this
isn’t to expand the mine or anything. This
is, basically, reserves, obviously are our primary product that we ultimately
sell and so we are attempting to add reserves for the longevity of the site.
The majority of the land requested to be added for mining, as Juliet has
already pointed out, has already been mined of red dirt or is in the process of
being mined of red dirt, so it lends itself very well to potential mining.
These are only to add reserves for the future.
The timing of this request; I know that this is probably strange because
you think that I came right here on the heels of the last contentious issue.
This is only because of trying to make sure that I had the proper land
secured before I came in front of this group and we wanted to make sure that we
had that in place. That is in place
that is why I am here tonight. The
search for this site or a site in Washington County that is suitable for
quarrying has been going on for the last three to four years and this site met a
large number of criteria and some of those things are pretty key as to why we
ended up there. The site is rurally
located you go on the site and I think you’ll see if you haven’t been on the
site that once you get up into it and we’re going to be going down, basically,
out of sight out of mind for the most part as far as you can’t tell the way
that other mines are positioned because that was done purposely.
We have an excellent buffer around the entire property to allow for that
to exist without being seen from afar. It
is very close to a State highway for ease of movement of goods to the market.
The highway, Wedington Highway 16, was recently widened to 5 lanes.
The amount of traffic that came from this site I’m sure was one of the
contributing factors as to the ultimate road count that the State did and
decided to widen that highway, so that gives a good safe way to get the goods
from the quarry to the market. The
market for the stone is very closely located.
As the cost of fuels go up significantly and the distances that this
bought product has to be trucked it is very important that we find sites that
are close to market to reduce the number of truck miles that are traveled.
The impact on the roads, ultimately and to get the goods to market as
quickly as possible. Activity on this site has been going on, mining activity, for
approximately 20 years. Just a kind
of background; limestone is a very basic construction component it is critical
to have adequate sources identified for the long term and areas to allow for
ongoing work to occur on homes, roads, schools, sidewalks, and etc.
All of these things are critical. The
other key issue with limestone is the cost of bulk transportation.
As I mentioned it is very expensive relative to the cost of the stone and
source and close to deposits to the market will be critical to ensure that we
have lower construction costs; particularly in light of rising fuel costs and
its impact on construction costs. You
may or may not realize how important limestone is to you.
You get up in the morning to you brush your teeth;
there’s limestone in the toothpaste, there’s limestone in plastic,
you use limestone to make steel, you use limestone to make roofing materials, it
is a very basic integral component in the life of every human being, everyday.
This quarry in particular is for the construction part of that; which is
to provide us with the roads, the houses, and all those things that we need to
have. Rogers Group has provided
this to the local market from this location to date.
We’ve done it safely and we’ve done it efficiently.
The company and its management are good partners and has been excellent
neighbors to the communities we operate our businesses in.
We have some adjacent neighbors to the quarry we operate in Lowell who
were going to be here tonight, but they both could not be due to training that
they are conducting so they have given me letters to forward to you.
Many of the issues to be discussed tonight we have had to address at
other sites that we operate at. We
use the latest technology in blasting and vibration control.
We have an exemplary company safety record with employee injuries.
We have no injuries with employees or others around or no issues around
our quarries having any health related issues from the mining of the stone.
The neighbors are concerned about how the mining impacts them and they
have every right to be. I think that is a big part of the issue is the lack of
understanding by the general public about the quarrying business and hence you
get nervous, which I would be, too. We’re
professional andethical in dealing with our neighbors and our intent is to
educate them about our business. The
issue of blasting and vibration is a key one and tonight I have Matt Pilz from
Vibra-tech and he is here to share
some information on blasting and to answer questions due to the large
misunderstanding that the general public has in regards to blasting for
limestone extraction. Matt works in
this area all over the U.S. and is an expert in the field of blasting and
vibration. Rogers Group uses Vibra-tech
as that third party overseer of the blasting that occurs on Rogers
Group’s sites in Arkansas. This
third party relationship is insurance for me that they contractors that we
employ to do the blasting are doing it efficiently and legally.”
Sossong asked, “I will read the letters from the gentleman
that lives adjacent to our quarry there (Lowell).”
Daugherty replied, “That will be fine and we may have some questions in
the meantime anyway.” Sossong
stated, “First letter Marc Trollinger at 4700 Nelson Hollow Road Lowell,
Arkansas (Attachment C).
Sossong
commented, “The next (letter) I have is from Ralph and Stephanie Randall
(Attachment D) and they live 4138 E. Hwy. 264 Lowell, Arkansas.”
Sossong
stated, “I have a third letter from the Hickory Creek Volunteer Fire
Department (Attachment E) and this is also Marc Trollinger happens to be the
Volunteer Fire Chief there. The
Fire Department is located at 15645 E. Hwy. 264 Lowell, Arkansas. ”
Sossong
commented, “I am going to turn the presentation over to Matt for some
information on blasting and vibration and let him give you some education there
and then I will summarize up after he’s done.”
Pilz
stated, “I am with Vibra-tech Engineers.
Just to give you a little background, our company started in 1949.
Together with our sister company we have 19 offices nationwide.
Our specialty is vibration acoustics.
What I want to do tonight is actually three-fold.
I want to give everyone just a basic understanding of vibration.
I want to go over some of the terms that we are going to use because it
is a bit of a technical subject and give some examples for this term so I keep
using that and refer to the State standards you’ll have a pretty good
understanding of what I am saying. I
also want to go through actually what the State standard is and explain that to
you and also the federal regulations that govern blasting.
Finally, I want to share with you the mining results of our company here
at the Farmington site so that you can have an understanding of what levels that
they are currently producing. I
call this first slide my energy slide, but in essence it’s a… if I take a
water droplet or a rock and drop it in a pool of water we’ve all seen this
before the area next to where that rock dropped is actually the area that is
going to have the highest wave. As
you move out further from that that wave gets smaller and smaller.
This is very similar to the wave energy that you see from a detonation of
explosive in a mining application. If
you can imagine a bobber that is actually on the water and as that wave goes by
that bobber moves up and down. The
height of that bobber, the height that it moves up and down we’re going it
call it amplitude and I can measure it several different ways, but for the State
we measure it in velocity. Juliet
had mentioned before that standard is one inch per second for the State. The other important concept to get across to everyone is the
other concept is called frequency. Not
only is the bobber moving up and down as the wave passes, but another wave comes
by again and so the bobber is going to oscilate and we want to measure how many
times it oscilates in a given period of time and that’s called frequency.
Typically, we measure that over a period of time, which is one second.”
Pilz
commented, “I’ll go ahead and explain to you a little bit about the
standards. We talked a little bit
before about how high that bobber moves and this is particle velocity in this
axis. This is the federal standard
this was developed by the Bureau of Mines.
This is a group of research scientists that the Federal Government had
commissioned. They worked out of
Minneapolis, Minnesota and their job was to go back and research all of the
other previous studies on vibration in mining or construction activities.
They went ahead and put together their own study.
They looked at 218 production blasts and they looked at 76 different
structures. They looked at one-story structures, one-house story
structures, and two-story structures so they wanted to get a really good sample
of the homes that we live in today. Before
the study they actually went into every house and they looked at the house and
they actually did a survey of the house and looked to see what condition the
structure was in. They looked at
the drywall, the walls, they looked at the plaster, they looked at the tile,
they looked at the concrete, they looked at the sidewalk, they looked at the
wood, they looked at everything and they documented the condition of the
structure. Then they went ahead and
detonated the blast and before that they actually put a monitor similar to the
type of monitor that we use outside the structure and they put monitors inside
the structures (strain gauges) and they wanted to see what the amount of effect
was of each blast as they moved that mining activity closer and closer to the
structures. Their job was to
develop a criteria that would, basically, protect our homes from vibration
episodes. They developed this
criteria we call this the system curve or the Z curve.
Here is my axis this is particle velocity this is how high that bobber
moved and then this is how many times it oscilated during the second.
This is frequency. What they found is that different parts of the structure
responded to the vibration and there were parts of the structure that were very
sensitive to the vibration and the most sensitive ones were plaster, drywall,
and then they actually went up from there you get into wood, tile, and finally
concrete. In essence, when I look
at vibration I compare the vibration episode to this criteria.
They spent millions and millions of our taxpayer dollars to develop this
standard; it is a very good standard. This
standard has been adopted by 25 states in the Union.
It has also been adopted in several countries.
If your vibration episode falls underneath this criteria, in this range,
it means that the probability that you damaged the structure from a vibration
episode is zero; it is nil. If
my data falls on this line or above the line then the probability starts
to exist. It means that it might be
a 1% probability and then the further you go up it might be 2%, 3%, and so on.
The State of Arkansas has got a standard of one inch per second they are
not concerned about the frequency of the vibration, but they are saying that
they have in essence an amplitude standard.
I overlaid the Arkansas limit on top of the U.S.
Bureau of Mines criteria to show you the difference.”
Pilz
stated, “Let’s talk a little bit about some vibration episodes.
Human beings; we are very good seismographs. We can feel vibration .01 or .02 inches per second; very very
low levels. The more activity that
you are involved with the higher the threshold is.
It might be .05 or .1, but if you were sitting down you’re going to see
that some people say I can feel vibration of .02 very low levels.
We talked about that criteria, the Federal Government criteria, U.S.
Bureau of Mines and they came back and said between two hertz and 10 cycles if your
vibration episode had that energy in it; at half an inch per second, that’s
again how high the bobber moved, that was a critical value they wanted to see
for plaster homes. Some of the
older homes that had the horsehair-plaster that was a half inch per second.
Drywall; most of the homes today are built with drywall 3 -15 cycles,
0.75. They found at mortar joints
they didn’t see any visible change in the mortar joint until they saw about 3
inches per second. Finally,
reinforced concrete in their study; they came back with 10 inches per second.
Driveways, pools, anything that has concrete in it is very very durable.
There are two things that occur when you do have energy that is released
in the ground; you have a ground vibration and Juliet had spoke about she had
witnessed the blast and what she felt and tried to describe that.
There are actually two things that occur one is a vibration that goes
through the ground and we feel that pretty quickly.
Typically, when I’m at a blast I feel it in my feet.
The second one is air over pressure that’s just an air mass movement so
in a quarry application they use a terrace bench type quarrying as they go down
further and further down into the quarry. As
that wall comes down when they blast that wall it creates a change of pressure.
This isn’t the type of noise that we would typically hear with a human
ear; this is overpressure. This
would be more related to thunder or if you walked into a home that hadn’t been
opened and it was like a summerhouse and you opened up the door for the first
time after being closed or dormant for six months and you kind of feel that
change as you open up the door you feel that change of pressure as it rushes
into the house that’s in essence overpressure.
This is pressure that is from 2 cycles to 250 cycles.
Typically, you don’t hear blast overpressure; it’s typically 2 or 3
cycles. The human ear can hear
sounds from 20 cycles to 20,000 cycles so it is a different type of energy. When people say I didn’t hear anything, that’s not what
we’re measuring. We’re measuring a pulse of air.
When they did the ground vibration study they also did a study they had
all the equipment there and they said let’s look to what the effects are of
this overpressure as well and it was a great idea. They found that single-pane glass they found that they could
break glass when they got up to 160 decibels; every 6 decibels means I double my
energy. If you measure thunder of 1,000’ you have 138 decibels measurement
there. The U.S.
Bureau of Mines and
the State limit here in Arkansas is 133 decibels.
Thunder measured at a half mile is 124 decibels and I converted the
decibel measurement to a pressure measurement you can kind of see that on the
graph. Here at the Rogers Group
quarry Vibra-tech has a satellite
based station that relays the information to our company and then we supply it
to the company (Rogers Group) and the State has access to that information after
the blast. It is a stand-alone
unit; this is located at the Farmington quarry and this is the recordings that
we’ve taken over time. This unit
has a ground sensor here placed in the ground and also it has an overpressure
sensor here as well so we’re capturing both motions.
You will be able to see this when you visit the site.
What I’ve done is I’ve gone back in time and I’ve pulled up the
Rogers Group data over time. This instrument is located northeast on the property itself
typically 700’ or 800’ from the blast.
When I share this data with you, you need to understand is I talked about
that rock being dropped in a pool of water and the vibration episode is higher
as you’re closer to the source and as you move further away it would be less
and less. This is fairly close to
the blast zone. The highest
vibration episode ever recorded over the three-year period is .66.
You can see their data is relatively consistent 10 cycles to out here 40
cycles it is a relatively consistent data.
Each one of these points represents a blast that we recorded.
I’ve also taken that same data and I’ve converted it to look at what
the State standard is. First, I
looked at the Federal standard and now I’m going to look at the State
standard. This is a one inch per
second limit here it is on a bar graph and you can see the values here the
.1’s and the .2’s. This is that
.66 that I talked about before and you can see the values as they compare to the
State standard. So we’re
monitoring the air overpressure from each blast as well.
You can see the data here falls in the teens 110’s and 120’s in that
area. The highest one that I’ve actually measured was a 126 over the course of
time, but relatively consistent here and you don’t see any of the data
actually cross the threshold for the133. Again,
this is measured about 700’ to 800’ from the blast source so you’re going
to see these levels be a little bit higher.
The further you are away at the adjacent property, double my distance, it
would be much lower.”
Sossong
commented, “I just wanted to say that the stipulations that Juliet has placed
to this point I think are reasonable. I
think it is important for you all to get out to the site.
I talked to our quarry Superintendent and I don’t know if May 19 works,
but we’re talking about that being the next potential time that we would have
a blast at the quarry. That is a
Tuesday. We try to shoot in the
middle part of the day. We have
9:00 – 5:00 and that is in case there was something, but typically we end up
shooting11:00, 12:00, or 1:00 in the day so the lunchtime period ideally would
be the time that we… and I’m just throwing that out there.
As far as berms and fencing and things on the adjacent… we have a lot
of fencing around the property. The
bluff that she showed is very difficult to go up and we would continue to keep a
berm along there to maintain that visibility block and the integrity of that.
Basically, we’re just going to go down into that site and as we go down
the noise will dissipate even more. Those
are the things that we wanted to present to you.
We have Van Medlock if you have any other questions on the Environmental
side also.”
Hummel
asked, “Give me a calculated risk on the red dirt pit that you are now mining
chat limestone out of. How many
years supply do you have in that right now? Just a calculated guess 5 or 10
years?” Sossong replied,
“Approximately 7 to 10 (years) maybe somewhere in that vicinity.”
Daugherty asked, “At the current demand probably?”
Sossong replied, “You got to go through some of that being maybe a
little bit higher and then some of that being… and this is what I would call
the lower end of the cycle.” Butler asked, “That’s red dirt or is that quarrying?”
Sossong replied, “This is stone that I am talking about.”
Walker asked, “Is the red dirt overburden pretty well off the proposed
site?” Sossong replied, “This
area is pretty well mined out. There
is a little bit of dirt to be taken off here.
A first lift of dirt has been taken off in this section and this section
also so there is roughly 15’ in approximate depth of red dirt left to take off
in here and up through this area here. This
area (west) has not been mined due to the fact that it was agreed not to be
mined until the gentleman that currently lives there is no longer living there,
so that’s why. You can see how
wide it is once we get in, but because of the red dirt staying on top of the
stone and to come out there we can show you that first hand.”
Walker asked, “The quality of that limestone still has the red dirt
it’s a different use, correct?” Sossong
replied, “The stone is used for a different use other than the red dirt.”
Walker asked, “No, let me rephrase the top of that stone where the red
dirt is, is a different use than what you’re getting down into a little bit
deeper, correct? The quality of the stone I should say.” Sossong replied, “The first 30’ approximately 35’
we’re able to use an excavator to dig it is a little bit softer so we just dig
that out and process that through the plant.
The next 35’ is a harder and has to be blasted limestone and then
there’s roughly 100’ of pretty much the same type of limestone below that,
that would also have to be blasted and it is very very good quality limestone.
It gets better as you go down.” Hummel
asked, “How close to an area do you have that’s been reclaimed that we were
talking about while ago? Do you
have one?” Sossong replied, “We can point out several red dirt sites.
I know of one in Benton County and I think there are two potentially in
Benton County that have been reclaimed or mined of red dirt.
I don’t have a quarry site. I
brought a picture and showed Juliet of San Antonio probably in Chicago or in
areas and there are pictures that we can show you.
Golf courses, Six Flags are in an old quarry site; they’ve done
different things with their sites, but as far as going out and seeing a
reclaimed site we have red dirt pits only that I am aware of in the area that
are drivable.”
Gallagher
asked, “It is my understanding that Rogers Group is leasing all of this land.
Does Rogers Group own any of it?” Sossong
replied, “We do not.” Gallagher
asked, “How many different owners are involved?”
Sossong replied, “Two.” Gallagher
asked, “Who are they?” Sossong
replied, “John David Lindsey and Mark Rich.”
Gallagher asked, “J & A Mining isn’t one of the owners?” Sossong replied, “That is owned by John David Lindsey.
I believe those are entities that he has underneath, but they are
ultimately his ownership.” Gallagher asked, “Juliet, when a Conditional Use
Permit is approved such as this one does it go with the owner or does it go with
the land?” Richey replied, “It goes with the land.”
Butler stated, “That is correct it runs with the land.” Gallagher
asked, “So no matter who owns or leases this land they are free to do whatever
we agree to this time around?” Richey replied, “That’s right they would
have to abide by the conditions of the permit, but yes that is true.”
PUBLIC COMMENT
(Excerpt
from White River Fertilizer Supply Conditional Use Permit at the first of the
meeting - Joshua Bailey commented, “I am a law student.
If you allow this it is going to completely undermine the integrity of
this zoning ordinance. I just want
to accentuate the whole reason for even having a Land Use Plan or system.
The reason that it was zoned single-family residential and agricultural
was to put a buffer or protect certain I guess to segregate certain types of
land uses single-family residential and then commercial, industrial, and things
like that. If you allow a rock
quarry next to…”)
Clemencia
Convers, stated, “Everybody knows me by Cookie.
I don’t live in the area (14924
Goshen Tuttle Road), but one of the things that made me come and live in to Northwest
Arkansas was the nature, the beauty, the animals, and people make fun saying you
can have winter, spring, summer, or fall in one week and it is true and that is
the beauty of Northwest Arkansas. I
don’t know about the noise because I don’t live there, I live in Goshen.
I don’t care about the blasting I just care about the things that God
gave us, which is nature. No matter
how much you do dippity dippity do it’s not going to come back.
I certainly love what I see what is here not manmade. I came from Florida to retire here. I fell in love with what I see.
I didn’t fall in love with this (Citiscapes magazine).
I came from this and this beginning to turn like where the grass is not
green and paint it green is that what you guys want to see?
Go ahead, but believe me we should learn from our past mistakes as human
beings go back into history look what has happened to humans, to animals, to
nature. No human being in this world can undo what has already been
done and is given to us by God, by nature, or by whatever you want to call it no
matter what religion you are. Nothing
is going to make it better than what it is right now.”
Barbara
Peters commented, “I’ve lived in Washington County for a great number of
years (15562 Red Fox Drive). I grew up on Hamstring Road. I have a property that is still there and my concern is the noise. Blasting,
I appreciated the explanations. I appreciated that Juliet described what she perceived and
blasting noise is a concern without a doubt.
However, the grandfathered property they can continue to blast.
The recent approval - they
have blasting privileges - I believe it was 24 times a year.
There are other noises that go along with this quarrying.
Primarily you have the crusher, you have the conveyor, and you have the
trucks. I am opposed to this
Conditional Use Permit and I would ask you to deny it.
However, if you do the noise I’ll quote you here ‘I don’t know what
to do about that noise’ that little irritation of the microphone noise.
Imagine living with that kind of little irritation.
A dump truck banging the tailgate when they are kind of offloading, when
they are bumping up and down the road, when the brakes are coming up to the stop
sign it is very noisy it is very irritating background noise and that’s a lot
of years to live with that kind of noise. Safety
on the road; I appreciated the comments from the neighbors that came from the
Lowell area. That is a great
concern to make sure that road is properly prepared for 50 to 100 trucks a day
that’s a lot of trucks. I think
one of the comments that I heard at some point was that’s not really an
increase in truck traffic if the peak was 700 – 750 trucks a day this is only
50 – 100 trucks a day, but it is for an additional 20 – 30 years of heavy
loads constant noise very very irritating and I think that the Conditional Use
Permit process and the points, it talks about quality of life, it talks about
peace and quiet and I believe if I heard Juliet correctly in the back of the
room your proposal was 7:00am – 5:00pm Monday – Friday only.
I would consider that the wording the words of any proposal that you
would even consider, but hopefully deny would include that the end point of the
day at 5:00pm is when the last truck is on a highway. 7:00am can start loading or crushing or whatever.
5:00pm is when the last truck is gone not when the property itself
concludes it’s day of business. If
you did the math back in 2005 my father spoke to the County Planning group it
was a little different arrangement it was before the zoning.
He said the proposal was maybe can operate from sunup to sundown when
we’re discussing hours and he only had one comment to the group and it was
what you’re really saying is the neighborhood only gets peace and quiet when
it is dark. I found that to be a
very profound statement. And the
noise, it is not just the blasting. I
think there are real quality issues in the neighborhood, so I do oppose it.”
Debbie
Johnson stated, “I am opposed to this Conditional Use Permit.
This is just many of the reasons why even though I’m going to mention
one certain pit this applies to all dirt farms and quarries in Washington
County. On the morning of April 3
six residents near the dirt farm and limestone quarries on Hamstring
Road
heard and felt an explosion. No one
had been called beforehand as we were promised we would be.
Some of the neighbors contacted all the pits and all the pits denied the
blast. Since that blast several
residents closest to the Big Red Dirt Farm have noticed property damage to their
homes. I can give you their names
if you want. The Arkansas State
blasting inspector, Bob Cook, was notified on April 9.
He is required by law to be contacted before blasting.
He stated he was not called and said it would be an illegal blast and he
would shut them down if it was one of his pits.
He then assured me it was not and would investigate it and told me in
detail how he would proceed. It
would be at least two weeks before he could be in this area because his job also
included inspecting amusement park rides that he would be working on.
When called back on April 27 Mr. Cook said that there was no blast and it
would be our word against the Big Red Dirt Farm.
When I asked him what his investigation involved Mr. Cook said that while
in the area he stopped by the Big Red Dirt Farm and asked to see their record
for April 3 they denied the blast and of course had no records for that day.
If we are expected to live with all that comes with living next door to
these quarries would it be too much to ask that there be someone from this area
who is impartial to both sides who will monitor this business and enforce the
law if needed. If there is no such
person, these quarries should not be allowed to operate. Another observation and
I know what I’m fixing to say these things are very important to our
environment, but if I were a blind cavefish or some other endangered species in
this area these operations would not be allowed or they would shut them down
because it would endanger my home, but since I’m just a human I guess my home
is not that important. When did we
rate so low on the food chain? We
all strive to protect the endangered species from extinction so please think of
our neighborhoods and our way of life and vote against this Conditional Use
Permit. She was talking about the
noise; there had been times in the past on weekends on Saturday mornings as
early 7:00 and as late as 9:30 and 10:00 at night we have to listen to the
constant dump trucks banging and clanging and it is just very annoying.”
Bradley
Ward commented, “I was down at the blast site the same day that Juliet was and
I was actually down in the pit and I felt just a little bit of a pressure, but
my neighbor says this was smaller than the regular ones, but I know there’s a
bunch of vibration up at our house. If
I could I would like for you to come up to my house just to feel what I’m
living with. I’ve got damage to
my house my foundation; there’s cracks in my blocks.
In two years I don’t think that my house will still be there if it
keeps going like it is.”
Walter
Ward, adjacent property owner at 16365 Hamstring Creek Road, stated, “I have many of the same concerns especially the noise issue.
Over and above the blasting is every time the bucket trucks are backing
up you get the ringing and the noise and the tread noise and so forth at all
times of the day. Something else
that I would like to just point out as a different issue that I would like for
you to look at is that Hamstring Creek
is just over the hill from this quarry. Hamstring
Creek is
the reason that I moved to that area. It
is a beautiful little very well developed little creek that has two or three
types of trout that live in these springs that are in the creek that can manage
there all year. I have a very
shallow well, but a very excellent well, on my property that keeps me with good
tasting good water at all times, but it is only 40’ deep.
One of the problems that I see is that they’re proposing 170’ depth
to this quarry. Now interestingly
enough if you’ll look at the geographic survey you’ll see that the top of
the ridge that they’re talking about is about 1,200’, but if you look at
Hamstring
Creek it’s just under 1,100’ that means that it is approximately
100’ rise from the valley to the top of the creek.
There are places according to the beginning drawings and I assume they
will still be that way where Hamstring Creek is within 300 yards of their proposed digging.
That is only 300 yards away from the quarry and if they go 170’ deep
the way that they’re talking about we’re looking at Hamstring
Creek
being approximately 50’ – 70’ above the bottom of the quarry.
The creek is a very important reason why I moved out there.
It’s a very beautiful creek, it helps to supply me water, and it has
good springs running into it for the fish and the wildlife. If you take out that
much dirt that actually is where the quarry will be lower than the creek and it
is only 300 yards away where is the creek going to go?
I think that is a very large potential problem in the area and I think
that it can be devastating to the environment and to the people that live there.
300 yards is not that far away. If
you look at the north end of where the yellow and the red lines are Hamstring
Creek is
the blue line just above it and if you will measure it on the United States
Department of Interiors Geological survey map it is approximately 300 yards a
little less; that is a very close proximity.
I don’t know that much about Rogers Group and I don’t know if they
are really in charge too much, but I wasn’t even interested in this until just
recently. I am a businessman in the
area and I got crushed stone and red dirt from the Big Red Dirt Farm.
It is important to have business and so forth; however, you want to have
good community relations. I have
had blowouts from the rocks dropped on the highway that supposedly are not
allowed to happen because they are all supposed to be tarped.
I have had blowouts from those rocks.
Recently, on my way to work I followed a dump truck full of Astroturf and
padding and this is a full dump truck load full of materials that turned into
Stephens Red Dirt and I didn’t even think much about it at the time. A few hours later I noticed this great big billow of black
smoke coming out of the quarry. Like
I said I’m a businessman, I know that you’re not supposed to burn other
solid waste at a facility. I called
the Washington County Environmental Agency they definitely agreed and said that
there was nothing to be burned there but tree limbs and leaves. They did not have a deputy or a representative available
right then so they had me call the Boston Mountain Solid Waste Disposal people
and I called them and this was on May 1. When
I called them they did come out by the time they’d got there it had been
raining all day and they couldn’t see the smoke and they couldn’t find it,
but they did find it a little later and called me back. It was being burned on the Stephens Red Dirt Farm area.
That seems to me to say that maybe they’re not quite as good of a
neighbor as they would like to sound like they are and having had tires blown in
the past I know that there are other issues besides.
I think it is very critical to realize that my well, the creek, and all
of the springs along that creek are going to end up higher than the bottom of
quarry. Where is the water going to go?
I have copies of the maps. I
have pictures of the black smoke coming off of the quarry taken that day.
I have the phone number and so forth of the Boston Mountain refuge people
as well if you need that and who I talked to.
That’s what I would like to at least to bring to your attention.”
Sandra
Ward commented, “I live at the entrance of Hamstring from Wedington. It’s the
first house on the right. Across
the street from me there are a few kids that do go to Farmington School and I
have a few neighbors next door to me that go as well.
My main concern is the increase of traffic of 150 dump trucks.
What is that going to cause when those kids are trying to go out on the
bus? I’ve seen several close
calls with dump trucks going side by side on the road it is so narrow and it’s
at the curve that goes down into the dirt pit.
It is just a horrible blind spot. I
am really concerned about the safety of these kids getting on and off the
bus.”
Martha
McBride stated, “I am a nurse that lives in Wedington Woods.
I have three concerns; #1 the allowance of only working from 7:00am –
5:00pm used to mean a lot more because most people left their residential areas
and went away to work and then came home. My
husband works from home and my daughter home schools and I’m usually at home
if I’m not on duty. So, 7:00am
– 5:00pm means that we’re going to be hearing this while we’re working.
The other point that I’d like to make is a safety issue.
As you know Wedington Drive they just finished expanding Wedington Drive
and something that was included in the expansion that wasn’t there when Red
Dirt Farm was grandfathered in is the addition of a pedestrian and bike path on
either side of Wedington Drive. When
we did this what we said was you can use this to walk on to ride your bike on
adults and children and you can do this with a certain degree of safety.
I think what we’ll probably see when we see an increase in the trucks
is although they can cover the tops of these trucks with canvas tarps you well
know that there’s a lot of aggregate that rides out on the bumpers and it
rides out in the deep tread of these tires.
When we’re talking 100 of these trucks a day that’s a lot of
aggregate that’s on Wedington Drive. As a nurse I have seen what one piece of rock can do to a
child hitting them at 15 to 20 miles an hour much less shot out from a back tire
at 45 miles per hour, which is the speed limit on that road.
Wedington Drive looks great it’s brand new.
One truck full of limestone is very heavy.
They should pay for damage to the road.
It deteriorates safety of children and adults walking down the street.”
Wendy
Eiter, nearby property owner to the northwest at 16308 Harmon Road,
commented that they have had problems in the past with trucks using Harmon/
Hamstring Road when they were not supposed to, a nd trucks using the portion of
Hamstring Road that intersects with Harmon Road.
She said there were times that the trucks did not come to a full stop,
and that, among other issues created safety concerns.
She also stated she has concerns because of the horse business on the
corner that has kids going to it.
Janas
Ward, adjacent property owner at 16365 Hamstring Creek Road, stated, “I live on Hamstring Road. I’ve lived in
Washington County for over 30 years. I’m
a grandmother. I’m a nurse at
Washington Regional. I’m not here
today to talk to you about my personal concerns about the limestone quarry
expansion. I’m here representing
340 Washington County residents who signed a petition of opposition over the
last week or so because we believe that a quarry expansion impacts not just the
local residents, but all of Washington County.
We are opposed to the limestone quarry expansion for three primary
reasons one reason is environmental, one reason is the integrity of our zoning
ordinance, and the third reason is simply lack of need. I would like to quote
Courtney Martin, someone who signed this petition she said, ‘While we
empathize with the nearby residents who are voicing their concerns about noise,
decrease in land values, the integrity of their homes and wells, and the safety
of their children I think the more overreaching issue of environmental impact
has not been adequately addressed. Lacking
an environmental impact study for the proposed site I would like for you all to
consider the following literature review information; the importance of the
aquifer of the Ozark Plateau, which is the region where this quarry is, is
contained it has been included into the National Water Quality Assessment study
by the U.S. geological survey. According
to this study water quality is negatively affected by quarrying.
There was a publication called the USGS Potential Environmental Impact of
quarrying stone and karst that was sent in to Mrs. Richey in advance of this
meeting. The purpose of this
particular study was to describe the state of knowledge regarding the
environmental impact of quarrying. This
report states that the influence of quarry size on environmental impact is
obvious. Everything else being
equal, the larger the quarry the larger the impact.
Mining may alter sensitive parts of the natural system at or near the
site causing cascading environmental impacts it goes on to address the dramatic
negative visual effects, the damage done by blasting, dust, noise, and most
importantly the effect on water quality in the aquifer.
There is an article by Hobbs & Gunn in the quarterly journal of
Engineering Geology titled ‘The Hydro geological Affect of Quarrying
Limestone.’ This article states
that quarrying may have large-scale long-term impact upon both the quality and
the quantity of water in the aquifer. Run-off,
sedimentation, and fuel and oil from accidental spills at the quarry site may
pollute the underground water and the local creeks and rivers.
Damage to the natural water storage and flow of water, which I simply
don’t have time to explain to you all today if you want to do more research it
is readily available to describe the technical aspect of water storage in
limestone and how it flows through limestone.
Because of damage to that natural process springs will dry up, wells will
dry up, and the creek will be negatively impacted.
The quarry is proposed to dig down below the level of Hamstring
Creek, which can cause
a complete collapse in the aquifer as it lowers the water table.
When the water flows from the creeks from the springs because of this
disruption into the quarry site itself they have to pump that water out.
When they pump that water out and they discharge it on the surface it can
cause flooding downstream from where it is pumped into the surface water and
anytime you have flooding you’re talking about a destruction of the embankment
along the creeks. You’re talking
about destruction of habitat, you’re even talking about the potential for
personal property damage. This
quarry expansion site is located near Hamstring
Creek and Hamstring Creek flows into the Illinois River, which as all of you
know is a major water source for Oklahoma.
It has been designated by the Oklahoma legislature as a scenic river.
We just can’t risk the environmental damage to the watershed of the Illinois
River. Second, we request that you
deny the Conditional Use Permit because it does not meet the criteria for
Conditional Use Permit. Ordinance
D states the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area.
Ordinance E states that the establishment, maintenance, or operation of
the Conditional Use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare.
Ordinance F that the Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the surrounding area for the purpose already
permitted nor substantially diminish and impair your property values within the
surrounding area. Ordinance G that the establishment of the Conditional Use
will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the
surrounding area for uses permitted in the zone. I was in Washington County when zoning was implemented in the
County. When it was being
considered a wise woman once said, ‘There was no use control in those areas at
all.’ To me that was really
scary. If I was living out there in a single-family resident home and someone
wanted to put in a quarry that’s something that can really hurt property
values and there’s nothing that can be done.
It is hard for us to tell people, ‘Sorry, there’s nothing that we can
do’ when they have legitimate concerns about land values.
With zoning and I will go back to the quote, ‘Property values will be
taken into consideration. Neighbors
will have input on use and compatibility.’
Mrs. Richey you may very well recognize your words.
This quote was taken from an article in the Northwest Arkansas Times of
you speaking about the proposed quarry near Summers, Arkansas.
The Washington County zoning ordinance was implemented to protect the
rural community not to protect the interest of an industrial mining complex. #3 we oppose this quarry expansion for another reason there
are currently ten active limestone quarries in Washington and Benton County.
The majority of those are in Washington County.
Some of those have been in business in this County since the 1950’s.
We simply don’t need this expansion.
The supply exceeds demand. Some
of our existing quarries right now are working at less than full production
because the demand is only 25% of the production capacity of the ten existing
quarries. If you all take nothing
from what I say except for one thing the one thing I really hope you remember is
we are opposed to this quarry expansion because we believe it impacts a lot more
than just a few local residents. We
believe it impacts the quality for every resident in Washington County.
I would beg you to please deny this Conditional Use Permit for the
greater good of Washington County.”
Dick
Johnson, adjacent property owner to the northwest at
13650 Pin Oak Road, commented, “I am the assistant
superintendent of schools of Fayetteville Public Schools.
I am a 34 year resident of the exact same spot down Harmon Road from the
proposed quarry. My remarks will be
brief. I brought you another GPS
map and I passed these out tonight for a reason and that is it analyzed where
the people are. This is what this
discussion is about. I very much
admire all of you for doing this very difficult job deciding between the
interest of a for profit group that is going to make a tremendous amount of
money on this and the lives of all the people that has spent their life building
their dreams here. You have to
decide the fate of all of us and I trust you to make good decisions. Some questions that I had of the operators and requests that
I have is when you go observe the blast test you observe the biggest one that
they’re ever going to do. Half of
you watch the test the other half go sit in Mr. Ward’s living room during the
test. I think that would be a valid
thing to do because we are not worried about the inconsequential blasts.
We’re worried about that one when my wife or daughter is on her horse
and that horse spooks and throws her and breaks her neck, that’s what I worry
about. What I worry about is the
training center for equestrians; there are four in very close proximity to this
quarry. For your information about
how sound travels, I was interested to see the information about how it travels
to livestock, how it travels to horses, whatever perception these animals are
picking up when this blast because One Stop, that is less than a quarter of a
mile from this proposed property, trains children in an arena all hours of the
day to ride horses. Sometimes
they’ll have play days where they’ll have 15 – 20 children on horses.
I don’t want to try to add any information that has been given.
I want to say one thing Fayetteville is a difficult place to do business
sometimes; I know that very well. The
people in west Washington County are some of the most tolerant people in
Northwest Arkansas. We have a
landfill in our area. We didn’t
say anything about the landfill or I did not because the landfill serves a
common good. 55% of the effluent flow from the water treatment plant flow
down Clear Creek running 1,500’ behind my house and we quit swimming in that
creek, but I didn’t come to a meeting I didn’t say a word because it served
the common good. This project
serves to make a profit for a company. I
understand that they have a lot of reasons to say why they’re good and
benevolent. Bottom line is it
deteriorates our quality of life. It
changes our dreams and that decision is with you and I appreciate the gravity of
it.”
JT
Baker, stated, “I represent John David Lindsey, the owner of Stephens Red Dirt
and J & A Mining. The first
thing that I want to address is the Astroturf burning.
I have some pictures and receipts. Let
me say first the Red Dirt part of the quarry has nothing to do with Rogers Group
except that we’re basically the landlord.
What happened with the Astroturf it was coming in from a football field.
It was described to us as being a bio mat that grass grew through; we
thought that it was a biogradable material.
We were fixing to burn some stumps and some limbs that we had on site we
thought that we would go ahead and just put it on there and burn it with it.
All of a sudden black smoke starts coming up we realize that there are I
guess rubber bands in between the mat holding it together there unlies the black
smoke. As soon as we saw what was
going on took a little while to do it, but we got a piece of equipment over
there put the fire out. The next
day you can see the pictures we excavated the material out hauled it to Waste
Management you’ve also got receipts for that as well. It was a mistake, it was my fault, and it had nothing to do
with Rogers Group. We don’t burn
things like that knowingly; it was a mistake and I made it. One other thing I wanted to talk about was one thing that
keeps coming up is the noise. The
dumping of the dirt the tailgates popping that people keep talking about at the
quarry most of that actually comes from the red dirt.
That’s in the existing mine that’s been approved; it’s going to be
there. We bring in material from
jobs it has to be dumped on a waste pile when they grade dirt we send it out.
It really doesn’t have anything to do with the quarry operation at all.
One thing that has been brought up also several times tonight is the
working late hours and the different things.
Judge (Jerry) Hunton met with ourselves and also the Big Red Dirt Farm I
think it was in 2005. We discussed
hours of operation because, basically, what we were finding is that a mining
operation and even our red dirt loading our contractors were putting a lot of
pressure on us to stay open late in order to get holes filled up before it
rained. He (Hunton) asked us to cut
those short; we’ve complied with everything that the County asked us to do.
I don’t think there’s any problems with that.”
Leon
Gregory, adjacent property owner to the southeast, commented, “I live, we have
a residence at 7211 W. Wedington Drive, which is just where the trucks come out
we’re approximately about a half mile east of the Red Dirt pit maybe just a
little bit farther from this proposed site.
My wife and I have lived in our home on Wyman Drive for 50 years.
We were there long before the dirt pits came near our home.
When they came in we had to contend with the dump truck traffic, the
noise, and near our driveway, which is very dangerous, but we never complained
to officials. We did complain to
the County Judge (Hunton) about the terrible dust on Hamstring Road. We contended with the dust for many years before Hamstring
was eventually paved,
but that was almost minor compared with the blasting and the crushing that they
are proposing to go on now. We are
now retired and want to sell our property.
It has been so devaluated by the dirt pit and quarries we will not be
able to sell probably at a fair price. We
might sell, but probably it will not be a fair price.
This is very important to us and I’m sure we’ll never be compensated
for our lost. This is not fair.
Please don’t allow the request for over 100 more acres for limestone
mining. As taxpaying citizens of
Fayetteville and Washington County we and our neighbors deserve more than this.
We should not have to put up with that kind of nuisance. They say that they’re within toleration blasting limits then
pray tell me why there’s evidence of the foundations, swimming pools, and
those kind of things being cracked or devastated.
Tell me why. One more thing
I would like to say it was stated that this Red Dirt Pit or one of the pits that
have been in business for 20 years if that’s true how much other things that
are said are false?”
Dave
Bolen, property owner to the southeast at 1075
N Hamstring Road stated, “I can not believe you do this. I happen to live next to one of the dirt pits, but you
probably all know that. I can’t
believe you do this and I thank you for it.
I have no idea how much you get paid, but it is by far not enough.
I think that most of the folks have said everything pretty well.
I was pretty impressed with what they had to say.
I was pretty impressed with the Rogers Group.
My problem is I think that the whole area is getting ready to turn into
an industrial mining complex it just keeps going that way.
Why? I don’t want it; none
of these people want it. Only the people who make money off of this stuff want it.
We’re here they’re not; they go home some place else at the end of
the day. We come home to the pit
and the mining. My suggestion would
be do not approve the Conditional Use Permit.
I’d like to see everything frozen just the way it is until these folks
run out of dirt or limestone or anything else.
It is not conforming. 100
dump trucks a day in 10 hours is a dump truck every 6 minutes.
With both pits operating at 100 dump trucks each a day that is a dump
truck every 3 minutes. You guys
really do need to come out and sit on Hamstring Road at 7:00 or earlier in the morning and watch the buses dual going up and down the
road with the dump trucks. You need
watch the dump trucks go by the kids standing on the side of the road untarped.
There are more other quarries in this area we don’t need it here and I
have seen at 9:00 at night dump trucks lined up all the way from the top of Hamstring Road where (Highway) 16 is lined up at one of the pits because the County had an
emergency and those folks called me and said, ‘We think we’re going to be
filling dump trucks until 2:00 in the morning because the County has an
emergency. What was I to say?
I live in this County I pay taxes. I
like for things to work right. I
like for roads not to fall in because they didn’t have the red dirt, but at
11:00 at night I’m still hearing the dirt and the trucks.”
Dr.
Art Brown commented, “I’m a professor of Biology at University of Arkansas.
My specialty is extreme ecology and for 25 years or so I also studied
cave ecosystems. I really
appreciate the things that the people before me have said and I’m not going to
repeat those. I’m speaking for
myself, not the University or anybody else.
Most of the wave propagation and other things have been talked about two
dimensionally. It is a tree dimensional problem. My primary concern is that this quarry is going to be too
deep. The aerial extent is what’s
being talked about, but this depth has been talked about by a couple of people
and that’s what’s really important especially in relation to Hamstring
Creek.
A spring fed stream like this and what it amounts to is a stream forms
through a valley where it intersects the water table.
This quarry could very well lower that water table and dry up Hamstring Creek.
Have major influences in water quality in Hamstring
Creek regardless
of that ridge that’s between the quarry and the creek because that ridge is
relatively meaningless very little of the water that falls on the ground runs
across the land. It soaks in then
and goes to the creek. If it soaks
in at that quarry site and then moves over to the creek it’s going to carry a
lot of harmful things with it that will wash off from that quarry. Another concern is the old hazardous waste site on Harmon
Road that is just a few 100’ from this proposed quarry. Within the last two or three years it was dug up and removed,
but if they were completely successful in removing all of the toluene, dioxin,
and nuclear waste hazards that the University dumped there since the 1940’s.
Why do they still have a real high fence around it with no admittance
written on those gates? There’s a concern to me that that toluene, dioxin, and
nuclear waste facility still has problems and they can certainly be increased by
having blasting in this area. Just
open a few seams in that limestone and you’ll have those materials in the
aquifer over there you’ll have it showing up in people’s wells and Hamstring
Creek.”
Mary
Crumley, adjacent property owner to the east at
16051 Hamstring Road stated,
“We have property that butts up to the proposed new site.
We butt right up to Mark Rich. The
noise level and the charts they showed is great, but they blasted Monday and
Tuesday. I keep my four-year old,
my four-month-old, and my three-month-old grandchildren.
Tuesday he was just about to take a nap and he hit the floor screaming
the blast scared him. It shakes the house some and that’s in the old part.
What’s going to happen when they start blasting in the new part?”
Daugherty asked, “What date was that ma’am?”
Crumley replied, “Monday and Tuesday.”
Daugherty asked, “Of this week (May 4 and 5)?” Crumley replied, “Yes.
I was home Tuesday. I
wasn’t home Monday I had to take one of the grandbabies to the doctor, but my
husband and my grandchild came in and said, ‘I heard a big boom.’ Tuesday he was about to take his nap and it scared him to
death because it’s just different sounding it rattles the house and it booms. I
just worry about what is it going to do to us when it comes on down and gets
right behind us. We’re maybe a 1,000’ from the area. I noticed the buffer zones I hope that if you go along with
this you will put 200’ buffer zones all the way around this so that it will at
least protect us. Dump trucks
Tuesday on the way to town I was following my daughter we were 2 ½ car lengths
apart and one pulled right out in front of me from the Big Red Dirt Farm.
I called Jimmy at the Big Red Dirt Farm and I said, ‘Hey, it was a
Lindsey truck and he says he’ll do something’, but he didn’t even stop or
slow up. This is a great concern of
ours. I have a brand new car that I
don’t have a new windshield anymore because the gravel up there even through
they clean at times ‘bing’ I lost a windshield out of it.
It’s a really great concern in that area.
Like you so there’s so much traffic on that road it is hazardous to
think about those dump trucks. I
even call the County and ask ‘Can’t you put a stop sign there and make them
stop?’ Well, it’s an automatic
yield, but if they don’t yield and they pull right out and then they got to
crawl the slow hill then you’re going 10 –15 miles an hour because they
pulled out in front of you, but it’s the hazard.
If I’d had my grandchildren in there and we’ve had a wreck I would
have been one mad grandma. My kids
are my thing. The creek and the
springs I have all of these concerns because our home is 1,000’ from where it
is going to be blasting. I just
have a great concern with the noise and the booming of what its going to do when
they get closer to us.”
Jim
Blakely, adjacent property owner to the southwest commented, “I live at 15444
Riches Road. This is just southwest of the Rogers quarry, just northwest of the Big Red Dirt
Farm. I’m a disabled Vietnam veteran. I
had a heart transplant 18 months ago so I’m home most of the time.
I know what explosions feel like. I
have experienced the quarry’s blast; it feels too much like a mortar thump to
me. I really don’t need those
memories once or twice a week for the next 20 years.
I built my home in the country for peace and tranquility not a war zone.
I would appreciate a no vote.”
Sherry
Main, adjacent property owner to the south at 15493 Riches Road stated, “I too live on Riches Road.
I live on the north end more in proximity down to where Mark Rich lives.
I oppose this Conditional Use Permit.
I have an Accounting and Tax service business located on Riches Road.
I have felt the effects of the blasting at my office structure.
I have had clients in my office during an interview and several times
they were startled by the blast and ground movement.
I have heard Rogers Group talk and I have reviewed the scientific
statistics on ground movement from blasting they had not convinced me that we
will not suffer structural damage from this continued blasting.
I suggest more long term monitoring in each direction from the site,
which is the current 45-acre site that was grandfathered in.
I don’t understand how only monitoring one residence in close proximity
for a few blasts can determine that no damage will be done to other structures
over a long term period; possibly 20+ years.
I respectively ask that you will request more monitoring at this time.”
Bonnie
Beeks, adjacent property owner to the north at 16219 Hamstring Road commented,
“I live on Hamstring Road. This quarry where
they are extending joins my property real close.
Tuesday for instance, I wasn’t home Monday, when they put off a blast,
I don’t the technical side of any of this, but I know my house shook.
You tell me if a house is shaking its vibration or whatever it’s doing
damage. I have lived here for a
long time and I don’t think that they should have the right to move in by us
and take over when we don’t have that right.
What I really want to say is I know of damage that is done by this
blasting and they keep denying it. I
have a friend that lives in Wyoming that he has rental property on Hamstring
Road. He has house there and behind
his house is a swimming pool. For
the last two years every time that he’s came in, I’ve known him over 65
years and I have visited with him and went up and seen his property and
everything. This swimming pool has
concrete around where they can have seats and sit around the swimming pool and
it has been sealed. Every time we had went up there it had been sealed all around
and I know as of May 2007 it was still sealed.
When he came in August we went up there and on the south side of it it
had broke loose all the way across on the south side. In places it was broke 3 or 4 different places.
You would think that something just accidentally happened it might just
break a little loose, but the ground had come up and broke that loose.
That could be nothing to cause that except blasting. They will not take any responsibility for anything they keep
saying everything is caused by something else.
When they had a meeting they came to us and the Rogers Group on Monday
night and when I missed the first part but they were talking about somebody
would ask them a question and they’d say, ‘Well, this and this is caused by
that.’ They passed out a book and
in this book there was 40 reasons why you might have damage to your place on the
walls and ceilings and there was about 9 reasons they had down that you would
have damage to your concrete and all of this.
There was about 16 other, but none of this was caused by blasting they
claimed. When are they going to
take responsibility? What have we
got to do when they come in here and keep damaging?
Here they are encroaching closer and closer to me and I oppose this.”
Diana
Gallagher, adjacent property owner to the southeast stated, “I have to thank all of you.
I live at 12279 Martin Road.
I have to imagine Mrs. Richey from where you said you parked for the
blast; you were probably in my driveway. I live immediately across the road from the entry to the
Stephens Dirt Pit and the Rogers Group mining operation. I moved here from North Dallas.
Where I moved from North Dallas the house that we bought was a treasure.
You drove down a beautiful wooded lane.
I sat on my patio and I could look out over a serene pasture at century
old trees and a beautiful black and white Shetland pony.
Now, I have none of that. What
I look out instead and see, what I hear is not the sounds of nature; it’s the
sounds of industrial sites. That’s
wrong. Sadly, the last six months
I’ve become much more familiar with County government and City government in
Conditional Use Permits than I ever planned to know anything about. Knowing what I know about a Conditional Use Permit and what
you’ve heard tonight this Conditional Use Permit fails to meet the
requirements. It should be denied
based on that if nothing else. This
is about more than an ordinance, about more than an approved ordinance, as
you’ve heard tonight it’s about the lives of real people.
Real people who live in Washington County who go to work everyday, who
pay their taxes, and who trust their government to protect them.
This is about so much more than all of that.
The bottom-line, those of us who live here we’re not able to enjoy our
homes because our homes are no longer the homes they used to be.
Washington County is not unlike other counties and other cities around
the country. We’re in the midst
of an economic crisis. We can’t
turn on the T.V. without hearing about the Ponzi schemes, our 401’s
disappearing, bailouts, buyouts, and everything else.
The common factor between all of these things and what’s happening here
tonight is greed; nothing more than simple greed.
It is the desire that some people have for something bigger than what can
be used and what is needed. Washington
County has 6 permitted limestone quarries currently with the 7th one
in contention. I appreciate that
Mr. Sossong and Matt came tonight and provided us this education.
I have a Master’s in Science. I
can tell you I can make Science say anything I want it to if I look at enough
studies. According to Mr. Sossong
on Monday night the Lowell pit that they are currently operating has the
capacity to produce 50 million tons of limestone over the next 20 years. The remaining 6 pits have equal capacity.
I don’t see Washington County needing that quantity of limestone now or
20 years into the future. This is
about the simple greed of a corporation based out of state and out of touch with
the values that we hold dear. This
is a big issue. It has outgrown
Washington County. It has caught
the attention of all of Arkansas, the governor, our State senators and our State
representatives. Everybody is
watching this. It’s about lives,
it’s about ecology, it is about such a lot of critical issues, but Mr. Sossong
had a very important statement when he was presenting he talked about how
efficiently they’re doing business. Peter
Drucker who
wrote the wonderful books on management so many of us have has a quote, ‘There
is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that that should never have been done
at all.’ Please vote
against this Conditional Use Permit. We
don’t need it; we don’t want it.”
Rick
Crisman, adjacent property owner to the west at 15607
Sumac Circle Lot 106 Wedington Woods commented, “I didn’t send that letter
back in opposing it, but I do oppose it so you can add a little pink sliver to
that (PowerPoint) slide. Couple of
things that I was just going to talk about one thing, but then after hearing
people talk a couple of other ideas popped in.
One thing earlier that was implied that Wedington Drive was expanded to
five lanes because of the dump trucks; I just want you guys to understand there
are also two middle schools, an elementary school, a Boys’ and Girls’ club,
and a large subdivision that feed into that road, so it’s not just the dump
trucks is why they went 5 lanes. If
that were the case then they would have extended the 5 lanes all the way to
Hamstring, which they did not. They
stopped at Double Springs. Another
thing we talked about, the blasting during the day; what about people that work
nights that have to sleep during the day? I
know that I’m going to have to be one of those people in the job that I do.
I will eventually have to work nights and that’s a concern for me.
Also, another issue they’re talking about noise noise. If you guys
remember the old racetrack that was technically out in the County on the south
end of town the City enforced their City ordinances on that for the noise
ordinance. I’m willing to bet
that this is probably going to fall into that as well; so that needs to be a
concern because by looking at the map I think it is like 400 yards maybe from
the city limits and that is a residential area.
If that is a residential area I’m not sure what part of that City if
that is or not, but if it is during the day it’s a 50-decibel rating they go
above that it is a violation of City ordinance.
The City enforced it for there I don’t see why they’re not going to
enforce it out there. If they’re
ready to give out a fist full of tickets that’s what they’re going to
get.”
Roma
Gray, adjacent property owner to the north at 16529 Little Road, stated, “I
have a home and a small horse farm just off Hamstring Road north of the Rogers
quarry. Despite the descriptions
that we heard about this being an ideal location.
It is not remote or unobtrusive. In
fact, it’s right in the middle of our homes and our family farms and in
addition to all of the good people who are going to be adversely effected if
this expansion is allowed to continue there are also over 45 horses and over 200
head of cattle. As Mr. Johnson
pointed out 4 equestrian centers on land surrounding this area.
If this expansion is allowed the people who raise cattle and horses are
not going to be able to provide proper husbandry for their livestock.
We will not be able to mitigate the stress effects from the noise of the
daily heavy equipment operations or the intermittent explosive blasting.
Chronic stress effects in animals, including wildlife, can be: decreased
weight gain, compromised immune systems, reproductive disorders, chronic
illness, and death. We will not be
able to prevent flight response injury to horses or the people handling them as
they try to flee from an explosion. We
will not be able to prevent respiratory illnesses if the air quality is damaged
by limestone dust nor can we assure that their water supply will remain
available and safe to drink. It is
my own personal serious responsibility to provide proper care to my livestock.
If you allow this expansion I fear I will not be able to protect them.
Please deny this permit for a heavy industrial use next to our homes and
our farms.”
Michael
Luna, adjacent property owner to the north at 16529 Little Road, commented, “I
live just off of Hamstring Creek Road. The issue that I would like to present is about how the road is being kept
up. Right now, too often red dirt
which is clay is being allowed to accumulate on the road making it that much
more dangerous with the mix of traffic that is out there. When it rains, it’s that much more slicker and one of these
places have equipment to clean the road off, but they don’t use it often
enough. Sometimes they’ll leave
the wet clay slick material on the road for 3 to 4 days before they clean it
up.”
Lanny
Samples, adjacent property owner to the south at 7606 W. Wedington Drive,
stated, “I live on Wedington Drive. I think
everything is pretty much been said. I
just had some notes on some facts. First,
the existing quarry is 45 acres it is grandfathered in.
They are requesting an additional 98 acres.
There is an ADEQ permit in the name of the Rogers Group, according to
what I’ve been told by someone here tonight of 350 acres.
The existing zoned mine is 45 acres drilling and blasting would be
preformed one to two times a week. Each
blast would yield between several hundred to 30,000 tons of blasted rock. The quote is, ‘The existing site is estimated to have
reserves for 20 to 30 years.’ In
an article today in the Northwest Arkansas Times and stated tonight, basically,
this is a request for additional limestone reserves for the future.
The limestone mining could begin in this 100 acres now 98 (acres) 10 to
20 years from now. Are we looking
at granting a Conditional Use Permit now that would possibly be used in 10 to 20
years from now? That is far down
the road in the future the whole landscape of Washington County can change in
that time. Another quote in their
permit request is, ‘The dirt sales from the site have decreased significantly
the last two years and stone and dirt sales, this is from their request,
combined from the site have not increased above the overall volumes previously
shipped on average for the last 5 years. Also,
the dirt sales will continue for 3 to 5 years at the current volumes and then be
supplanted by stone sales. This
will allow for volumes to continue in total from the site that are below or
equal to levels shipped two years ago and earlier and at levels that Hamstring
Road will be able to handle for many years to come.’
The question that I have the quarry has already been issued the necessary
environmental permits we’ve heard that from the ADEQ and has the necessary
reclamation bond in place for 350 acres. We
don’t need it now. It has been
stated that there are 10 mines currently in Washington and Benton County.
Proximity of an adjoining mine that was granted a Conditional Use Permit
that is in litigation. They have
enough limestone to last 50 to 75 years. They
claim to supply the needs of Washington County. We have another 45-acre mine right next-door; do we need
more? Do we need bigger?
Do we need more profits in Washington County for big business?”
Walker
asked, “I thought that I understood you to say that in the existing quarry
today there was 7 to 10 years of rock available, but then I keep hearing 20
years of rock. What are we talking
about?” Sossong replied, “There
is an estimated amount of 7 to 10 years in the existing area.”
Walker asked, “At what rate? The
rate we’ve been building?” Sossong
replied, “The rate that we’re doing right now somewhere in that vicinity if
sales were to increase some that may shorten that if sales slow down some that
may lengthen that.” Walker asked,
“That’s not 20 years?” Sossong
replied, “No.” Gallagher asked,
“We talked about less than 150 acres that you want to quarry.
Am I correct on that?” Sossong
replied, “That’s correct.” Gallagher
asked, “And yet, we hear about an ADEQ permit for 350 acres.
Are we going to have one of these visits once every five years where you
continue to expand this thing until you get to Harmon Road?”
Sossong replied, “We have a reclamation bond.
Three years ago when I set out to do this put into place and filed with
the ADEQ a reclamation bond for the area that I have submitted in front of this
group. That was all that was ever
intended to be. I’m not sure why
the ADEQ says 350 acres. You can go
down to the mining department and we have just this particular area for our
proposed mine. That’s it.”
Gallagher asked, “You’re not precluded from expanding that are you by ADEQ?” Sossong replied, “There’s 120 acres on Mark Rich’s
property. There are roughly 160
(acres) I believe on John David Lindsey’s properties.
There’s not even 350 acres there I think in total, so if there’s 350
acres there and I would be more than happy to bring written proof that that is
not the case and just kill that whole issue, because that is not the case.
That was never the intention that’s never been the proposal beyond what
we have put before this Board and gone through this process to do it.”
Gallagher asked, “I understand that, but what we’re still hearing,
though, is that your landlords control more than twice the land that you are
proposing to quarry. There’s
nothing that we’re going to do here that is going to preclude you from coming
back. There’s nothing in Little
Rock that ADEQ is going to preclude you from expanding.
Can make the quarry twice as big for example.” Sossong replied, “The quarry that we have and then
there’s our issues with regards trying to expand that quarry because of a
ravine on the northwest side along there. This
fits in with that geographic piece of property and exit out onto Wedington Road
by Hamstring that is all our proposal has ever been intended to be.”
Walker
asked, “The depth of the quarry does it have to go deeper than the bottom of
Hamstring Creek?” Sossong
replied, “I would have to look at the geological USGS maps again.
I went out and got a significant amount of elevations and getting these
GPS points that I gave to Juliet and based on what I know it is going to be
approximately at the same level within 20’ give or take from what I know at
this point; top to bottom.” Walker
asked, “Will it dry up Hamstring Creek?” Sossong asked, “It will not dry
up Hamstring Creek.” Walker
commented, “Tell me why.” Sossong
stated, “Because of the transmissivity of the water and the way that the water
it is not going to effect Hamstring Creek and the source of that creek where the
water comes to it. The creek will
continue to flow the water, the transmissivity, is the term for water to try and
actually move through stone. The
stone in that portion of the deposit is extremely dense so it is very hard for
the water to move one-way or the other. If
the water level in the quarry is here and the Hamstring Creek level is here why
is this all of this going to go over to here?
Water will continue to run down hill.” Walker asked, “At what point
will you reclaim the quarry that you are working in at this time?”
Sossong replied, “At the end of the mining period as we’ve outlined
with the reserves that we’ve identified.”
Walker asked, “So the reclaim of the existing pit will not happen until
after the limestone of the proposed pit is completed?”
Sossong replied, “The existing pit will just be a continuation into
the…” Walker asked, “We’re looking at 20 to 30 years from now before we
start reclaiming anything?” Sossong
replied, “That is correct. Basically,
that is a self contained pit. As
far as the water there won’t be any sediment, there won’t be any run-off out
of that because that will be bermed up and then controlled all in that pit.”
Walker asked, “There’s also one point brought up that no one has addressed
in your group. The water that we
pump out of the pit, which we all know there is water in the pit, where does it
go?” Sossong replied, “The
water in the pit goes down to the southeast portion and we have a series of
ponds set up there and then a bioswale that that water, basically, goes and
infiltrates the ground and then ultimately trickles down into Hamstring
Creek.” Walker asked, “Through the ground or sheet flow?”
Sossong replied, “Mostly through the ground.”
Walker commented, “Now you got me a little confused because if the
water can leach from this pond into Hamstring Creek then how do we believe that
the water from Hamstring Creek can’t leach back into the pit as we get
deeper?” Sossong replied, “The water is leaching down to Hamstring
Creek through the dirt not through the limestone predominantly.
It can make its way through the dirt.”
Walker asked, “As you get deeper where is the water going that you’re
going to pump out?” Sossong replied, “The water is going to continue to be put
up into that dirt grass. It is a
dirt grassy area that the water can go into and then trickle down in as opposed
to going through limestone or anything else in that regard.
A picture is worth a thousand words as far as viewing that on site.”
Walker stated, “There is one thing, Juliet, I will not go if we’re
going to do a minimum blast. I want
to know the maximum blast. There’s
no point.” Hummel commented, “I
agree with that.” Walker stated,
“You can set off a firecracker and say that’s a blast.”
Sossong commented, “We don’t do those types of things.” Walker stated, “I understand and it’s not economically
feasible for you to set off a small blast, but if we’re going to go out for a
firecracker then I’m not going.” Sossong
commented, “What is a normal blast and we can take a seismograph up to the
home if somebody wants to go watch it up there, too and we offer that and have
done that multiple times and various quarries when people express an issue at
their potential home.” Walker
stated, “Difference in a normal blast and a maximum blast.
I want to see a maximum blast. Otherwise,
you haven’t showed me anything and I need to see it per your records.”
Gallagher
asked, “You just said something that kind of confused me. I heard a variety of things tonight. You said that the bottom of your quarry is going to be at the
level of Hamstring Creek.” Sossong
commented, “Approximately that is correct.”
Gallagher asked, “You told us that the bottom of your quarry was going
to be at 1025, 175’ below your 1200. The
creek is at 1100 and is not but a few feet deep.
Tell me how that math works. I’m not very smart, most of these people
in this room will tell you that, but that doesn’t seem to work for me.”
Sossong replied, “The change was that I was speaking what I thought
were the elevations that we actually had when I went out and did the GPS points
yesterday morning and found out that the elevations were higher that’s what
I’m basing that information off of.” Gallagher
asked, “You just told us tonight that you were starting at 1200 and going
175’ deep. Is that not right? You told us 1200; I wrote it down.” Sossong replied, “We’re approximately at 1250 1240.”
Gallagher asked, “Is that the top of the rock or the top of the
dirt?” Sossong replied, “The
top of the rock.”
Richey
stated, “The reclamation map and they’re still working on this I think that
says 1080.” Walker asked, “Is
that the bottom?” Richey replied, “Yeah, these are the proposed 1080 is the
lowest and then 1090 and 1100. I
think that the gentleman that said 1200 was Art Brown or Walter Ward or whoever
brought the USGS map I think that he said that he thought it was 1200.”
Walker asked, “Do we know what the bottom of the creek is?”
Richey replied, “I don’t know right now.”
Gallagher commented, “Roughly 1100.”
Sossong stated, “We’ll establish that for you.”
Daugherty commented, “I think that we need to know that.
I would like to know that before we vote on..”
Haley
asked, “Juliet, one of the gentleman brought up, I think it was Mr. Bolen, at
what point with all the Conditional Use Permits that are granted changes the
whole face of an area from a residential/agricultural into an industrial area? If this continues to go in that area I’m assuming now we
have 100 acres or 98.1 or whatever then we’re going to have 100 more acres
potentially. So what at what point
does it completely change the whole face of that area?” Richey replied, “I don’t know.
That is a complicated question to answer, but I know what you’re saying
and it makes sense.” Haley
stated, “It may be something that we can address, I know that it is getting
late, and maybe we can address. It
was on the top of my mind and I just didn’t want it to slip, so we can
definitely address it at the next meeting, but I do want it addressed.”
Richey commented, “We can talk more about it later, but all I can say
is we do look at each one individually and one of the things that we look at
when we look at each one individually is what’s going on around it.”
Haley stated, “All of a sudden when you’ve looked at ten you have
completely changed from a residential/agricultural into a commercial area.”
Walker asked, “What is it zoned now?”
Gallagher replied, “It is all residential/agricultural.”
Walker asked, “The Red Dirt Pit is zoned residential/agricultural?”
Butler replied, “It is considered a nonconforming use.
The use was in existence before it was zoned.”
Richey commented, “It was grandfathered in.”
Butler stated, “Nonconforming uses are allowed to expand as a
Conditional Use under our ordinance.” Walker
asked, “Is that the 45 acres or the 350 acres?”
Richey replied, “350 acres is not a real number that we’re talking
about.” Walker commented, “I
understand, the 100 acres then.” Butler
stated, “What he is applying for a Conditional Use Permit to expand or extend
the quarry or however you want to do it. Our
ordinance provides for that; for a nonconforming use to expand, as well as for
when a new use comes in.” Daugherty
asked, “The ordinance written by the JP’s, basically, allows that
expansion?” Butler replied, “Right, usually nonconforming uses are not
allowed to expand in your standard zoning ordinance that doesn’t mean that it
can’t, but that’s what our ordinance…” Hummel asked, “They can keep on
just as long as they can go another 100 or another 20 nonconforming use?”
Butler replied, “Theoretically that’s possible, but I’m not saying
that every time that they ask for an extension that doesn’t necessarily mean
that it has to be granted either.” Richey
commented, “Each expansion is a Conditional Use itself that would have to be
looked at by you all.” Walker
asked, “Juliet, have you done any research on the availability of limestone in
the quarries that are existing in Washington County?” Richey replied, “I
know where they are getting their numbers from.
If you go on ADEQ’s website and you look under quarries (rock) then you
get 6 in Washington County and I didn’t search the Benton County one.
Of those ones that come up rock they’re not all limestone quarries.
To say that there are 6 limestone quarries is false; some of them are
flagstones.” Walker stated,
“That was my question. I would
like to know the volume that is potentially available for the next…”Butler
commented, “What I have to say about that is - I mean that’s fine, it’s
not a consideration, something that we’re not allowed to consider by our
ordinance.” Walker stated,
“We’ve been presented with facts tonight stating that we don’t need
anymore limestone. I don’t know
that. If I don’t know how much limestone is available in
Washington County. I know that it still doesn’t have anything to do.”
Butler commented, “You can have all of the information you want, but
that’s not a legitimate consideration.”
Walker stated, “I understand, but I still want to know it.”
Richey commented, “We don’t look at the marketability of things; we
look at the compatibility.” Walker
stated, “For me to be able to say that this is compatible and needed and this,
that, and the other I need to know this information and I need to know it for a
fact. That is just my poor dumb way of asking for something.”
Gallagher commented, “In terms of the need, the applicant opened the
door on that. I think that we are entitled to explore it and find out what’s
going on.” Butler stated,
“I’m not saying that you can’t explore, but it’s not under
consideration.” Gallagher
commented, “He’s put it in front of us and he’s made us feel like it is a
justification for allowing this.” Butler
stated, “I understand that.
I said that’s fine, Jim, that they give the information, but it’s not
a legitimate consideration.” Gallagher
asked, “Coming back to Kenley’s point about when it becomes industrial, this
is a chicken and egg argument that we’re getting here in this particular site
is a perfect example of it. We have
an application and Staff’s justification was there’s already one there on 45
acres, so we ought to allow the other 57 acres.
Now, Quorum Court has allowed the 57 acres and now they’re saying,
‘Well, since we have the 57 acres we should be allowed to have this one.’
Then the next one that comes in they’re going to say, ‘Well you’ve
allowed two others how could you tell us we can’t?’ At what point do we have to get to Tontitown or Lake
Wedington before we finally say that’s enough we’re destroying
neighborhoods, we’re destroying homes, we’re destroying livestock?
At what point do we stop? You’re
stair stepping these justifications in the recommendations and I find it
particularly bothersome. You’re
right, you made an excellent point, normally nonconforming uses are not allowed
to become more nonconforming. That’s
what he’s asking us to do.” Butler
replied, “Our ordinance provides for it, Jim, and you know that.
We’ve had this discussion already, and other discussions, too.
Not only about this project, but about the other one and don’t force me
to say what I don’t want to say.” Walker
asked, “One thing, too, is when we started the zoning process had there not
been a quarry at all or Red Dirt Farm here it would have been a whole lot easier
for us to sit here and say, ‘No’, but that is our consideration that we have
to discuss and consider now that there is some like use there.
That’s why I have to really go through this tough because I know what
you’re saying Jim, but if there is a particular business in this area that
continues on then one of the discussions in the zoning was like things, correct
or not Juliet? Is that what we
talked all the way through the zoning process?”
Richey replied, “When you say ‘like’ it’s not like exactly alike,
but you consider surrounding uses and what that means compared to the use…”
Walker commented, “If there was none at all out there it would be real
simple.” Daugherty stated, “I
think it would have been a lot simpler decision for us at that point.” Butler commented, “Just like on the other one.
In my mind they’re within the confines of the ordinance without going
outside the confines of the ordinance. There
is plenty of ammunition there to make a decision either way.
Don’t have to go outside the ordinance to do that.”
Walker
stated, “It’s late and I think with the lack of information that I have with
the ability to go to the site I would move to table this motion until next
month’s meeting.”
Larry
Walker moved to table Rogers Group Quarry Expansion Conditional Use Permit. Roy
Hummel seconded. Motion passes.
All
Board members were in favor of tabling Rogers
Group Quarry Expansion Conditional Use Permit.
Sossong
asked, “I was just going to ask, was there any decision made on a date or
anything that was talked about?”
Larry
Walker moved that we as a Board set a date and meet at the site for a
demonstration and a viewing of the site. Roy Hummel seconded.
Motion passes.
Daugherty
asked, “Juliet, in this motion do we want to try to discuss a date?” Richey replied, “We’ve got lots of parties here that are
all involved.” Daugherty
commented, “Lets just say May 19 if that’s a good date for you all.” Sossong stated, “In the evening would be fine we will put a
shot off that day.” Walker
commented, “We want to be out there during the shot.”
Sossong asked, “Then we will have to be forced.
What time do you want to do it and we’re going to shoot in hours that
would be outside of our…?” Walker
replied, “We’ll do it in the daytime. We’ll
do it in hours of operation.” Butler
asked, “11:00 – 1:00 is that when you usually shoot?” Daugherty replied,
“Somewhere in that neighborhood.” Sossong
stated, “We’ll call you the day before and give you a better idea that only
thing that would preclude that would be severe weather comes in that type of
thing thunder and lightning and those types of things because of handling
explosive materials we don’t do that for safety reasons.”
Daugherty asked, “Notification for the press, how much time?”
West asked, “Don’t you have to give them 24 hour notice?”
Richey replied, “I think that would be nice.”
Butler commented, “We have to give them notice and we’ll send them
out.” Gallagher asked,
“Specific to say 1:00 that afternoon?”
Sossong replied, “That would be great.”
Richey stated, “Because you tabled it that means that the hearing will
automatically be on next month’s agenda June 9 and we’ll send out letters
stating that by regular mail this time since you’ve already been notified
certified and we’ll also put the date and time of this meeting May 19 at 1:00
at Rogers Group.” Gallagher
asked, “Would you make a note to the group that June meeting is a different
schedule than we’re used to? Wasn’t
it a special date?” Richey
replied, “I had a scheduling conflict. I
think that is on a Tuesday. I’ll
put that on there. It’s not on a
Thursday.”
Larry
Walker moved to amend his motion by changing it to meeting at the site on May 19
at 1:00. Roy Hummel seconded. Motion
passes.
Haley
commented, “I want to make note I’m out of town.”
Walker asked, “On that date?” Haley
replied, “Yes, there’s no way I can… I can’t change.”
Walker stated, “We’ll record it for you.” Sossong commented, “We record every shot.”
5.
OLD BUSINESS
6.
OTHER BUSINESS
Cheryl
West moved to adjourn. Larry Walker seconded.
Motion passes.
Planning
Board adjourned.
Minutes
submitted by: Amanda Kimbel
Approved
by the Planning Board on:
___Randy Laney_______________ Date: ___06/09/09_______
Randy Laney, Planning Board Chairman
WASHINGTON
COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
&
ZONING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
June 9, 2009
5:00
p.m., Quorum Courtroom, New Courthouse
Fayetteville,
Arkansas
DEVELOPMENTS REVIEWED:
ACTION TAKEN:
a.
Replat Lots 9, 10, and 11 Sundowners Good Earth Estates
Tabled
County
b. Trumbo Estates
Tabled
Fayetteville’s Planning Area
c. FIT CUP
Conditional Use Permit Approval
Fayetteville’s Planning Area
d. Historic Skillern Farmhouse CUP
Removed
from the agenda
County
e. Rogers
Group Quarry Expansion CUP
Tabled
Johnson’s Planning Area
f.
Shady Pines Adult Day Care CUP
Tabled
1. ROLL CALL:
Roll call was taken.
Members present include: James F. Gallagher, Kenley Haley, Randy Laney,
Larry Walker, Roy Hummel, Cheryl West, and Robert Daugherty.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (from the May 7, 2009 and May 19, 2009
meetings) Larry Walker made a motion to approve as written. Robert Daugherty
provided the second. Motion passes.
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
Laney asked, “There are some items to be amended
before we approve it. Under Land
Development Hearings Item a. Replat Lots 9, 10, and 11 Sundowners Good Earth
Estates is to be tabled and Item b. Trumbo Estates is to be tabled. Item d. Historic Skillern Farmhouse CUP is being
removed from the agenda, is that correct?”
Juliet Richey, Washington County Planning Director, replied, “Yes, that
is correct.” Laney stated,
“Item f. Shady Pines Adult Day
Care CUP is to be tabled.” Robert
Daugherty made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Cheryl West
seconded. Motion passes.
4. Honor Gary Head for his years of loyal service to the Washington County Planning Board.
Laney
commented, “Tonight is a special night for a lot of reasons, but one of them
is that for those of you in the audience that don’t know the Planning Board
has met tirelessly and we’ve had a recent one of our members that’s left and
what 90% of the time that he was here he was uncompensated.
The Planning Board used to be an uncompensated position, but he gave to
the community tirelessly. BE IT
RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, STATE
OF ARKANSAS,
A RESOLUTION TO BE ENTITLED: A RESOLUTION IN APPRECIATION OF GARY HEAD
- WHEREAS, Gary Head has served on the Washington County Planning Board
for 10 years; and,WHEREAS,
Gary Head’s sage and practical advice and input have been invaluable to the
Planning Board; and,WHEREAS, Gary Head’s service has come at great
personal sacrifice of his time and energy. NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS: ARTICLE
1. That the Planning Board of Washington County, Arkansas
expresses its deep appreciation for the services of Gary Head.
Gary did a tremendous job for us.”
5. NEW BUSINESS
a. Replat Lots 9, 10, and 11 Sundowners Good Earth
Estates (Preliminary and Final Plat Approval Request) To
be tabled at the request of the applicant (2)
Location: Section 35, Township 15 North, Range 31
West
Owner/Developer: Connie Robbins
Engineer/Surveyor: DVDoyal Land Surveying - Daryl
Doyal
Location Address: 12727, 12765, and 12799
N. Billingsley Road (WC #210)
10.1 acres and 2 lots / Proposed Land Use:
Residential
Project
#: 2009-037 Planner: Jessie Pettit, e-mail at jpettit@co.washington.ar.us
Robert Daugherty moved to
table Replat
Lots 9, 10, and 11 Sundowners Good Earth Estates Preliminary and Final Plat at the request of the applicant.
Cheryl West seconded. Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of tabling
Replat Lots 9, 10, and 11 Sundowners Good
Earth Estates Preliminary and Final Plat.
County
b. Trumbo Estates (Preliminary and Final Plat
Approval Request) To be tabled at the request of the applicant (1)
Location: Section 8, Township 17 North, Range 28 West
Owner/Developer: Tom Stockland, Jim Stockland, and
Trey Trumbo
Engineer/Surveyor: Atwell Land Surveying – Dave
Atwell
Location Address:
(closest addressed property) to
the west of 19856 Groth Road (WC #377)
8.57 acres and 2 lots / Proposed Land Use:
Single-Family
Project
#: 2009-048 Planner: Courtney McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
Robert Daugherty moved to
table Trumbo
Estates Preliminary and Final Plat at
the request of the applicant. Cheryl West
seconded. Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of tabling
Trumbo Estates Preliminary and Final Plat.
Fayetteville’s Planning Area
c. FIT CUP (Conditional
Use Permit Request)
Location: Section 29, Township 17 North, Range 29
West
Owner/Developer: Cindy Mix
Location Address: 4188 Bridgewater Lane (WC #2045)
.96 acres / Proposed Land Use: Exercise Studio
Project
#: 2009-050 Planner: Jessie Pettit, e-mail at jpettit@co.washington.ar.us
REQUEST:
Conditional Use Permit Approval for
FIT CUP.
The applicant is proposing that an existing outbuilding be used as an
exercise studio. This outbuilding
is currently denoted as shop on the Applicant's site plan/ survey See pages
C-17, C-30, and C-31 for a visual of site information and pages C-27 through
C-29 for applicant’s letter of request and follow-up clarification emails.
The applicant plans on training a minimal number of clients not to exceed
20 hours total within a 7 day time period.
The 20 hours would be a maximum; the Applicant does not foresee reaching
that number of hours on a regular basis. The
applicant states in the letter of request, "traffic would not have an
impact on the area with parking well off the main road and no more than 2 (+/-1)
cars at any given time". This
is a home based business. The
applicant lives on site.
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
BACKGROUND/ PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
The
owner/applicant for this project is Cindy Mix.
The
project site is located at 4188 E Bridgewater Lane (parcel #001-15567-000).
This is located north of the intersection of E. Bridgewater Lane and N.
Oakland Zion Road WC #83.
The
total acreage of the property is 0.96 acres
The
Conditional Use Permit Request came about due to an anonymous complaint filed
with the Planning Office regarding a business being run out of a home in an area
zoned agricultural/ single-family residential. The complaint was in reference to property to the west of the
project site. The property is not
included in this CUP request due to the applicant stating the exercise studio is
the only space that will be used for the proposed business; see page C-28
(Property to the west of the project site) for a further explanation from the
applicant on this issue.
There
have been no large issues that have come up during the review of this project.
The Road Department has made the following comment on the project that
will be interpreted into Staff’s recommended conditions of approval:
(1)
An apron on the driveway will be required.
This can be hot mix asphalt or concrete.
This needs to be 20 feet (minimum) in depth beginning at the edge of the
pavement. This should be completed
within 60 days of CUP approval. This
must be inspected by the County Road Dept.
Any extension shall be approved by Road Department.
(2)
A permit from the Washington County Road Department is required for any work
done in the County Road right-of-way.
Initially
a time frame of 30 days was given but the applicant desires to complete this
work after remodeling work takes place on the home residence on site.
The Road Department finds this extended time frame acceptable.
TECHNICAL CONCERNS:
Water/Plumbing/Fire Issues:
Property
is within Goshen’s Fire Department service area, according to Washington
County GIS “ESN” boundary map layer. John
Jenkins, Washington County Fire Marshal, had the following comment on the
project: “Requirements of fire extinguishers and smoke alarms have already
been met.”
David
Edwards with Goshen Fire Department concurred with Mr. Jenkins comments
Septic:
The
applicant states in the letter of request “A septic system was installed per
specifications of the Washington County Health Department receipt #1533937.”
The Health Department (Melissa Wonnacott) had the following comment
“New septic system recently installed for just the fitness center.
No need to do anything else.”
Electric/Gas/Cable/Phone:
Utility
providers were not requested to comment on this project due to the project
working with existing buildings and lines already in place.
No new development is proposed; it is a land use decision.
Roads/Sight
Visibility/Ingress-Egress/Parking:
Planning
staff conducted a site visit on 05.15.09 and found site visibility to be good.
The
applicant has stated in the CUP Request Letter “Traffic would not have an
impact on the area with parking well off the main road and no more than 2(+/-1)
cars at any given time” Staff concluded the existing parking area provides
adequate space for turn-around. The
drive will need to be kept in good repair to provide adequate safe driving
conditions to clients. The existing
back portion the drive is in need of some maintenance due to construction/
remodeling of the main residence. The
applicant/ owner has plans to repair this portion of the gravel drive post
construction. The Road Department
will be requiring a twenty foot apron which the applicant has agreed to. A permit is also required by the Road Department to do work
within the County road right-of-way.
City
of Fayetteville Comments:
Future Land Use Plan
·
The adopted
City Plan 2025 Future Land Use Plan identifies the future use of this property
as a Rural Area. The Rural Area land use designation
that encompasses this property consists of areas that have infrastructure
and public services to support low-density, low-intensity land uses. These areas
do not have adequate transportation or public services to support urban
development patterns at this time. This area also encourages conservation and
preservation in any development pattern.
Fayetteville Planning’s Recommended Conditions
Retaining
the residential character of the property is critical to maintaining
compatibility between the proposed low-intensity nonresidential use of the
property and the residential nature of the area.
Other
(hours of operation, lighting, noise and signage:
FIT CUP hours of operation– proposed
hours of operation are 7am to 7pm
Light pollution–
Applicant currently has motion activated security lighting on garage and
exercise studio building. This type
of lighting is typical for residential outbuildings.
Any additional outdoor lighting associated with the proposed CUP business
should be shielded in a manner that does not create a nuisance to neighboring
properties.
Noise–Applicant does not foresee noise as being an
issue with this CUP. The applicant
states that noise (music) may accompany a client meeting but will be kept to a
minimum in order to maintain audible conversation between the trainer and the
client.
The
owner/ applicant of CUP project site dwells in the main building on the
property; the exercise studio is also used for personal use in addition to the
proposed use for clients. Music/
radio etc. is used during personal training time at louder levels than it is
used when meeting with a client.
Signage- There
is no proposed signage that accompanies this CUP request.
COMPATIBILITY
CONCERNS:
Surrounding
Area:
Both
adjacent properties to the project site and those within a quarter mile have
predominately existing land uses of residential and undeveloped/ agricultural
properties. See pages C-19 and C-20
for map visual of existing land-use of adjacent property owners to the project
site.
Even
though the proposed land use is different from the existing surrounding land
uses (i.e. residential/ agri) staff has concluded that is can be compatible with
the surrounding areas for several reasons:
(1) Limits placed on business in several areas of operation.
The proposed business is limited in the hours of operation per week, the
number of clients seen at a given time, and the number of employees.
(2) Minimal negative visual impact as a result of the
proposed business.
The proposed business, with the exception of an extra car or two, (three
at the most) will not visually be any different than a typical rural resident.
The project is working with an existing accessory structure converted
into an exercise studio. There is
no proposed signage.
(3) Other
miscellaneous concerns (noise / light pollution) have been addressed by the
applicant.
The applicant has addressed staff's concerns for the potential for
negative impact of noise and light. Neither
of these appear to be problematic with this project.
(4) Septic
concerns and fire-safety concerns have been addressed.
(5) Ingress/
Egress are adequate and road issues in general have been addressed.
The applicant does not have an issue with the 20' road apron that the
Road Department is requiring to minimize the amount of loose gravel on the
County Road.
County’s Land Use Plan (written
document):
Several
goals surfaced as paramount in the PARA Task Force meetings and in a meeting
held by the Quorum Court. These include:
a. Provision of a safe living environment that offers quiet, privacy, and a
rural flavor and atmosphere;
b. Provision of quality residential development of good design, developed in a
manner accessible by an adequate street system to avoid costly infrastructure
extensions;
c. Protection of residential areas from incompatible adjacent land uses;
d. Protection of property values; and
e. Provision of safe and adequate access to residential areas, installed in a
manner to accommodate emergency and other services.
Future
Land Use Plan:
Washington County's Land Use Map shows the property as being located in
an area designated "Rural Area Residential (1 unit per 15 acres).
See page C-18 for a visual of this map zoomed in on the project site.
Washington
County’s Land Use Map was created using information from Fayetteville's Land
Use Map. See page C-21 for the City
of Fayetteville Planning comments.
Staff
has concluded the following:
·
that the
Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property
in the surrounding area for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially
diminish and impair property values within the surrounding area
·
that the
establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding area for uses permitted in the
zone
NEIGHBOR
COMMENTS/CONCERNS:
The
initial complaint that brought this proposed business to light was regarding
exercise equipment on property west of the project site. Applicant has stated this is not a part of the business but
is for personal use; see page C-28
(Property to the west of the project site) for a further explanation from the
applicant on this issue.
One
adjacent property owner phoned in, Ms. Livingston who owns property east of the
project site. The neighbor voiced
general concerns of expansion; expansion that can take place in a gradual
manner. Examples of expansion given
by the adjacent property owner are: expanded hours, tanning salon, sale of
supplements, increased number of employees, and sale of other fitness oriented
commodities. The adjacent neighbor
plans on providing the Planning Office with written comments.
Planning will provide the Board with any comments received post sending
out the staff recommendation.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Conditional Use Permit approval of
the proposed FIT CUP
with the following conditions being met.
1.Any other land divisions, commercial structures, expansion
of gravel parking or other types of uses not considered with this submittal must
come through a separate CUP or review process with the County.
2. An apron on
the driveway will be required. This
can be hot mix asphalt or concrete. This
shall be 20 feet (minimum) in depth beginning at the edge of the pavement.
This shall be completed within 60 days of CUP approval.
This must be inspected by the County Road Dept.
Any extension shall be approved by Road Department.
3. Means of
ingress/ egress (gravel drive) must stay in good repair.
4. A permit from
the Washington County Road Dept. is required for any work done in the County
Road right-of-way.
5. Hours of
operation are 7am to 7pm with a maximum amount of hours per week not to exceed
20 hours.
6. There shall
be no more than three (3) clients at any given time.
All parking shall be retained on site (i.e. no parking on E. Bridgewater
Lane).
7. Employees for
the business are limited to one (1).
8. There shall
be no signage.
9.
Any noise associated with the business shall be kept at minimal level as
to prevent any nuisances to neighboring properties.
10. Any outdoor
light associated with the business shall be shielded in a manner to prevent
glare to neighboring properties.
11.
Pay mailing fees for certified mailing to adjacent property owners.
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water
– City of Fayetteville
Water
Electric-Ozark
Electric
Phone-AT &T
Telephone
Gas-Arkansas
Western Gas
Cable-Cox
Communications
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION:
Previous property division/ adjustments on this parent
parcel include Planning Exempt
·
Exempt Lot-line Adjustment #2002-225 (Circuit Clerk filing number for survey is
2002-155143)
·
Exempt Lot Split #2003-120 (Circuit Clerk filing number for survey is 2003-00028424)
·
Exempt Lot-line Adjustment #2004-250 (Circuit Clerk filing number for survey is
2004-00037018).
The property has also been included in other filed
surveys which did not come through the County Planning Office; see survey with
Circuit Clerk filing number 2006-00043789.
This survey appears to have come through Fayetteville Planning but
bypassed County Planning.
Cindy Mix, owner of the
project, was present to answer any questions.
Jessie
Pettit, Washington County Planner, stated, “There
was some additional information on this item that I hope everyone received some
adjacent property owner information. I
believe most of it is covered in the Staff report, but this is in their own
words, so that’s important to have. The
project site is located east of Fayetteville’s City limits.
The owner/applicant for FIT CUP is Cindy Mix. The address for the project site is 4188 E. Bridgewater Lane.
The project site is located in Fayetteville’s Planning Area.
Planning Areas are shown in lighter color corresponding to cities they
are tied to. On the right hand side
you have the zoned area zoned agricultural/single-family.
You can also see some Conditional Use Permits that we’ve had earlier:
Andy Bethell Home Office CUP (CUP approved 8/7/08), David Jones Plumbing (Jones
Shop CUP approved 9/18/08), and Elan International CUP (CUP approved
11/1/07).”
Pettit
commented, “Main traffic arteries near the site are Crossover - Highway 265
running north and south, Mission – Highway 45 running east and west, those are
highlighted in orange along with Joyce Street running east and west.
Secondary streets are highlighted in yellow on this PowerPoint slide. The
site is located north of the intersection of Bridgewater Lane (WC #2045) and
Oakland-Zion (WC #83) connecting to the bigger roads.
Other roads highlighted in yellow are Old Wire (WC #87) and E. Skillern
(WC #536) just to get you oriented.”
Pettit
added, “The applicant is proposing that the existing outbuilding be used as an
exercise studio. The applicant
plans on training a minimum number of clients not to exceed 20 hours within a
seven day time period; 20 hours will be the maximum.
The applicant doesn’t foresee reaching that maximum amount of hours
very often. This is a home-based
business; the applicant lives on-site. On
this PowerPoint slide the orange color is property owners within a quarter-mile
of the project site; we look at that. All
of the properties within a quarter-mile are residential/ single-family or
undeveloped agricultural property. In
the applicant’s letter of request she mentioned that there were some other
businesses. Staff went out on-site
and they didn’t see any other home businesses to speak of just single-family
residential. It is possible that
there is no signage and you don’t know that a business is run out of a home,
but that is what Staff found. Looking
at the Land Use Map the County’s Land Use Map is created using Cities’ land
use information in their Growth (Planning) areas.
This is denoted on the County’s Land Use Map as rural area residential
one dwelling per 15 acres. We
received comments from the City of Fayetteville Planning the adopted City Plan
2025 Future Land Use Plan identifies the future use of this property as rural
area. The proposed use of the
property is for an exercise studio. While
the proposed use is not rural in nature, utilizing an existing structure for a
low-intensity nonresidential use could be compatible with surrounding
properties, with appropriate conditions. They
(Fayetteville) listed a few conditions that Staff should keep in mind when
County Staff reviewed specific hours of operation should be established.
The applicant gave the hours of operation 7:00am – 7:00pm 7 days a
week. Signage should be limited in size and height.
The applicant is not proposing any signage.
The number of employees should be defined and limited.
The owner/applicant will be the only employee.
Expansion of the existing gravel parking area or building area shall
require further review. These
conditions that Fayetteville Planning recommended are reflected in the
County’s conditions that are recommended for approval.”
Pettit
also added, “Retaining the residential character of the property is critical
to maintaining compatibility between proposed low intensity nonresidential use
of the property and residential nature of the area. This is the site plan that was provided by the applicant;
Staff provided some additional information.
Here is the existing building that is proposed to be used as the exercise
studio; orange shows the approximate location of the septic that has already
been installed and approved by the Health Department for this specific purpose.
This is a site plan that Staff put together.
You can see all the information that you had on the previous slide with
the addition of some areas sit aside for parking and ingress/egress.
During the site visit Staff found that the sight visibility is good.
There haven’t been any issues with this project; the Road Department is
requesting a 20’ apron and you will see that in Staff’s recommendation.
Other issues that were looked at that we’ve already discussed hours of
operation, light doesn’t seem from the business does not seem to be an issue
with this in terms of being a nuisance to adjacent property owners.
The same goes with noise, signage, other things that were looked at were
water, plumbing, fire issues and septic. We
didn’t ask for comments from the utility companies due to the fact that there
is no proposed new development you’re working with existing utility lines and
existing building. We already
covered roads ingress/egress and sight visibility.”
Pettit
stated, “We did receive two comments from within the quarter-mile of the
project site. Adjacent property
owners were single-family undeveloped agricultural.
We did receive an adjacent property owner to the east of the project
site, Ms. Livingston, had concerns of expansion of the Conditional Use Permit if
approved and the applicant/owner addressed those comments in the information
that was handed out. Basically,
what is before you is what is going to (asking to) be approved.
Any expansion would be required to come back through the review process.
David Mix also commented on the project; he owns property to the east and
west. His current concern was
related to the property to the west, which is not part of the Conditional Use
Permit request, so its not really relevant from Staff’s perspective. He wanted to have a fence because there’s some exercise
equipment on this property. The
applicant/owner addressed those concerns she said that they’re not a part of
the Conditional Use Permit not part of the business.”
Pettit
commented, “Even though the proposed land use is different from the existing
surrounding land uses Staff has concluded that it can be compatible with the
surrounding area for several reasons; limits placed on business in several
areas: hours of operation, number of clients and number of employees, minimal
negative visual impact as a result of the proposed business, driving by you
wouldn’t even know that a business was there.
Other miscellaneous concerns: noise
and light pollution have already been addressed, septic concerns, fire safety
has been addressed, ingress/egress are adequate.
Currently they are undergoing some renovation to the main residence, so
you’ll see a lot of debris at the main residence.
Here is a photograph of the good visibility from three directions.
It met all of the criteria in the Conditional Use Permit as Staff
reviewed it. Staff recommends
Conditional Use Permit approval of the proposed FIT Conditional Use Permit with
the following conditions being met: 1.Any other land divisions, commercial structures,
expansion of gravel parking or other types of uses not considered with this
submittal must come through a separate CUP or review process with the County.
2. An apron on the driveway
will be required. This can be hot mix asphalt or concrete.
This shall be 20 feet (minimum) in depth beginning at the edge of the
pavement. This shall be completed
within 60 days of CUP approval. This
must be inspected by the County Road Dept.
Any extension shall be approved by Road Department.
3. Means of ingress/ egress
(gravel drive) must stay in good repair. 4.
A permit from the Washington County Road Dept. is required for any work
done in the County Road right-of-way. 5.
Hours of operation are 7am to 7pm with a maximum amount of hours per week
not to exceed 20 hours. 6.
There shall be no more than three (3) clients at any given time.
All parking shall be retained on site (i.e. no parking on E. Bridgewater
Lane). 7.
Employees for the business are limited to one (1).
8. There shall be no
signage. 9. Any noise associated with the business shall be kept at
minimal level as to prevent any nuisances to neighboring properties.
10. Any
outdoor light associated with the business shall be shielded in a manner to
prevent glare to neighboring properties. 11.
Pay mailing fees for certified mailing to adjacent property owners.
The certified mailing fees need to be paid.
The applicant/owner is in agreement with all of these conditions.”
Cindy
Mix commented, “I just wanted to reiterate from the letter that I sent in with
my application that I have no intentions of promoting a business that would be
detrimental to my neighbors or to my own property that is my primary residence.
What I do there will be like what we have discussed and I have agreed to
keep to a minimum. I understand
that anything that changes in that in the future I will come before you again to
reapply. I did try to address
everything from my neighbors as far as Ms. Livingston she was concerned with
tanning beds and selling of equipment I have no desire to do that. The other property owner is my ex-husband who owns the
property next door to me and his concerns are not with this property, but with
an adjacent property that I own that I use for my own personal use and what
he’s trying to make into something big is no more than a child having a swing
set. There’s nothing out there
that would be detrimental to our neighborhood.
If there’s anything else that I can answer or address for you to put
you at ease I would be more than happy to do that or anything that I can say.”
David
Mix, adjacent property owner at 4096 to
the west and 4206 to the east E. Bridgewater Lane
stated,
“I am her (Cindy Mix’s) ex-husband and I do own the property next to her on
the west side. I don’t have any
concerns at all with her putting in her gym and her training facility that she
wants to do. That’s no issue at
all with me. The piece of property
that does adjoin mine she started to install, as I have gave pictures to you
all, an obstacle course. The
intention was that it was going to be similar to my understanding like a NFL
combine training course with tires and other items that were going to be used on
that piece of property. As you can
see from my backyard the view from my swimming pool is directly where those two
red ‘X’s’ are is directly where those items are going to be installed.
After she applied for this Conditional Use Permit the construction of
that facility ceased. That’s my only concern is that I don’t want the view of
my backyard looking at tires and climbing walls and that sort of thing.
If she wants to install a swing set that’s fantastic got no issue with
that at all, but if she installs rubber tires, climbing walls, steel structures,
or other exercise equipment outside that my backyard directly will have a view
of I totally have an issue with that. My
neighbors to the north of me would also have an issue.
Those are all million-dollar homes.
It would greatly devalue our property.
If she does install that kind of equipment I would like some sort of
natural screening put up or some sort of guideline from you all on what would be
required for that installation. That’s
basically the only issue I have. As
far as the training facility being installed or being approved by you all I have
no issue with that whatsoever.”
Walker
asked, “I want a clarification first. If
she decides to put anything on her land that is for her use as exercise that’s
not our business, is it? The other
question is are we going to hear all of these little one party businesses
that’s in a garage that has three or four clients and how did we find out
about this one?” Richey replied,
“We had a complaint about the equipment. Right now, we’re working on something that’s before
County Services that is going to exclude a lot of home businesses probably this
one wouldn’t because it does have some traffic generation involved with it.
What we’re looking at excluding is things that have little to no
traffic at all. I guess my answer
to that is yes and no.”
Walker
asked, “Being summer I know of several people that have pools that do give
swim lessons to a number of children during the summer. Is that going to come under our zoning request?”
Richey replied, “If it is a temporary use we do have temporary and
seasonal uses that are covered, you know, when it is not something that you do
permanently; so probably something like that would fall under that because that
ordinance covers usually around five weeks or more-so probably not.
Basically, we’re trying to eliminate the Conditional Use Permit review
of home businesses that have little to no impact so you won’t be seeing as
many of them. We haven’t really
seen that many anyway and our policy has been if you don’t generate traffic
and you don’t have cliental then we don’t hear it.
Also, like you said if it’s a seasonal or temporary business then we
don’t hear it, but if it is something that is year-round that’s going to
have clients and create traffic generation then yes we do hear it.
If you want I can e-mail you a copy of what’s before County Services
right now.”
Walker
commented, “It just seems to me that we’re dealing with small home-type
stuff that really people ought to be allowed to do things in their own home and
on their own land. I don’t know
that we should require them to pour 20’ of concrete just because they’re
using their driveway.” Richey
stated, “The idea is that they’re using it for more than a residential
purpose and so they’re generating more traffic.”
Haley
stated, “I’m just assuming that this is more set up like a personal training
like when you hire a personal trainer than an actual gym.”
Richey commented, “Yes, that’s what it is; personal cliental, but it
does generate some traffic and Larry, yes, we want to review them.
Usually things like this is a no-brainer we slap some regulations on it
you can’t have flashing neon signs advertising your business, not disrupt your
neighbors with other outdoor lighting, don’t clog up the streets with a bunch
of on-street parking, she had to put in a separate septic system to accommodate
those people, so there are a few things that we do need to review, but it’s a
pretty simple and straightforward process.”
Daugherty
asked, “As far as David’s concern the fencing there’s probably nothing
that we can do in that area?” Richey
replied, “That property that he is talking about is not submitted with this
application. That is her personal
use that is what she stated. If we
get a complaint later that they are not using it for personal use then we’ll
deal with it then.” Daugherty
stated, “Just so that he understands that.”
Laney
commented, “What Larry is really addressing is we started out with very broad
rules we zoned the whole County and we’re working our way back through
administrative exceptions and we’re being careful about that, but there are
some proposals before the administrative committee of the Quorum Court to put in
some administrative so something like that and not have to come and do all
this.” Richey stated, “We’re
working on it.”
Larry Walker moved to
approve FIT Conditional
Use Permit with staff recommendations.
Robert Daugherty seconded. Motion
passes.
All Board members were in
favor of approving
FIT Conditional Use Permit.
Fayetteville’s Planning Area
d. Historic Skillern Farmhouse CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request) To be removed from the agenda at the request of the applicant
Location: Section 31, Township 17 North, Range 29
West
Owner/Developer: Albert and Jean Baltz
Location Address: 3470 and 3502 E. Skillern (WC
#536)
5.326 acres (use limit 2 acres) and 1 unit / Proposed
Land Use: Event planned groups
Project
#: 2009-039 Planner: Courtney McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
Robert Daugherty moved to
remove Historic Skillern Farmhouse Conditional Use Permit from the agenda
at the request of the applicant. Cheryl
West seconded. Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of removing Historic Skillern Farmhouse Conditional Use Permit
from the agenda at the request of the applicant.
County
e. Rogers
Group Quarry Expansion CUP (Conditional
Use Permit Request)
Location: Sections 4 & 9, Township 16 North,
Range 31 West
Owner/Developer: Owners- J & A Mining, John David
Lindsey Development, Mark Rich, Developer- Rogers Group; Terry Sossong
Location Address: Hamstring Road (WC #842)
150 acres / Proposed Land Use: Limestone Quarrying
Project
#: 2009-035 Planner: Juliet Richey, e-mail at jrichey@co.washington.ar.us
*All information noted in red denotes an update or addition to
last month’s report *
In order prevent needless copying, and to save paper and
postage staff will not reprint all of the attachments that were originally sent
out last time. Please refer to all
of your old attachments (ie E-7, E-20, etc) from the May meeting.
If you are missing some items, please contact staff and we can get you an
additional copy of whatever you need. There
will also be a link up on our website with a PDF of last month’s attachments,
http://www.washington.county/Planning
REQUEST:
Conditional Use Permit Approval for Rogers Group Quarry Expansion CUP.
The total acreage of the proposed development is approximately
150 acres (approximately
45 acres is grandfathered in; approximately 99-105 acres is proposed for
expansion).
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 and District 11 JP Mary Ann Spears
BACKGROUND/
PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
The property is owned by J & A Mining, John David
Lindsey Development, and Mark Rich. The
Developer is Rogers Group – Terry Sossong.
The property is located on Hamstring Road (WC #842) and Riches Road (WC
#841). No access will be taken off
of Riches Road. All hauling will
access through the current “Stephen’s Red Dirt Farm” entrance onto
Hamstring Road.
Currently there is an approximately 45-acre piece of
land that is a grandfathered quarry onsite.
This site is leased to the Rogers Group, who operates a quarry within
this area. The Rogers Group has
requested to expand their operations to an additional approximately
99- 105 acres adjacent
to this grandfathered quarry site. They
wish to mine limestone in this expansion area (much of which has been or is
currently being mined for red dirt) as the red dirt plays out in the future.
They anticipate the rock to be approximately 170’ in depth in this
area. Please see the attached
letter of request (pgs E11- E17) in
addition to the packet of information submitted by Roger’s Group (pgs
E-43) for more details regarding this request.
As with the Big Red Dirt Farm CUP that you heard last
fall, Staff has found that when transitioning from the use of red dirt
excavation to limestone quarrying 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
Many of you were able to attend the special meeting on May 19, 2009,
and later observe/hear the blast. I
have sent out materials regarding that blast to all board members.
That blast rated at a 0.648 PPV.
As of today, June 2,
2009, Rogers Group has offered to place the following blasting intensity
restriction as a condition:
Rogers Group proposes
that blasting for the Quarry area to be zoned will be required to have a
maximum of 0.5 PPV at the nearest structure and Rogers Group will pay for a
permanent seismograph to monitor the results at the structure.
This condition is
based on the fact that the US Bureau of Mines through their extensive testing
have allowed a 2.0 PPV to the nearest structure. The State of Arkansas has
reduced that number by 50% to 1.0 PPV to the nearest structure. Rogers
Group will maintain 25% of the U S Bureau of Mines requirement and 50% of the
State requirement in conducting blasting at the quarry.
Staff has consulted
with a blasting professional and feels confident with this condition.
Other existing
blasting condition: The applicant
has restricted themselves to blasting times to between 9:00 am- 5:00 pm, Monday-
Friday.
The applicants have indicated that Austin Powder, a
blasting company with offices in several states- including Arkansas, will be
conducting the blasting for this pit. Austin
Powder does blasting for all of Rogers Group- including the existing
grandfathered quarry onsite and the Roger’s Group Lowell quarry.
No explosives are kept onsite, and blasting is
completed on an as-needed basis, at the grandfathered quarry site. The frequency
of blasting is anticipated to be once or sometimes twice per week.
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 south of this
site (Big Red dirt Farm LLC), currently conducts blasting of pinnacles within
their pit and has received a CUP from Washington County to transition to the use
of a quarry (although this decision is currently under litigation).
Blasting is monitored by the Arkansas Department of
Labor and MSHA. Records of each
blast are required to be kept for a minimum of three years. The State has set maximum vibration levels to protect
surrounding home owners, wells, and springs.
Blasting is typically measured in PPV (Peak Particle
Velocity). This measures the
vibration rate within the ground. A
seismograph can measure this. The
state maximum PPV level is 1.0 inches per second.
Rogers Group has indicated that their blasts typically average 0.5 inches
per second or less.
The Rogers
group has submitted several information documents detailing blasting in general,
and their specific intentions for blasting on this site. Pleas see pgs E-11 and E-43.
In summary- I feel that although blasting is a
concern, 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 Big Red Dirt
Farm red dirt operation and possible Quarry to the South, and there is already
blasting at the 45 acre grandfathered quarry onsite.
I do not think that eliminating blasting on the
proposed quarry expansion CUP site will make an overwhelming difference to the
area, as there is already a considerable amount of blasting in the area.
The applicant has restricted themselves to blasting
times to between 9:00 am- 5:00 pm, Monday- Friday. Staff agrees with this limitation, and will include it as a
condition.
Many of you were able to attend the special
meeting on May 19, 2009, and later observe/hear the blast.
I have sent out materials regarding that blast to all board members.
That blast rated at a 0.648 PPV.
As
of today, June 2, 2009, Rogers Group has offered to place the following blasting
intensity restriction as a condition:
Rogers Group proposes that blasting for the Quarry
area to be zoned will be required to have a 0.5 PPV at the nearest structure and
Rogers Group will pay for a permanent seismograph to monitor the results at the
structure.
This
condition is based on the fact that the US Bureau of Mines through their
extensive testing have allowed a 2.0 PPV to the nearest structure. The
State of Arkansas has reduced that number by 50% to 1.0 PPV to the nearest
structure. Rogers Group will maintain 25% of the U S Bureau of Mines
requirement and 50% of the State requirement in conducting blasting at the
quarry.
Staff
will be reviewing this proposed condition and consulting with blasting
professionals to make sure that this limitation will accomplish the desired
outcome. Staff will update you at
the meeting on the status of this condition.
Crusher:
noise, dust suppression
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.
ADEQ requires an air permit to run a crusher onsite,
and limits the amount of dust put off by quarry operations.
Rogers Group has an ADEQ Air Permit in place for the Crusher onsite.
This Crusher (or one similar to it) will be used to crush rock in the
expansion area, as well. See ADEQ
permit information page E-33.
Staff is comfortable with ADEQ’s regulation of Air
Quality in regards to the crusher. Staff
will also require a general dust suppression plan for the entire site as part of
the Large Scale Development Plan process (Site Plan review process required
prior to expanded operation if this CUP is approved).
Reclamation
Like the Big Red Dirt Farm’s Quarry plan.
Roger’s Group plans to reclaim much of the Quarry site as a lake. They
have submitted a quarry plan to staff, see
pg E-17
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.
Rogers Group has submitted a revised
reclamation plan. Staff just
received this final revised copy several days ago.
It is the large plan attached to this packet. It appears that in most areas they will be able to achieve
the final slopes that we are looking for (3:1 gradient) and still maintain the
buffer zones. There may be some
areas, though, that require some minor revision.
Staff is still examining the document and will update you at the meeting
as to its acceptability or alert you if staff feels the changes need to be made
to the document.
Tentatively proposed condition: 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. This should be completed similar to ADEQ Regulation 15.308
(A)(4)(a). Also-If a lake is to be left as part of the reclamation plan,
provisions must be made by the operator to assure that a pH factor of six (6) to
nine (9) is maintained unless otherwise authorized by ADEQ.
Other
Important Issues:
Traffic-
As mentioned previously, all access will be taken off
of Hamstring Road- only, utilizing the current entrance to Stephen’s Red Dirt
Farm/ Roger’s Group grandfathered quarry.
An official traffic Study will be required at the
Preliminary Large Scale Development level if this CUP is approved.
However, staff has had preliminary discussions with the applicant
regarding truck traffic at this site. Please
see the flowing excerpts from email conversations with Roger’s Group’s Terry
Sossong:
(Juliet
Richey) I will need information on
the traffic count/impact that the quarry and all proposed expansions will have
on Hamstring Road.
(Terry
Sossong) The average
traffic volume expected is 50 to 100 trucks per day. We are currently
running less than that but should grow to that as business in this area
recovers. As far as impact on Hamstring road, it will be normal wear and
tear. I assume as part of this process that repair costs to Hamstring as
they are needed will be split between Big Red Dirt Farm, Stephens Red Dirt Pit
and Rogers Group. The paved road appears to be holding up well from its
paving/widening several years ago.
(Juliet Richey)
Is this number an increase from what has run from Stephens historically?
I understand you are saying it is more than right now, however, I imagine it is
slower now than it has been in the past.
(Terry Sossong) The trucking at Stephens peaked at 700 to 750 trucks per day, and
several years ago. We are currently doing approximately what the existing
mining operation did, which is 50 to 100 trucks average per day.
The County
Road Department generally agrees with the cost splitting stated above- unless
issues can be directly attributable to a certain entity.
Staff
anticipates placing a condition similar to that placed on the Big Red Dirt Farm
CUP as follows: 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.
Setbacks
The applicant has offered a combination of 100’ and
200’ setbacks on various property lines.
Staff anticipates requiring a minimum of 150’
setbacks from the property lines of all adjoining property owners. Exceptions
may include the property of Mark Rich, as a portion of his land will be leased
to Roger’s Group as part of this project.
Staff is still working with the applicant to pinpoint
the exact boundaries of proposed excavation.
Since some of the boundaries of the project are well within the property
lines of property owned by JA Mining, and Lindsey Development, the project may
already be far enough off of some property lines as it is.
The proposed setbacks are denoted on the
reclamation plan (large attached plan). In
most areas that are not adjacent to other mining owned/leased property, the
setbacks appear to be at least 100’ after grading for reclamation.
Staff is still working with Rogers Group to determine how these buffers
will operate during the operation of the quarry (prior to reclamation). It appears that there should be room for the buffers to be
larger (150’ – 200’+) during the operations phase (prior to the grading
taking place for reclamation), and therefore serve the purpose for buffering
during the operation on of the quarry, however- I am still working on confirming
this situation.
Staff will update you at the meeting.
Neighbor
comments and proximity
As you will see from the lengthy document attached-
there have been numerous comments on this project. Staff has noticed that many comments appear to have come from
areas outside of the ½ mile notification area.
While staff feels that all comments should be considered, staff would
like to map out the proximity of comments received from the proposed expansion
area. Due to the numerous comments
received- this is not a map that Staff will have completed until the Meeting on
Thursday. At that time staff will
present you information on this at that time
Please see maps on pgs E20- E24
that Staff has created to show you the proximity of area structures to this
proposed CUP.
Staff has attached the comments received
since the last meeting for your review. Also-
attached to this packet is a map showing the proximity of the people who we
received written comments from to the quarry expansion area.
Issues
regarding groundwater and Hamstring Creek
There were several issues brought up at the
May meeting with regards to what effect quarrying may have on the groundwater in
the area (wells), and the possible effects that quarrying could have on the
level and water quality of Hamstring Creek
I spoke with a gentleman with the Arkansas
Well Water Commission in Little Rock. He
said that you couldn’t tell exactly what groundwater is doing unless you do a
complete and comprehensive hydrologic study of what is happening underneath the
surface.
I have also been speaking with a Professor
of Hydrogeology at the University. From
my conversations with these two gentlemen- I have learned the following:
Generally water moves through the ground and
the rock via fissures or fractures in the rock. Generally, water flows through the ground toward the drainage
areas (ravines, creeks, valleys, etc.).
The hydro geologist felt that it would be
wise to stay above the elevation of Hamstring Creek. As an extra safety precaution, the hydro geologist
recommended that the final quarry floor should not be lower in elevation than
the corresponding 100-year flood elevation of Hamstring Creek.
This precaution should keep there from being
change or disturbance to the elevation of Hamstring Creek.
As long as runoff from the quarry is dealt
with as per ADEQ standards (proposed sediment pond, etc), then there should be
no effect on water quality to the creek from the mining operation.
It has been brought to Staff’s attention that there may be
some issues with a well in the area. Staff
has no way of knowing whether the well issue is related to red dirt mining or
rock quarrying in the area.
Staff proposes we deal with this issue at a Large Scale
Development Level where we have the tools in place to address such issues:
Sec. 11-101. (e) If any
land development raises environmental concerns, the Planning Board may, at the
expense of the developer, retain its own qualified consulting engineer to assist
it and the Planning Director in assuring that all environmental issues have been
properly addressed by the developer and its engineer. Said consulting engineer
shall maintain an office no greater than one hundred (100) miles from Washington
County.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: With
the following conditions, staff feels that the Conditional Use Criteria will be
met.
1. Limit the times of blasting to 9:00 am- 5:00 pm,
Monday- Friday; and rock crushing to between 7:00 am- 6:00 pm, Monday- Friday. Rogers Group
has also offered the condition that they will limit their general hours of
operation to 7:00 am- 6:00 pm, Monday- Friday, and 7:00 am- noon on Saturday
(sales only).
2.Setbacks/
buffer areas shall be enforced as per the slide shown at tonight's meeting.
A survey shall be performed prior to LSD submittal, and buffer/setback
locations along property lines shall be measured from the surveyed property
lines (sediment ponds and other drainage structures are allowed in this area, as
well as the existing buildings, entrance, etc).
3.A
combination of both berming and fencing should surround the perimeter of the
property. The fence must be a minimum of six foot high, attached to steel
posts, as per ADEQ standards. This
fencing shall be located along the project lines.
Staff further recommends that the berms be located in various areas
around the property. Areas
requiring berms for visual screening will be determined by Planning Staff at the
LSD level. It may be that berms are
required around the entire perimeter of the property.
In areas where berms are required, they must be at least 8' in height and
be planted with evergreen trees and vegetation as to provide a continuous visual
screen of the property. Vegetation
plans, species and placement along the berm shall be approved by the Planning
Director prior to construction. If berming is required along the County Road ROW
, it should be placed in a way that is safe to vehicular traffic. The plans for this berm construction and placement must be
approved by the County Road Superintendent prior to construction.
All berm building activities must take into consideration existing
offsite and onsite drainage patterns.
Care should be taken to not adversely impact any existing drainage
situations by the building of the berms. If
necessary- small gaps may be left in the berms or other measures may be taken to
prevent drainage issues. All gaps
or other alterations must be approved by County Staff.
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.
This should be completed similar to ADEQ Regulation 15.308 (A)(4)(a). Also-If a
lake is to be left as part of the reclamation plan, provisions must be made by
the operator to assure that a pH factor of six (6) to nine (9) is maintained
unless otherwise authorized by ADEQ.
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.
Any future structures must be approved by the Fire Marshal prior to construction
and must meet the Arkansas State Fire Code.
8. The berm on
the southern property line must remain.
9.The County Fire Marshal should be consulted prior to
blasting during an official burn ban.
10.
Lindsey must respect all decisions, drainage and buffering shown on the
Rogers Group plans and adopted buffer map regarding future mining of red dirt.
Further discussion with Planning Officials should take place so that an
agreement or possible plan review can take place (depending on the amount of red
dirt mining expansion anticipated).
11. All conditions must be adhered to or in place prior to
Final Large Scale Development approval.
12. Rogers Group proposes that blasting for the Quarry area to
be zoned will be required to have (no greater than) a 0.5 PPV at the nearest
structure and Rogers Group will pay for a permanent seismograph to monitor the
results at the structure.
13. Reclamation is
generally subject to the proposed plan. The
plan may have minor changes once topography is surveyed in and agreements with
Lindsey are reached. Staff and the
Planning Board must approve the final reclamation plan at LSD.
14. The final quarry floor should not be lower in
elevation than the corresponding 100-year flood elevation of Hamstring Creek.
Rogers Group must have a surveyor or engineer determine the base flood
elevation for the 100-year floodplain of the corresponding areas of Hamstring
Creek. If determined by a professional that a differing elevation (ie 10 foot
above base flow,etc) can be used and will be equally effective, and approved by
a hydro geologist or engineer and Planning staff, then that will suffice.
15.
Further ground water studies and information gather may need to take
place. If so- it should be
addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board and Planning Staff as per
Section 11-01 (e) prior to any LSD approval.
INFRASTRUCTURE: Water
–Washington Water Authority.
Other Utilities
- The lot is in the service area of Ozark Electric, AT &T Telephone,
Arkansas Western Gas, and Cox Communications.
Terry
Sossong, Vice President, and Van Medlock, Environmental Engineer, with Rogers
Group, and Matt Pilz, Vibra-tech, were present to answer any questions.
Gallagher stated,
“I need to address a question that has been raised regarding my ability to
evaluate and vote on the CUP application for the Rogers Group to quarry
limestone from a site on Hamstring Road in Washington County.
The concern comes from the fact that I live about a half mile east of the
proposed CUP. I have also heard
comments from people regarding my involvement in the previous application for
Big Red Dirt Farm for a similar project prior to my appointment to the board.”
Gallagher
commented, “I sought out opinions from those who I respect.
Some of them are members of this board, neighbors, professionals in their
field as well as some people outside of the process. As a result I have heard a
whole range of points of view. Some
have told me that if I believed that I could listen to the case in an unbiased
frame of mind and make a fair decision, I should continue to hear this case.
Others have bullied and threatened me and demanded that I step aside.
Then there was the middle of the road.
Some people outside of the process who I respect suggested that the
integrity of the process could be at stake here.
If I participate in this case, questions might be raised about the
legitimacy of what this board does. I
am not here to undermine the board or the staff.”
Gallagher
added, “I came here to bring my experience and knowledge to the table and
enhance the Washington County zoning process.
One element of that process is essential and that is the public
confidence. Having the public’s
confidence requires the integrity of the process be above reproach.”
Gallagher
also added, “Although I know I can listen to the information and make a fair
judgment, there are some who say that it is reasonable to conclude that an
outside influence could shade my judgment.
I respect that point of view and I have made a decision.
In light of that, I will be abstaining from any further discussion or
voting on this application.”
Laney
commented, “For those of you who may not have been at the other meetings (May
7, 2009) we did have public hearing on this and the Board has undertaken again
learning experiences we go that on these matters that have a lot of facts, I
guess, there was a lot of information presented last time the Board decided to
not make a decision to table it. Our
minutes are a matter of public record if you want to review them, but there was
an additional Board meeting held at the site we’ll be discussing that in
general so I’m going to ask tonight and I understand that there is a Mr.
Edwards here representing some of the property owners.
We’re going to try to consolidate that comment I don’t want to repeat
the same two hours again so be thinking in terms consolidating any new issues or
any new information.”
Richey
stated, “Most of you all are familiar with where this is now it is in the west
part of the County and it is outside the City of Fayetteville’s Planning Area.
It is somewhat close to the Fayetteville city limits.
Here is a picture of the outline of the site.
This is an outline of all the properties involved in this project.
As you will see in just a minute the actual parameters that they are
looking at quarrying are smaller. The
green shows you the actual area that Rogers Group has requested for a permit for
quarrying. Down below it you have a
grandfathered area that is approximately 45 acres and then you can see the
proximity to the Red Dirt Pit and quarry operation that is directly south of
there. As I go through the Staff
report I have highlighted things in red that we’ve added since last time.
I’m going to try not to go through the same information that we went
through the previous meetings. If
you do have questions about something or you need a refresher on something just
let me know and we can go back and go through it.
I do have all of the information here.”
Richey
added, “We’re still working on it; it is approximately 99-105 acres.
We got a new GPS points and I adjusted the boundaries just a little bit.
This shows the approximate length to other people’s homes or structures
in the area. Last time we’ll just
do it as a refresher the main differences between the red dirt mining, which is
what is grandfathered on this site that they’re asking for expansion on and
rock quarrying there’s three major differences those would be blasting of
rock, crushing of rock material, and differences in reclamation requirements by
ADEQ. Blasting-many of you all
where able to attend the special meeting on May 19, 2009.
I sent out lots of materials on that if we need to review those we can as
well. Basically, they did a blast.
We talked about last time there are several ways to measure what happens
in a blast. The vibration part, which is the part that could possibly
cause damage to structures, is measured in Peak Particle Velocity (PPV).
The State minimum is 1. They
did a blast on May 19, 2009 that was 0.648 and that is measured at the nearest
structure. That’s how it will continue to be measured throughout the
quarrying process. Since that blast
Rogers Group has proposed that the condition be imposed upon them that blasting
for the quarry area to be zoned will be required to have a maximum of 0.5 PPV.
That would be lower than the blast than you all heard the other day (May
19, 2009). Rogers Group will pay to have a permanent seismograph to
monitor the results at the structure and right now the seismograph is not at the
structure, it is closer in to where they blast. They keep it on their property, but it is close to that
nearest structure. We believe that
that is going to be the closest structure throughout the mining process.
However, if for some reason it’s not, there’s a new structure built
or something like that, then they will move it as they mine to always be in
proximity to the closest structure. In
your Staff report I said that I did want to consult with a blasting professional
and make sure that this condition was a good condition and would achieve what we
want to achieve. They felt like it
was, so Staff is okay with that condition.
The other existing blasting condition from last time that we’re looking
at and that is still recommended is blasting times would be only from 9:00-5:00
Monday- Friday.”
Walker
asked, “According to the report that you sent us in the last two years there
has only been one other blast that was larger than that one, correct?”
Richey replied, “Yes, that is correct.” Walker commented, “It was
only…” Richey stated, “I think it was 0.66 something.
Crusher, noise, and dust suppression we talked about that last time.
Just as a refresher for that; I mean, basically, the dust suppression is
monitored by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Air permit you
have to have when you have a crusher on-site.
Staff feels like those limitations that the State has set are fine.
The other thing is, is with the Large Scale Development (if this
Conditional Use Permit is approved) then we require a dust suppression plan for
the entire site, which includes trucks, hauling, and everything and that has to
happen with our Large Scale Development submittal.
This is a copy of their Reclamation Map; it is a little bit hard to read.
Basically, they are looking at creating a lake on the site.
This area would be the lake you have final contours on the bottom the
lake would get progressively deeper as you go this way (going north).
The green-hatched area is areas that in the end will be sloped and graded
after mining is complete so that you will have an accessible lake something that
can be used by people when this process is over.
This is a section that shows, basically, you’re going to have a 50’
drop and then a bench and then another drop while they’re mining and when
they’re completed when they do their reclamation then they’re going to grade
this back to where you have a 3:1 slope and then this is the water level coming
across here. There is proposed to
be a dam down here the spillway is actually over here and will feed into this
existing drainage area. The water
that they use on-site while digging all their run-off while they’re still in
the mining process will be pumped through here and then there will be some
sediment ponds before it proceeds along its way and joins this unnamed tributary
and go under Hamstring and then into Hamstring creek.”
Walker
asked, “Will it be an earthen dam?” Richey
replied, “Yes, that’s what I understand.”
Richey
stated, “Almost all of it is going to be 3:1 there is an area right here where
they have a bottleneck and they have requested if that area can be at a 2:1.
I don’t have an issue with that. I
don’t know if that is something that you all have an issue with.
2:1 is pretty steep, but it is not a straight wall and it would only be
for a small portion, then the rest of it would able to be a 3:1 slope. Traffic-we discussed traffic last time, they are proposing
50-100 trucks per day. In its peak,
Stephens was having 700-750 trucks per day.
The County Road Department doesn’t have an issue with the state of the
roads right now, basically, we will be putting a condition on there that says if
there is wear and tear to the roads that is attributable to either them, or all
three of the industrial uses combined that are using that road the mining
operations, then they will be required to fix those areas.
This is the setbacks; I just passed out a map of those as well.
In most areas I requested a 200’ minimum setback there is one area the
same bottleneck area where they have requested 100’ and then it will go out to
200’ as they get past this bottleneck area.
Because it is just one spot, I don’t have an issue with that.
If you all have an issue with that then we should definitely talk about
it. As you can see the green
outline is the outline of the area that they proposed and then there is a
lighter blue outline inside here which is the buffer strips that I am
recommending (areas that should not be a part of the mining process).
These areas that are in a pink hue that are adjacent to this project are
properties that are adjacent that are not a part of the project.
This owner is leasing his land to be a part of this project.
This land belongs to Lindsey, as does this land here.
I’m trying to keep 200’ around all adjacent properties or more.
As you can see there are areas where you’re going to have more.
The exception is this small area here.
This area in yellow this is not a part of the quarry property, but it is
an area that they want to, basically, mine somewhat to get to slope down to
drain into the lake. Basically,
that area is proposed to be mined and graded to a 3:1 slope and drain into the
lake. Precise plans for this will
have to be submitted with Large Scale Development and will be subject to
approval by our office.”
Richey
commented, “Neighbor comments-we had all the neighbor comments that you all
received last time. I know we did
have several that we received this time as well and I sent those out with your
packet. We did make you a map,
which I hope you received since it is hard to read from here, but it has the
names and the proximity of all of the comments that we received to this project.
Many comments were not within one half-mile area; we mapped out the ones
that were for you to have that information.
This is a map that some of you all had requested.
There was some discussion on when exactly mining started in this area.
I’m not exactly sure if their USGS maps from 1980 that shows small
areas of gravel pits on them. I
only have aerial photographs that go back to 2001.
In 2001 there was disturbance; the best answer that I could find was that
somewhere between 1997 and 1999 for sure is when there was mining begun on this
property. Staff created a map
showing nearby properties within proximity that were bought in certain years
because that is information that you all had requested.”
Richey
added, “Issues regarding groundwater and Hamstring Creek-this is something
that was brought up at the last meeting that we agreed that we would be looking
into. There were several issues
regarding groundwater in general, also regarding wells, and the effects that
quarrying could have on the level and water quality of Hamstring Creek.
I did spend some time speaking with a gentleman from the Arkansas Well
Water Commission in Little Rock and, basically, he told me that you can’t tell
what the groundwater is doing underneath the surface unless you do a complete
and comprehensive hydrologic study of what’s happening and even then you’re
not going to be able to tell entirely. I
also spent some time speaking with a hydro-geologist from the University of
Arkansas quite extensively and, basically, the way that he explained it to me is
the way our region works is you have large areas of rocks that are making up
these mountains and hillsides and those rocks have cracks and fissures in them
that the water moves through in addition to just having kind of a groundwater
table. Generally, he said that the
water is going to move just like aboveground water to some extent; it moves
towards drainage areas. You can
somewhat expect water to be moving through cracks and fissures in the hills
towards a creek or a valley or an unnamed tributary of some sort.
Basically, when people drill wells you can drill all the way down into
kind of the water table or sometimes people can hit a fissure carrying water.
Generally, you’re just going to drill until you hit good water and
sometimes that water can be just a crack or fissure that you drilled directly
into that has water moving through it all the time.
I don’t know what the depth of a lot of the wells are out there.
I also don’t know and he did not give my any indication what exactly
groundwater does when you get, basically, below the level of all the low points.
I kind of explained to him what we’re looking at with the buffer areas
and also questions about Hamstring Creek. He
thought the buffer areas were a good idea he said that in some ways it was a
good situation, or better than it could be, because it is somewhat
geographically isolated because it has several drainage areas around the
proposed quarry. He did not feel
like there was a high potential for groundwater disturbance, but he didn’t do
an extensive study of the area and he said without an extensive study that it
can be hard to tell exactly what is going on with the water.
In regards to Hamstring Creek he felt that keeping the level of the
bottom floor of the quarry, if you keep that level above the level of the creek,
and as an extra safety precaution he said go ahead and extend that to the
100-year floodplain level of the creek then you should limit any disturbance of
the water level of that creek. As
far as water quality; as long as they adhere to the ADEQ regulations for
sediment ponds and things like that for water coming off their site there
shouldn’t be a problem with water quality.
Limestone mining, unlike some things that you read about like coal mining
or copper mining, does not produce toxic chemicals and things like that.
That’s my answer, as far as I know, from the hydro-geologist that I
spoke with. From that we do have a
condition crafted that does address that we will need to find what that 100-year
floodplain (elevation) is and make sure it’s surveyed and get that elevation
in and then there will be no elevations in the quarry allowed below that
point.”
Richey
also added, “I felt very good about groundwater until the other day it was
brought to Staff’s attention that there may be issues with a well in the area.
I have no way of knowing whether the well issue is related to Red Dirt
mining or rock quarrying in the area. I
don’t know. I talked extensively
with George about this I feel like I’ve gone as far as we can go.
George doesn’t feel like something we can do is require a whole
hydrological study as a condition because it wouldn’t really be a condition of
approval it would be a pre-condition they would, basically, have to do something
to then see if they can get approved. He didn’t feel like that was something we could do,
however, we did feel like it was something that should be looked into.
We do have a tool in our Large Scale Development ordinance that says,
‘Sec. 11-101.
(e) If any land development raises environmental concerns, the Planning
Board may, at the expense of the developer, retain its own qualified consulting
engineer to assist it and the Planning Director in assuring that all
environmental issues have been properly addressed by the developer and its
engineer. Said consulting engineer shall maintain an office no greater than one
hundred (100) miles from Washington County.’
What Staff proposes is that we move ahead with the conditions that we
know, that were recommended to us by the hydro-geologist in reference to
Hamstring Creek. As far as wells go
or other groundwater environmental concerns maybe that is something that we need
to look at if this Conditional Use Permit is approved through the tool that we
have in place for environmental issues in our Large Scale Development
ordinance.”
Butler
stated, “You summed it up pretty well. You
can require like a study as a condition I tried to do some more research on that
today and I couldn’t find any cases on point, but to require them to do some
sort of study and then us wait for the outcome of that study and then decide
what we’re going to do. It would
be a pre-condition where’s we’re only allowed to… a pre-condition that
they would have to satisfy then we would decide whether or not they could go
forward or not. Where’s we’re
only authorized to put conditions on it that will lessen its impact as it
operates, but we did discover when we were looking at talking about that today
that there’s this portion of the code over on the Planning side where we can
get into the environmental issues and a well drying up is certainly one of
them.”
Walker
asked, “Can I revisit the 100-year floodplain and the bottom of the creek?”
Richey replied, “Yes.” Walker
asked, “The 100-year floodplain will be a lot higher than the bottom of the
creek?” Richey replied, “That
is correct.” Walker asked, “The
concern was that if we go lower with the bottom floor of the quarry that we
would drain the creek; so why would we see fit to go to the 100-year floodplain
rather than somewhere in-between?” Richey
replied, “He just felt like it would be advisable to have some sort of safety
buffer I mean, theoretically, if you were interested in not impacting only the
regular flow of the creek, but how the creek reacts when it even floods then you
would want to stay above that level. That
was what he recommended. He also
said maybe something that’s like 5’ above or 10’ above if that’s more
reasonable then we can look at that. Basically,
when I wrote the condition I said this is what we’re going to do unless you
have a hydro-geologist and an engineer look at it and they recommend that it be
a certain elevation instead, basically, it is just a safety buffer.”
Walker asked, “The 100-year floodplain the water that is there during a
flood situation won’t be there but for two days normally, right?”
Richey replied, “I guess it depends on the conditions, but yes usually
it doesn’t stay there very long.” Walker
commented, “I can’t see going with the 100-year floodplain as a benchmark,
personally.” Richey stated, “I
just wanted to do what the hydro-geologist recommended because I’m not an
expert in that area. I feel like we
left it open to where if we have other expert advice.”
Walker asked, “What’s the difference in it, we don’t know yet do
we?” Richey replied, “I don’t
know exactly what the difference is that’s something that I would want it’s
in what’s called an unnumbered A zone on the FEMA maps, which means that they
show the spread of the water, but they do not tag an elevation to it and what I
would require is that a surveyor or an engineer go ahead and figure out what
that elevation is and state it.”
Butler
asked, “The condition is going to be that any part of the quarry that is
within the 100-year floodplain that they can’t go beyond.” Richey replied, “It’s not within the 100-year floodplain.
There’s an elevation to the Hamstring Creek and then there’s an
elevation to how high the water gets during a 100-year flood on Hamstring Creek
and whatever that elevation is lets just say it’s 1,100 or something like that
then the bottom floor of their quarry can not go below 1,100 in elevation feet
above sea level.”
Richey
commented, “Staff is recommending approval of this with a list of conditions.
I want to go ahead and go through them (1.)
Limit the times of blasting to 9:00 am- 5:00 pm, Monday- Friday; and rock
crushing to between 7:00 am- 6:00 pm, Monday- Friday. Rogers Group has also
offered the condition that they will limit their general hours of operation to
7:00 am- 6:00 pm, Monday- Friday, and 7:00 am- noon on Saturday (sales only).
(2.) Setbacks/
buffer areas shall be enforced as per the slide shown at tonight's meeting.
A survey shall be performed prior to LSD submittal, and buffer/setback
locations along property lines shall be measured from the surveyed property
lines. Basically, what we’re
saying is where it adjoins other people’s property right now we’re
estimating exactly we know pretty much where it is, but it could be plus or
minus 10’ so in those cases when we get those survey points we’ll refer to
those and draw the buffers back from those (sediment ponds and other drainage
structures are allowed in this setback area, as well as the existing buildings,
entrance, etc). (3.)
A
combination of both berming and fencing should surround the perimeter of the
property. The fence must be a minimum of six foot high, attached to steel posts,
as per ADEQ standards. This fencing
shall be located along the project lines. Staff further recommends that the berms be located in areas
around the property. Areas
requiring berms for visual screening will be determined by Planning Staff at the
LSD level. It may be that berms are
required around the entire perimeter of the property. I don’t think so, what we want to do is place them
strategically where they are going to perform as far as visual and noise
buffering. In areas where
berms are required, they must be at least 8' in height and be planted with
evergreen trees and vegetation as to provide a continuous visual screen of the
property. Vegetation plans, species
and placement along the berm shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to
construction. If berming is
required along the County Road ROW, it should be placed in a way that is safe to
vehicular traffic. The plans for
this berm construction and placement must be approved by the County Road
Superintendent prior to construction. All
berm building activities must take into consideration existing offsite and
onsite drainage patterns. Care
should be taken to not adversely impact any existing drainage situations by the
building of the berms. If
necessary- small gaps may be left in the berms or other measures may be taken to
prevent drainage issues. All gaps
or other alterations must be approved by County Staff.
(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. This should be completed
similar to ADEQ Regulation 15.308 (A)(4)(a). Also-If a lake is to be left as
part of the reclamation plan, provisions must be made by the operator to assure
that a pH factor of six (6) to nine (9) is maintained unless otherwise
authorized by ADEQ. (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.) Any future structures
must be approved by the Fire Marshal prior to construction and must meet the
Arkansas State Fire Code. (8.)
The berm on the southern property line must remain. That’s an existing berm that separates Lindsey from Big
Red. (9.) The County Fire Marshal
should be consulted prior to blasting during an official burn ban. (10.) Lindsey
must respect all decisions, drainage and buffering shown on the Rogers Group
plans and adopted buffer map regarding future mining of red dirt.
Further discussion with Planning Officials should take place so that an
agreement or possible plan review can take place (depending on the amount of red
dirt mining expansion anticipated). (11.) All conditions must
be adhered to or in place prior to Final Large Scale Development approval. (12.)
Rogers Group proposes that blasting for the Quarry area to be zoned will be
required to have (no greater than) a 0.5 PPV at the nearest structure and Rogers
Group will pay for a permanent seismograph to monitor the results at the
structure. (13.) Reclamation is
generally subject to the proposed plan. The
plan may have minor changes once topography is surveyed in and agreements with
Lindsey are reached. Staff and the
Planning Board must approve the final reclamation plan at LSD approval.
(14.) The final quarry floor should not be lower in elevation than the
corresponding 100-year flood elevation of Hamstring Creek.
Rogers Group must have a surveyor or engineer determine the base flood
elevation for the 100-year floodplain of the corresponding areas of Hamstring
Creek. If determined by a professional that a differing elevation (i.e. 10 foot
above base flow,etc) can be used and will be equally effective, and approved by
a hydro-geologist or engineer and Planning staff, then that will suffice. (15.) Further ground water studies and information gathering may need to
take place. If so- it should be
addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board and Planning Staff as per
Section 11-01 (e) prior to any LSD approval.
I do want to add that any additional uses not proposed with this
Conditional Use Permit of course must come through for separate review and
generally the reclamation plan should be kept 3:1 slopes except for that small
area that we talked about that is shown. I
know that this is controversial and I’ve spent a lot of time reviewing
this. I realize that there are
homes and there are families and there is agriculture that exists in this area,
but there is also mining activity in this area in several parts that are near to
this and a majority of this site has already been mined and Staff feels that
this is an appropriate use as long as it has these conditions then it should be
similar to and actually I think better in a lot of ways than it is now with the
Lindsey pit. I know that we’re
probably not all going to agree on this, but I just wanted to let you know why I
did make that recommendation and I’ve had several months to think about this,
of course. I do take my job
seriously and I was serious when I was considering this recommendation.”
Terry
Sossong stated, “I’m with the Rogers Group.
I don’t have many comments. I
did want to give you some additional information in regards to something that we
have also done technically the blasting if you have any questions on that we
have people here to answer. We
tried to give you what is representative of what we do day in and day out when
we do blast. I appreciate those who
did come out for coming out in the middle of the day and participating in that.
The recommendation of 0.5 PPV at the nearest residence is significantly
below what is allowable and the majority of the States I believe 25 or 27
somewhere in that vicinity have a 2.0 so we feel that’s fair.
We didn’t want to try to do what I would call a bait and switch or
anything where we loaded that shot and did that so I wanted to stress that.
With regards to blasting, something that I want to pass out something
that we have done and something that is available and again our goal is to use
the latest and greatest technology whenever we undertake something.
We have done something-this first picture on top here this is a crack in
a basement and that is called a crack gauge it uses an electrical impulse to
measure the gap in that crack and I wanted you to see that.
We did one of these over near our Lowell quarry approximately 3,000’
from the quarry. The home was approximately $500,000 - $600,000 home.
If you turn to the second page there is a picture that’s at the top of
a garage door and that’s at the joint where typical masonry cracks will occur.
The homeowner thought that we caused that through blasting so we placed
one of the crack gauges like you saw on the first page on that particular crack.
If you’ll turn to the next page that shows a weeks worth of monitoring
and you can see the up and down in the graph.
Basically, what that is the heating of the day and the expansion and
contraction of that particular crack each day so that gave you a seven day
period. If you’ll turn to the
next graph that’s what it looks like on a 24 hour period, so it’s not nearly
as compressed; its much flatter, but it still shows the expansion and the
contraction that occurred during that timeframe of one day and then if you’ll
turn to the last page that is an hour before and an hour after and then the red
line marks when we blasted at the quarry. What we were attempting to monitor was, is there any change
in that crack other than just normal expansion contraction activities.
We did this for nearly three months and, basically, had the same picture
time after time where that was just flat and there was no movement there.
That is another way that we attempt to use technology that’s available.
This is submissible in a court of law and is proven technology in
different parts of the United States. I
wanted to pass that out and we presented that to the homeowner and we still
maintain our attempt to stay at 0.5 on the PPV scale at that quarry also and
we’ve gone along and coexisted just fine.
One other thing, the road down into the quarry.
I know that the County Road Department has looked it over, and that road,
I walked the widths of it after the last meeting and it varies.
There’s 4 spots that I would like to make some minor modifications and
Rogers Group will pay for those, but two are in the very first section as you
turn into the road and go down the hill on the right hand side. We feel that roughly a foot and a half, 18” 24” in some
of those sections, just gives you a little bit of additional width.
There’s a section after you go down there make a turn and start going
down there and White on the mailbox there, I believe is the name right there.
There is some road that is kind of cracked and it’s kind of narrowing
in a little bit there and then that first curve where you start down the hill
that we want to widen probably close to 3’ at the widest section it would be
like a moon shaped section, not a round moon, but just a fingernail type moon
for lack of a better term, there to give people a little more comfort in some of
those tight areas that they go through there.
The remainder of the road from there down is roughly 22 ½ to 24’ wide
that’s better than a number of State highways in the State as far as width,
but if it makes people feel more comfortable going through some of those turns
and some of those things we felt that was important.
We did look at that the road does need to have some striping,
particularly on the lower section and we’ll have to see what we need to do to
get that accomplished also. The
yellow line has just been driven over, I guess, so much that it’s kind of just
disappeared. Once you go past
there, before that section, the yellow line is still intact. Those are the main comments that I wanted to make.
We think that these conditions, there has been a lot of due diligence
that’s gone into this process and we appreciate everybody’s help; the Staff
and you all and the time that you’ve taken and we feel that they’re fair, we
can live with those. Again, we’re wanting to coexist we’re going to be a
member of that neighborhood also for awhile and want to try and work with those
in the particular area.”
Daugherty
asked, “The day that we were out there the day of the blast it was clear with
low humidity and you touched on it briefly, my question would be cloudy high
humidity day how much louder would that blast have been or would we have noticed
a significant difference?” Sossong
replied, “I don’t think you would have noticed it being any different and I
may defer that to a more expert opinion than mine.
Typically, what you might have is that some of the sound may go up and
bounce come down and somebody in a further distance might have a little bit more
noise than they would have otherwise incurred, but as far as the noise there at
the shot and the area surrounding that I don’t think it would have been
significantly different.”
Walker
asked, “On reclamation and I realize part of the Red Dirt mining operation
that we saw is probably not the Rogers Group problem, but is there going to be
no reclamation or no addressing of any of the old topsoil piles for 30 years?”
Sossong replied, “As far as the exterior?
The exterior will predominantly be berms and fencing.
You’ll basically just have the area inside where we’re doing our
mining.”
Walker
asked, “See where we make the right angle turn (outside green line) where we
think we’ve got the problem right there see the red dirt that is outside
that?” Sossong replied, “That
has to be reclaimed by Lindsey they’re under bond.”
Walker asked, “At what point in time?”
Sossong replied, “As I understand it in process to be reclaimed.
ADEQ, the landowner, and Lindsey have had several discussions on that
property.” Walker asked, “None
of the reclamation outside the green line will start prior to finish of
quarrying?” Sossong replied,
“I’m not sure what you’re asking me there. Inside the green line or outside the green line we’re going
to maintain the existing…” Walker asked, “Inside the green line.
Where’s the next one, Juliet, where you had the mining itself?
The next picture.” Richey
asked, “The buffer picture?” Walker
asked, “I guess my question, Terry, is to keep the thing kind of
aesthetically…” Sossong replied, “We’re going to leave the trees up and
that is something that Juliet and I have talked in the northeast corner there
right if you’re standing on Hamstring Road at the northeast corner of the
property right up in that corner that we want to maintain a berm along there.
There’s a little bit of red dirt mining exposed we want to keep a berm
and keep that all seeded there. Basically,
we want to be below level so that nobody can see us then there are trees all
along there. The property that’s
in the triangle there the Crumley property is supposed to be reclaimed so it
will return to topsoil and grass and then it will be trees all along there so
that visibility will be minimal and that was one of the key reasons I chose this
piece of property and the ability to mine that was that we could stay below and
noise would be kept to a minimum and that the visibility from the neighbor’s
point-of-view would be minimal.” Walker
asked, “This is something that probably doesn’t, you may not even be able to
answer, but Lindsey will continue to mine red dirt on this project at the same
time, right?” Sossong replied,
“That is correct. Basically, they
are excavating the dirt off in front and then we would come behind and excavate
the stone in those areas.” Walker
asked, “So they won’t be in those areas in with the trees because right now
they’re collecting red dirt down at the corner their trackhoe sit up right in
there, right?” Sossong replied,
“Yes.” Walker asked, “They
will not go outside that green line?” Sossong
replied, “That I can not answer.” Walker
asked, “Because if they go outside that green line the trees vanish?” Sossong replied, “I’m going to have to berm up there
regardless. I have to keep a berm
there along what would be the edge of the pit there and keep that seeded.”
Walker asked, “That was one of the things that was a little confusing
to me is there are actually two different entities working here at the same time
and some of the track out and this that and the other that the Rogers Group may
get blamed for may not be the Rogers Group track out.”
Sossong replied, “That’s correct.”
Richey
commented, “If I can elaborate a little bit on that you notice we had a
condition that says that we need to have discussions with Lindsey.
We started having discussions with Lindsey and what we need from them is,
basically, what you have is something that is a grandfathered operation, their
red dirt operation is grandfathered and then you have a permitted operation
coming in after it because they’re coming in now when we have rules and
regulations and it makes it really tricky because I don’t have a plan that
shows me exactly what Lindsey is going to do and what they’re not going to do.
Something that George and I have been talking about because yes we’re
looking at this I’m like all right if you leave this buffer then you’re
going to have visual protection, but the real question is if Lindsey comes in
first and removes all that buffer before they even get there then that’s not
going to really do anything. What
we’ve discussed is that there are a couple of properties that they own that
they have not really begun any work on minor old pieces.
This piece they bought I guess from Mr. Breedlove and then also this
piece from Mr. Clayton that they bought. What
George and I have been discussing is that you know you are grandfathered in to a
degree on things that you’ve been working on and things that they have been
mining. They haven’t really
started mining either those pieces of property and that would most likely need
to come before us for a Conditional Use Permit for expansion as well. This piece of property is more ambiguous and I don’t
actually know what all their plans are for this piece of property and that’s
what I’m trying to find out, but I would assume that if it is an area that is
big enough that hasn’t been mined before that’s going to be mined then that
needs to come through us as well. Basically,
they’re going to have to do something that respects what’s going on with
Rogers Group. This is an area where
Rogers Group has taken they’re going to have their sediment pond that then
drains through this area and joins this tributary, so obviously we can’t have
Lindsey doing something that’s going to disrupt that issue. They’ve agreed to that I’ve been talking to one of their
representatives. Also, there are
some springs here and those need to be taken into regard as well.
This area is the area where there’s going to be the spillway out of the
lake that needs to be taken into account this is a ravine here.
I don’t see any issue with this area being mined for red dirt.
All of this land is owned by Lindsey in this area we say they can go
right up to the buffer or to the proposed line anyway.
If Lindsey has plans for mining this part then that’s something we’ll
need to talk about as when. Basically,
that is a whole additional discussion that they’re going to have.
I don’t know an answer to this.”
Walker
asked, “In that same deal I keep hearing and I’ve been asked the question
about 350 so many acres. Is this
the Rogers Group or is this Lindsey’s lease?”
Sossong replied, “Let me clarify that if I could when this was
originally signed up when I originally did the property Lindsey had an option on
the table to buy the Rich property in its entirety.
I wasn’t sure what the total acreage was put 350 acres down.
I’m in the process of having that redrafted and Lindsey has agreed to
state only what Lindsey property we would have and we have a separate lease with
Mr. Rich for the acreage that we have on his property and that would be
restated.” Walker asked, “But
that is not in today’s proposal that would be future?”
Sossong replied, “That is the way the proposal has always been intended
is the area that we have discussed here has always been the area that was to be
proposed for mining from Rogers Group’s perspective.
We didn’t know what part of the Rich property or whatever, but our
intention and didn’t even know how many acres there were and he has since
added acres since that original time, but that 40-acre parcel that we have in
the northwestern most section there has always been that 40-acre parcel we
intended to mine on. There’s
roughly 175-180 acres that Lindsey has there approximately there’s not quite 5
full sections there or I mean 5 quarter sections and then there’s 40 acres
there approximately that we have on Mark Rich’s property.” Richey stated, “Just to further clarify that 350 acres when
that was brought up at the last meeting, I went looking for it, there is nothing
in any of our submittals that indicates anything like that.
What we are looking at approving and has always been looking at is this
general area. We tweaked lines
little bit back and forth, but that 350 (100) acres came from a former ADEQ
document that was filed and that is in the process of being revised, but
regardless of even what that says we go by what we would approve not ADEQ
documents.”
Haley
asked, “I had a couple of questions and I maybe just getting confused I was
looking here that right now they’re anticipating 50–100 trucks per day out
of the Rogers. The trucking at
Stephens peaked at 700-750; okay and then you’re talking about Lindsey
you’ve got with all the quarries that are there how many trucks are you
talking per day? Because now you could potentially increase that
significantly?” Walker asked, “That 700-750 trucks were mainly red dirt,
correct back at the peak time when construction was booming?
Unless we saw another peak time like that I wouldn’t anticipate that
many trucks, right?” Richey
replied, “Right, I don’t know exactly how many trucks per day.
There’s basically when the Red Dirt Farm to the south of that they said
no traffic increase from what they have. That
was one of their statements.” Kenley
asked, “What do they have now?” Butler
replied, “That is a condition.” Richey commented, “I don’t know what
they have now. All I know is Donnie
Coleman, Washington County Road Department Superintendent, is here I know that
you all don’t keep traffic counts on those roads, but basically this is
looking at an addition to what is going on there that’s what we’re looking
at is their contribution we do require final traffic studies at Large Scale
Development where they look at it in depth.”
Coleman stated, “I was under the impression that they weren’t going
to up their traffic anymore than what they’ve got have right there right now
working out of what they’re already working out of. I may have understood wrong.
That was the impression that I was under. They were just asking for more property not up their usage of
trucks.”
Haley
asked, “I really appreciate this map with the landowners.
Do all of these people do you feel like travel this Hamstring Road daily
twice or do they have other routes that they go to work, school, or whatever?”
Richey replied, “I don’t know because I don’t know I’m going to
assume that people that live on Hamstring are going to go if you live closer to
this way then you may take this way. People
who live closer to where Hamstring meets Harmon up here perhaps they go that way
it’s hard for me to know that, generally, when you’re looking at traffic
from a traffic engineering point-of-view you picked the closest route, but of
course that could not always be true depending on say if they were trying to
avoid truck traffic or something like that they may go a different way even if
they live closer to one entrance or another.
Essentially, it is a loop it’s a road that goes all the way through and
it hits Harmon. If you work in
Springdale or something maybe you would go up this way (north) I don’t know
probably depends on where you’re going.”
Haley
commented, “I just can’t see that where this is going it’s very safe and I
hate to go back to a large number of trucks, but we can’t always assume that
our economy at some point it is going to increase significantly again in
Northwest Arkansas and we’ll start building where you can mix a very large
number of cars with dump trucks continuously and it be safe especially on that
road.” Richey stated, “I
don’t know what the width of that road when it was improved it was improved
with that in mind. We’ll look at
a traffic count when it gets to Large Scale Development and see if there are
further upgrades that need to be done. It
was also propositioned to Fayetteville if they felt like anything needed to be
done for their portion it’s in their city limits and they said no so I don’t
know how to answer that. We kind of
just look at things Preliminarily as far as traffic goes and the Conditional Use
part of it and one reason that is so we can get Cities’ feedback if they do
have any. Our full traffic study
requirement doesn’t come into play until Large Scale.”
Jay
Edwards commented, “I’m an Attorney partner with the Watkins
Boyer Gray Edwards & Noblin law firm in Rogers and I am here to voice the concerns and
opinions of a group of citizens that live either adjacent to or within close
proximity to the quarry. I would
like to first point to the Conditional Use Permit as filed by Rogers Group it
states that the Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow the expansion of an
existing limestone quarrying facility. It
also states that the existing limestone quarry facility approximately 45 acres
was in place prior to the existence of zoning in the County and was therefore
grandfathered for the use of limestone quarrying activities.
On determining on whether to approve the expansion of the quarrying
operation as requested by Rogers Group. This
Board should ask the following questions: is it the function of the County
Planning to sanction non-approved uses and does the County have the authority to
approve what might have been illegal and are non-approved uses?
Prior to August 16, 2006, Lindsey or J&A mining owned and operated a
red dirt pit on the property, which is the subject matter of this meeting,
subject matter where they are at right now.
The site is commonly referred to as Stephens Mine or The Stephens Red
Dirt Pit. On August 16, 2006 the
Rogers Group leased this tract from J& A or Lindsey at that time ADEQ
permits allowed the owner/operator to mine and/or excavate dirt not limestone.
On November 9, 2006, zoning regulations for Washington County were
passed. At the time of the passage
of these zoning regulations ADEQ permits allowed the owner/operator of the
property in question to mine and excavate dirt, not limestone.
On April 26, 2008 the Rogers Group first published a notice of its intent
to open and operate a limestone quarry at the pit.
This notice is required by the State in order to take part in such an
operation. However, according to
records maintained by Rogers Group blasting was occurring at the property in
question for at least as far back as June of 2007 and based on what I heard
tonight maybe even farther back. Remember
at the time the blasting occurred the only permits that had been issued for this
site were related to red dirt excavation. Certainly
no notice had been filed indicating any other intention. A June 3, 2008 letter written by Washington County Attorney
George Butler references this fact. Butler
states, ‘I discussed this matter with Jim Stephens of ADEQ today and he
advised that to convert a dirt pit, which is permitted under Regulation 15 to a
quarry, basically, all one needs is to submit plans to ADEQ.
It is my understanding, however, that this has not been done until
recently. We relied on a former
employee of ADEQ, Jim Whitner, who was acting as a consultant to the Rogers
Group that they were already a quarry and had a right to continue to do so.’
Several months later on September 25, 2008 the Rogers Group application
to begin quarrying was finalized by the ADEQ.
So, as indicated by the documents maintained by the ADEQ, by the
documents filed and records kept by the Rogers Group, and by the investigation
of Washington County, we conclude the following: prior to April 26, 2008 the
Rogers Group and/or its predecessors were never approved to do anything but to
remove dirt from the site in question. Although,
it was not approved for limestone quarrying the Rogers Group was doing just that
prior to April 26, 2008. Since the
Rogers Group is not approved to operate a rock quarry or it even attempted to
obtain such approval until April of 2008 well after the County instituted zoning
regulations, its quarrying operation could not and cannot be grandfathered in or
considered a continuing zoning (quarry) operation that existed prior to the
County’s passage of the zoning regulations.
Although, the Rogers Group did not publish notice of its intent to
operate a rock quarry until April of 2008, well after the County instituted
zoning regulations, and never applied for a Conditional Use Permit (I should say
a Conditional Use Permit for a new business). The Rogers Group is now asking this Board to give it ability
to increase and expand an operation for which it never got the necessary
approval in the first place. The
Rogers Group, in essence, has avoided the procedures and rules of the State and
County and is now asking the Board to give party to its ways. In essence, it is asking this Board to reward it by giving it
an expansion for its disregard of rules and procedures. This is like telling your child not to eat a cookie before
dinner and then when you catch them with the cookie, and going ahead and giving
them the entire package. At the
very least the Rogers Group should be required to apply for a Conditional Use
Permit for a new business. They
never had a permit to mine limestone prior to the institution of zoning
regulations in Washington County. Accordingly,
if they’re asking to expand a limestone operation that they never had a permit
for in the first place something is wrong.
What they need to do is to ask for a Conditional Use Permit for a new
business, a new limestone operation. And
again I ask this Board to go back to my original question is the function of the
County Planning to sanction non-approved uses or expand non-approved uses, does
this County Planning Board have the authority to sanction or expand non-approved
uses? I think those are important
questions that you have to ask yourself. I
think it is telling that when the Rogers Group put a permit before you the
permit specifically states that a limestone quarry facility was in place prior
to the existence in the County and, therefore, grandfathered for the use of
limestone quarrying activities. After
talking to the ADEQ and looking at all the ADEQ has filed in relation to this
property, there’s no permit for limestone quarrying unless someone can show me
something that the ADEQ was not able to show me.
If that’s the truth then they’re asking to expand a use that was
never approved and I think you have to deny that use today.”
Butler
stated, “I want to hear again from Rogers Group about that.
I do remember early on when you and I and Judge (Jerry) Hunton met with
the Rogers Group and Jim Whitner, former ADEQ employee, was acting as their
consultant and we took their word for it that they had already been blasting out
there for a period of time that they were already permitted to be a quarry.
I think I had written another letter since then that…if we’ve been
mislead on that we would not be mislead again.
Nevertheless, all other uses are conditional also, so if we have to go
back to permit the original use, it’s still allowed as a potential Conditional
Use also, but I think I need to hear more about that. I need to hear from the Rogers Group on that about whether or
not they were in fact grandfathered. We
did take their word for it at that time we didn’t double-check that and I
remember talking about that later and wondering whether or not a mistake had
been made.”
Richey
commented, “We did have several discussions about it and also I had some
discussions with ADEQ and, basically, he referred to them operating under a
permit for gravel and clay or whatever it is that under Regulation 15.
Essentially, the way that I understand it, is there was a disagreement
within ADEQ of whether or not you had to have your notice of intent to quarry or
not legally to do so, because for a long time many rock quarries operated under
Regulation 15, which is the one that it mainly encompasses clay and red dirt
mining, but basically they said that it could also encompass quarrying and the
way that I understood it was that, basically, they had especially in the past,
had two different ideas in ADEQ itself about whether or not you actually had to
file a notice of intent to be a quarry and that it was legal to operate under
Regulation 15, although, that’s not really what they wanted you to do.
That doesn’t really help anything, I know, but I guess what I’m
saying is and I don’t have that file in front of me I have a file about when
that transpired, but we did have several meetings where we met with the Judge
and they, basically, said here is an area that has been mined.
This part has been quarried in the past and they gave us coordinates and
those coordinates were accepted as a grandfathered quarry area.”
Haley
asked, “We don’t have anything that verified that?” Richey replied, “All that we would have would be an ADEQ
permit because the County didn’t have regulations for those when it started so
the County wouldn’t have monitored it. All
that I can do is look at old aerial photographs and look and see what it looks
like and I can call ADEQ and ADEQ, basically, had disagreement among their ranks
legally about whether or not you had to file your NOI or whether or not you
could legally operate under just the Regulation 15 for all types of surface
mining. All that I have is the
decision that was reached in 2006 by the County Judge, essentially.”
Walker
stated, “This is a little embarrassing. I
mean we’ve been told that we got a grandfathered in quarry and we’re wanting
to enlarge. Now that I’ve been
told that there was never no permit originally, but I’m hearing from one side
of the party.”
Laney
commented, “Just to be clear our and, George you can comment on this, I mean
first off we can’t you know we’re not the Court of Law to decide if it was
grandfathered or not and a permit would certainly be one evidence of it being
grandfathered, but there would be a lot of other evidence that could be
submitted in a trial to find out if it really was going on prior to zoning.
This one element like we said we only heard one side of it, but there
would be if we set ourselves up as a Court of Law to try to figure out was
something really going on before or not I’m just saying that would only be one
piece of evidence.”
Walker
asked, “Is there any relevance for us approving the additional acreage of this
quarry or does that need to be resubmitted as a new business to start a quarry?
I’m confused now because…” Laney stated, “There’s definitely a
quarry going on today we know that.” Walker
asked, “I know that I’ve been there I saw it.
My question is this Conditional Use is it conditional upon the one
that’s already working there?” Haley
asked, “Would it be an expansion or a new?”
Butler
stated, “Right now, they’re asking for an expansion if it ends up that they
weren’t legally permitted when they started to then it would be looked at as
the establishment of a new use from its original inception.
There could be other legal issues at play here.
It could come in as a Conditional Use whether or not it’s an expansion
or not.” Laney commented,
“Which would be like the Red Dirt Pit. Red
Dirt Pit was and it was an application to start quarrying.”
Butler stated, “Right, to start quarrying.
It came in as an established use.”
Laney commented, “I’m not sure other than that technical difference,
I have a hard time understanding really what the difference would be in the way
that the application goes forward.” Butler
stated, “I think what they are asking is well, do they not need to go back
from square one and do apply for their Conditional Use Permit for their existing
quarry if in fact it was illegally established in addition to this expanded
area. I think that is the question
that’s being asked.” Laney
asked, “I understand the question, but I’m saying practically the
information has been submitted other than changing the title to say application
for initial use would there be…?” Butler
replied, “There wouldn’t be any difference in terms of… you’re right
there really wouldn’t be any difference.”
Laney commented, “Other than the title.”
Butler stated, “Right, we would be looking at the same information.”
Walker asked, “Can we act on it without clearing it up?”
Butler replied, “I don’t know that it’s not clear, yet.
I think we need to hear more from Rogers Group.
We just heard from Mr. Edwards.”
Sossong
commented, “I don’t have the information that I need as far as dates and
times and those types of things. We
did sit in a meeting with the County Judge and I will have to go back and look
at the dates and times. Juliet,
George, the Judge, myself, Jim Whitner, and one other person from Rogers Group
sat in there. There was a crusher
operating at that site at that point in time by Lindsey that was crushing
pinnacles and those types of things similar to what is being done at the Red
Dirt Farm typical of that Mr. Whitener had worked as a compliance officer for
ADEQ he was the mining compliance officer for the State and he was the one that
had witnessed the blasting that had occurred there at the site previously and
that was a basis for moving forward with a quarrying operation that was
grandfathered in. The size of the
site was to be determined with the existing pit area and that’s where the 45
acres came from. That has been our
basis.”
Walker
stated, “I don’t know quite how to word this, but I come prepared to do one
thing tonight and now I’m prepared to do something different and that is move
to table this until we have the information that we need whether it be change
the title of it to go back to original Conditional Use Permit for the original
that may be or may not be illegal. I
don’t know because I’m no attorney, but I move that we table it until we
have the information before us that we can act one way or another.”
Larry Walker moved to table
Rogers Group Quarry Expansion Conditional
Use Permit. Roy Hummel seconded. Motion
passes. James F. Gallagher
abstained.
Laney
commented, “I would have a couple of points just for the sake of trying to
move these things forward not specific on your table, but I would like also to
see us consider, assuming we come back on this which I assume we will, a couple
of conditions that I thought would be appropriate would be that the ADEQ reports
that are filed with the State would be copied with the County Planning Office so
that local residents assuming it ever got approved through the Court systems
would have easy access to those so I would make that a condition that all
reports go to ADEQ would be copied to our office.” Richey asked, “For this project?” Laney replied, “Yes, going forward.” Butler stated, “This is reports that they send to ADEQ?”
Laney replied, “Yes, they just copy our local office so that people
don’t have to try to go to Little Rock to try to find out the blasting
reports, the water reports, the other ADEQ reports.
I was going to ask about tarping as a condition and I know that those
aren’t their trucks we’ve been down this road before, but in order to…it
wasn’t a condition in here that if we approved it.” Richey commented,
“It’s in our Large Scale Development ordinance, but if what you’re talking
about is the Lindsey operation then that wouldn’t be covered.”
Laney stated, “No, I guess they’re not before us, but whoever is
before us now.” Richey commented, “That’s covered under our Large
Scale ordinance.”
Johnson’s Planning Area
f. Shady
Pines Adult Day Care CUP (Conditional
Use Permit Request) To be tabled
at the request of the applicant (1)
Location: Section 20, Township 17 North, Range 30
West
Owner/Developer:
Darreleen Wiles
Location Address:
4200 N. Highway 112
4 acres / Proposed Land Use: Adult Day Care
Project
#: 2009-054 Planner: Courtney McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
Robert
Daugherty moved to table Shady
Pines Adult Day Care CUP Conditional
Use Permit at the request of the
applicant.
Cheryl West seconded. Motion
passes.
All
Board members were in favor of tabling Shady
Pines Adult Day Care CUP Conditional
Use Permit.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
7.
OTHER BUSINESS
·
Vote on By-law change
Richey
stated, “Basically, there’s a portion that said that
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 and George didn’t think that was legal for that to be in there
so he just wanted to have that stricken.”
Butler commented, “We were reviewing the By-laws one day and I looked
at that and I thought how in the heck did that…” Laney stated, “No one
knew where it came from.” Butler
commented, “No, I don’t know how it got in there or where it came from. It shouldn’t be there.”
Larry
Walker moved to strike ‘
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’ from the By-laws. Robert Daugherty seconded. Motion
passes.
· Current Development update
Richey
stated, “We have several Conditional Use Permits coming up on our next agenda.
Basically, things are holding… we’re having more projects come to you
all and lot splits seem to be holding about the same.”
·
Reminder- next meeting is Tuesday, July 7th, 5:00 pm
(actually Monday, July 6th)
Laney
stated, “We did change and gave notice of our next hearing date so just a
reminder of that.” Haley
commented, “Just keep the reminders coming they’re great.” Butler asked, “When was the next meeting?
I’ll be out of town.” Haley
stated, “That’s not good. We
need George.” Laney commented, “That isn’t going to work.”
Daugherty stated, “That isn’t going to work, for sure.”
Butler commented, “My wife insisted that I would be on vacation that
week she made it clear this weekend; it was do or die.”
Laney stated, “We already moved it for someone’s calendar I can’t
remember.”
Gallagher
commented,
“We moved it because of the holiday (4th of July), basically.”
Richey stated, “First we moved it to Monday for the holiday, but then
Karen Beeks the Finance Committee moved us.”
West asked, “Can we not have it the next week?”
Richey replied, “We could have it the next week.”
Gallagher commented, “If you can get the room.”
Haley asked, “Or could we move it up a day?”
Gallagher replied, “Monday was not available that was why we couldn’t
do it on Monday.” Laney stated,
“We had it, but then they bumped us.” Richey
asked, “You’ll be gone that whole week, George?”
Butler replied, “Yes. I
will be leaving town on Sunday and won’t be back in town until the following
Sunday.” Haley stated, “We
couldn’t do it earlier as in July 2 something earlier rather than later.
I’m just thinking we keep putting decisions off.”
Richey commented, “We have a pretty full agenda on our next one.”
Haley stated, “We could divide into two, maybe.”
Richey commented, “Yeah, I don’t know.
I guess it depends on what you all… I know you all probably don’t
want to come twice.” West stated,
“I personally would rather do it the week after.”
Gallagher asked, “The week of the (July) 13th
is a Monday?” West
replied, “Yes.” Richey
commented, “I don’t know what kind of conflicts… I don’t know what
committee meetings are going on.” Laney
stated, “Let’s tentatively say the 13th and you can check on
availability of rooms and everybody else can have a better opportunity to check
their calendars.” Richey asked,
“Do you all want to try to do if it looks like we’re still going to have a
big agenda do you want to try to have two meetings?”
West replied, “I would just as soon do it all and get it done.
Just do it all that night, myself.”
Richey asked, “So you’d rather do it all like on the 13th
or whatever?” Walker replied,
“Yes.” Butler commented, “I need to go back and refresh my
memory because there was this meeting held and we took their word for it that
they said that they were already quarrying out there and were permitted,
therefore, when we talked about the grandfathering it that time because we
didn’t have zoning they were saying they were grandfathered from some of our
new Large Scale Development regulations, which weren’t that new of a deal.
Later on we implemented zoning. I
remember and I’ll have to go back and look at that I wrote another letter
after that expressing some concerns about that about whether or not we been
mislead, or we made a mistake and not double-checking things that it wouldn’t
happen again, so I need to go back and look and refresh my memory.
There’s at least two letters that I recall.
We probably need to have some conversations with ADEQ about that
again.” Richey stated, “Yes,
it’s been awhile since we’ve talked about it.
There was a letter issued where, basically, I can’t remember who signed
it or whatever, but we did have a meeting Rogers Group did approach us and we
made an agreement that it was grandfathered in.
It’s not that there wasn’t any discussion at all.
Have a question on the way the discussion happened or whatever, but there
was a decision reached by the County Judge.” Butler commented, “Another question would be whether or not
are we bound by that agreement are we estopped for denying it after they’ve
already acted on it and had an active quarry there for a certain amount of time.
You get into a lot of technical legal issues there.”
Laney stated, “It appears to me that there’s probably a really good
chance this thing is going to be litigated and procedurally we can make it where
whatever is determined later we gave the review that we should give it and not
get hung up on that. That’s why I
say I don’t know if we re-title it or what, but we’re not a Court.”
Haley commented, “If we do something that we know knowingly, I don’t
think that’s…” Laney stated, “Legal issue with estoppel.” Butler
commented, “Legal issues whether or not that the County is bound by that
agreement and whether or not we’re a stop to deny it at this stage of the
game, maybe not, that’s out there. That’s
not something that we can litigate here.” Laney stated, “That’s what
Courts are for.” Walker
commented, “The way that it is titled is important to us the Conditional Use
Permit.” Butler stated, “If they want to re-submit it for the whole
thing that might clear that up.” Hummel commented, “If they just re-submit
it and ask for a new permit have nothing to do with grandfathering it would
clear the whole thing up.” Laney asked, “Seems like to me it would, but
there will be some more time to think about it since we’ve tabled it we’ll
get to the right answer. Do you
have some more thoughts?” Butler
replied, “Not right now; I’ve got several in my head.”
·
Any other general Planning Department or Planning Board Business
Larry Walker moved to adjourn. Cheryl West seconded.
Motion passes.
Planning Board adjourned.
Minutes submitted by: Amanda
Kimbel
Approved by the Planning
Board on:
________Randy Laney_________ Date: __07/06/09________
Randy Laney, Planning Board Chairman
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
&
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
July 6, 2009
5:00 p.m., Quorum Courtroom, New Courthouse
Fayetteville, Arkansas
DEVELOPMENTS REVIEWED:
ACTION TAKEN:
County
a. Replat Lots 9, 10, and 11 Sundowners Good Earth Estates
Tabled
County
b. Trumbo Estates
Tabled
County
c. Biggs
Invenergy Wind Development, LLC CUP
Conditional Use Permit Approval
County
d.
AmeriAsian Meat Processing CUP
Tabled
Springdale’s Planning Area
e.
Grace Marshallese Assembly of God, Inc. CUP
Tabled
Fayetteville’s Planning Area
f. Newcastle Estates CUP
Tabled
Fayetteville’s Planning Area
g. Zion Care Center CUP
Tabled
Johnson’s Planning Area
h. Shady Pines Adult Day Care CUP
Tabled
County
i. Rogers Group Quarry Expansion CUP
Tie vote – motion failed - Denied
1. ROLL CALL:
Roll call was taken.
Members present include: James F. Gallagher, Kenley Haley, Randy Laney,
Larry Walker, Roy Hummel, Cheryl West, and Robert Daugherty.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (from the June 9, 2009 meeting) Cheryl
West made a motion to approve as written. Robert Daugherty provided the second.
Motion passes.
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
Juliet Richey, Washington County Planning Director,
stated, “Items to be tabled.
Everything that was on the original one is right except for also Item f.
(Newcastle Estates CUP) has requested to be tabled.”
Laney commented, “Item a. (Replat Lots 9, 10, and 11 Sundowners Good Earth
Estates), Item b. (Trumbo Estates), Item d. (AmeriAsian Meat Processing CUP),
Item e. (Grace Marshallese Assembly of God, Inc. CUP), Item f.
(Newcastle Estates CUP), Item g. (Zion Care Center CUP), and Item h. (Shady
Pines Adult Day Care CUP) are to be tabled.”
Richey stated, “That is correct.
To be heard are Item c. (Biggs Invenergy Wind Development, LLC CUP) and Item i. (Rogers Group Quarry
Expansion CUP).” Robert Daugherty
made a motion to approve the agenda. Larry Walker seconded.
Motion passes.
4. NEW BUSINESS
County
a. Replat Lots 9, 10, and 11 Sundowners Good Earth
Estates (Preliminary and Final Plat Approval Request)
To be tabled at the request of the applicant (3) (old business)
Location: Section 35, Township 15 North, Range 31
West
Owner/Developer: Connie Robbins
Engineer/Surveyor: DVDoyal Land Surveying - Daryl
Doyal
Location Address: 12727, 12765, and 12799
N. Billingsley Road (WC #210)
10.1 acres and 2 lots / Proposed Land Use:
Residential
Project #: 2009-037 Planner: Jessie Pettit, e-mail at jpettit@co.washington.ar.us
Robert Daugherty moved to
table
Replat Lots 9, 10, and 11 Sundowners Good Earth Estates Preliminary and Final
Plat at the request of the applicant.
Larry Walker seconded.
Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of tabling
Replat Lots 9, 10, and 11 Sundowners Good
Earth Estates Preliminary and Final Plat.
County
b. Trumbo Estates (Preliminary and Final Plat
Approval Request) To be tabled at the request of the applicant (2)
(old business)
Location: Section 8, Township 17 North, Range 28 West
Owner/Developer: Tom Stockland, Jim Stockland, and
Trey Trumbo
Engineer/Surveyor: Atwell Land Surveying – Dave
Atwell
Location Address:
(closest addressed property) to
the west of 19856 Groth Road (WC #377)
8.57 acres and 2 lots / Proposed Land Use:
Single-Family
Project #: 2009-048 Planner: Courtney McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
Robert Daugherty moved to
table
Trumbo Estates Preliminary and Final Plat
at the request of the applicant. Larry Walker seconded. Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of tabling
Trumbo Estates Preliminary and Final Plat.
County
c. Biggs
Invenergy Wind Development, LLC CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request- new business)
Location: Section 9, Township 13 North, Range 32 West
Owner/Developer: Carl and Wanda Biggs
Representative: Invenergy, LLC - Brandon Ferrall
(Development Manager)
Location Address: (closest addressed property)
to the west of 18194 S. Skylight Mountain Road (WC #4)
50 acres / Proposed Land Use:
Meteorological Tower
Project #: 2009-063 Planner: Juliet Richey, e-mail at jrichey@co.washington.ar.us
REQUEST:
Conditional Use Permit Approval for Biggs Invenergy Wind Development, LLC CUP.
The proposed land use is a Meteorological Tower on approximately 41.5
acres.
CURRENT ZONING: Project does
lie within the County Zoned area (Agriculture/Single-Family Residential 1 unit
per acre).
PLANNING AREA: This project
is located solely in the County.
QUORUM COURT DISTRICT: District 10, JP Jack Norton
BACKGROUND/ PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
The owners are Carl and Wanda Biggs.
William
Ferguson and Bristi Cure,
with
Invenergy
LLC
are the representatives for this project.
The property has access onto S. Skylight Mountain Road (WC #4).
The
closest addressed property is to the east at 18194 S. Skylight Mountain Road
(Biggs Residence).
The proposed tower is to be 197' in height. There will be no lighting required
for the tower (lighting is required by the FAA if a tower is over 200' in
height). Please see the applicant’s letter on
pg. C-7
for more information.
All buildings within 600’ of the proposed tower are located on the Biggs’
property (see map on
pg C-10).
The nearest residence to the proposed tower location is approximately 614'.
This residence is on the Biggs' property.
The closest residence on a property not belonging to the Biggs appears to
be a building located on Albert and Judy Cole's property to the south.
This building appears to be approximately 925 feet from the base of the
tower.
Our communication tower code calls for the owners of residences within 400' plus
the height of the tower to sign an acknowledgement of the tower construction
being this close to their residence. The Biggs have signed this waiver.
Invenergy LLC believes that there is a potential for a good wind resource in
this area.
This meteorological tower will be put in place to collect wind and
weather data over the 1-3 year period to determine whether the wind resource in
this area is good enough to look at further wind development (possibly wind
farms or something of that nature).
It should be made clear that this Conditional Use Permit is for the use
of one meteorological tower only.
If there is a potential for commercial type wind development in the area, then
that proposed development will be reviewed under a different application, and
all property owners will be re-notified according to our ordinances.
No utilities are required for this tower. It will transmit the meteorological data that it collects via
a cellular phone signal.
If this proposed use is approved, then the tower will be reviewed
administratively for structural and other standards according to the County’s
Communication Tower Ordinance.
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water –Washington Water Authority services the area.
Other Utilities - The lot is in the service area of Ozark Electric and
Prairie Grove Telephone.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Conditional Use Permit approval of
the proposed Biggs Invenergy Wind Development, LLC CUP with the following
conditions being met.
1.
Any other land divisions, commercial structures, or other types of uses
not considered with this submittal must come through a separate CUP or review
process with the County.
2.
The tower must comply with all applicable portions of the County’s
Communications Towers ordinances (proceed through administrative approval,
Appendix B).
3.
This use is permitted for up to three years from the date of completed
installation. If more time is
needed, then the applicant must request an additional CUP.
4.
The tower height may not exceed 199’ (feet) in height.
The tower may not be lit.
Will Furgeson and Bristi Cure, Invenergy, LLC, were present to answer any
questions.
Haley asked, “All of the data is going to be through computers so there’s no
traffic generated?” Richey replied,
“That’s correct. They may come once a
month to check on it, but it is transmitted by cell signal.” Haley asked, “At the end of three years what happens to the
tower?” Richey replied, “It has to
be taken down.”
Robert Daugherty moved to
approve Biggs Invenergy Wind Development, LLC Conditional Use Permit subject to
Staff’s recommendations. Roy Hummel seconded.
Motion passes.
Laney asked, “Just to be clear, to my knowledge there is nothing no bond or
anything that will see that this tower gets taken down it’s just a promise to
take it down.” George Butler,
Washington County Attorney, replied, “We don’t have anything in our regulations
that would require the posting of a bond.”
Laney asked, “But the permit then would run out and then somebody would have to
complain.” Butler replied, “Right,
if they didn’t take it down we do have to take civil action against them.”
Gallagher asked, “Like the others is this one self sustaining that is no power
requirements and so forth; self-contained battery?” Richey replied, “Yes, it has a solar charger.”
All Board members were in
favor of approving
Biggs Invenergy Wind Development, LLC
Conditional Use Permit
County
d.
AmeriAsian Meat Processing CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request) To be tabled at the request of the applicant (1)
(new business)
Location: Section 17, Township 16 North, Range 32
West
Owner/Developer: Tou Yia Lee
Location Address: 14143 N. Wedington Blacktop Road
(WC# 33)
12 acres / Proposed Land Use: Slaughterhouse / Farm
Project #: 2009-062 Planner: Jessie Pettit, e-mail at jpettit@co.washington.ar.us
Robert Daugherty moved to
table
AmeriAsian Meat Processing Conditional Use Permit
at the request of the applicant. Larry Walker seconded. Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of tabling
AmeriAsian Meat Processing Conditional Use
Permit.
Springdale’s Planning Area
e.
Grace Marshallese Assembly of God, Inc. CUP (Conditional
Use Permit Request) To be tabled
at the request of the applicant (1)
(new business)
Location: Section 17, Township 17 North, Range 29
West
Owner/Developer:
Lavern and Kathe Graham / Thomas Lajwi
Location Address: 4652 Butterfield Coach Road (WC
#87)
3.12 acres / Proposed Land Use: Church
Project #: 2009-065 Planner:
Juliet Richey, e-mail at jrichey@co.washington.ar.us
Robert Daugherty moved to
table
Grace Marshallese Assembly of God, Inc. Conditional Use Permit
at the request of the applicant.
Larry Walker seconded.
Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of tabling
Grace Marshallese Assembly of God, Inc.
Conditional Use Permit.
Fayetteville’s Planning Area
f. Newcastle Estates CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request- new business)
Location: Section 29, Township 17 North, Range 29
West
Owner/Developer: SML Landholding II, LLC
Representative: Appian Centre for Design – Austin
Rowser (Design Team Leader)
Location Address: (closest addressed property)
to the east of 4501 E. Gulley Road (WC #345)
13.27 acres and 45 single-family condominium units /
Proposed Land Use: Single-Family Residential 3.4 units per acre
Project #: 2009-064 Planner: Courtney McNair,
e-mail at
cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
Robert Daugherty moved to
table
Newcastle Estates Conditional Use Permit
at the request of the applicant. Larry Walker seconded. Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of tabling
Newcastle Estates Conditional Use Permit.
Fayetteville’s Planning Area
g. Zion Care Center CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request) To be tabled at the request of the applicant (1)
(new business)
Location: Section 20, Township 17 North, Range 29
West
Owner/Developer: Inspired Design Construction – Marc
Pirolo
Location Address: (closest addressed property)
to the north of 4079 E. Zion Road (WC #92)
4.9 acres and 4 phases 84 units / Proposed Land Use:
Assisted Living Units
Project #: 2009-066 Planner: Courtney McNair,
e-mail at
cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
Robert Daugherty moved to
table
Zion Care Center Conditional Use Permit
at the request of the applicant. Larry Walker seconded. Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of tabling
Zion Care Center Conditional Use Permit.
Johnson’s Planning Area
h. Shady
Pines Adult Day Care CUP
(Conditional Use Permit Request)
To be tabled at the request of the applicant (2
(old business)
Location: Section 20, Township 17 North, Range 30
West
Owner/Developer:
Darreleen Wiles
Location Address:
4200 N. Highway 112
4 acres / Proposed Land Use: Adult Day Care
Project #: 2009-054 Planner: Courtney McNair,
e-mail at
cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
Robert Daugherty moved to
table
Shady Pines Adult Day Care Conditional Use Permit
at the request of the applicant. Larry Walker seconded. Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of tabling
Shady Pines Adult Day Care Conditional Use
Permit.
County
i.
Rogers Group Quarry Expansion CUP
(Conditional Use Permit Request-old
business)
Location: Sections 4 & 9, Township 16 North, Range 31
West
Owner/Developer: Owners- J & A Mining, John David
Lindsey Development, Mark Rich, Developer- Rogers Group; Terry Sossong
Location Address: Hamstring Road (WC #842)
150 acres / Proposed Land Use: Limestone Quarrying
Project #:
2009-035 Planner: Juliet Richey, e-mail at jrichey@co.washington.ar.us
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the CUP to expand the
quarry with the following conditions:
If berming is required along the County Road ROW, it should be placed
in a way that is safe to vehicular traffic. The plans for this berm construction and placement must be
approved by the County Road Superintendent prior to construction.
All berm-building activities must take into consideration existing
offsite and onsite drainage patterns.
Care should be taken to not adversely impact any existing drainage
situations by the building of the berms.
If necessary- small gaps may be left in the berms or other measures may be taken
to prevent drainage issues. All
gaps or other alterations must be approved by County Staff.
REQUEST:
Conditional Use Permit Approval for Rogers Group Quarry Expansion
CUP. The total acreage of the proposed development is
approximately 150 acres (approximately 45 acres is grandfathered in;
approximately 99-105 acres is proposed for expansion).
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 and
District 11 JP Mary Ann Spears
BACKGROUND/ PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
The property is owned by J & A
Mining, John David Lindsey Development, and Mark Rich.
The Developer is Rogers Group – Terry Sossong.
The property is located on Hamstring Road (WC #842) and Riches Road (WC
#841). No access will be taken off of Riches Road.
All hauling will access through the current “Stephen’s Red Dirt Farm”
entrance onto Hamstring Road.
Currently there is an approximately
45-acre piece of land that is a grandfathered quarry onsite.
This site is leased to the Rogers Group, who operates a quarry within
this area. The Rogers Group has
requested to expand their operations to an additional
approximately 99- 105 acres adjacent to this
grandfathered quarry site. They
wish to mine limestone in this expansion area (much of which has been or is
currently being mined for red dirt) as the red dirt plays out in the future.
They anticipate the rock to be approximately 170’ in depth in this area.
Please see the attached letter of request (pgs E11- E17) in addition to
the packet of information submitted by Roger’s Group (pgs E-43) for more
details regarding this request.
As
with the Big Red Dirt Farm CUP that you heard last fall, Staff has found that
when transitioning from the use of red dirt excavation to limestone quarrying
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
Austin Powder, a blasting company with offices in several states- including
Arkansas, will be conducting the blasting for this pit.
Austin Powder does blasting for all of Rogers Group- including the
existing grandfathered quarry onsite and the Roger’s Group Lowell quarry.
No explosives are kept onsite, and blasting is completed on an
as-needed basis, at the grandfathered quarry site. The frequency of blasting is
anticipated to be once or sometimes twice per week.
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 south of this site (Big Red
dirt Farm LLC), currently conducts blasting of pinnacles within their pit and
has received a CUP from Washington County to transition to the use of a quarry
(although this decision is currently under litigation).
Blasting is monitored by the Arkansas Department of Labor and MSHA.
Records of each blast are required to be kept for a minimum of three
years. The State has set maximum vibration levels to protect
surrounding homeowners, wells, and springs.
Blasting is typically measured in PPV
(Peak Particle Velocity). This
measures the vibration rate within the ground.
A seismograph can measure this.
The state maximum PPV level is 1.0 inches per second.
Rogers Group has indicated that their blasts typically average 0.5 inches
per second or less.
The Rogers group has submitted
several information documents detailing blasting in general, and their specific
intentions for blasting on this site.
Pleas see pgs E-11 and E-43.
In summary- I feel that although
blasting is a concern, 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
Big Red Dirt Farm red dirt operation and possible Quarry to the South, and there
is already blasting at the 45 acre grandfathered quarry onsite.
I do not think that eliminating
blasting on the proposed quarry expansion CUP site will make an overwhelming
difference to the area, as there is already a considerable amount of blasting in
the area.
The applicant has restricted
themselves to blasting times to between 9:00 am- 5:00 pm, Monday- Friday.
Staff agrees with this limitation, and will include it as a condition.
Many of you were able to attend the special
meeting on May 19, 2009, and later observe/hear the blast.
I have sent out materials regarding that blast to all board members.
That blast rated at a 0.648 PPV.
As of June 2, 2009, Rogers Group has offered to
place the following blasting intensity restriction as a condition:
Rogers Group proposes that blasting for the
Quarry area to be zoned will be required to have a 0.5 PPV at the nearest
structure and Rogers Group will pay for a permanent seismograph to monitor the
results at the structure.
Crusher: noise, dust suppression
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.
ADEQ requires an air permit to run a
crusher onsite, and limits the amount of dust put off by quarry operations.
Rogers Group has an ADEQ Air Permit in place for the Crusher onsite.
This Crusher (or one similar to it) will be used to crush rock in the
expansion area, as well. See ADEQ
permit information page E-33.
Staff is comfortable with ADEQ’s
regulation of Air Quality in regards to the crusher. Staff will also require a general dust suppression plan for
the entire site as part of the Large Scale Development Plan process (Site Plan
review process required prior to expanded operation if this CUP is approved).
Reclamation
Like the Big Red Dirt Farm’s Quarry
plan. Roger’s Group plans to
reclaim much of the Quarry site as a lake. They have submitted a quarry plan to
staff, see pg E-17
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.
Rogers Group has submitted a revised reclamation
plan and text. Staff just received
this final revised copy today. It
is the large plan and text document that accompany this packet. Staff will
review this plan for changes and update you at the meeting.
Other Important Issues:
Traffic-
As mentioned previously, all access
will be taken off of Hamstring Road- only, utilizing the current entrance to
Stephen’s Red Dirt Farm/ Roger’s Group grandfathered quarry.
An official traffic Study will be
required at the Preliminary Large Scale Development level if this CUP is
approved. However, staff has had
preliminary discussions with the applicant regarding truck traffic at this site.
Please see the flowing excerpts from email conversations with Roger’s
Group’s Terry Sossong:
(Juliet Richey)
I will need information on the traffic count/impact that the quarry and
all proposed expansions will have on Hamstring Road.
(Terry Sossong)
The average traffic volume expected is 50 to 100 trucks per day. We are
currently running less than that but should grow to that as business in this
area recovers. As far as impact on Hamstring road, it will be normal wear
and tear. I assume as part of this process that repair costs to Hamstring
as they are needed will be split between Big Red Dirt Farm, Stephens Red Dirt
Pit and Rogers Group. The paved road appears to be holding up well from
its paving/widening several years ago.
(Juliet Richey)
Is this number an increase from what has run from Stephens historically?
I understand you are saying it is more than right now, however, I imagine it is
slower now than it has been in the past.
(Terry Sossong) The trucking at Stephens peaked at 700 to 750 trucks per day, and
several years ago. We are currently doing approximately what the existing
mining operation did, which is 50 to 100 trucks average per day.
The County Road Department generally agrees with
the cost splitting stated above- unless issues can be directly attributable to a
certain entity.
Staff anticipates placing a condition
similar to that placed on the Big Red Dirt Farm CUP as follows:
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.
Setbacks
The applicant has offered a
combination of 100’ and 200’ setbacks on various property lines.
Staff anticipates requiring a minimum
of 150’ setbacks from the property lines of all adjoining property owners.
Exceptions may include the property of Mark Rich, as a portion of his land will
be leased to Roger’s Group as part of this project.
Staff is still working with the
applicant to pinpoint the exact boundaries of proposed excavation.
Since some of the boundaries of the project are well within the property
lines of property owned by JA Mining, and Lindsey Development, the project may
already be far enough off of some property lines as it is.
Staff has attached the proposed
buffer map showing the separation that staff is proposing from the quarry to
surrounding properties. Staff is
still working with Rogers group to try to increase the buffer size in the one
area where it drops to 100’ (along the north/central property line).
Staff will update you on this at the meeting.
Neighbor comments and proximity
As you will see from the lengthy
document attached- there have been numerous comments on this project.
Staff has noticed that many comments appear to have come from areas
outside of the ½ mile notification area.
While staff feels that all comments should be considered, staff would like to
map out the proximity of comments received from the proposed expansion area.
Due to the numerous comments received- this is not a map that Staff will
have completed until the Meeting on Thursday.
At that time staff will present you information on this at that time.
Please see maps on pgs E20- E24
that Staff has created to show you the proximity of area structures to this
proposed CUP.
Attached to this packet is a map
showing the proximity of the people who we received written comments from to the
quarry expansion area.
Issues regarding groundwater and
Hamstring Creek
There were several issues brought up at the May
meeting with regards to what effect quarrying may have on the groundwater in the
area (wells), and the possible effects that quarrying could have on the level
and water quality of Hamstring Creek
I spoke with a gentleman with the Arkansas Well
Water Commission in Little Rock. He
said that you couldn’t tell exactly what groundwater is doing unless you do a
complete and comprehensive hydrologic study of what is happening underneath the
surface.
I have also been speaking with a Professor of
Hydrogeology at the University.
From my conversations with these two gentlemen- I have learned the following:
Generally water moves through the ground and the
rock via fissures or fractures in the rock.
Generally, water flows through the ground toward the drainage areas
(ravines, creeks, valleys, etc.).
The hydro geologist felt that it would be wise to
stay above the elevation of Hamstring Creek. As an extra safety precaution, the hydro geologist
recommended that the final quarry floor should not be lower in elevation than
the corresponding 100-year flood elevation of Hamstring Creek.
This precaution should keep there from being
change or disturbance to the elevation of Hamstring Creek.
As long as runoff from the quarry is dealt with
as per ADEQ standards (proposed sediment pond, etc), then there should be no
effect on water quality to the creek from the mining operation.
It has been brought to Staff’s attention that there may be some issues with a
well in the area. Staff has no way
of knowing whether the well issue is related to red dirt mining or rock
quarrying in the area.
As per the discussion at the June Planning Board
meeting, Staff proposes we deal with this issue at a Large Scale Development
Level where we have the tools in place to address such issues:
Sec. 11-101. (e) If any land development raises
environmental concerns, the Planning Board may, at the expense of the developer,
retain its own qualified consulting engineer to assist it and the Planning
Director in assuring that all environmental issues have been properly addressed
by the developer and its engineer. Said consulting engineer shall maintain an
office no greater than one hundred (100) miles from Washington County.
Terry Sossong, Vice President, Rogers Group, Steven Giles,
representing Terry Sossong and Rogers Group, and Matt Pilz, Vibra-tech,
were present to answer any questions.
Laney stated, “Staff has some additional information.
This is the third time this project has been here for different reasons.”
Juliet Richey, Washington County Planning Director, commented, “You all are
familiar with where this is. I will
go through a quick refresher – the site is located outside of the City of
Fayetteville’s Planning Area and outside of the City of Farmington’s Planning
Area, but it is in the zoned area of the County.
It is directly adjacent to the Big Red Dirt Farm, which we heard last fall.
This is the perimeter of all of the parcels in the site.
Here is an outline of the actual perimeter that they plan to quarry.
I want to go through these conditions with you.
Some of these are the same and then there have been some changes since
the last time. The ones that we’ve
been over before I’ll just try to kind of summarize and if you have specific
questions I can go ahead and read them in entirety.
1.
Limit the times of blasting (that is set right now as a condition) to
9:00 am- 5:00 pm, Monday- Friday; and rock crushing to between 7:00 am- 6:00 pm,
Monday- Friday. Rogers Group has also offered the condition that they will limit
their general hours of operation to 7:00 am- 6:00 pm, Monday- Friday, and 7:00
am- noon on Saturday (sales only) (as they are not allowed to crush rock or
blast).
The pink areas are properties that are not in participation with this project;
from all those we have 200’. The
Crumley property that I referred to is right here; I worked to try to get this
buffer bigger run into a bottleneck with the way that the mining has to take
place in this area and so we got it out to 125’ just for a short time and then
it shoots to 200’ pretty quickly in both directions.
I’m recommending a higher berm in that area and perhaps some additional
vegetation to help mitigate that issue, but on all the other property lines we
do have 200’ these are the areas that I said are somewhat approximate those will
have to be surveyed and this goes across participating property you have 350’
here, 300’, and 350’. This point
down here will be 200’ from this person’s property line as well; actually a
little more than 200’, but not be any closer than that.
Staff further recommends
that the berms be located in various areas around the property.
Areas requiring berms for visual screening will be determined by Planning
Staff at the LSD level. It may be that
berms are required around the entire perimeter of the property.
(Basically, what we want to do is we want to get good berms in place
where they’re going to be able to provide a visual screen.
There’s probably going to be areas where because the way that the
topography lies it won’t matter if there is a berm or not and so for common
sense purposes in those areas we won’t be requiring them.)
In areas where berms are required, they must be at least 8' in height and
be planted with evergreen trees and vegetation as to provide a continuous visual
screen of the property. Vegetation
plans, species and placement along the berm shall be approved by the Planning
Director prior to construction.
If berming is required
along the County Road ROW, it should be placed in a way that is safe to
vehicular traffic. The plans for
this berm construction and placement must be approved by the County Road
Superintendent prior to construction.
All berm-building activities must take into consideration existing offsite and
onsite drainage patterns.
Care should be taken to not adversely impact any existing drainage situations by
the building of the berms. If
necessary- small gaps may be left in the berms (to accommodate drainage) or
other measures may be taken to prevent drainage issues.
All gaps or other alterations must be approved by County Staff.
There have been some changes in the reclamation plan. It’s primarily the same as before. The northern/northwestern portion you have is going to be a
lake. This right here is proposed
to be the dam or a large earthern berm.
This area is going to be graded to drain roughly down through here.
There will have to be drainage studies and reports obviously done on both
of these at the Large Scale Development level to make sure that the rated
drainage and the way that it comes out is not going to increase what happens in
that area now, so that there’s not going to be any erosion or issues like that
in the future. One of the primary
differences is that last time we talked about grading this whole thing back at
3:1 slope. What that did was,
basically, took a lot of the buffer area that we were looking at trying to
preserve and put it into a re-grading process at the end.
While I don’t think it is necessarily bad, I think this way there is less
overall disturbance of the ground, and what’s going to happen is you can see
right here, this is the original contour (this is the way that the hill is now)
and as they mine it you’re, basically, going to have a high side and a low side
to your lake. This northern side is
going to have kind of a bluff line that goes along it.
This area will start to transition down.
I had mixed feelings about this at first.
They are going to slope this area and this will continue around the whole
perimeter of the lake so that you will be able to access the lake all the way
around, however, getting down to this point there’s only going to be, basically,
on both ends and not any access to this area on the north side.
You would have to walk around from either end.
In the future what they see for this area is a subdivision.
By preserving that area at the top, that allows them more build-able area
to work with in the future, but if the alternative is making it all 3:1, while
3:1 slope is technically a useable slope, having a whole area that’s like that
is not the most condusive to future use.
In the end I think that this is a good reclamation plan.
It does leave some bluff walls along the north side, so I just want to
make sure that you understand that.
One of the things that they wrote on here: Note 2 what they want to do is they
say that they would like to reserve the right to mine an additional 35’ provided
that infiltration and issues don’t come up as they are digging down.
That’s not what we talked about in the past. As far as you know, we talked about mining only to the height
of the 100-year flood elevation for Hamstring Creek and that being it.
We talked to the Hydro-geologist and that was what he recommended and
that’s what I feel comfortable with.
What I told Rogers Group is, what they indicated to me, is they wanted to put
this on here so to let people know that they are interested in doing that in the
future if something works out. What
I said is, that’s fine you can let people know, but we’re going to strictly put
on here that that’s not something that we’re approving at this time. You’ll need to come back for additional Conditional Use Permit or
some other process at that point in the future (whenever that is 10-15 years in
the future) when they’re getting down to that point and that it should require a
public hearing, but I’m not interested in approving anything along those lines
today, so we don’t have anything that tells us that that would be okay or
anything.
Richey
stated, “That’s all that I have at this time.
I think I pretty much updated you on everything that was new on the
reclamation plan. I have all of the
old maps, new maps, and all of the information that we talked about before, so
if there is anything specific that you want to see just let me know.”
Laney commented, “I think that the attorney representing the community out there
raised an issue last time as to the legal standing or actual rightness of the
matter before us. George had sent some communication.”
Steven Giles commented, “Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning
Board.
My name is Steven Giles and I am here representing Terry Sossong and the
Rogers Group in this application.
Just wanted to reiterate thank you for a good report, Juliet, and Rogers Group
has agreed to all of the conditions imposed and recommended by Staff and in fact
has offered additional conditions associated with their application to mitigate
against any perceived harm that might be seen by the neighbors out there.
Rogers Group has presented to us some evidence and proof that they are
good neighbors in the form of letters of adjacent property owners from the
Lowell quarry and I hope you’ve seen those, I think it’s in the record somewhere
and they certainly propose to be the same kind of good neighbor in the Hamstring
area as well. I really don’t feel like I need to comment on the issue that
was discussed before. All I can
tell you is for certain that Rogers Group in good faith relied on the ruling of
the County Judge and did so going forth and have spent millions of dollars in
reliance on that proof of they were grandfathered in.
If you haven’t been out there we encourage you to go out and look at the
operation. They did an excellent
job paving the road over and above Staff’s recommendation.
They meet or exceed all of the County’s ordinance requirements as well as
the State’s requirements. Recently,
the blast test that they performed indicates that there’s little or no impact of
blasting on adjacent properties and to further that concern, the mitigation of
that concern, they offered to place seismographs in certain areas at the
property actually at the houses that are the closest to the house so that can be
monitored on a 24/7 basis by an independent firm.
We have an expert here to address those issues with you, Matt Pilz (Vibra-tech),
he’s with us today if you have any questions for Matt.”
Walker asked, “On the floodplain, at one time we talked about not going below
the floor of Hamstring creek? Is
Rogers Group okay with this 100-year floodplain?”
Sossong replied, “We are okay.
We had made notations to Juliet previously that pending further study we might
come back to this Board for additional elevation below that subject to a
professional hydro-geologist that type of thing so this proposal as Juliet has
said to that elevation we just wanted to make a note so that people were aware
that we would like to go deeper than that, but we realize that to do that what
we’ve talked about to this point is where we are at; that’s in the future down
the road and will evaluate the conditions as we go.”
Walker asked, “Does the 35’ in Note 2 is that in reference to the floodplain
difference between the bottom…?”
Sossong replied, “That’s approximately where it would be subject to that so,
basically, we’re standing by the stipulations that Juliet and we originally
proposed, which was to go to that floodplain level.
One other item I wanted to bring up was the road in
and out of the quarry. We did some
work, talked to City of Fayetteville and Washington County there are several
areas there that we want to widen in and out of there.
I know that road has been deemed as being safe.
I went out and measured that road width in a number of areas and sent
some pictures to Juliet and to the Fayetteville Street Department in regards to
that so I have those pictures if you want to see them there are 3 or 4 places
when you first come in off of (Highway) 16 you go down that hill right in that
area there if you notice on both sides that road is a little bit narrower than
further on down. You go down and
you make the curve to go down the hill to the Big Red Dirt Farm on that curve
there if you’ll notice there’s been some chipping also in that area and actually
you want a section that is about 3’ at the widest that would narrow back in and,
basically, give traffic whether it be trucks or other vehicles additional room
to get in and out of there.
From there on down the road is really very satisfactory.
I checked on the striping and the County has put in place a plan to
stripe their roads every three years.
This road is in its fourth and they just let a contract the other day so it will
be striped shortly. If we run into
striping problems in future pending approval of this we would take care of that
type of thing if trucks are running over the stripping and creating a problem
there. There is one area there if
you go past Big Red Dirt Farm the trucks must cut over or all vehicles must cut
over because there’s a section in there where the stripping is very, very faint
in some places not there. That was
my concern there that there was adequate striping both in the centerline and
then on the outsides there both.
Those are the additional comments I had.”
Jim Crouch stated, “Thank you Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the
Planning Commission. I’m Jim Crouch
I represent the west Fayetteville citizens for Environmental Quality, which I
don’t think is all the people that are here tonight behind me, but some of the
people and they’ve been here before.
I’m with a law firm in Springdale.
The last time that anyone was here as a lawyer for this group it was the
Watkins firm out of Rogers and he didn’t give up on these folks; he found out he
had a conflict of interest. Several
years ago they had done just a minor bit of legal work for Rogers Group and so
he had a conflict. I’ve tried to
step in and fill the shoes of the Watkins firm it’s been a little difficult to
do because I just found out about this late last week so I spent the weekend
trying to get up to speed and I’m sure I didn’t completely get up to speed, but
I’ve tried. I apologize if I’m
plowing the same ground that others have plowed.
If I misspeak it is not intentional it’s because I just don’t know the
facts as well as I should perhaps not having enough time to really get prepared
for this, but it seems to me that history is pretty important in your evaluation
of this project today. The Rogers
Group comes in here claiming to be a nonconforming use that wants to be
grandfathered in as a quarry. My
clients contend that they may well be a nonconforming use, but not one that has
been a quarry and that they certainly can’t be grandfathered in.
At best I think that you can say they may be grandfathered in as a dirt
pit and here’s why I say that, and I again apologize if you know all of this
history, but I think it is important.
Here’s what we know about that property it was owned by a man named Larry
Stephens perhaps his company, but he was a principle in that and we know that at
least in 1997 he was mining dirt and we know that because there was a notice of
violation that he was doing that without the proper authority without the proper
permit.
It appears from looking at the records that what he tried to do in 1997
was get legal and he filed an application with ADEQ and asked to be permitted.
He said in that permit, or his attorney did for him, that it was a big
landscaping project to increase farm acreage that was the nature of the dirt pit
at that time we know that in 2003 there was an application to engage in open cut
mining that’s for clay. It’s
important to know and I know that you may again have heard this, but there’s
some kind of terms of art with ADEQ open-cut mining has a particular definition
its governed by this regulation called Regulation 15 and it has a special
definition and it does not include the mining or quarrying of limestone.
It’s about digging out clay and dirt and topsoil.
That regulation specifically says that if you want to do quarrying of
limestone then you go to another act you go to Arkansas Code Annotated
15-57-401, which is the Arkansas quarry operation
reclamation and safety closure act; Act 166 of 1997.
It was not until April of 2008 that anyone tried to obtain a permit to operate a
limestone quarry and that was the Rogers Group.
The only permit that has been issued are for digging dirt and clay.
There was one issued on November 12, 2004 to J& A Mining for digging red
clay, dirt, and topsoil. There was
an expansion of that in 2006 where they went to ADEQ and asked to expand it and
again it was for red dirt and clay.
It seems to me actually in either 2004 or 2006 they should have been here asking
for a Large Scale Development then.
If not originally at least when they expanded in 2006. Then time goes on and January 30, 2007 Rogers Group request
their permit, which wasn’t granted until September 25, 2008 for quarrying
limestone. How does that relate to
why we’re here tonight? Rogers
Group wants a Conditional Use Permit to operate as a quarry they also want to be
excused from the obligation of meeting the requirements of a Large Scale
Development and that’s based upon what George Butler referred to the September
8, 2006 letter between Rogers Group and Washington County, but I urge you ladies
and gentlemen to look at the date of that consider the date of that letter it
was September of 2006. They didn’t
even start quarrying at least if they did it they didn’t do it legally until
2008. We know that there was no
permit to quarry out there until 2008.
We know that their only permit was for clay, dirt, and topsoil.
When they wrote that letter to George Butler and said first, I’m quoting
from the letter, we both discussed and agreed that quarrying operations have
been occurring at Stephens pit for over ten years.
*******Tape Stopped*********
Date September 2006 didn’t start quarrying until 2008 we know that there
was no permit until 2008. Letter
first we both discussed for over 10 years if it is true illegally last 10 years
in attempt to mislead agree Butler estoppal end up in Court.
Letter as their claim County estopped.
Estoppal equitable name implies fairness estopped know true facts submit
County didn’t know not legally quarrying different than open cut mine estoppal
ignorant true facts. Rogers Group
big company know difference between quarrying and open cut mining.
I don’t think that will work.
CUP because of letter in 2006 approve CUP or not approve it.
Asking you to do go back combine with CUP requirements ordinance inch
thick didn’t comply should not consider this tonight.
********************
As far as I can tell you can’t even have a quarry in the City of Springdale and
I expect that the same in Fayetteville.
Look at the facts out there Wedington Woods is best I can tell has been there at
least 1985 perhaps before that. All
the people that live out there were there before anybody was digging dirt.
If Stephens began in 1997 these folks in Wedington Woods and the other
folks that I represent they were there before then and when Stephens said that
he was going to dig he said he’s going to try to level out his farm so that he
could expand his farming operation.
I know you don’t have the benefit of those records. So the people that are out there are farms, residences, there
are people, and there are animals.
Another interesting thing and you wouldn’t see this unless you really kind of
dug into what is in the record, but part of the legal description of the land
that they have an option to quarry the 350 acres that they have an option to
quarry part of the legal description is a subdivision Westridge Acres
Subdivision.
Somebody thought at one time that the highest best use out there was
residential property, and yet they want to quarry on it.
They are going to be doing blasting.
All of these folks were there in that area before there was any blasting
and this was on the anecdotal evidence, but there has been reports of swimming
pools collapsing since the basting’s been done, foundations cracking, wells
going dry, and all of the other things that go with blasting dishes rattling and
windows rattling and all that. I
know that some of you probably went to this demo blast and I’m not a scientist
and I don’t pretend to be an expert on blasting, but the folks that live out
there say that was just not representative of the kind of blasting that they
hear. It didn’t have the same
effect, it wasn’t as loud, it didn’t rattle things like the blast that they hear
from time to time out there. Rock
crushers, I think those speak for themselves and I haven’t heard a rock crusher,
admittingly, they may tell me its got kind of mufflers on there and you can’t
hear it outside this room, but I’ve heard rock crushers and they are loud and
believe me nobody wants to live next to a rock crusher.
Dust – Ms. Richey mentioned dust I don’t know if it is
OSHA
or the mine safety act or whoever, but somebody has said you got to have a
warning with this limestone dust is silica.
I think that even their delivery tickets that their drivers use say
you’ve got to wear a mask. People that live around there don’t want to be endangered
with the health hazards of silica and dust.
Another thing you will need to consider whether it will be injurious to
the use and enjoyment of other property and whether it will diminish or impair
the property values well, I don’t think it takes any proof I don’t think we have
to have an expert witness up here to tell you what it means to live next to a
quarry. It’s one thing to live next
to a dirt operation, which you know is going to run out and play out someday
that it is going to be reclaimed someday.
They are asking you to approve a quarry, which their expected lifetime
according to the papers in here is 50 – 75 years. Folks, these folks won’t be around then, but somebody will
be, but that property will be worthless out there they have an option to mine…
they are only asking for 105 acres, but if you give an inch you take a mile.
They have an option for 350 acres and I don’t know how much more that is
than what they are mining now, but if you open the door it is just a matter of
time before they come back and say, ‘We’ve done quarrying out here for ten years
we want to do it another ten years, we want to do it another 50 years, we want
to do another 200 acres.’ The other
thing just as a Planning matter that you open this up to if you allow an
industrial use like that who else is going to come out there and say, ‘I want to
put an asphalt plant in there or I want to put some kind of an industry an
industrial plant out there.’ You
just open the door to all kinds of potential people coming in there and ruining
the neighborhood that has existed out there for so long without this blasting
and I submit that you should deny their petition at the very least, but the very
most that you should send them back to do their Large Scale Development.”
Mary Crumley, adjacent property owner to the east at
16051 Hamstring Road, commented, “I am the Crumley that you
all have been referring to. My
husband is Lewis we own the property that you’re only going to put 125’
variance. That property up there on
the hill we sold to the Red Dirt Farm they cleared it off for us to put a field
for our winter grazing for our horses.
In the meantime, I have contacted the State vet and the toxicologist sent me a
report, I think I gave Mr. Walker one and Juliet one last week, that says that
in California they have researched and this silica dust is killing the horses.
It’s a silent killer. I
can’t imagine if this is an agricultural area and my horses I think are
considered agricultural why would you put a pit up there that is going to
damage? Also, I asked the State
toxicologist how she felt about the dirt sifting down into the valley the silica
dust she said definitely it would and it’s the horses that eat the grass that
consume the dust when they’re eating and it gets into their lungs and it causes
silicosis. It will do the same,
I’ve done a lot of research on the internet, and it is detrimental to the old
and the young. I’m considered the
elderly and most of my neighbors are, too, who own property along there.
I keep the young I have three grandchildren and if this dust is filtering down
in there do we have to wear a dust mask every time I take my grandkids out to
enjoy my property that I moved from the mosquito ridden northeast Arkansas to a
peaceful valley to raise horses and to retire in?
Because its going to be detrimental to the mining, even you’re not going to give
a variance of only 125’ on my property and tree lines how long is it going to
take that tree line to hold that dust from filtering on my field?
I have held off our contract to finish up our reclamation with the
Stephens Red Dirt Farm because if you’re going to put this quarry in it is not
going to do me any good to have a field up there for winter grazing for my
horses. If you’re going to have a
drop off of that many feet I know that some of you raise cattle and horses and
you know how fences and all are some of them are going to get out, if anything
ever gets over in there how is it going to get out?
It’s going to drown because there’s no slope to it.
There’ s all kinds of things that say if this is an agricultural area
you’re ruining my property and my agricultural benefits right there because I
won’t be able to graze that in my property down in the valley if the dust
filters in there. It’s going to
kill my horses. I have 18 head of
horses are you willing to help me pay for all 18 when they die from this silica
dust? Not only that it is our
neighbors in that area who are the old.
If we have to breathe this and we can’t go outside except wearing a dust mask
what is this going to do to us? I
understood when we bought this property it was residential and agricultural, but
apparently I’m not going to be able to do anymore agricultural in that area
because of the dust that’s going to filter in.
I know they say they can do all this to prevent it and all that. How long is it going to take the trees to grow to sift it
out? My hill right there doesn’t
have a barrier to break the dust from coming down.
It will be how many years for those trees to grow? It’s going to be all filtering on my agricultural field, on
my agricultural land at the bottom, horses on the other side of me a man owns,
and cattle over here. We’re going
to lose our agricultural benefits and that’s what it’s zoned for.
I can see no reason that you all should go with this because it is for
agricultural use and there’s written proof and I did have this from Dr. Ronnie
Brumley and it states in California it has been proven that those horses the
silent killer is the silica dust.
How can you go with them when it’s for agricultural purposes and for our benefit
and for us to live in and the dust still kill us?”
Walker asked, “When did you purchase your property?” Crumley replied, “I have
had my property probably only five years, but I didn’t know anything about this
at the time when we bought it and it was a lovely peaceful valley with a great
creek running through it and a serene property.
I didn’t have any idea that I was going to be facing any detriment to our
horses or anything else. I’m 60
years old and we moved here to retire and to raise horses on the side.”
Joya Pope, adjacent property owner to the west at
13828 White Oak Circle Lot 124 of Wedington Woods,
stated, “I’m in Wedington Woods. I
just wanted to ask Ms. Crumley or who knows about silicosis for people and if
you’re raising a garden for your summer vegetables and what not what kind of a
problem can make, too, if that adds to it?
First breathing it in and then pulling it out maybe the horses just do it
on grasses I don’t know, but that seems to be an issue all around for everybody
there. In Wedington Woods we’re far
enough away that we don’t have some of the problems that they’re going to have
in that immediate zone, but I do hear the blasting. I’m in the middle of Wedington Woods not at the edge of the
woods that is closer to the quarry.
This is such a small issue compared to most of the issues with this quarry if a
Red Dirt Farm in the last number of years there’s just so many trucks coming
through and they come out as I’m driving into town they have to make a left turn
to get onto Wedington and a lot of times those trucks really push those left
turns so that I’ve had to slam on brakes and so many times in the last five
years. I’ve gotten annoyed enough,
but then there’s no license plate to call.
Where are the license plates on those trucks? I just don’t understand that.
Then at any rate I’ve never made a stink. I didn’t know where to go or what to do about that.
I’ve had windshield nicked a couple of times.
I read in the weekend paper it said those trucks are supposed to be
covered. I’m not sure if I’ve ever
seen one covered. They are dropping or blowing things back.
That’s been just a constant problem there’s because of the number of
trucks and because the drivers just get anxious to let me get out there and get
this done and they just really aren’t safe.
Does anybody here know why don’t they have licenses on the back of them?”
Walker replied, “They’re required to be on the front.” Pope asked, “Why isn’t it required to be on both?
How do you call the policemen and say this license number XXX?”
Laney replied, “That is out of our purview here.
We’re talking about a lot of things that are in our purview, but that
ones not so we can’t answer that one for you.
It would have to be the Arkansas Department of Finance and
Administration.” Pope commented,
“From an emotional point of view I was just appalled to see how far this had
gone. That it is so clearly
residential areas or going to be very much more residential than it is the City
is just growing and growing and to think about putting a quarry with that amount
of noise, that amount of potential pollution, and that amount of problems to the
water system. My well is acting
funny this year; I have no idea what that’s from, but it’s never acted funny in
this way before. It’s like some
days there’s water and other days it’s just unusual at any rate.
Just appalled I think about Fayetteville is having really good planning
generally and on top of things and I’ve been proud of Fayetteville say as
opposed to Springdale for instance and just what we do with billboards or what
we do with new construction to keep things so that they are more reasonable for
the people who live here, but putting this quarry in or just adding to the Red
Dirt Farm just seems like a wrong headed way to be going with it.
It just seems obvious and so I’m glad that it seems like listening to Mr.
Crouch that there seems to be a lot of legal reasons that we can back off from
it. I really ask you to consider
deeply so that we don’t have to put this in the middle of our City.”
Debbie Johnson commented, “A great deal of discussion has taken place regarding
what has happened and what is currently in place.
Not enough time has been discussing what will happen.
We have heard from the Staff that they can justify adding more quarries
and expanding existing ones because of what is already taking place. Lets look
at their vision for the future and compare it with ours. They have said that there is a grandfathered quarry and two
grandfathered dirt pits in place on Hamstring Road while that is true it is not
necessarily a life sentence for western Washington County.
Juliet Richey has said and written that this justifies the approval of
the recent applications. The proposed applications that you have heard extend the life
of these nonconforming uses to the years of 2040 and 2085 those dates are so far
into the future that the people who will be responsible for reclaiming those
sites had not yet been born. The
Staff and applicants would have you believe that it will have little impact on
neighbors, real estate values, ecology, and future development.
#2 a nonconforming use can be made more nonconforming and still preserve
the integrity of the zoning ordinance.
This is the way it will be for a long time whether you approve this application
or not. You have heard numerous
statements regarding the effect on people’s lives and property, so we know that
it will have an effect on neighbors, real estate values, ecology, and future
development. We’ve heard most of you and the members of the Quorum Court
say that you wouldn’t want someone to do this next to your property or
intentionally buy land next to one of these sites. If you wouldn’t do it why would you consider for even a
minute doing it to us? We had
neighbors who are directly affected by these operations today. The strip mines want to get bigger and nosier than they are
now. They want to move closer to
homes that are not as affected as others are now.
We are now considering the possibility that we don’t have enough folks
that are suffering enough adversity.
Lets see if we can extend this problem and affect a larger and different groups
of homes and farms. This is not the
way it has to be for a long time.
There are limited resources on these grandfathered sites they will eventually
run out of material. This brings us
to our vision of the future we have suffered with these sites for the last 10 to
15 years. We knew when the zoning
ordinance was passed in Washington County that they would run out of dirt and
rock eventually. How do we know
this? The applicant sat in this
chair and told you that. Big Red
Dirt Farm representative sat right here and told you they needed to transition
to rock quarrying because they would run out of red dirt in 3 to 5 years.
You have heard this applicant tell you that the red dirt will run out in
3 to 5 years and the quarry will run out of rock in 7 to 10 years by their own
admissions these grandfathered uses these nonconforming uses will cease to exist
by the year 2019. Your Staff’s
vision of the future is that these nonconforming uses should be given in an
additional life of 65 years and be here in 2085.
This is what is fundamentally wrong with zoning in Washington County. You are getting advice from a Staff of Planners whose vision
of the future reaches no further than the next Planning Board agenda.
A Planners job is to look into the future 5, 10, and even 20 years from
now and make an educated prediction of how the future will look.
Think about Wedington Drive was like 5, 10, and 20 years ago.
20 years ago Westwood Gardens was far out there on the western edge of
Fayetteville, Arkansas; look what has happened to the west of that location
since. We have hundreds of new
homes. There are businesses and
churches being built. The road has
gone from a two-lane blacktop pavement to a five-lane thoroughfare with a much
greater capacity to carry traffic.
Fayetteville annexed a tremendous tract of land.
Why do you suppose they annexed all that land?
The Planners and visionaries in Fayetteville City Hall expect the City to
grow in that direction; in order to do that they gained control over the area’s
future development. What is
Washington County’s Planning Departments response to this?
They have asked you to turn residential and agricultural land into a
heavy industrial site that will last more than an entire lifetime; don’t do it.
Don’t go along with the Staff’s view of Washington County’s future.
Don’t buy into the slick marketing campaign of these out-of-state
companies that want to turn your hometown into this disaster.
You’ve already said it is unacceptable in your neighborhood.
It is unacceptable in our neighborhood also.
You must vote no the future of Fayetteville and Washington County depend
on it.”
Bill Roberson, adjacent property owner to the west at
13436 Mimosa Lane Lot
144 of Wedington Woods,
stated, “I work for a lending institution in this County.
I’ve been a loan officer for 29 years.
I’m a certified appraiser. I
happen to be the furthest east house in Wedington Woods that joins Harmon Road.
I don’t have an emotional agenda here tonight at all.
I’m strictly here because of what I see going on and what I believe will
happen to land values out there in that area.
Larry, to answer your question as far as I moved out there in 1980.
I’ve been in Wedington Woods since 1980.
I was one of the original habitants.
I’ve watched the growth.
I’ve watched the progress. This
property that we’re looking at had been agricultural at one point; it’s not
anymore.
This is a residential area.
The highest and best use for this property and that area is residential and to
look at it any other way doesn’t make any sense.”
Janas Ward,
adjacent property owner at 16365 Hamstring
Creek Road,
commented,
“I have spoken to you previously. I
live on Hamstring Road and I bought my house out there 20 years ago long before
even the Red Dirt Farm was active.
I bought it because it was a beautiful rural area it was a beautiful rural
neighborhood and I am intending to live there for the rest of my life.
I raise my children there. I
want you to vote no. I don’t want
to see this quarry expanded. I
think there has been ample evidence shown that this group does not honor the
requirements of our County by not getting the permits that were necessary.
Mr. Crouch talked about that at length.
Looking at that particular history my question to you is this: how can we
trust them to honor the limit of staying 35’ not going down that additional 35’
that they want to quarry. How will
we enforce that? How are you going
to make sure that they don’t quarry below the 100-year floodplain for Hamstring
Creek? The reason you want to put
that limit in there is you know that it is going to damage Hamstring Creek if
they quarry below the water table.
That’s the reason you want that limit in there, but how are we going to
enforce that? How will we know that
they’re going to honor that? They
haven’t proven themselves to be an honorable company to this point.
I love Hamstring Creek it is part of the watershed for the Illinois
River. It’s a beautiful free
flowing creek and if they damage that water table that creek could very easily
dry up just as wells in the area have already started doing from the limited
mining that’s going on right now.
If the limited mining that is going on right now is drying up the wells we
already see that it’s negatively impacting the water table so if you expand that
quarry you can extrapolate that it’s going to expand the damage to the water
table not only to additional wells.
I’m very concerned about mine, but also to the creek and also to the Illinois
River.
I really want to ask you to please deny this quarry expansion.
All of the research that I put into this about the effect on the water
table; I sent all of that to Juliet before I made my presentation to you a
couple of months ago. I don’t think
she shared that with you and unfortunately I don’t have a copy with me today,
but there have been geologically study after geologically study done by the US
Geological Survey stating that quarrying in karst limestone is detrimental to
the water table and it is not recommended.
One of the most pertinent in this particular situation is that the larger
the quarry the greater the damage.
Expanding this quarry is simply going to expand the damage.
Do you really want to do that to our Washington County?
We’re all citizens of this County.
I have here a petition that was signed by several hundred Washington
County residents this was something I also gave to Juliet before I spoke with
you previously. I don’t know if you
got copies of all of these names or not.
It’s not just a few people in our neighborhood that are concerned about
the effect it is having on Washington County.
It is residents from all over the County who are concerned about the
environmental negative impact expanding this quarry will have.
We have quarries in the area already why expand another one and create
additional environmental damage?
Please vote against it.”
Don Johnson, at 2099 N
Double Springs Road,
stated, “I, like the rest, have been here a couple to three times. It goes back
to 1996 when I had a clay pit right over the top of my building that it took me
10 years to build a house. I was
involved in plans in the military.
I’m a retired Lieutenant
Colonel.
One of the faults that I see here
that we had to build into our regulations when we directed things, you’re making
decisions here, the State has been making discussions as far as permits and then
admitting that we have no way of enforcing it we have one specter.
Almost every Conditional Use Permit that comes up how are we following
them? I’ve got one next to me right
now that’s not even in compliance.
They never did restore the clay pit there.
The individual doing it was put in jail for 8 days that was the biggest
penalty. There was a 5 term, but it wasn’t done by the County it was
done by a Circuit Court Judge where he violated their restraining order.
You’re creating a situation where we have to have approval for
everything. Mr. Walker
brought it up soon you will be involved in actually when you can milk cows
before too long, you see my point?
I guess not. When you make a rule
there should be a penalty when you violate it. That pit next to me was approved for a Conditional Use Permit
there were a very minimal movement of soil they cut 28’ deep and now I think
they’re out of money. They’ve shut
down completely. What happens if
they shut this down? It becomes
another waste area? Its your
responsibility for approving it, that’s my point.”
Giles commented, “In all do respect to the neighbors I appreciate their concerns
they live there. I think many of
the statements that were made are made on conjectures, speculation, fear, and
unknown of the future. I
believe that from my short time involvement of this that the Rogers Group has
taken the most steps that I’ve seen in an application to mitigate against those
concerns. They’ve conditioned their
application, they’ve promised that they’re going to fulfill the conditions as
they’ve agreed to, they’re going to monitor themselves, and they’re going to
publish those reports.
This will be the most monitored site that I know of in Arkansas for this
kind of application. This is
already established mining dirt claming area has been for years it will continue
to be that kind of an operation. I
think you would want an operator who is responsible enough to see to it that
they’re going to do it in such a way that would minimize any adverse impact on
the surrounding property and I think this is the kind of applicant that you
would want to see in that area unless you’re just going to say, ‘Well we’re not
going to have that anymore period’ and shut the whole thing down its not going
to happen certainly without a Court order.
My theory is in producing clients that come through these Planning bodies
is to bring a client in who is serious about making sure that their conditions
are met. I think Rogers Group in
this application is the best situation that you can have for this operation.”
Sossong stated, “Just to respond to a couple of those questions.
First of all as far as longevity Rogers Group is 101 years old this year. We’ve done this for a long time we didn’t get to be 101 years
old by leaving things undone not doing things right so you can rest assured that
we will do things properly and that there won’t be areas left undisturbed and
not done properly. I just took Mr.
Giles out to the operation this afternoon for the very first time.
We don’t have a dust problem there is no dust.
Ms. Crumley thought that it was okay to mine on her property and that
dust is okay if there was dust generated there.
I don’t think that is a very fair representation, but two wrongs don’t
make a right. We operate properly
and we don’t create a dust problem.
We monitor the trucks that go in we have signs there.
We agreed to those Large Scale Development stipulations when the original
property was grandfathered and there is a lot more than meets the eye to this
grandfathering process and the ADEQ permits.
This isn’t a Court of law this is a Planning Board and we’re trying to
present this without going in and making this a Court case so trust me we have
done a lot of due diligence, a lot of work, and the person who gave us the
information that was used for grandfathering was the ADEQ mining compliance
officer for the State of Arkansas at that time it had been previously.
He had very intimate knowledge of what had been done and those types of
things. All those things as far as
the water levels all those things all water levels at the quarry are fine we use
the water everyday for the dust control and that type of thing.
There is a tremendous amount of information we have never had an issue
with silica at any of our quarries any adjacent property owners anything in
regards to that. A lot of this I
ask you and I’ve tried to impress upon you the fact that we use the latest
information the latest science I showed you the crack gauges.
We use third party monitors for our benefit as well as the neighbor’s
benefit so that we know that we are getting accurate information, that’s
extremely important. We’ve made
some serious concessions why because we want it to be livable for all parties.
We have a PPV, which is the vibration measurement that is one quarter of
the US recommended level and 50% of the Arkansas recommended level.
We’ve gone way beyond in our setbacks the State level is 50’ the majority
of our setbacks are 200’ why because it’s important that we stay back.
We want to have that buffer and there is a very good buffer this is an ideal
property for this type of mining.
Ms. Johnson mentioned about the roads the expansions and all those things where
does that stone come from?
It has to come from somewhere we have the opportunity to have a very
local source to the committee it reduces the amount of truck traffic, the truck
miles traveled, the amount of money that we as taxpayers have to spend on road,
it provides sales tax, and it provides jobs.
There are people that live in that area quarter half a mile away from
that quarry that go to work there everyday and want to have a job those types of
things. We do bring a lot of
benefits as well and we operate our quarry properly and we have the record and
the documentation to prove it. I
wanted to make sure that we’ve clearly established that and I want to make sure
that everybody on this Board realizes that because we take this serious, it’s
our job we’ve been doing it for 101 years and we plan to be around for a lot
longer. We appreciate you taking
those things into consideration and making sure that you are weighing the facts
properly in this process and I appreciate you hearing us out.”
Laney commented, “As we close the time for public comment I want to thank you
all who have come up several times.
I know you’ve come three times that I know of and you probably went to the blast
site and you’ve been very organized your comments have been very on point.
I want to compliment the Rogers Group I think you all have done a really
good job your presentation and Staff this has been a very difficult assignment
no matter how it comes out there has been a lot of hard work go into it.”
Daugherty stated, “Mr. Chairman I’m going to make an attempt at this.
I move to approve the
Rogers Conditional Use Permit. I
want to explain my position and only my position I’ve got a lot of good friends in the crowd, I know I’m not
going to win a popularity contest, but when I was sworn in I feel like my
position is that I am to follow the guidelines given to me by the Quorum Court.
I think they’ve spoken on the issues similar to this.
I feel like in that particular case I voted against it, but I feel like
it is very hard to write enough rules to assure appropriate behavior or its hard
to legislate character. I want to
believe this company I want to believe that they’ll do a good job. I’ve walked in your shoes the Washington County pit is right
next to my farm. I know to a degree
what you deal with. I’ve lived
there, but I feel like when I decide whether to complain or whether its not
something that I want next to me I feel like its important to what the County
needs to maintain our roads so that’s my position so I make that motion.”
Walker commented, “I’ll second it as the same thing that I talk about considered
this as Bob has. Its tough to be
able to say yes this is it. It would be a whole lot easier for me if there’d never been a
quarry of any kind there, but if we want Washington County to continue to grow
like everyone’s talking we have to have limestone rock.”
Laney stated, “I should have repeated earlier it’s in the record that Mr.
Gallagher had recused himself from earlier so he hasn’t been ignoring or not
commenting because you all said something he didn’t like, but he has recused
himself from consideration, but his full statement is matter of public record.”
Haley commented, “Currently we have three quarries dirt pits utilizing Hamstring
Road generating a minimum of 300 large trucks daily and that’s today’s numbers.
These numbers could potentially increase significantly again up to say 700
trucks daily.
I just can’t see how this amount of large truck traffic is safely
compatible with the residential traffic on Hamstring Road even with the
improvements that they can potentially make it’s just the pure volume if nothing
else.”
Hummel stated, “I guess Juliet I’ve tried to evaluate this thing and sat here
and listened to both sides and I still have a big problem with Conditional Use
changing A1 and R1 to a C1 because the Conditional Use if they meet… how do you
know whether or not they meet the conditions or not?
If they go 35’ deep we’re not going to know it until all the harm has
been done, right? You don’t have
the Staff; you’ve done a good job.” Richey commented, “If you want to set
something in place that says that they have to take an elevation shot once a
year and we have to be there whatever you want to do is fine.
There are ways to monitor.”
Hummel asked, “Well, I don’t know how you’ve got the Staff to monitor.
Do you know how deep they’re going right now?” Richey replied, “Where
they’re at right now? I know roughly because of the information they’ve given me.”
Hummel stated, “It’s from them.”
Laney commented, “We don’t regulate them currently.”
Richey stated, “No, we don’t. If
you want to set up something where if you want to have the County has a surveyor
check their work or whatever. We do
a lot of things you know the County has inspections on roads those are done by
third parties that are paid by somebody I mean that’s the way things are done.”
Hummel commented, “I’ve worked with everybody, I’ve never worked with Mr.
Gallagher, I’ve worked with everybody down through here and regardless how they
vote they’re still my friend.
They’re real creditable top-notch people every one of them and I’ll support them
if they vote like I do. They’re
good people they’re good honest. I
know how this is tearing them up, but if you don’t have a checks and balances it
can get out of hand. I’ve heard
grandfathered in I’ve heard Mr. Butler use it and I’ve heard both lawyers use
it. Hey, these people live out here, these people that’s on these
farms should they be grandfathered in do they have a reason to be grandfathered
in? I think we’ve used some
terminology and some information that’s not checkable.
I think that don’t make sense, I don’t guess. I don’ t know how you’re going to monitor it.
I just don’t know. I’m going to vote against it, but I’m concerned.”
West stated, “I do want to say to the Rogers Group I have never been in a gravel
pit before, but I was very impressed with what I saw it was very clean, very
tidy, but I, too, have to agree that that’s residential that’s agricultural and
I have a problem with that.”
Laney asked, “We will take a vote and might as well do it by roll call because
it sounds like it is going to be really close.
I remind everybody that it takes the majority of the Board to pass it so
it sounds like we may be near a tie so it would not pass.
Then where would we be George if it doesn’t pass?”
Butler replied, “If there is a tie (on a motion to approve) the motion
fails and therefore the Conditional Use Permit is denied and there would have to
be an appeal taken.”
Randy Laney voted yes, James Gallagher abstained, Robert Daugherty voted yes,
Kenley Haley voted no, Cheryl West voted no, Larry Walker voted yes, and Roy
Hummel voted no. Laney commented,
“It is a 3 to 3. The motion for
approval fails so the Conditional Use Permit is denied.”
Robert Daugherty moved to approve Rogers Group Quarry
Expansion Conditional Use Permit subject to Staff recommendations.
Larry Walker seconded. The Board tied 3 to 3 so motion failed.
Project is denied. James F.
Gallagher abstained.
5. OTHER BUSINESS
Daugherty stated, “Mr. Chairman I move that Randy (Laney) be our chairman for
next year.
I want to get that in early.
I wasn’t about to let that change.”
Robert Daugherty moved to elect Randy Laney as chairman.
Larry
Walker seconded.
Motion passes.
Walker commented, “Mr. Chairman I move that we put Mr. Bob Daugherty in as
vice-chairperson.”
Larry Walker moved to elect Robert Daugherty as vice-chairman.
Roy Hummel seconded.
Motion
passes.
Richey stated, “We’ll do that next time.”
Richey stated, “We’ll do Current Development next
time, too.”
Larry Walker moved to adjourn. Roy Hummel seconded.
Motion passes.
Planning Board adjourned.
Minutes submitted by: Amanda
Kimbel
Approved by the Planning
Board on:
____Randy Laney_______________ Date: __08/06/09____
Randy Laney, Planning Board Chairman
WASHINGTON
COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
&
ZONING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
August 6, 2009
5:00
p.m., Quorum Courtroom, New Courthouse
Fayetteville, Arkansas
DEVELOPMENTS REVIEWED:
ACTION TAKEN:
County
a. Replat Lots 9, 10, and 11 Sundowners Good Earth
Estates
Preliminary
and Final Plat Approval
County
b. Daugherty
Minor Subdivision
Preliminary
and Final Plat Approval
County
c. Trumbo Estates (Preliminary and Final Plat
Approval Request)
Removed from the agenda
County
d. McCluskey
CUP
Conditional
Use Permit Approval
Fayetteville’s Planning Area
e. Newcastle Estates CUP
Conditional
Use Permit Denied
Fayetteville’s Planning Area
f. Zion Care Center CUP
Tabled
County
g. AmeriAsian
Meat Processing CUP
Removed
from the agenda
Johnson’s Planning Area
h. Shady
Pines Adult Day Care CUP
Removed
from the agenda
Springdale’s Planning Area
i. Grace
Marshallese Assembly of God, Inc. CUP
Removed
from the agenda
1. ROLL CALL:
Roll call was taken.
Members present include: James F. Gallagher, Kenley Haley, Randy Laney,
Larry Walker, and Roy Hummel. Absent:
Cheryl West and Robert Daugherty.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (from the July 6, 2009 meeting) Larry
Walker made a motion to approve as written. Roy Hummel provided the second.
Motion passes.
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
Juliet Richey, Washington
County Planning Director, stated, “It is the same as was presented.
We will be tabling or removing several items; Item c. (Trumbo
Estates) to be removed at the request of the applicant,
Item f. (Zion Care Center CUP) to be tabled at the request of
the applicant, Item g. (AmeriAsian
Meat Processing CUP) to be removed at the request of the applicant,
Item h. (Shady Pines Adult Day Care CUP) to be removed at the
request of the applicant, and Item i. (Grace
Marshallese Assembly of God, Inc. CUP) to be removed at the request of the
applicant.” James F. Gallagher made a
motion to approve the agenda. Larry Walker seconded.
Motion passes.
4. NEW BUSINESS
County
a. Replat Lots 9, 10, and 11 Sundowners Good Earth
Estates (Preliminary and Final Plat Approval Request)
Location: Section 35, Township 15 North, Range 31
West
Owner/Developer: Connie Robbins
Engineer/Surveyor: DVDoyal Land Surveying -
Daryl
Doyal
Location Address: 12727, 12765, and 12799
N. Billingsley Road (WC #210)
10.1 acres and 2 lots / Proposed Land Use:
Residential
Project
#: 2009-037 Planner: Jessie Pettit, e-mail at jpettit@co.washington.ar.us
REQUEST: Preliminary and Final Minor Subdivision Approval
for Replat Lots 9, 10, and 11 Sundowners Good Earth Estates Minor Subdivision.
The total acreage of the property is 10.1 acres.
The proposal is to reconfigure the 3 parcels into two tracts Tract 1
– 2.1 acres and Tract 2 – 7.9 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 12, JP Ann Harbison
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
A-5 through A-6
………......................Splits previously completed on these parcels
……………………….Infrastructure (i.e. utilities and streets)
………………………..Tech Comments Received (April 14th)
Attachments
A-9 through A-14……………………….Email
Correspondence soils/ septic & copy septic permit
A-15
through A-16 ……………..………Adjacent property owners within 300’ of
project site notifications/ summary
A-17………………………………………Vicinity Map
BACKGROUND/ PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
This property is owned by Connie Robbins.
Daryl Doyal with DVDoyal Land Surveying is the representative
for this project.
There are currently three dwellings on the project site:
12727, 12765, and 12799 N. Billingsley Road.
Two of the dwellings (12727 and 12765) are proposed to be on Tract
One- 2.1 Acres. The remaining
dwelling (12799) is proposed to be on Tract Two- 7.9 acres.
During the review of the project there was concern regarding
whether there are suitable soils and adequate area to accommodate the number of
dwellings (2) on proposed Tract One- 2.1 acres in the event of a septic
failure.
Septic related concerns have since been resolved through
Health Department review of one of the dwellings’ septic permits (#205065).
In addition, a site visit was conducted by Health Department staff.
Please refer to email correspondence with the Health Department for
additional information on this subject matter, pages A-7 through A-12.
At
the time the staff report was written several items on the plat were still in
need of correction: checklist items, appropriate R.O.W. information (acceptable
to the Road Department) and proper overhead electric easement (30’) shown on
plat.
Since that time the applicant/ surveyor has submitted revised
plats that have the majority of those corrections made.
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 typically does not recommend
splitting up preliminary and final approval on minor subdivisions/ replats due
to their simplistic nature; however, a significant amount of corrections are
still needed on the plat.
Staff has come to the determination
that it is appropriate to recommend only preliminary approval on this project
because of the following reasons:
(a) A substantial amount of
corrections are still needed on the plat.
(b) Adjacent neighbors have been
given an opportunity to comment on the project; which is required at preliminary
review.
(c) There has been a considerable
amount of time and energy spent by staff keeping the neighbors abreast of
tablings and changes in Planning Board meeting dates. Keeping the neighbors informed of a projects’ hearing date
is required at the preliminary stages. Staff
concludes it is appropriate to bring the preliminary review to a close in order
to be more efficient with their time and energy expenditures.
Staff recommends Preliminary and Final Plat approval of Replat
Lots 9, 10, and 11 Sundowners Good Earth Estates with the following conditions
being met.
1.
Pay
mailing fees of $37.29 for adjacent property owner notification, as per Ord. No.
2007-71, applicant has been provided a copy of the invoice.
2. Correct all checklist items.
Checklist items that need correction
are provided below; highlighted material needs correction or additional
information. Staff’s supplemental
notes are written in blue and italicized.
Existing
utilities. List the utility
companies on the plat.
Information to Supplement the Plat
All remaining Signature Blocks as appropriate.
(Signature Blocks 5)
Please list specific Utility Providers (i.e. Washington Water, Ozark
Electric, and Prairie Grove Telephone).
5.
UTILITY EASEMENTS:
We
hereby certify that all utility easements shown on this plat are
satisfactory for providing service
if and when service is available.
Arkansas Western Gas :______________
Ozark Electric:_________
Washington Water Authority:
__________ Prairie Grove Telephone_______
Cable
TV:______________________
3.
Provide a pdf. or jpeg. AND
.dwg of the final plat. Developer
must also provide Ozarks Electric with a Digital copy (AutoCAD 2004) of the
Final plat as well as a hard copy.
4.
Add the following text to the final plat for clarity near the text that
states R.O.W. varies “Refer to the original plat of Sundowners Good Earth
Estates for R.O.W. on the east side of N. Billingsley Road which varies
in width”.
5.
Any further splitting or land development not considered with this
approval must come before the Planning Board.
6.
Have all signature blocks signed on 11 Final Plats –
2 for filing in the Circuit Clerk’s office, 7 for the County Planning office,
remainder for the developer. The
Circuit Clerk is not accepting plats that are over 18” x 24”.
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION:
SPLITS PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED ON THIS
PARCEL:
The
parcels involved in the proposed replat have had no previous splits since the
subdivision was platted into Sundowners Good Earth Estates back in 1973.
Following
is the Circuit Clerk filing number for the original plat: Book- 6,
Page 593.
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water – Washington Water Authority
Other Utilities - The
lot is in the service area of Ozark Electric and Prairie Grove Telephone.
Streets-
The subject property of review has public road frontage on Billingsley Road (WC
#210).
FOLLOWING ARE COMMENTS FROM THE APRIL 14TH TECH REVIEW MEETING
FOR REVIEW OF: REPLAT LOTS 9,
10, AND 11 SUNDOWNERS GOOD EARTH ESTATES PROJECT #2009-037
7.
Correct all checklist items. The
checklist items that need correction were highlighted on the checklist provided
at Tech Review. If you need an
additional copy of this information, please contact the Planning Office.
8.
Original plat calls out a 20’ R/W around the existing power line.
According to Ozark Electric Comments this actually needs to 30’ R/W
around the existing power lines please indicate this information on the replat.
9.
Are lots 16 and lots 17 shown for context only?
Are any changes taking place on these lots?
Surveyor indicated that his client
wanted these lots surveyed as well but there is no change taking place on these
lots. Planning staff is fine with
them being shown.
10.
Plat must show a dedicated 30’ R.O.W. from the center-line of the road
on the east side of the proposed replat (WC #210 N. Billingsley Rd.). Currently the replat read that the R.O.W. varies.
This comment corresponds with the Road Department’s Comments.
11.
Please show the approximate location of septic, both primary and
alternate areas. Both should be
contained within subject property boundaries
12.
WWA needs the water taps to be shown on the replat.
Each structure needs its own tap.
13.
Front building setback needs to be labeled as U.E. in addition to B.S.B.
The front building setback is 25’ from the front R.O.W.
*This comment corresponds with (22) on the highlighted checklist
Health Department Comments (Melissa Wonnacott):
It
appears the applicant/ surveyor will try to locate septic permits and locations.
Washington
County Fire Marshal Comments (John Jenkins):
No Comment Received.
*Typically the Fire Marshall does
not comment on Minor Subdivision- 4 Lots or Less
Washington County Road Department Comments
(Donnie Coleman):
Show 30’ R.O.W. on Plat.
Washington County Environmental Affairs Comments (Robyn
Reed):
No
stormwater permit will be required by Washington County at this time. Must
comply with all ADEQ rules and regulations.
www.adeq.state.ar.us
Sheriff’s Department Comments:
No Comment Received
Washington County 911 Addressing Comments:
No Comment Received
Washington County Contracted Engineer Comments (Clay Grote):
Beaver Water District Comments:
No
Comment Received.
Washington County Public Utility Comments (Rhonda Hulse):
No Comment.
UTILITIES
Ozarks Electric Comments (Greg McGee #(479) 684-4634):
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.
Additional
Comments:
No Additional Comments are given.
No Comment Received Correction
– Comment Received April 10th, 2009
“I have no comments regarding project #2009-037 (Sundowners Good Earth
Estates).”
*Above comments has been forwarded on to the applicant 04/28/09
via email by Planning Staff (J.P.)
No Comment Received
Laney
asked, “Preliminary only, correct?” Jessie
Pettit, Washington County Planner, replied, “Preliminary and Final; they
submitted additional plats since the time I sent out the Staff report and so
Staff will be recommending Preliminary and Final.
Lots 9, 10, and 11 Sundowners Good Earth Estates; Daryl Doyal is the
applicant on that I don’t believe he is here tonight.
Connie Robbins is the owner. The
property is located on the somewhat the southwest part of the County.
It is outside all Planning Areas. Prairie
Grove is the closest Planning Area. The zoning is single-family agricultural residential.
The project site is located just off 265 on Billingsley (WC #211; 210
turns into 211). During the review
of this project the main concern was septic; due to one of the proposed tracts;
proposed Tract 1 has two single-family residences on 2 acres.
The Health Department just wanted to make sure that in the event of
septic failure that Tract 1 could accommodate an alternate area and all concerns
have been resolved. I believe you
have the correspondence with the Health Department in your Staff report.
We did not receive any formal adjacent property owner comments.
We had several adjacent property owners call in to request information on
this project. They said it sounded
good; basically, they didn’t have any issues or concerns.
Just taking you through the site itself starting with proposed Tract 2,
which has one structure is almost 8 acres.
Tract 1 has two homes on 2 acres. Tract
2 kind of wraps around Tract 1; if you refer to your survey.
As I mentioned before this is a new plat that was received at post Staff
reports being written and going out and the issue in Staff reports written up
there was a lot of the checklist items that had not been put on the plat and
those have now been put on the plat so we feel comfortable giving Preliminary
and Final. Staff is recommending
Preliminary and Final approval. Conditions
#5 and #6 are just standard conditions. One
checklist item was missed we need the utility companies listed as opposed to
just Gas company, Arkansas Western Gas. There
is some right-of-way information that we need they have the 30’ dedication on
the west side of Billingsley Road, but on the east side of Billingsley Road it
states that right-of-way varies and the surveyor felt that it was important to
include that information, but we would like some additional information put on
there just because we’re only mainly concerned with the 30’ dedication on
the west side so the text that we’re asking to be put on there Condition #4
refer to the original plat of Sundowners Good Earth Estates for right-of-way on
the east side of N. Billingsley Road which varies in width. We just didn’t want any confusion about the west side, so
just for clarity sake.”
Gallagher
asked, “9, 10, and 11 are the subject of all this, but yet we have Tract 1 and
Tract 2; is Tract 1 one residential site and Tract 2 a second one or are the
lots the residential site?” Pettit
replied, “Lots 9, 10, and 11 are the existing platted subdivision and the
proposal that we have before us is replatting Lots 9, 10, and 11 into Tract 1
and Tract 2.” Gallagher stated,
“I just wanted to be clear. I
wasn’t sure where we were going there.”
Roy Hummel moved to approve Replat Lots 9, 10, and 11
Sundowners Good Earth Estates Preliminary and Final Plat with conditions. James
F. Gallagher seconded. Motion
passes. Kenley Haley abstained.
County
b. Daugherty
Minor Subdivision (Preliminary and Final Plat Approval Request)
Location: Section 25, Township 14 North, Range 33
West
Owner/Developer: Daugherty Lincoln Farms, LLC –
Robert Daugherty
Engineer/Surveyor: Bates & Associates – Derrick
Thomas
Location Address: (closest addressed property) Teen
Challenge Ranch at
19778 Boys Home Road (WC #431) Project located at the intersection of Boys Home
Road (WC #431) and Res. Dr. English (WC #4434)
15.35 acres and 3 lots / Proposed Land Use:
Residential Lot
Project
#: 2009-053 Planner: Jessie Pettit, e-mail at jpettit@co.washington.ar.us
REQUEST: Preliminary and Final Minor Subdivision Approval
for Daugherty Minor Subdivision. The
total acreage of the property is 15.33 acres.
The proposal is to split the property into three pieces: Tract 1 –
14.50 acres, Tract 2 – 5.43 acres, and Tract 3–
5.42 acres. Tract 3 is
proposed to be accessed by a private road.
CURRENT
ZONING: Area
encompassed in parcel #001-05418-004,
one parcel involved in the current project, is under the Conditional Use Permit
# 2007-248 for Teen Challenge Ranch; however, the terms of the CUP are only
applicable to the area shown on the site plan (this minor subdivision is not
within that area).
Base zoning
(Agriculture/Single-Family Residential 1 unit per acre) is allowed by right in
the area applicable to this minor subdivision.
The other parcel involved in the
current project is parcel #001-95418-003; it is located 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
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
B-4
.....................................................Splits previously completed
on this parcel
B-4......................................................Other
Planning Projects, in addition to property divisions, completed on this parcel
B-4......................................................Infrastructure
(i.e. utilities and streets)
B-5
through B-7 ……………………….Planning staff
review of revised plats received 06.08.09
B-8………………………………………Follow
up comment/ email (post Tech Review) from Ozark Electric
B-8
through B-9………………………..Tech Comments Received (May 12th)
minus Planning staff’s comments- refer to planning staff review of plats
received 06.08.09 for planning staff review comments
Attachments
B-10
through B-12..............................Private Road Standards / Signed &
notarized private road disclosure statement
B-13
through B-16……………………..Soils work completed by a Designated
Representative and approved by Health Dept.
B-17
through B-18 …………..………...Adjacent property owners within 300’ of
project site notifications/ summary
B-19
through B-20……………………...Vicinity Map
B-21………………………………………Application
BACKGROUND/ PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
This property is owned by Daugherty Lincoln Farms, LLC
(Robert Daugherty).
Derrick
Thomas with Bates & Associates is the representative for this project, although Tim West with Bates & Associates will be
representing at the Board Meeting.
The project falls under the category of Minor Subdivison (4
Lots or Less) due to the parent parcel being divided too many times in order to
qualify for the Exemption Process. For
additional information refer to splits previously completed on this parent
parcel on page B-4.
The project tracts are proposed to be accessed by both public
roads and private roads.
Tract 2 and Tract 3
of the project have public road frontage off of Boys Home Road (WC #431) and
Residential Drive- English (WC #4434).
Tract 1
is proposed to be accessed off a private road/ easement that connects up to
public Boys Home Road (WC #431). The
private road is located south of Tract 1, which is currently neighboring parcel
#001-05418-001, owned by Teen Challenge Ranch of NWA. This piece of property is also known as (LSD) Large Scale
Development #2007-242 Teen Challenge Ranch of NWA and is the subject
property of CUP #2007-248.
Private Road Regulations
Due to the fact that a portion of the project (Tract 1) is
proposed to be accessed by a private road, the development is considered a
“private road development” or “PRD”, and all private road standards must
be abided by. Please see page B-10 through B-12 for a list of private road
requirements that are required to be met.
All
private road requirements have been met at this time. Since
the time staff reports were mailed out the private road signs have been erected
on site. The
owner of the proposed development has been working with the owner’s/ operators
of Teen Challenge to complete these requirements.
The private road has been named “Boys Home Road” but will be
given a different road number than the public “Boys Home Road (WC
#431)”. Proper signage indicating
the change of road type (i.e. maintenance) will be located on site at the point
the private road starts, in addition to being depicted on the plat.
The private road disclosure statement has been notarized and signed by
both the owner/ developer of the proposed development (Robert Daugherty), The
Executive Director of Teen Challenge / Board of Directors (Darren Reynolds) and
a member of Teen Challenge Board of Directors (Neal Reed).
Please see page B-10 for a copy of this document.
Soils
Work/ Septic
Soils
work for all the proposed tracts has been completed by a Designated
Representative (D.R.) with favorable review from the Health Department.
All three proposed tracts have adequate area and soil suitable for a
standard sewage disposal system. See
page B-13 through B-16 of the staff report for a copy of the soils work.
Water
There is a water meter located on the southeast corner of proposed Tract
3. Chuck Wood with the Lincoln
Water left a message that he was concerned with the water situation in the
vicinity of the project. He said
that there is a 2” line near the project site and the road to Morrow has a
4” line. County Planner on the
project was out of the office when the message was received.
Calls have been put into Lincoln water for further information; calls
have not been returned to date. No formal comment was received from the water
service provider, City of Lincoln, during the review of this project.
If well water is to be used as the water supply for any of the tracts-
well placement must be a hundred feet from a septic system; whether it is the
septic system on site or the septic system from a neighboring home owner.
This information is stated on the plat.
Other
Issues
There are no issues that have arisen during the review of
this plat which have not been resolved. Please
see page B-8 through B-9 for additional information on utility providers or
comments received during the review of this project.
CHECKLISTS:
*Please
note that if an item is marked inadequate, staff will usually recommend tabling
or denial of a project. It is up to
the Planning Board’s discretion whether or not to agree with staff
recommendation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff
recommends Preliminary and Final Plat approval of the proposed Daugherty Minor
Subdivision Estates with the following conditions:
1.
Pay mailing fees of $20.34 for adjacent property owner notification, as
per Ord. No. 2007- 71, applicant has been provided a copy of the invoice.
2.
Add “R.O.W.” to the
right-of-way call out “30ft from the C/L” on the final plat.
3.
A County Road Superintendent will
need to inspect the placement of the private road signs.
4.
Provide a pdf. or jpeg. AND .dwg of
the final plat.
5.
Any further splitting or land
development not considered with this approval must come before the Planning
Board.
6. Have all
signature blocks signed on 11 Final Plats – 2 for filing with 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”.
Typically the Circuit Clerk requires an 8.5” x 11” original as well.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
SPLITS PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED
ON THIS PARCEL:
The Assessor’s Records show that
there are six splits on this parcel.
Currently
parent parcel #001-05418-___ is up to 005; although, 005 is approved to be
divided again as per Exemption Planning Project #2008-214.
A corresponding deed has not yet been filed with the Circuit Clerk to
create the additional parcel
The
following parcels were created in 1994 and prior; Planning does not have a
record of these original divisions in their files:
parcel #001-05418-001
parcel #001-05418-002 (78.00 ac.)
The
following parcels were created as a result of Exemption 2008-214, although they
are depicted on the approved survey (Circuit Clerk Filing #2008-00035308) as one
tract- Tract 2 (15.15):
parcel #001-05418-003 *created off #000
parcel #001-05418-004 *created off #001
The
following parcel was also created as a result of Exemption 2008-214, although it
is approved to be divided again according to the approved survey (Circuit Clerk
Filing #2008-00035308):
parcel #001-05418-005 *created
off #000, and #001 according to planning research
*approved
to be divided into Tract 3 (6.51 ac.) and Tract 4 (5.00 ac.) according to
approved survey
OTHER PLANNING PROJECTS IN
ADDITION TO PROPERTY DIVISIONS COMPLETED ON THIS PARCEL:
·
Teen Challenge CUP #2007-248
CUP
approval subject to staff’s recommended conditions granted by Washington
County Zoning Board of Adjustments February 13, 2008.
·
Teen Challenge Ranch LSD #2007-242
Preliminary Large Scale Development
approval granted February 13, 2008 by the Washington County Planning Board.
Final Large Scale Development
approval granted November 6, 2008 by the Washington County Planning Board.
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water
–
City of Lincoln Water
Other Utilities - The
lot is in the service area of Ozark Electric and AT & T Telephone.
Washington County Planning Department
July
14, 2009 Staff review of revised plats received 06.08.09
Items
in need of correction are either highlighted or written in red.
Date: July 14, 2009
To:
Bates & Associates, Inc.
Derrick Thomas
91 W. Colt Square Dr.
Fayetteville, AR
*Email is the preferred method of contact.
derrick@nwabatesinc.com
CC:
Robert Daugherty
2745 Hidden Springs Drive
Fayetteville, AR 72703
*Email is the preferred method of contact.
rrdaugherty@aol.com
From: Jessie Pettit for Juliet Richey, Washington County Planning
Re:
Daugherty Minor Subdivision (Preliminary/ Final Subdivision of Four Lots
or Less Plat Approval Request) Project #2009-053
Washington County Planning Department’s Staff Comments
(Jessie Pettit):
1. All
highlighted checklist items have been corrected; staff overlooked item 20 that
should have been highlighted on the first review.
Checklist
item (20) Ask for Location and size of all proposed utility lines.
Have
water taps for all proposed properties been acquired. Planning staff spoke with Mr. Daugherty
07/14 and he stated one water tap has been acquired.
If
not, the following text
will need to be added to the plat:
“Well placement must be a hundred
feet from a septic system; whether it is the septic system on site or the septic
system from a neighboring home owner.”
2.
Prior surveys (planning project #08-214 / Circuit Clerk filing
#2008-00035308) has parcel #001-05418-003 (part of tract 2 on the survey)
denoted as “4.67 acres tract donated to Teen Challenge”.
This
above portion of property is included in the current minor subdivision proposal.
Please elaborate on this previous text on the survey and how it relates to the
current submittal. Discussion
during Tech Review May 12th indicated that Mr. Daugherty should
address this point of clarification.
Planning
staff (J.P.) spoke with Mr. Daugherty 07/14.
Mr. Daugherty stated the text (4.67 acre tract to be donated to Teen
Challenge) denoted on previous survey/ planning project is no longer relevant.
3.
Current
Submittal 06.08.09 uses the following text to describe a 30’ north / south
easement south of Tract 1: “30’
access easements as per large scale filed in book 2009 at page 5493”.
This
is not the official final plat (signature blocks, etc.) of the Large Scale
Development “Teen Challenge – Project #2007-242”, this
is the “Easement Exhibit “A” that corresponds with the LSD project.
The plat would be more accurate if it read:
30’
access easements as per the following documents
·
Access
easement agreement 1
filed in book 2009 at page 5490
·
Access
easement agreement 2 filed
in book 2009 at page 5491
·
Easement
exhibit “A” -
filed in book 2009 at page 5493
*The documents listed above correspond with the final plat of
Large Scale Development “Teen Challenge” filed in book 0023-00000362.
The
following easement agreement documents have
been added to the plat under Reference Documents as per planning staff comments
from the May 12 Tech Review:
·
“Septic and Tree Planting Easement Agreement”
#2009-00005492
·
“Access Easement Agreement 1” #2009-00005490
·
“Access Easement Agreement 2” #2009-00005491
– the filing number for this easement agreement is
listed incorrectly on the plat at present, please correct.
4. Provide
Planning with soils work for all proposed tracts from a Designated
Representative.
Planning
staff (J.P.) spoke with Mr.
Daugherty 07/14 he is aware this information is still needed.
If the information can not be acquired prior to the Planning Board
Meeting August 6th, staff will recommend approval with the following
condition:
“Approval
is contingent upon the planning office receiving a written statement from the
D.R. stating that soils work has been completed and there are adequate/
acceptable soils for all proposed lots to support a septic system for a single
family dwelling septic on each proposed lot.
The final plat will not be signed off until this information is
received.”
5.
Abide by all private road standards.
Mr.
Daugherty has provided the planning office with a filed copy of “Appendix C
Private Road Disclosure Statement” signed by the following parties: Robert
Daugherty, Neal Reed and Dave Reynolds. The
owner has had a road sign made “Boys Home Road” which has been inspected by
the 911 Addressing Office for compliance. Mr.
Daugherty is working with the Road Dept. to have the sign installed at the
proper location along with other required signage with Private Road
Developments.
a.
The following note will need added to the plat as
per “private road development” standards.
In all cases, the plat shall note, in
a noticeable fashion, the following, "NOTICE: THIS ROAD IS NOT CONSTRUCTED
TO THE COUNTY STANDARD. THE MAINTENANCE OF THE ROAD IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
CURRENT AND FUTURE PROPERTY OWNERS. THE ROAD WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR
MAINTENANCE BY THE COUNTY UNTIL IT IS CONSTRUCTED TO THE COUNTY STANDARD AT THE
EXPENSE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS."
6.
The circle drive needs to have the 50’ R.O.W. information added back on
the plat.
It
is very difficult to read the portion of the survey that goes along this road;
please use different line symbols, line weights, or light hatching for R.O.W. so
this portion of the survey reads more clearly.
This portion of road connects English Road, Residential Road WC 4434
and the Private Road (Easement 1, Easement 2, and the Circle Drive)
referenced in the Teen Challenge project and this project.
This
road can be labeled WC #431, in the manner it was originally
done in the May 4th submittal. Discussion
between the Road Dept., County Judge and Planning Office was required to come to
this agreement; this is contrary to what was voiced at Tech Review May 12th.
Apologies for this inconvenience.
If
there are any uncertainties regarding the above information please feel free to
call the Road Department (#444-1610) and speak with either Donnie Coleman or
Shawn Shrum.
FOLLOWING
ARE COMMENTS, MINUS PLANNING STAFF’S COMMENTS, RECEIVED FOR THE PROJECT WHEN
IT ORIGINALLY WENT THROUGH TECH REVIEW MAY 12TH
_____________________________________________________________________________
Utility comments:
Arkansas Western Gas (James Boyd #479-582-8652)
No comment on the project.
Ozark Electric (Greg McGee #684-4634)
1. Please
make all B.S.B. lines to B.S.B./ U.E. so that we can service tract 1.
2. If
there any questions call Greg McGee #684-4634.
Lincoln Water
No comments received to
date.
*Planning
Staff will forward comments on if received at a later date.
PG Telco (Shane Bell, Outside Plant Manager-#846-7255)
PGTelco has no comments on project #2009-053 (Daugherty Minor
Subdivision).
Arkansas Health Department Comments (Melissa
Wonnacott, #521-8181 ext.2111):
No comment received.
Washington County Fire Marshal Comments:
No comment received.
*Typically the Fire Marshal
does not comment on Subdivision of 4 lots or less.
Washington County Environmental Affairs (Robyn
Reed):
No storm water permit required by
Washington County at this time. Must
comply will all ADEQ rules and regulations.
Washington County Sheriff’s Department Comments:
No comment received.
Washington County 911 Addressing Office (Daryl Pemberton):
No comment received.
Washington County Contracted Engineer Comments (Clay Grote):
No
comment received, Comments are not required from County Eng. for projects with
four lots or less.
Washington County Road Department Comments (Donnie Coleman):
Beaver Water District (Ray
Avery):
No comment received.
Washington County Public Utility & Asst. Grants
Administrator (Rhonda Hulse)
Each lot developer must get
approval of septic system from the Washington County Health Department.
(11) Private
roads: Privately maintained roads may be established in certain
circumstances as follows:
a. Subdivisions
containing four (4) or fewer single-family residential lots may elect to
establish a private road to serve the lots, provided the road right-of-way
connecting the lots to the county road is a minimum width of thirty (30) feet.
b. Subdivisions
containing five (5) to ten (10) single-family residential lots may elect to
establish a private road to serve the lots. However, the road connecting the
lots to the county road must be constructed to the specifications noted below.
Before final plat approval, the road superintendent shall visually inspect the
road to ensure that general compliance with the specifications noted below have
been met:
1. Fifty-foot
road right-of-way;
2. Fourteen-foot
road wide road surface with eight-inch compacted SB-2, or six-inch compacted
SB-2 on a prepared subgrade;
3. Four-foot
shoulder;
4. Four-foot
ditch;
5. Twelve
(12) percent maximum grade;
6. Fifty-foot
minimum cul-de-sac radius at the end;
7. Drainage
provided with adequate pipes and culverts as necessary.
c. A
development that utilizes, in whole or in part, a private road for access shall
be referred to as a "private road development" or "PRD".
d. In
all the cases, the developer shall be responsible for paying the county road
department for the purchase and installation of a sign indicating that the road
is maintained by the property owners.
e. In
all cases, the plat shall note, in a noticeable fashion, the following,
"NOTICE: THIS ROAD IS NOT CONSTRUCTED TO THE COUNTY STANDARD. THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE ROAD IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CURRENT AND FUTURE PROPERTY
OWNERS. THE ROAD WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR MAINTENANCE BY THE COUNTY UNTIL IT IS
CONSTRUCTED TO THE COUNTY STANDARD AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS."
f. In
all cases, the developer shall file for public record a "Private Road
Maintenance Disclosure Statement" (provided in Part II, Technical
Provisions, Appendix C).
g. All
new private road subdivisions must have their proposed private roads named
according to 9-1-1 procedure (submittal and approval of the proper paperwork
through the 9-1-1 addressing office) prior to the final subdivision plat
approval. The private road subdivision developer or applicant shall be
responsible for erecting the street sign stating the name of the private road
prior to final plat approval. The sign placement must be inspected by the 9-1-1
Addressing Office or the County Planning Office, and be in accordance with U. S.
Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devises.
(Ord. No. 91-9, Art. 1, § 3.05,
4-11-91; Ord. No. 99-32, Art. 1, 7-8-99; Ord. No. 2006-43, Arts. 1--3, 7-13-06;
Ord. No. 2008-19, Art. 1, 4-15-08)
Tim
West, Bates & Associates, Inc., was present to answer any questions.
Jessie
Pettit, Washington County Planner, stated, “Robert Daugherty is the property
owner on this project site. Bates
& Associates are the applicants. Tim
West is here tonight with Bates to answer any questions that you might have on
their behalf. The project site is
located on the southwest side of the County.
The City of Lincoln is the nearest Planning Area; it is just north of
Morrow. The zoning is a little
unusual on this site. South of the
project site is Teen Challenge Conditional Use Permit and LSD.
When the Conditional Use Permit came through for approval (the parcel is
what you see on the left hand side, it has since been divided into smaller
areas) but on the Conditional Use Permit on the site map only this area here was
included for development, so long story short the zoning is agricultural
single-family, which is what they are wanting to do with the property.”
Laney
asked, “The Oklahoma shaped piece is the piece that really wasn’t in the
Conditional Use Permit originally, is what you’re saying?” Richey replied,
“Right.” Laney commented,
“The only reason that it is here it is zoned properly it just had too many
previous splits under all administrative rules.”
Hummel asked, “You’re going to take the 15 acres and make three 5
acre lots out of it, basically?” Pettit
replied, “Right. The site is
located off Boy’s Home Road (WC #431) and the main road leading to the site
Highway 45. Issues that we’ve
dealt with on this project are private roads and soils work (are the main ones.)
Tracts 1, 2, and 3 are accessed by both private and public (roads).
This is a residential drive. This
public road frontage and Boy’s Home Road is a public road as well.
What is being accessed by a private road, is this private road that goes
through Teen Challenge, when any of the tracts are accessed by a private road
the development is referred to as a Private Road Development and then it has to
abide by all private road regulations. All
of the private road regulations to date have been abided by.
They have to put a private road sign here.
This point forward is maintained not by the County, basically. Soils work for Tracts 1, 2, and 3 a designated representative
has completed soils work and sent it to the Health Department and everything
came back approved so he’s gone through that work as well. There’s a water meter located on the southeast corner of
proposed Tract 3. No formal comment
was received from the water service provider.
If well water is to be used as the water supply for any of the tracts
well placement must be 100’ from the septic system whether it is a septic
system on-site or the septic system from a neighboring homeowner this
information is stated on the plat. I
did have a message, I have been out sick this week, from Lincoln Water that said
he was concerned about the water situation out there, there is a 2” line that
runs near the project site then there is a 4” line that the road to Morrow.
We don’t require that taps be in place during minor subdivision review
and that additional note about the well and septic is added to the plat, so that
is covered. We did receive one adjacent property owner comment that was
from the property owners to the south, Teen Challenge, and they were in favor of
the project and they also assigned the private road information that it is
maintained privately (not by the County.) They
are on board as well, and they were in favor of the project, but didn’t have
any additional comment. Since the
time that Staff reports were mailed out the private road signs have been erected
onsite, so that is one change since Staff reports went out.
No other issues came up during the review of this project.
Staff is recommending Preliminary and Final approval of the proposed
Daugherty Minor Subdivision. Conditions
#5 and #6 are standard. There is
one spot on the survey where right-of-way needs to be added to the plat, but
that is the only thing that is lacking in regards to survey information.”
Tim
West stated, “Mr. Daugherty stated to me that he doesn’t really plan on
selling these tracts he’s just splitting it for future financially if he has
to sell one he can. His sister is
farming the property now and he intends on her to keep farming it, so he is just
kind of planning for the future in case he does need to sell a tract then he
will already have it approved.”
Roy Hummel moved to approve
Daugherty Minor Subdivision Preliminary and Final Plat with conditions. Kenley
Haley seconded. Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of approving
Daugherty Minor Subdivision Preliminary
and Final Plat.
County
c. Trumbo Estates (Preliminary and Final Plat
Approval Request) To be removed from the agenda at the request of the applicant
Location: Section 8, Township 17 North, Range 28 West
Owner/Developer: Tom Stockland, Jim Stockland, and
Trey Trumbo
Engineer/Surveyor: Atwell Land Surveying – Dave
Atwell
Location Address:
(closest addressed property) to
the west of 19856 Groth Road (WC #377)
8.57 acres and 2 lots / Proposed Land Use:
Single-Family
Project
#: 2009-048 Planner: Courtney McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
James F. Gallagher moved to
remove Trumbo Estates Preliminary and Final Plat
from the agenda at the request of the applicant.
Larry Walker seconded. Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of removing Trumbo Estates Preliminary and Final Plat
from the agenda at the request of the applicant.
County
d. McCluskey
CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request)
Location: Section 23 & 24, Township 15 North,
Range 31 West
Owner/Developer: Kraig and Mary McCluskey
Location Address: 11362 S. Highway 265
7.25 acres main house is on property already Proposed
Land Use: Rental
Project
#: 2009-070 Planner: Courtney McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit Approval for McCluskey CUP.
The total acreage of the property is 7.25 acres. The request is to add
one additional residential unit for rent. This will be a total of two
residential units on the property.
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 12, JP Ann Harbison
FIRE SERVICE AREA: West Fork
SCHOOL DISTRICT: Greenland
INFRASTRUCTURE: Water
– Washington Water Authority; Electric-Ozark Electric; Phone-AT
&T Telephone
BACKGROUND/
PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
The
owners/applicants for this project are Kraig and Mary McCluskey. The property is
located at 11362 S. Highway 265.
The request is for
a second single-family home (manufactured home) to be placed on a total of 7.25
acres. Washington County has an administrative process for situations like this,
but this project does not qualify due to lack of public road frontage. In order
to receive administrative approval, the property must be at least two acres in
size, have no more than two residential units, have completed soils work, show
that the new residence will adhere to Washington County’s setbacks, and have
public road frontage. This property is accessed by an easement (page D-14).
For additional
information please see the applicant’s letter (page D-10).
TECHNICAL
CONCERNS:
Fire
Issues:
The
applicant has stated that the residence will be located 22 feet from the closest
structure. The Fire Marshal only requires 20 feet, so there was no additional
comment.
Septic:
Soils
work has been completed. The Health Department reviewed and issued a permit for
construction on 7/19/2009. The system must be installed and inspected before the
residence is occupied.
Water
/Electric/Gas/Cable/Phone:
According
to Washington Water Authority (WWA), there is an existing tap on the property
for the existing home, and one additional tap can be purchased. The additional
tap will be guaranteed to be available for one year from the date on the letter
(June 22, 2009). The applicant must install the new meter before the residence
is occupied.
Ozarks
Electric stated that any relocation or damage of the existing lines will be at
the owner’s expense, and requires that the owner contact them 6 weeks in
advance to insure power will be available.
There
were no additional comments from Prairie Grove Telephone (PG Telco). This
project is not located in Arkansas Western Gas (AWG) or Cox Communications (Cox)
service areas.
Roads:
This
property has access on S. Highway 265 via a 20-foot access easement. As this is
not a subdivision, and the entrance is on a state highway, the Washington County
Road Department has no comment.
The
typical access easement for this type of project is 30 feet, but staff will
support leaving the access at 20 feet. The
easement was previously dedicated, and there are constraints on neighboring
properties that could make widening the easement difficult or impossible without
causing encroachments.
All
utilities have stated that the limited easement does not appear to cause an
issue with providing the necessary services to this property.
Other:
The
additional residence must be placed generally in the location shown on the
sketch plan. It must be 20 feet
from all other structures and meet all Washington County setbacks. (Placed
generally as shown on the attached sketch plan, the project meets these
requirements).
COMPATIBILITY
CONCERNS:
Surrounding
Area:
The
average density adjacent to the site is:
·
1 unit/ 7.49 (using acreage with residential use)
acres or,
·
0.13
units per acre.
The
average density within approximately ¼ mile is:
·
1 unit/ 5.7 (using acreage with
residential use) acres or,
·
0.18
units per acre.
The
highest density in the surrounding area is:
·
1 unit/ 2.5 (using acreage with residential use) acres
or,
·
0.4 units
per acre.
And
the lowest is:
·
1 unit/ 20 (using acreage with residential use) acres
or,
·
0.05 units per acre.
There
are also several agricultural pieces with no residences (Total of 19.51 acres
with no residences directly adjacent to the property; total of 294.51 acres with
no residences within approximately ¼ mile).
The
proposed density of 1 unit/ 3.625 acres or 0.27 units per acre is compatible
with the surround densities, and the proposed use of residential is compatible
with the surrounding uses. (page
D-15 – D-16)
County’s
Land Use Plan (written document):
According to the County’s Land
Use Plan,
1.
RESIDENTIAL
Several goals surfaced as paramount in the PARA Task Force
meetings and in a meeting held by the Quorum Court. These include:
a.
Provision of a safe living environment that offers
quiet, privacy, and a rural flavor and atmosphere;
b.
Provision of quality residential development of good design, developed in
a manner accessible by an adequate street system to avoid costly infrastructure
extensions;
c.
Protection of residential areas from incompatible
adjacent land uses;
d.
Protection of property values; and
e.
Provision of safe and adequate access to residential areas, installed in
a manner to accommodate emergency and other services.
To achieve these objectives, it is essential to:
a.
To provide for development of residential areas at
appropriate densities.
b.
Update, administer and enforce subdivision regulations; and develop,
adopt, and enforce zoning and related regulations and codes;
c.
Require development to be connected to utilities and utilize zoning as a
means to guide the progression of development;
d.
Protect the character and integrity, and property
values, of single-family, residential areas;
e.
Protect residential neighborhoods from inappropriate non-residential
influences through the use of regulatory controls;
f.
Ensure land use and development patterns which provide for the most
efficient and effective use of available utilities and services, including fire
protection; and,
g.
Maintain an adequate county road plan and standards to guide and
accommodate traffic movement; to develop differing categories of roads; and to
protect rights-of-ways for planned, future roads.”
Staff
feels that the proposed project does meet several of the goals listed in the
County’s Land Use Plan (underlined). In addition, any that do not directly
apply are not applied because of the nature of this project. The addition of one
single-family home will not significantly impact access, utilities, and
protection to the property or neighboring properties.
Future
Land Use Plan
There
is no Future Land Use Plan for this area of the County. The zoning map should be
used for comparison in areas without a Future Land Use stated. The zoning in
this area is Agricultural/Single-Family 1 unit per acre.
The proposed project meets and exceeds Single-Family 1 unit per acre. (page
D-17 - D-18)
NEIGHBOR
COMMENTS/CONCERNS:
Staff
has received one “in favor” comment from a neighbor, and no “opposed.”
Staff will update the Planning Board at the meeting if any additional comments
are received. (page
D-12)
Staff has received one more comment “in favor” of this
project on 8-5-09.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff
recommends Conditional Use Permit approval of the proposed McCluskey CUP with
the following conditions:
1.
The residence must be used as a single-family home only.
2.
The residence must be located a minimum of 20 feet from other structures.
3.
The residence must be placed generally where shown on the sketch plan and
meet all Washington County Building setbacks:
·
20’ from the rear property line,
·
10’ from the side property line(s), and
·
25’ from the front of the property and from any road
right-of-way (ROW)
4.
The septic system must be installed and inspected before the house is
occupied.
5.
The water tap must be installed and inspected before the house is
occupied.
6.
If any utilities have issues in the future with providing service, an
additional utility easement will need to be secured by the property owner to
allow them access.
7.
Pay Mailing Fees of $13.56.
Mary
McCluskey, owner of the proposed project, was present to answer any questions.
Courtney
McNair, Washington County Planner, stated, “It is located in the south central
part of the County just off of Highway 265.
It is not in a Planning Area and it is zoned agricultural/single-family
residential one unit per acre. South
265, just south of Illinois Chapel Road. As
you can see on the site there is an existing residence as well as several
agricultural buildings, barns, and old sheds and things like that.
The site plan shows what their proposal is. They’re asking for a second
single-family home to be located on a total of 7.25 acres, which is in two
parcels. You can see the majority
of the second parcel is taken up by a pond and they could not find a suitable
location on that smaller parcel for the second home.
Washington County has an administrative process to allow a second home on
a large tract of property like this; however, this one did not qualify because
they have an easement that accesses from that State Highway 265.
One of our requirements for the administrative review is that they have
public road frontage. Only a few
comments even remain to be addressed. There
were no concerns from the Fire Marshal. They
have the proper distance away from all other structures, which is 20’ and
they’re properly located away from all side setbacks. The septic permit has already been issued for this property
and the septic must of course be installed and inspected before the home is
occupied. There is an existing
water tap for the existing home and there is one available for the proposed
residence according to the letter from the water provider Washington Water
Authority. Once again they must
install and inspect the water tap before the building is occupied.
With utilities just the general notes any damage or relocation to
existing facilities is at the owner’s expense.
The only real hang up on this project at all is that this is a 20’
access easement. The Road
Department has no comments because it is off of a State Highway and it’s less
than 4 lots they don’t have any concerns about it from their perspective, but
typically in the Planning Office we see this come through with a 30’ easement.
However, Staff is in favor of allowing this to remain a 20’ easement
because it exists and there are several constraints to making it wider.
There are several other structures from their neighbors that are very
close to this easement.”
Laney
asked, “The easement is how old, 15 to 20 years old?” McNair replied, “I do not know.
It’s a nice existing driveway.”
Laney commented, “That was before we had the rule.”
McNair stated, “Yes, it was before we had the rule.
Staff has received two in favor comments no negative comments.
I handed you the second neighbor comment today.
This is a picture of the driveway as you can see there are several
structures really close fence posts and essentially you would wipe out any
driveway that this home has if you were to expand it. The density in this area the proposed density it meets
several of the goals listed in the County Land Use Plan and any that it
doesn’t meet are simply because it just doesn’t apply to this project not
because it doesn’t meet them. The
addition of one single-family home will not significantly impact the access or
the utilities and it shouldn’t influence the neighboring properties in a
negative way. There is no Future
Land Use Plan for this area so we use the zoning map for comparison.
They are well within the zoning regulations of one unit per acre.
With that Staff would recommend the Conditional Use
Permit for the proposed McCluskey Conditional Use Permit with the conditions
be approved. Additional easements
may be required in the future by utilities, but none expressed any concern at
this time.”
Hummel
asked, “Why are you concerned about the water tap there and you weren’t
concerned about the water tap on a previous?”
McNair replied, “These are different.
The difference between that’s a subdivision and all they have to do is
follow what’s on our checklist through Washington County.
This one being a Conditional Use Permit so it is subjected to more
stringent rules if you choose to make them to be more stringent.”
Laney
commented, “In other words they had to come through the Conditional Use Permit
door because of the easement size; because of the right-of-way they had to come
through a different door, which has a different checklist.”
Gallagher stated, “Were they on a public right-of-way we would be
discussing this as a subdivision.” McNair
commented, “If they were going to use a well we wouldn’t have required that
they dug the well we would have had the same comment about it being 100’ away
from septic systems. In this case,
I told the applicant what all he would need to do and he immediately went out
and set forth and got all of the information that he would need so that as soon
as he gets approval he’ll be able to go ahead and go forward with this
project, so he already has his water tap, his septic, and everything is in
place.” Hummel asked, “That
doesn’t… I know the 20’ easement is really borderline, but they cut their
own throats when they only have a 20’ easement for future lot line adjustments
or splits, or splitting it off for anything don’t they?”
McNair replied, “If they want to split it in the future they…”
Hummel stated, “They’d have to widen that.
They‘d have to have more than the 20’ easement because the County
Road people wouldn’t approve it or shouldn’t.”
McNair commented, “That is correct.
This is the only property that accesses off of that easement that
doesn’t have direct road frontage.”
Haley
asked, “The brick house is not off of this easement?” McNair replied, “It is.”
Haley asked, “Was it not built after our guidelines, did we make an
exception on the 20’ easement with that also?”
McNair replied, “We didn’t have to because as you see the parcel
touches the highway. They have
public right-of-way.” Laney
stated, “It hadn’t been here before, basically.”
Gallagher
asked, “The main reason we’re not requiring them to make this 20’ easement
wider is because of the fence lines that would have to be taken down?”
McNair replied, “There are fence lines and there is this garage
structure that’s really very close and the mobile home on this end has very
limited parking available.” Laney
stated, “That was the guy’s driveway we were looking at where his truck was
almost in the road as it is.” McNair
commented, “In addition it already exists and he is not asking to split his
property he is just asking to add a single dwelling.”
Laney stated, “If it was another house or a subdivision as we would
call it, it would be a different deal.” Gallagher
commented, “I can see where you can widen that except for the fences you could
easily widen that, but it’s not worth making an issue.”
McCluskey
had nothing to add.
Larry Walker moved to
approve McCluskey Conditional
Use Permit with
conditions. Roy Hummel seconded. Motion
passes.
All Board members were in
favor of approving
McCluskey Conditional Use Permit.
Fayetteville’s Planning Area
e. Newcastle Estates CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request- new business)
Location: Section 29, Township 17 North, Range 29
West
Owner/Developer: SML Landholding II, LLC
Representative: Appian Centre for Design – Austin
Rowser (Design Team Leader)
Location Address: (closest addressed property) to
the east of 4501 E. Gulley Road (WC #345)
13.27 acres and 45 single-family condominium units /
Proposed Land Use: Single-Family Residential 3.4 units per acre
Project
#: 2009-064 Planner: Courtney McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit Approval for Newcastle Estates
CUP. The total acreage of the
property is 13.27 acres for 45 single-family residential condominium units, for
a proposed density of 3.4 units per acre.
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
FIRE SERVICE AREA: Goshen
SCHOOL DISTRICT: Fayetteville
INFRASTRUCTURE: Water
– Fayetteville Water; Electric-Ozark Electric; Phone-AT
&T Telephone; Gas-Arkansas Western Gas; Cable-Cox
Communications
BACKGROUND/ PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
The applicant for this project is Austin Rowser (Design
Team Leader) with Appian Centre for Design. Mike McClendon is the property owner
(SML Landholding II, LLC). This
project has access on Gulley Road (WC #345) and Castle Rock Drive (WC #2306).
The closest addressed property to
the west is 4501 E. Gulley Road (WC #345).
This property
was previously platted as a 10-lot subdivision and Final Plat approval granted
on 6/3/04. Then, in 2006-2007, the owner requested a Conditional Use Permit to
allow 37 units to be placed on the site. This project was tabled repeatedly and
then removed from the agenda on 7/5/07. Prior to the CUP submittal of this
project in 2007, the owner began working on some of the structures and Mr.
Butler, Washington County Attorney, had to issue a stop-work order. This
construction left partial foundations and additional disturbance on the site.
Previous/Different Submittal
The Planning Board granted
Newcastle Estates Subdivision Preliminary Plat approval on October 2, 2003 and
Final Plat approval on June 3, 2004 for a 10-lot subdivision.
Previous/Different Submittal
This project came before the Board as Preliminary
LSD. (Project # 2006-297) Tabled: 12/07/06, 01/04/07, 02/06/07, 03/01/07,
04/05/07, 05/03/07, & 06/14/07
Removed from the agenda: 07/05/07
Previous/Different Submittal
(CUP Project #2007-185) CUP Tabled: 12/07/06,
01/04/07, 02/06/07, 03/01/07, 04/05/07, 05/03/07, & 06/14/07
Removed from the agenda: 07/05/07
Now the applicant is requesting 38 single-family units
to be placed on 13.27 acres (density of 2.86 units/acre) utilizing a
decentralized sewer system. According to the Letter of Submittal (page
E-11-12), the applicant intends to vacate the original 10-lot subdivision
plat and demolish the partial, existing structures if this CUP is granted.
The applicant intends the homes to be operated as condominium units,
where someone will buy each individual residence, but the common areas will be
owned/operated/maintained by the Property Owners Association.
Planning, other County
Staff, and other professionals reviewing this project still have concerns about
several issues. At this time, Planning does not feel there is enough information
to make a recommendation. However, the applicant has requested that the Board
hear this project, and take action on the density issue without the full
resolution of issues staff feels are critical. Staff does not support the
current density proposal, but feels that further review may result in a density
staff can support.
TECHNICAL CONCERNS:
Water/Plumbing/Fire Issues:
City of Fayetteville Water Utility services this property.
Shannon
Jones of City of Fayetteville Engineering requested in the previous submittal
that the water line be looped. This has been completed to his satisfaction (to
be constructed-see new information) (page E-35). Mr. Jones also
requests a note on the plans “that shared utilities in an easement shall be a
minimum of 30-inches from the outside of the pipe to the outside of the pipe.”
He has no other concerns about the width of the utility easements at this
time. Additional review will be required if the CUP is approved and the project
proceeds to Large Scale Development (LSD) Review.
The
water line must be fully constructed before any water accounts are activated.
The City of Fayetteville Fire Department reviewed the concept
plans, submitted 6/8/09, however, these plans were not to scale and therefore,
difficult to review for fire safety. According to Mr. Fulcher’s letter, “any
roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with a turnaround”…”This
applies to those units located more than 150 feet from Castle Rock Drive”. The
applicant has provided turnarounds in the latest plans, but the City of
Fayetteville Fire Department has not submitted additional comments at this time.
Full fire review will be performed at Preliminary LSD.
Captain
Mark Stevens, Deputy Fire Marshal for the City of Fayetteville, email from
8-3-09:
“These are my concerns with
regard to the project when it is fully built out as currently planned.
•The Cul-de-sac on Castle
Rock drive (phase I) appears to be less than the required 96 feet in diameter
(see Arkansas Fire Code D103.4); it appears to be approximately 80 feet. The
plan does not indicate what the diameter is in this location. I see no problem
with both public street NO. 2 locations regarding dead-end turnarounds (phase
II).
•If I am not mistaken the
radius for the curbs at each intersection needs to be not less than 28 feet. The
exception in this case would be the bump out at Castle Rock. Both street
connections at Gulley Road and the intersection of public street NO.
1 and 2 are at 25 feet. (phase I and V)
•The drawings do not
identify the water main size and connection points for the fire hydrants. To
ensure adequate water supply for fire protection the water line needs to loop
back to the main supply line after connecting to all fire hydrants so there are
no dead-end water lines in the development. The existing water line does not
provide enough flow as currently designed. The old design was for 10
single-family homes, not the current 38 residential and 1 public buildings.
After phase I is completed the current water supply infrastructure for phase II,
III and V will need to be improved.
•When this property is
annexed into the city the water supply infrastructure will not be comparable to
development currently inside the city limits.”
In addition, this property is within Goshen’s Fire
District. Lorel Hoffman, Goshen’s Building and Zoning Official has asked for
additional information to be submitted about the design of the community
building and stated that this project must be submitted to the Arkansas
Department of Health (ADH) for preliminary plumbing review. This is also
information that will be further investigated at the LSD Review stage.
Ms.
Hoffman also commented, “no porches are allowed in the 10-foot Building
Setback (is really the 10’ separation
between the buildings, not an actual setback) (BSB),
and the applicant must state whether measurements are to the walls of the
proposed buildings, or the overhangs. Proposed fire hydrants are shown but the
fire flow needs to be listed on the plans.” And, she requires that the
applicant diagram 150-foot distance from fire road and designate fire lanes on
the plans. She is finding measurements above 150 feet, which are not allowed.
John Jenkins, Washington County Fire Marshal, requires that
before there are 30 units, the second entrance must be completed. The phase plan
shows its completion in Phase 4, before 30 units are to be built, but, if any
phases are built out-of-order, this could change. Therefore, before a phase is
complete that will put the total number of units over 30; the second entrance
must be complete.
Lorel
Hoffman, Building and Zoning Official for the City of Goshen, email from 8-4-09:
“I have not had an
opportunity to review the revised plans yet today. The message below is an
accurate description of our discussion, however additional comments from the
City of Fayetteville will most likely require revisions to the street layout at
a minimum. I think we need a primary point of contact for fire issues. I am
reviewing plans to the AR. Fire Prevention Code, (Fire & Res. Building), but
defer to Washington County and Fayetteville regarding issues with Vol. I, as the
project is located in Washington County, water is supplied by Fayetteville, yet it
is within the GVFD district. I will have additional comments, as the
developer seems to be deferring most of my concerns to LSD.”
Message referred to in Ms.
Hoffman’s email:
Austin Rowser, Project Manager,
Appian Centre for Design, email from 8-3-09:
“I just spoke with Lorel
Hoffman concerning the following items:
•·
All of the buildings on the current plan are within 150’ of a fire apparatus
road; I described for Laurel the 150’ envelope line on the current drawing,
and she felt like that would be acceptable.
•·
I asked Laurel where she would like the fire lane striping to be located on the
plan; I explained to her that John wanted no parking signs on the streets to
maintain proper fire access clearance. She thought that would be fine in
lieu of fire striping, if that was what John wanted.
•·
We discussed building separation. The 10’ dimension shown on the plan is
the distance between walls; we are allowed a maximum 1’ overhang, but it must
be fire rated per the building code. Also, there will be no covered
porches in the separation area, but uncovered patios are allowed.”
Septic:
The applicant is proposing to utilize a Decentralized Sewer
System (DSS) for this project. There have been several concerns from Melissa
Wonnacott-Center, ADH, and Rhonda Hulse, Public Utilities Coordinator, about
this system.
Previous Staff Report:
Soils work from the previous proposal has been submitted
(page F-31), but because of the disturbance to the site from the previous
project, new soils work needs to be submitted. A certified soil classifier needs
to certify the soil information submitted for this project. This
is information that needs to be submitted prior to CUP approval. If the soil
cannot support the use of 45 residential units, then this project will need to
be revised according to what the soil can support. There are serious
concerns about the previous disturbance of the site. Septic systems cannot be
placed on disturbed or compacted sites. This could limit the locations available
for a DSS. In addition, according to an email from Ms. Wonnacott-Center, this
project must go to the State Office of the ADH as well as ADEQ. The applicant is
also proposing a split treatment area; this method may not be allowed, and staff
is waiting on response from the State ADH.
Updates:
Soils work appears to only support 38 units, which will
reduce the density to 2.86 units per acre. However, based on an email from the
applicant’s soil classifier, Sheri Herron, (page E-49-50) the State Arkansas
Department of Health Engineering Department should be contacted because “they
are reviewing these on a case by case basis….[the applicant should] try to
eliminate potential issues before they arise”.
In addition, Ms. Wonnacott-Center has concerns because the
required setbacks on this type of system can be between 100-feet and 300-feet
from property lines and other structures. These setbacks could reduce the number
of units the applicant can place on the site. The actual space required for the
treatment units is also not calculated.
In addition to the concerns
listed previously,
(NEW) Updates:
Melissa Wonnacott-Center,
Health Department, email from 8-4-09:
“I spoke with Roy Davis
(State Health Department- Engineering Division in Little Rock) and the only
thing that he added is that with the large trees in the dispersal field that
some of them would not be taken out because that would disturbed the area and
therefore could possible require more field lines installed. This can not
be calculated until full review is conducted.”
With this information, staff concludes that the approval of
such as system is not guaranteed, and the total size of the system may cause
further reduction in the density the site can support. The lack of this
information makes it difficult for Staff to make a recommendation on density,
because the density proposed may not even be possible.
Electric/Gas/Cable/Phone:
The general statements from the utilities servicing this
project are:
·
As the utilities were designed for a 10-lot
subdivision, some utilities may need to be relocated and additional improvements
may be required to service 45 units.
·
Any relocation or damage to existing utilities will be
at the owner/developer’s expense.
The proposed utility easements (u.e.) are now shown, and
staff has received additional comments from the utilities about the proposed
sizes and locations. Please see the attached letter from Greg McGee, Ozarks
Electric. (page E-45-47). Ozarks Electric has a 50-foot U.E.
specifically for Ozarks Electric Transmission Lines. “All proposed roads,
trails, utility lines, water lines, sewer lines, ROW, and all UEs crossing or
inside Ozarks Electric Transmission Easement will have to be approved prior to
any construction beginning. No buildings or fences will be allowed inside of the
OECC easement”.
The City of Fayetteville Water Department also commented
about the UEs, these are located in the “Water, Plumbing, Fire Issues”
Section of this staff report.
While Staff was reviewing all previous and additional comments, an email
from Susan Closer of ATT was found.
Staff does not believe that
this comment has been addressed by the applicant:
Susan Closer, ATT, email from
6-16-09:
“We do not have any existing
facilities inside the development yet (which is a good thing). I will contact
Appian [Centre for Design] as we will need easements that don’t interfere with
whatever they decide to do with wastewater.”
The applicant states that this
has been resolved, but staff has not received any document showing this at this
time.
Roads/Sight Visibility/Ingress-Egress/Parking:
In the platted subdivision, a 70-foot Right of Way (ROW) is
shown on the West side of the property, according to Fayetteville’s Master
Street plan at the time of subdivision approval in 2004. This street is no
longer shown on the City of Fayetteville’s Master Street Plan, so if CUP
approval is granted and the developer vacates the original plat, the 70-foot ROW
shown can also be vacated. Please see the email from Jeremy Pate, Development
Services Director for the City of Fayetteville (page
E-27-28).
By adding 35 additional units that access Castle Rock Drive
(WC # 2306), the road moves from the Class II category to the Class III
category. This will require improvements and additional width to be added to
this County Road. The road will be required to be 28-feet wide, not 24-feet as
shown. If street parking is allowed on one side of the road, 8 additional feet
will be added to the total width. If street parking is allowed on both sides of
the road, 16 feet will be added, making the minimum width be 44 feet. The
developer does not feel that the entire road must be upgraded to this standard
because less traffic will access the Southern portion of the road. They only
want to upgrade the road to just after the intersection of Public Street #1 (the
Northern most crossroad). The Road Department has stated that they will accept
the road if it is upgraded to just past the intersection of Public Street #2
(the Southern most crossroad-on the newest plans there appear to be two Public
Street #2, so the Southern one). Staff will recommend that the road be upgraded
to the Road Department’s recommended location.
Castle Rock Drive is an approved, accepted County Road, so
any work on this road must be permitted through the Washington County Road
Department prior to any work beginning.
Gulley
Road (WC # 345) may also need improvement. The Road Department needs to review
this further to determine if offsite improvements will be needed because of the
traffic increase (45 units = 450 trips per day (tpd), 38 units = 380 tpd).
Drainage:
Comment during a previous submittal (project 2006-297)
highlights a potential, serious drainage issue (E-66).
Staff is not aware if this issue has been addressed, but should be addressed at
the LSD plan review.
The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report for
Clay Grote, Washington County Contract Engineer, to review. Mr. Grote has
reviewed the drainage and is satisfied with it for the CUP request. At
Preliminary LSD, the applicant will be required to submit a full report to Mr.
Grote’s satisfaction.
Environmental Concerns:
At this time, no stormwater permit is required by Washington
County; however, the applicant must comply with all rules and regulation of the
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).
City of Fayetteville Comments:
Please see the latest statement and all previous letters from
the Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner for the City of Fayetteville (page
E-33-34). The City of Fayetteville does not feel that this project reflects
surrounding uses or transitions well with the surrounding properties. This
project does not reflect the City of Fayetteville’s Future Land Use Plan. Mr.
Fulcher recommends the denial of the CUP as proposed.
Sight Distance:
Washington County recently passed an ordinance increasing the
amount of required sight distance for intersections. The speed limit on Gulley
Road is 35 mph, therefore, 390 feet of sight distance is required for left turns
out of the project site.
The applicant has submitted that the sight distance is
approximately 1,100 feet to the West of the proposed entrance at Public Street
#1, and 900 feet to the East (page E-29). The applicant
performed this sight distance measurement on the site, not based on computer
models.
COMPATIBILITY CONCERNS:
Surrounding Area:
The surrounding uses are mainly Agricultural or Single-Family
Residential.
The average density adjacent to the site is:
·
1 unit/ 3.05 acres or,
·
0.33
units per acre.
The average density within approximately ¼ mile is:
·
1 unit/ 3.66 acres or,
·
0.27
units per acre.
The highest density in the surrounding area is:
·
1 unit/ 0.38 acres or,
·
2.63
units per acre (only one parcel within approximately ¼ mile),
And the lowest is:
·
1 unit/ 7.41 acres or,
·
0.13 units per acre.
There are also several agricultural pieces with no
residences.
The proposed density of 3.4 (2.86) units/acre is not
compatible with the surrounding area.
(page E-72)
County’s Land Use Plan (written document):
According to the County’s Land Use Plan,
2.
RESIDENTIAL
Several
goals surfaced as paramount in the PARA Task Force meetings and in a meeting
held by the Quorum Court. These include:
a.
Provision of a safe living environment that offers
quiet, privacy, and a rural flavor and atmosphere;
b.
Provision of quality residential development of good
design, developed in a manner accessible by an adequate street system to avoid
costly infrastructure extensions;
c.
Protection of residential areas from incompatible
adjacent land uses;
d.
Protection of property values; and
e.
Provision of safe and adequate access to residential
areas, installed in a manner to accommodate emergency and other services.
To
achieve these objectives, it is essential to:
h.
To
provide for development of residential areas at appropriate densities.
i.
Update, administer and enforce subdivision
regulations; and develop, adopt, and enforce zoning and related regulations and
codes;
j.
Require development to be connected to utilities and
utilize zoning as a means to guide the progression of development;
k.
Protect the character and integrity, and property values, of
single-family, residential areas;
l.
Protect residential neighborhoods from inappropriate
non-residential influences through the use of regulatory controls;
m.
Ensure
land use and development patterns which provide for the most efficient and
effective use of available utilities and services, including fire protection;
and,
n.
Maintain an adequate county road plan and standards to guide and
accommodate traffic movement; to develop differing categories of roads; and to
protect rights-of-ways for planned, future roads.”
Several aspects of this proposed project are not compatible
with the Washington County Land Use Plan. The provisions are underlined that
staff feels are not met with this proposal.
By placing a residential project at this density in a rural
area where there are no similar residential densities, staff feels that
it will not “offer … a rural flavor and atmosphere” to the surrounding
properties. The applicant has provided some buffering and preservation thorough
the use of a 50-foot setback/preservation area along the property lines of this
project. In addition, small pockets
of tree preservation remain throughout the design. Staff feels that this will
not adequately mitigate the clearing that must take place to support the
proposed Decentralized Sewer System. It appears to staff, that the minimum
amount of land to be used for the sewer system is 2.18 acres or 16% of the site.
All of that area will be cleared of existing vegetation and inaccessible once
the system is completed. This results in 11.09 acres of actively usable land
remaining for 38 units to be placed, and that brings the density up to 3.4 units
per acre. While the DSS may work as an additional buffer (not tree buffer, but
space), it cannot be used for anything other than a sewage drip field.
Staff feels that this density is incompatible with the
surrounding densities, when the highest surrounding density is 2.63 units per
acre (only one parcel within approximately ¼ mile), which is not very close to
the proposed 3.4 (2.86) units/acre. The average density in this area is 1 unit/
3.66 acres or, 0.27 units per acre.
Future Land Use Plan
The Future Land Use Plan for this area shows that it is
“Rural Area Residential” which is listed as 1 unit per 15 acres. (page
E-73)
NEIGHBOR COMMENTS/CONCERNS:
Staff has received two neighbor comments at this time. One
comment (page E-67) states, “I am not in favor of 45 homes on 13
acres. I think the density of 3.4 homes per acre is still too much.” The other
is also “opposed” (page E-68).
Staff will provide the Planning Board Members with any
additional comments that are submitted at the Planning Board Meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to table this
project because of several factors that may further reduce the density that this
property can support. Staff does not support the current density proposal, and
feels that further review may result in a density staff can support.
If the Board chooses to approve
this CUP, please do so with Staff’s conditions.
Austin
Rowser and Todd Jacobs, Appian Centre for Design, were present to answer any
questions.
Courtney
McNair, Washington County Planner, stated, “Austin Rowser from Appian Centre
for Design is the applicant for this project and he actually has a small
presentation that he would like to show you after our Staff report is complete.
Let me start out by saying that Planning as well as other County Staff
and other engineers and professionals have reviewed this project and still have
several concerns. At this time
Planning Staff doesn’t feel there’s enough information to make a
recommendation, however, the applicant has requested that the Board hear this
project and that they take action on the density issue without the full
resolution of those issues that Staff feels are critical.
Staff does not support the current density proposal, but feels that
further review may result in a density that Staff can support.
In other words, I feel like the density may be reduced with further
review and then I would feel more comfortable supporting it.”
Laney commented, “I’m not sure I understand what you just said.”
Walker stated, “Me neither.” Laney
commented, “Let me tell you what I think I heard you say, although, you used a
whole lot of other things, which were helpful I think I heard you say you’d
like for us to consider this as to density only and not for a
Conditional
Use Permit, which I’m not sure that’s something we do.”
McNair stated, “No, he does want you to consider the density issue,
which is the Conditional Use Permit.” Laney
commented, “I know, but you want us to go through the whole Conditional Use
Permit even though you all don’t have a recommendation.”
Richey stated, “We want you to table it because we don’t feel like it
is ready.” Laney asked, “So
that is your recommendation?” McNair replied, “Yes, but the applicant wants you to hear
it and wants you to make your own decision on that.”
McNair
commented, “The project is located on the east side of the County just outside
of the City of Fayetteville’s city limits.
It is located in Fayetteville’s Planning Area and zoned
agricultural/single-family residential one unit per acre. The
project is also shown on the Washington County Future Land Use Map to be rural
area or residential for the future land use of the area and that is one unit per
15 acres.” Walker stated, “Back up and say what you just said.”
McNair commented, “In our Future Land Use map that we have that is a
combination of the Cities’ Future Land Use maps in that area, which are then
molded to fit our County definitions. This
project is in the rural area residential zone and that is one unit for every 15
acres according to the plan.” Richey
stated, “That is from the City of Fayetteville’s Future Land Use plan.”
Walker commented, “But it is not ours.”
Laney stated, “It is not zoned like that.” McNair commented, “It is not zoned its just their
recommendation. The project has
access off of Gulley Road just east of the intersection at Old Wire and Gulley.
As you can see on the west side of the site this large transmission
easement that is Ozark Electric’s. The
transmission line is solely for Ozark Electric use.
There are existing building foundations that are to be removed before
this project continues. Castle Rock
Drive is already existing and accesses the interior of the property.
This is originally platted 10-lot subdivision. The road and some of the utilities were installed back in
2004. In 2007 this was another
submittal, not this same one, but another one was submitted as a Conditional Use
Permit and Large Scale Development with another higher density development it
was tabled repeatedly and eventually removed from the agenda and those building
foundations that you saw are a result of that.
They actually started building before they came through our process and
George Butler asked them to stop and then they tried to get through the process
and never were successful.” Laney
asked, “Did we turn it down or they just stop coming back?”
McNair replied, “They stopped coming back.
I don’t even know if the Board ever actually…” Laney stated, “You
said they weren’t successful, which made it sound like they tried, but we
wouldn’t approve it.”
McNair
commented, “At this point the applicant is requesting 38 single-family
residential units to be placed on the 13.27 acres that is 2.86 units per acre
and they will be using a decentralized sewer system. According to the applicant they are going to vacate the
10-lot subdivision and demolish the old foundations before this project is
begun. It will be a HPR (Horizontal
Property Regime), which means that people will buy the actual residences, but a
POA (Property Owners Association) will own the property and maintain it.
This is the proposed development you can see all the houses access
interior streets. They do not
access onto Gulley Road. They
generally face a common green area with sidewalks of some sort.
There is a community building with street parking in front of it.
The Decentralized sewer system area takes up approximately two acres of
the entire site. You can see the
green around the edges a 50’ buffer tree preservation area with some smaller
tree preservation in the center.”
McNair
stated, “These are the concerns as stated earlier that Staff still has.
Water and Fire issues – this is in the City of Fayetteville’s water
service area. The City of
Fayetteville requires that the waterline be looped.
There is an existing waterline that comes down Castle Rock Drive and dead
ends and they want it to loop back to Gulley Road back to the main line so that
they have better pressure; better flow. It
is also in Fayetteville’s Planning Area, so therefore, the Fayetteville Fire
Department reviewed it. Captain
Mark Stevens, the deputy Fire Marshal, requires that the cul-de-sac be upgraded to
Arkansas State Fire Code. When
Washington County approved the original 10-lot subdivision; they approved a
variance that allowed the cul-de-sac to only be 82’ radius instead of 96’
radius as State Fire Code requires and the reason they did that is because it is
in Fayetteville’s Planning Are. As
a smaller subdivision, Fayetteville had no problem with it they approved it like
that so the County went ahead and approved those variances.
Now Fayetteville is requesting that be upgraded to State Fire Code
because of the impact that the additional units will have.
The curb radiuses are shown as 25’ right now at this entrance and this
intersection and Mark Stevens wanted that updated to 28’ so that fire trucks
were better able to turn into those areas.
As stated that if the water line is to be looped that should be adequate
for fire protection with the hydrants and the system because it allows it to
pull from two different locations. This
is also located in the Goshen fire service area.
Lorel Hoffman, the building and zoning official for the City of Goshen,
also reviewed it. She had concern
about the fire access; buildings are required to be no more than 150’ from any
fire access. The applicant provided
a diagram and as you can see this bubble, border, is the 150’ and all of the
structures do fall within that so she was okay with that part after he diagramed
it for her. She also wants to see
the community building at Large Scale come back through for Arkansas State Fire
Code review as well as go to the State Health Department in Little Rock for
plumbing review; that is something that she wanted to make sure was required. All buildings have a minimum of 10’ separation between them
with no more than one-foot overhang allowed in the eves. In addition no covered porches will be allowed in this space,
but uncovered patios are okay. The
Washington County Fire Marshal, John Jenkins, also reviewed this and he requires
no parking signs along the street except for in the area where there is provided
for street parking. The existing
island at the entrance of the site must be removed in order to provide proper
fire access and in the conditions I think I wrote 40’ is required for that,
but that maybe slightly off, so we will review that if you want to look at the
conditions. Before 30 units are
complete the second entrance is required. That’s
not a problem the way it is shown because it is not shown until Phase 5 and only
28 units will be in the previous phases, but if at any time they add on
additional units or things get shifted around they must have the second entrance
before 30 units as required by Arkansas State Fire Code.”
McNair
commented, “There are also the decentralized sewer system issues.
Rhonda Hulse,
Public
Utility Administrator, can answer any specific questions you might have about a decentralized
sewer system not specifically this one because she doesn’t have a lot of
information yet. At Large Scale
Development she will be requiring the applicant to submit all of the information
following Washington County’s rules and regulations.
In addition Melissa Wonnacott-Center from the Health Department had
several concerns. She wanted to
remind everyone that the decentralized sewer system cannot be on disturbed
property and if you remember that site of the existing site it had several
disturbed areas where those foundations were; there’s no way that a septic
system can go there. Preliminary
soils show that it supports approximately 38 units not the 45 that they had
originally asked for, so they did reduce the number of units on the plans.
That, however, does not include the treatment area where the machinery
will be or the setbacks that are required, which can be from 100’ to 300’
setback from property lines and other buildings.
Roy Davis with the State Health Department the Engineering Division in
Little Rock says that because there are several large trees in the area
designated for the community sewer system that they won’t be allowed to be
removed or if they are then that site becomes disturbed so then they won’t be
able to put the septic there so there are a few areas like that which is also
going to crunch down the amount of space they have for that decentralized sewer.
First before a drip field can be installed everything must be cleared no
trees nothing like that and once it is installed it must be roped off and it
can’t be actively used so it is simply lawn that is roped off, but you can’t
let kids play on it, you can’t put sidewalks on it, and you can’t ride bikes
on it. It is roped off not
accessible for physical use. These
concerns listed above may change the density that is allowed.
When City sewer is available that the applicant/developer must connect to
the City sewer and follow all of the City of Fayetteville regulations in regards
to connecting when it is available; whether it is available before the
decentralized sewer goes in or before they get approval they have to connect.”
McNair
stated, “There are previously platted right-of-way’s that must be vacated
and I spoke with the applicant just before coming to the meeting and he would
like to make clear that there is right-of-way on the north side on Gulley Road
that he would like to vacate, but if he has an issue vacating it he would like
to be able to leave it there so that would be up to you to decide.
The reason that it was even dedicated in the first place was because the
City of Fayetteville’s Master Street Plan showed that they wanted to improve
that road to a certain class, but they have changed their Master Street Plan it
is no longer shown as it was, so they don’t require that right-of-way to be
there. I haven’t had a chance to
talk to the Road Department about how strongly they feel about removing that
additional right-of-way from the plat as I just spoke to Austin right before
this meeting. The roads must be
updated to Class 3 roads because of the additional units.
A Class 3 road supports 250-500 trips per day and if we have 38 units
that is 380 trips per day according to calculations.
There is a small disagreement between the developer and the Road
Department, but from what I understand Austin is willing to accept the Road
Department’s recommendation on this. The
developer wanted to only update this part of Castle Rock Road to right here
right after the intersection and the Road Department is requiring him to update
it to here because of the community center and these buildings accessing off of
it. He will not have to update the end and Staff was of course
recommending that you have him update it all the way to where the Road
Department required and he seems to be okay with that.
Gulley Road may, in the future need updates.
A full traffic study will have to be done at Large Scale.
The sight distance was great as long as the developer doesn’t move the
second entrance. If the second
entrance moves at all, the sight distance will have to be recalculated.”
McNair
commented, “There are also two variances that are going to be required, which
Staff does support. On this plan
you can see that these units are using shared driveways and that actually
de-cluttered the road a lot and has freed up some space for them and we will
support that, but because it is a shared drive it would have to normally have a
30’ easement so we are going to ask that he apply for a variance through you
to get that removed. Staff will
support it. There are also areas
where a 20’ utility easement building setback from a right-of-way is shown on
these interior streets. Normally we
require 25’, but as the utilities have not said they need additional space and
because these were originally were meant to be alleys so that really the front
of the house is out on the sidewalks into the green area we said that they can
use the 20’ designation as you would on a rear property line and since the
utilities are okay with that Staff would support that variance.”
McNair
stated, “General comments from utilities are of course that upgrades may be
required as they have a much higher density now and any damage or relocation is
at the owner’s expense. No
utilities will be allowed in the right-of-way they have to be in the utility
easements. The Ozark Electric’s
50’ transmission easement is solely for their use and the applicant must have
special permission for any work done inside of that easement and they are aware
of these conditions. There were
some other minor utility concerns and if the Board wants more information I can
go into those, but it’s nothing important.
Some drainage detention ponds are shown on the plans. A full drainage study will be required at Large Scale
Development. The City of
Fayetteville’s comments on these projects because it is in their Planning Area
and they feel that this project does not reflect the surrounding density or use.
It does not transition well with the surrounding density and they
recommend for denial of the project as it is presented.
The proposed density is 38 units on 13.27 acres or 2.86 units per acre.
The average density directly adjacent to the site is .33 units per acre
that’s one house for every 3 and half acres.
The average surrounding density in the larger context is .27 units per
acre or one residence for every 3.66 acres so as you can see much larger.
Staff also feels that this is not compatible with the Washington County
Future Land Use document. The document states that they should look at developing at an
appropriate densities and that in this area it should offer a quiet rural
environment.”
Tape
Stopped
Slight
discussion followed. McNair
received neighbor comments opposed based on density. In conclusion Staff cannot
support the density as proposed. See
all five pages of conditions if approved.
Tape
Started
Rowser
stated, “Again, my name is Austin Rowser.
I appreciate you hearing us out tonight. We’re bringing to you Newcastle Estates.
This is a project that has kind of been in the works in various forms and
functions over the last approximately 5 years or so and we kind of have a new
concept on it. We’re looking at
Newcastle Estates as a potential obviously a higher density cottage type
residential community with a high quality of landscape and a high character of
homes and architecture in it. We’re in a really nice location we have good views all
around, good hillsides, and we have excellent tree cover on our site, which we
will leave as a benefit to our project. We
had a bit of a different team than has been in it before on this project.
We have new managing partners, Mike McClendon and Pat Longworth, who
could not be here tonight. They are
the developers, the managing partners, for this project.
They have to an extent been involved in the past on this property as past
investors, but they are now in a position where they have to take an active
development role in the project. Also,
we have a new design team, which is through my office, Appian Centre for Design.
We have Todd Jacobs who is also here and can answer any questions; he is
our director of design at Appian he has a background in Landscape Architecture
Design. Also myself I am a licensed
engineer in the State of Arkansas and the State of Utah.
I will be the project engineer for this project as it moves forward.
Todd and I have had no previous experience with this property, no
involvement with the previous managing partner, we’re here, basically,
starting from scratch and trying to get this thing to go in some way that’s
feasible for the owners of the project.”
Rowser
commented, “Again, this project was originally a 10-lot platted subdivision.
At one point in time we had 28 cottage homes that came through for
approval. The cottage home site had individual septics for each home.
There were some issues with that plan that just didn’t quite work out
as Courtney discussed earlier. Some
approvals that were not gained with that plan and it just kind of died and
didn’t really go forward and wasn’t really the right thing to do.
I know there were some new County ordinances that came about in regards
to septics and what was allowed and what wasn’t allowed.
We’re trying to get past that and trying to come up with a new concept
that will work for this property.”
Rowser
stated, “The old plan; you can see all the lines on there that are all septic
drain lines. It was a little bit
cluttered with those lines. There’s
not a whole lot of continuity and organization of the community there.
This is a recent aerial photograph you can see some of the foundations
that were on the site; these were constructed without approvals.
Those will obviously be removed; they’re not part of our plan moving
forward. Those home sites are not something that would necessarily fit
into the design concept that we’re proposing.
These are some of the existing site conditions; again, it is a really
beautiful property, there are some issues with it as far as being a dead end
street out on Gulley Road, and there is some dumping problems and some concerns
out there at the time. It was gated
off for awhile, but the gate has been removed and so this is kind of what
happens I know the County spends a lot of time and effort and we appreciate that
in cleaning this site up. It is
becoming a bit of a problem and that is another reason why we kind of like to
move forward with this project so that we get some of this cleaned up.
It is just overgrown. A lot
of the infrastructure is in; you can see a light pole.
Most of it is really in good shape, the roads are in good shape, the
lights are in good shape, a lot of the power is in; of course we’re going to
have to move some of that and change it and resize it to make it work with our
new concept, but a lot of that infrastructure is there that we can use and tie
into to the greatest extent possible. Moving
forward, we would like to talk a little bit about some of our goals and
objectives, our office, Appian Centre for Design, we kind of proud ourselves on
doing higher quality type developments that have a heavy design emphasis and
then have very detailed landscaping. When
we look at a site like this we want to look at something that has a real
community identity that is centered around a system of common greenspaces, it is
very walk able, that is very interconnected, we have neighbors that live close
to each other, we got a diverse range of housing sizes that we’re proposing so
that we can have different demographic groups that come in and can afford to
live here and desire to live here. We
got a hierarchy of trails and sidewalks that link the neighborhood together.
Courtney mentioned briefly the community building.
The community building is something that is very important we believe to
this development something that is a centerpiece for the development where the
residents can go and they can have gatherings and events; if you want to have a
Super Bowl party or something like that you can go to the community building you
can have that there. Also, there is
a great network of greenspace even though the density is pretty high we have
been able to leave a pretty significant amount of greenspaces that would be an
amenity to the site. We are also
very passionate about alternate stormwater design in our office.
Traditional, stormwater methods we believe leave a little bit something
to be desired on a finished product. Of
course we still have to mitigate the large stormwater events the 10, 25, 50, and
100 year events to make sure that our peak flows do not impact projects
off-site, but we also have a very high regard for allowing stormwater to
infiltrate back into the ground where it falls within the same watershed; we
believe that is crucial to stream quality.
We also believe that by implementing those types of techniques that we
can re-contribute to ground water recharge and just providing a better quality
to run-off as it leaves the site. That’s
one of the things, again, that we are passionate about.
We intend to utilize low impact development stormwater design in this
project. We’ve done it on a few sites locally that we feel it’s just a great
thing for the environment. One great example is up in the neighborhood, we actually had
some of our neighborhood meetings at the Ozark Botanical Gardens.
If you are familiar with the Botanical Gardens up at 265 they have
bioswales in the parking lot, they allow that water to soak back into the ground
without sending so much of it to the stormwater system.
That’s one of the things great example of what we like to do and also
we want to have a very detailed architecturally styled development that has that
really reflects the architectural style of the Ozarks and Washington County some
of the older homes especially when you look at like the Washington Willow type
historic district in downtown Fayetteville you see some great older architecture
those are kind of the ideas we have in mind for architecture. Here are some examples of the low impact stormwater
development that we were speaking about earlier; you can see the common
greenspace, we feel, like this is very vital to having an especially more dense
development that maintains really some character.”
Rowser
commented, “As I mentioned earlier we had two neighborhood meetings for this
project earlier on in the spring and one of the major concerns that we had from
people especially with the density it’s kind of a concern that you get a lot
of times with higher density projects is people kind of get concerned about will
the houses be of a quality that’s beneficial to my neighborhood.
Am I going to have cars up on blocks?
What kind of people are going to be moving in here?
And those concerns really resonate with us; we understand that.
We feel like there is a demographic of folks in the area that be the
folks nearing retirement or single moms that kind of a demographic that want
something that is a little more low maintenance for their active lifestyles, but
still allows for a very high quality of place, high quality environment for them
to live in. That’s what we’ve
tried to design with the greenspaces in mind and with the low impact stormwater.
We like to incorporate drainage, shrubs, and swales between homes that
allow that rainfall again to infiltrate back into the soil to the greatest
extent possible and to collect it and drop out some of the sediment so that we
can protect our stream quality. This
is a headwater area. Part of the
site is actually in the Illinois River watershed and part of it is in the White
River watershed so we have two very sensitive watersheds that we have to look
out for. Just some great examples
of what we can do with the spaces there to make sure that we can achieve a high
quality of stormwater run-off and still have a desirable product that is very
detailed and very aesthetic for folks that live there.
You see on the site plans that we have some houses that face onto
greenspaces; this is a very good example of what we have in mind when we address
homes onto a greenspace like that. You
can see the homes they all have a park-like greenspace that is out there in
front it is a great place for kids to play and a great place for the neighbors
to interact with one another.”
Rowser stated, “Moving onto architectural style we believe in high quality architectural style that would be written into the covenants and restrictions for this project. This is a couple of examples of some of the cottages and bungalow style homes that we think are appropriate for the density while still maintaining somewhat of a country type feel. We would have one and two-story homes that mix. Porches, outdoor lighting, sidewalks, and greenspace these are all very important elements. The porches are really very important especially with the greenspaces because a porch is such a great place for people to sit out and interact with their neighbors and to be part of the community that we’re trying to create here. Also, you can see some examples in the previous photos of some of the landscape we have in mind. We have a few fairly good local examples this is Charleston Place that is actually in the City of Fayetteville just off of Mission (Highway 45) near the cemetery; it is kind of the same concept of what we’re dealing with, it’s not exactly the same, but I know a lot of folks like to know kind of have an idea about what we’re talking about with the way the houses they seem like they’re so close together and the way that they address the greenspaces and this is a great example of how it works. This is a development that while it’s been developed in the past few years hasn’t really had any troubles developing. It’s built out very well, there’s a very high demand for this type of residential neighborhood. Again, we came in trying to figure out how many we can fit on the site; we thought we could get 45 we did some soil testing we had to pare it down to 38 and that’s what we have at the moment. Those are preliminary soil numbers, again, we’ve got. Before we get this thing approved through the Health Department we have a significant amount of work left to do in the Large Scale phase to get that permitted and designed properly and appropriately. It is very possible as Courtney mentioned that we could loose a few units, but for now with initial testing that we’ve got we think that we can get 38, again, that would all be dictated and determined by the Health Department at a future time. On the site plan I want to show you a couple of greenspaces we’ve got this is one of the main greenspaces here with the clubhouse here for people to gather. The nice thing about this it is very well treed at the moment. There is one of those building pads that is here, but this maintains a high quality of existing trees. This is a great spot for us because we feel like we can preserve those trees and instead of having the big lawn like we showed in our example photo we would have the ability to have more of a park-like feel with some tree canopy and make that very desirable. We also have some trees that we’ve preserved here adjacent to the right-of-way. Have a great perimeter canopy that we can preserve with 50’ all around. Your Staff had suggested that we go to that 50’ setback we felt like that was a fantastic idea it gave us lots of room where we can preserve some trees that was really one of our goals. We’ve never really done any work outside of areas where there’s municipal sewer available so we’re not real familiar with the drain field size and requirements and how many trees that would cause us to loose, but we did loose quite a few and with the suggestion to put 50’ buffer that did allow us to keep a significant number of trees. We have a tree preservation number and that tree preservation on this site approximately 22% to 23%, which we feel is absolutely fantastic. City of Fayetteville tree preservation code would require us to preserve 25% of course they again don’t deal with drain fields, but for us to be able to preserve that amount of canopy we felt like was a great benefit to this project and the development. Here is the phasing plan that Courtney had brought up earlier, again, as she stated we won’t have more than 30 units served by that dead end road we would build the second road before we got to 30 units. This is a concept of our utility plan you can see that one of the requirements that the Health Department has is that the drain field can not be divided into two pieces and so we placed the drain field here and primary drain field and everything fits kind of nice on the west side of that power line so the power line creates a divider between the home sites and where the drain field would be located we actually feel like that is very beneficial to the site. One thing that I would like to address a couple of comments that Mrs. McNair had made earlier is the issue of the areas not calculating the size needed for the treatment units. We calculated the area for this outside of the treatment units so the area that we have there does not include what we’ve set aside for the treatment units so we feel like we do actually have room for those treatment units. Briefly, would like to address treatment, too while I’m on the subject. We’re looking at probably 2 to 3 different technologies to use for the treatment we haven’t settled on any one technology to date. There is a couple that we could use, there’s one that we’d like to use that we feel like would fit with the sustainability and stormwater technology and that is of a gravel filter that is used as a subsurface flow wetland treatment area. While it’s high on our list we feel like it is probably pretty low on what the Health Department would actually approve because it is somewhat of a newer technology and so I don’t know how open they would be to receiving that we’ve also looked at intermittent sand filters. They’re allowed by the Health Department we feel like they have some negative aspects to them; it’s not really my best favorite choice. Then we have some of the products that are available from Orenco Advantex system that are more mechanical type treatment units; we feel like those would fit really nice because they take up a lot less space, so actually in the end that’s probably where we’re going to end up going with some kind of a manufactured treatment product for this site and then we’ll have the drip irrigation lines out there.”
Rowser
commented, “Again, the water line Courtney had mentioned the water line.
We have an existing water line that taps in this location that comes down
the road and dead ends at the end of the cul-de-sac.
We have the requirements that the City of Fayetteville has and we worked
with Shannon Jones in the Water and Sewer department about this; they want to
have the water line looped and that is very common and we have no problem with
that. We did have to get a little creative with that because with
the drain lines over here we couldn’t bring that line up and loop it back
through an easement so what we’re proposing to do with this plan is to take
that water line and bring it back out the easement on the opposing side of the
street up here and then down the new street and out; that’s what we’re
currently proposing. Spoke with Mr.
Jones at the City of Fayetteville this morning and he felt like that was a fine
idea. It provides the required loop
for this system. Again, it is just
a little bit tougher for us because it provides more length to the new water
line that we’ll have to construct, but that’s okay we can deal with that.
We do have detention; I know one of the items that were in the Staff
report was there is an issue there’s a neighbor that has a concern to the
north with detention. The gentleman there has a pond and when the previous
development was built with the road there was a planned detention pond, but it
was never built and we agree with his concern there needs to be something there
to mitigate the stormwater run-off. We
do have a proposed detention in this area to stop that to mitigate and buffer
that run-off that is a concern that has been raised and we feel like that is
completely appropriate and have every intention of addressing that.
We also have a couple of other detention areas.
There is a big ravine here so this is going to help significantly with
the property owner to the south, which is Mr. Isaacks he has expressed some
concern about drainage as well to us through the neighborhood meetings.
We feel like that is going to take care of him.
We have a third detention pond here that would discharge into Mr.
Eoff’s property to the south he has a stock pond down there that needs to be
protected as well. Those are the
areas that we are currently proposing for detention on this site. The sewer line that we are proposing to come to our treatment
units is 8” gravity line, so when sewer becomes available by the City of
Fayetteville or other entity we would be able to attach to that if it comes
through Gulley Road we may have to have a pump station or something, but we’ve
got plenty of room for it with all of the drain lines out there, so we could
definitely do that. And again, here
is just kind of a rendering of the area the green near the clubhouse just to
give you an idea of how we believe, what we envision for this site, how we
believe the homes will relate to each other in the greenspace, and with that I
again appreciate your time and would be glad to answer any questions that you
might have for me.”
Hummel
asked, “Your waterline, you’re coming up one side of the road and back the
other, or both of them on the same ditch or what?” Rowser replied, “It would be back down the other.
It wouldn’t be the same ditch because we already have the one is
already in the ground and we wouldn’t go back and tear that up.
Obviously, we can’t put it in the right-of-way for the street so we
would be outside of that in the easement and go down the other side.
We do have to have 10’ separation between the sewer line and the
waterline, so we would have to be careful about that, but we feel like we can
make that work.” Hummel asked,
“You’re not going to have to tear out utility lines to meet this
requirement. County Road Department did a good job on their summation on
this thing I thought. I don’t
understand why they stopped at the corner up there and didn’t go all the way
to the cul-de-sac. If you have to
widen the road how are you going to do that and not disturb the utilities that
are already in there?” Rower
replied, “We feel as far as the electric goes and the dry utilities are in
place, phone is not in, I don’t believe gas is in, and I know power is in for
sure, what’s there is not going to be probably sufficient for what we’re
proposing to do and we will probably have to disturb some of that.
The waterline is going to be deep enough and located such that what’s
outside of the right-of-way, so when we widen the roadway we won’t widen the
right-of-way we’ll just widen the actual physical roadway, so we can stay away
from any utilities that are there from the perspective of widening the roadway.
You bring up an interesting point, Mr. Shrum and I have talked about
this, as Courtney mentioned the Road Department would like to see the road
widened up to this point here, we would like to stop widening it here and the
reason for that is just when we look at the Code we feel like the requirement is
250 vehicles per day if we go past this we don’t have very many homes because
we’ve got these homes that are not served past this point to the south.
Mr. Shrum had recommended widening up to here. That’s something because it is Conditional Use obviously it
is a condition that you folks have a final say on.
I would prefer to only widen it to here, but it’s at your discretion on
that and we’ll live with whatever you decide.”
Hummel
stated, “I would rather it go all the way down for the Fire Department sake.
You’re going to have to increase the cul-de-sac for them.”
Rowser stated, “It appears to be that way.
That’s a good point.” Hummel
asked, “I’d rather see it all the way.
Are you comfortable with POA’s?”
Rowser replied, “I am if they are set up properly.”
Hummel asked, “I’ve seen a lot of them, POA’s are wonderful when
the original homeowners are in there. When
the original homeowners move out your islands, common grounds, your everything
you get ‘it’s not my fault,’ ‘it’s not my deal,’ and ‘I’m not
supposed to do it.’ They get out
of the responsibility of it and the upkeep doesn’t look as good as it does.
I’ve seen a lot of them. I
don’t know your decentralized system if you loose all of that drip ground in
your total is that going to reduce your number of units that you can put on a
given… they can’t count that in the total, can they Courtney?”
McNair replied, “Technically, when they’re coming up with a density
number, generally, the infrastructure items we don’t subtract them, so we
would leave them in there and the density would be 2.86, however, I do think
that you are right that this is different than roads, it’s different than the
utility easement because it is going to be completely cleared and then
inaccessible for active use. It can
be a great space buffer, how pretty is it going to be to look out over it, but
you can’t physically use it. I
did calculate that number with that percentage out and it did bring it back up
to 3.4 units per acre if you don’t calculate the 2 acres in there. If you just say there’s going to be 38 units on 11 acres it
goes back to 3.4 units per acre, so it really depends on how you look at it.
Traditional you don’t count infrastructure, you leave it in there you
don’t subtract it out. That’s the traditional way to do it.” Gallagher asked, “The two dead end roads on the right side
of the plan one below and one above, how long are they?” Rowser replied, “They’re both over 150’ and what
we have there it is a part of the Fire Code it’s called a hammerhead
turnaround. It is a standard layout
within the Fire Code I believe the one is around 185’ and the other is around
210’.” Gallagher asked, “Both
of them are going to be marked no parking throughout the hammerhead?” Rowser replied, “Yes, that is correct.” Gallagher asked, “I was looking at the density from the
standpoint that I think you are, too that, although, we can do the math and
count the whole site in terms of the property that they own, in terms of
practical use, the actual density is on the 11 acres not on the 13 and a
fraction. What also concerns me is
that from a context standpoint there are about 10 times more dense than anything
around them and from a master planning standpoint they’re about 20 times more
than we expect to do out there. I
think this is way overloaded, in fact, all we’ve heard tonight is we don’t
know if we have enough room for the drip field, we don’t know if we have
enough room for the rights-of-way, we don’t have enough room for the
detention. This is just way over
developed. Maybe you need to do it
financially to make it financially feasible, but from a planning and
infrastructure standpoint this is way over built for this little site.”
Laney
commented, “Staff’s recommendation is that we table it.
We can make a different motion or have more discussion whatever is your
pleasure.”
Walker
asked, “The only question that I would have on tabling it, what does that do
to their go ahead, are they going to re-design phase? Because to me I can’t vote for it the way it is designed
and I don’t want to tell him that.” Laney
stated, “I think he’s looking for feedback.
Table it they will work on it.” Walker
commented, “If you come back with all these little… I don’t know that I
can vote for it with the amount of density that is there.
I love your concept, but I really think we’re trying to crowd too many
into a small area for Northwest Arkansas, but I do appreciate your concept.”
Gallagher
stated, “What I thought I heard at the beginning of this was that you were
looking for an up or down vote on this. You
don’t want it tabled you want an up or down vote.”
Rowser commented, “I appreciate these comments this is really kind of
the discussion that we were hoping to have.
If you had some sort of recommendation for the type of density that you
had and then if we did a tabling we could go back and redesign with the density
that you had in mind. An up or down
vote would be okay maybe we can do some combination.
If it’s tabled again to your point Mr. Walker I would like to have some
feedback about what you feel is more appropriate for this site.”
Laney
stated, “I don’t think as Chairman I’m not going to entertain a motion
that gives sort of directingly density when we haven’t seen the plan worked
through by Staff, so that’s a slippery slope.
I either think that we should table it and give you feedback, but it
would be nonbinding. I’m not
going to entertain a motion that says tabling come back at x density because
they’re the Planning Staff, you’re much more qualified than certainly I am.
I would be willing to table with the understanding that you’ll get some
feedback about density or we can turn it down and give you some feedback about
density.”
Walker
commented, “I think we need turn it down and let him redesign and start
over.” Gallagher asked, “What
are the consequences if we turn it down? Are
they free to just start all over again with a new Conditional Use Permit?”
Richey start replied, “Yes, they would have to start over.”
Gallagher asked, “There’s not a time limit or something like that is
there?” Richey replied, “We
don’t have a time limit. What
we’ve generally said in the past is that you can’t bring the exact same
thing it would have to be different.” Gallagher
stated, “Clearly, that’s true.” Laney
commented, “The only the difference that I would see is re-noticing of
neighbors, which can be good and can be confusing if you start again.”
McNair stated, “They are at a point where we’re going to have to
re-notify neighbors anyway because of the time limit on that.”
Gallagher commented, “That notice has already worn out.”
Larry Walker moved to
deny Newcastle Estates Conditional Use Permit. James F.
Gallagher seconded. Motion passes.
Walker
stated, “In doing that it’s kind of what I’m telling you.”
Laney commented, “When we went through the whole County zoning thing
and we have what we have in and I worked for a year and a half on that committee
and I’m like Larry I think a lot of people said I understand the concept, I
like the concept. I personally kept
saying over and over again we can’t have 150,000 houses all on one acre I mean
that destroys all of the greenspace so I understand the equation that you can
actually preserve greenspace by raising density so I got that, so don’t go
away thinking that we don’t like density at all and I’m somewhat the City of
Fayetteville’s Planning out there that far out that’s somewhat inflectional
to me, but not binding that’s just my personal view.”
Walker stated, “One other comment, too, is with this high density I’m
not a big fan of the decentralized drip system especially with this high
density.” Haley asked, “How far does the Fayetteville sewer come out
now? How far are we talking
about?” Walker commented,
“It’s got to be getting close.” Laney
stated, “It’s amazing how short it is.”
Rowser replied, “Obviously we looked at that, their closest line that
we would actually have access to is over on 265.”
Richey commented, “On Joyce and 265.”
Gallagher asked, “Do you have any idea when they might come out this
way?” Richey replied, “I
don’t know.” Gallagher stated,
“I’m definitely concerned about the density, it is way more than the
neighborhood is accustomed to. It
is way out of context. I do like
the idea of the greenspaces and the limiting the motor vehicle traffic.
What I’m telling you is it is not without merit it’s just that it’s
definitely too intense for what we’re seeing in the surrounding area.
In the City of Fayetteville there are places very much like it, I can
tell you three or four others that are like it you probably know, too, but
that’s why you’re here and not over there because it’s not in the City of
Fayetteville and this is way out of context and way over proportioned for the
area.”
Fayetteville’s Planning Area
f. Zion Care Center CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request) To be tabled at the request of the applicant (2)
Location: Section 20, Township 17 North, Range 29
West
Owner/Developer: Inspired Design Construction –
Marc Pirolo
Location Address: (closest addressed property) to
the north of 4079 E. Zion Road (WC #92)
4.9 acres and 4 phases 84 units / Proposed Land Use:
Assisted Living Units
Project
#: 2009-066 Planner: Courtney McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
James F. Gallagher moved to
table Zion
Care Center Conditional Use Permit at the request of the
applicant. Larry Walker seconded.
Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of tabling
Zion Care Center
Conditional Use Permit.
County
g. AmeriAsian
Meat Processing CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request) To be removed from the agenda at the request of the applicant
Location: Section 17, Township 16 North, Range 32
West
Owner/Developer: Tou Yia Lee
Location Address: 14143 N. Wedington Blacktop Road
(WC# 33)
12 acres / Proposed Land Use: Slaughterhouse / Farm
Project
#: 2009-062 Planner: Jessie Pettit, e-mail at jpettit@co.washington.ar.us
James F. Gallagher moved to
remove AmeriAsian Meat Processing
Conditional Use Permit from the agenda
at the request of the applicant. Larry
Walker seconded. Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of removing AmeriAsian Meat
Processing Conditional Use Permit
from the agenda at the request of the applicant.
Johnson’s Planning Area
h. Shady
Pines Adult Day Care CUP (Conditional
Use Permit Request) To
be removed from the agenda at the request of the applicant
Location: Section 20, Township 17 North, Range 30
West
Owner/Developer:
Darreleen Wiles
Location Address:
4200 N. Highway 112
4 acres / Proposed Land Use: Adult Day Care
Project
#: 2009-054 Planner: Courtney McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
James F. Gallagher moved to
remove Shady Pines Adult Day Care Conditional Use Permit from the agenda at the request of the applicant.
Larry Walker seconded. Motion
passes.
All Board members were in
favor of removing Shady Pines Adult Day Care Conditional Use Permit
from the agenda at the request of the applicant.
Springdale’s Planning Area
i. Grace
Marshallese Assembly of God, Inc. CUP (Conditional
Use Permit Request) To be removed
from the agenda at the request of the applicant
Location: Section 17, Township 17 North, Range 29
West
Owner/Developer:
Lavern and Kathe Graham / Thomas Lajwi
Location Address: 4652 Butterfield Coach Road (WC
#87)
3.12 acres / Proposed Land Use: Church
Project
#: 2009-065 Planner: Juliet
Richey, e-mail at jrichey@co.washington.ar.us
James F. Gallagher moved to
remove Grace Marshallese Assembly of God, Inc. Conditional Use Permit from the agenda
at the request of the applicant. Larry
Walker seconded. Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of removing Grace Marshallese Assembly of God, Inc. Conditional
Use Permit from
the agenda at the request of the applicant.
5.
OLD BUSINESS
6. OTHER BUSINESS
Richey stated, “On Current Development after you flip the second page
you will see that we did review and approve 18 items administratively.
Our lot splits have gone down somewhat in the last year.
We seemed to kind of bottomed out I guess like the rest of the economy
and we’ve been holding steady for awhile now, but it is definitely
significantly less than it was say 18 months ago when we were doing about 30 –
35 lots a month administratively. You
know what was at the meeting last month and this month.
We just have everything laid out like we always do to subdivisions.
A lot of these are stagnant just because of the state of the economy.
We do have some movement on a couple of these.
You’ll see on the spreadsheet it says Twin Springs Phase 2, that went
through foreclosure; that is almost completed subdivision they have just about
everything in they just have a couple of things to address.
We just got a call from the bank this week that they have a new
engineering company taking that over, so hopefully we’ll see that coming
through here in the next couple months. Cherry
Hills Subdivision is being looked at by an architect and an engineering group; I
don’t know what their financial issues were, but I know that they do have new
owners and developers now and so we’ll probably see that coming in the next
six months as well.”
Walker asked, “Do we have very many of these that
we’ve only approved Preliminary?” Richey
replied, “We do, but most of them started construction.
They still have a time to move forward and some of them are actually
expiring on that amount of time it is roughly 3 years to finish construction.
A lot of them are in City’s Planning Areas and we’ve been in
discussion with the cities about what they want to do as far as renew them, do
we want them to expire, and so probably here in the next six months we’ll
start making decisions on some of those. I
think probably where we wouldn’t have renewed some in the past we will just to
kind of keep them…”
Laney asked, “Is County Services where they brought
up this, what I would call this abandon project issue; dumping?”
Richey replied, “We hadn’t really talked about it too much.”
Haley asked, “I think we’re going to see more and more of this and so
do we have any kind of plan in place?” Richey
replied, “That’s what we’re working on.
It is easier for us to make decisions on large half finished subdivisions
that are solely in the County than if they’re in a City’s Planning Area and
the City and County have different rules on expiration of what when your plat
and construction plans are valid so I think it is going to be a process of
working with the municipalities to see how they want to proceed as well and then
make a decision on that.” Laney
commented, “I don’t know if we want to ask County Services to take a look at
it officially as a committee, but like over by Larry’s old house there’s
pipe laying out on that place and weeds have grown up head high all around them
and if you are a neighbor that’s got to be pretty unsatisfactorily situation
over on Little Elm.” Richey
stated, “Brookhaven. That’s in
the City of Prairie Grove; they annexed it.”
Laney commented, “It is now, but it wasn’t when we did it.”
Walker stated, “They’re grown up.”
Laney commented, “They’re everywhere and they’re eyesores.
Some are dangerous for children that’s what I think of because it still
has an amount of steel; sewer pipe and gravel; if nobody has stolen it.”
Richey stated, “It’s something that Staff has started looking at the
Road Department and myself meet with the County Judge a couple of months ago and
we kind of began a discussion on this situation.
Really the ones that we have that are major are in City Planning Areas
and so kind of what we decided at that point was to talk to the cities
individually about what they were going to do.”
Laney asked, “Like that road we just saw is that really ours or is that
still theirs?” Richey replied,
“That’s really ours. We
accepted it with the subdivision.” Gallagher
commented, “It has been dedicated. I
noticed it had a County road number on it.”
Walker stated, “It is up to us to clean it up then.”
Haley asked, “When you mentioned the possibility of extending time to
complete the projects, is that something you do administratively or does that
come back before the Board?” Richey replied, “I don’t know exactly how we
would have to do it; it is written in ordinance form right now, so to me it
would probably have to have some sort of ordinance change, which means it would
go before the Quorum Court and that committee.”
Gallagher asked, “You mentioned something else that caught my attention
you said that each of the municipalities in the County all have their own rules
on plat expirations and so forth; are the cities one way and the County another
or there a half a dozen different…?” Richey
replied, “Everybody’s a little different.
People just have different time ranges that they find appropriate.
I would say, generally, we’re more lenient than a lot of cities we give
people longer to finish projects.” Laney
commented, “It’s interesting, Jim, back when all the development was going
on at Juliet’s initiation and our agreement we initiated sort of meetings with
all the local municipalities about all of the stuff on the front side, but this
topic didn’t come up. We’re
pretty coordinated on the front side.” Richey
stated, “Because it wasn’t relevant at the time.” Gallagher asked, “Can
we do that can we go back now to these municipalities and say lets do the entire
ordinance and unify this on a County wide basis so that the same rules apply to
every subdivision?” Richey replied, “That’s tricky there are reasons that
people are different jurisdictions because they want to do things a certain
way.” Gallagher commented, “I’m not saying we should make them change
maybe we should be changing is my point. Let’s
get them all into some sort of conformance if we could.” Richey stated, “I
think something that we could look at is maybe making some legislation if we
find it acceptable that we could comply with that city’s standards whatever
city it may be, but there may be some cities… Washington County varies a lot
and while some cities may have rules that we feel okay with sometimes our rules
are more stringent than some of the smaller cities the ones where they don’t
have any at all and we don’t want to lose our ability to enforce what we have
just because they don’t have it covered.”
Laney commented, “The ones who don’t have Planning Staff. A lot of them don’t have any Planning Staff.
We’ve had to try to assist them; get kind of up to speed.”
Gallagher asked, “If we were able to do it on the front end of the
projects why could we not do this on the expiration end as well?”
Richey replied, “What we do on the front end is we make an agreement,
what’s in this area-we’re going to go with what you have-and outside a
certain area (even though it’s still in your Planning Area) it’s outside a
mile and we’re going to do this instead, and so we make agreements, but it
doesn’t mean that our rules always all line up because we’re all doing
different things and have a different purpose, but we do try to make it … the
point of that was to make it user friendly.”
Laney stated, “It’s patchwork.”
Richey commented, “That is something that we are looking into; unless
there’s some really good reason, we’re not trying to be at odds with cities
and the way that they want to do things in their Planning Area.”
Laney asked, “Any update on quarries?”
Richey replied, “The appeal was filed on (August) 4th, which
was Tuesday. I e-mailed Karen Beeks
today and she is still trying to work to finalize a date for the hearing.
She was looking at doing September 1, but she hasn’t heard back from
all of the Quorum Court members, yet as to whether that will work or not.” Laney asked about quarry 1 (Big Red Dirt Farm, LLC).
Richey replied, “Quarry 1 still does not have a Court date and George
is waiting to hear any time to see when that will be.”
Larry Walker moved to adjourn. Roy Hummel seconded.
Motion passes.
Planning Board adjourned.
Minutes submitted by: Amanda
Kimbel
Approved by the Planning
Board on:
________Robert Daugherty______________ Date: _09/09/09_____
Robert Daugherty, Planning Board Vice-Chairman
WASHINGTON
COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
&
ZONING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
September 9, 2009
5:00
p.m., Quorum Courtroom, New Courthouse
Fayetteville, Arkansas
DEVELOPMENTS REVIEWED:
ACTION TAKEN:
County
a. Langley
Minor Subdivision
Preliminary
and Final Approval
County
b.
Robinson Mountain Estates Replat Tract D
Tabled
Lincoln’s Planning Area
c. Holt’s
Addition CUP
Conditional
Use Permit Approval
Fayetteville’s Planning Area
d. Zion Care Center CUP
Removed
from the Agenda
1. ROLL CALL:
Roll call was taken.
Members present include: Kenley Haley, Larry Walker, Roy Hummel, Cheryl
West, and Robert Daugherty. Absent:
Randy Laney and James F. Gallagher.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (from the August 6, 2009 meeting) Kenley
Haley made a motion to approve as presented. Roy Hummel provided the second.
Motion passes.
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
Juliet Richey, Washington
County Planning Director, stated, “No changes.
It is actually as presented. Item
b. (Robinson
Mountain Estates Replat Tract D) to be tabled.
Item d. (Zion Care Center CUP) to be removed from the agenda.
Roy Hummel made a motion to approve
the agenda. Cheryl West seconded. Motion
passes.
4. NEW BUSINESS
County
a. Langley
Minor Subdivision (Preliminary and Final Approval Request)
Location: Section 15 & 22, Township 15 North,
Range 33 West
Owner/Applicant: Jerry and Reba Mobley / Michelle
Langley
Representative/Surveyor: Clayton Homes – Jim
Stevenson / Bates & Associates, Inc.
Location Address: 21407 and 21411 Summers Mt. Road
(WC #676)
10 acres and 2 lots / Proposed Land Use: Residential
/ Coordinates:
Longitude-94°28’19.306”W Latitude-35°58’29.065”N
Project
#: 2009-087 Planner: Courtney McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
REQUEST:
Preliminary and Final Minor Subdivision Approval for Langley
Minor Subdivision.
The total acreage of
the property is 10 acres. The
proposal is to split the property into two lots = Tract A – 5 acres and Tract
B – 5 acres.
CURRENT ZONING: Project does lie within the County Zoned area (Agriculture/Single-Family Residential 1 unit per acre).
PLANNING
AREA: This project is located solely in the County.
QUORUM
COURT DISTRICT:
District 10, JP Jack
Norton
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water – City of Lincoln Water (Tract A will use an existing
well); Electric-Ozark Electric; Phone-AT & T Telephone.
SPLITS PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED ON THIS
PARCEL: The
Assessor’s Records show that there are nine previous splits on #001-09600-002
and #001-09501-002.
BACKGROUND/
PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
This property is owned by Jerry
and Reba Mobley. Michelle Langley
is the applicant. Jim Stevenson
with Clayton Homes is the representative for this project. Derrick
Thomas with Bates & Associates is the surveyor for this project.
The property has frontage off of Summers Mountain Road (WC #676) at 21303 and 21411 Summers Mt. Road.
Hulse Minor Subdivision is
located to the west of this project. It
received Preliminary and Final approval January 8, 2009.
It appears that a portion of
this property IS located in a special flood hazard area, panel #05143C0305 F,
effective May 16, 2008. No structures are proposed to be located in this area.
This Minor
Subdivision Request is asking to split a 10-acre parcel into two 5-acre parcels.
This project
cannot be split administratively and must come before the board because it has
been previously split nine (9) times.
Administrative
approvals are completed according to Section 11-79(3) -Exemptions: The
division of land into four (4) parcels, three (3) of which must be at least five
(5) acres, and one which may be at least one (1) acre (can be approved
administratively) Previous divisions for family members shall not be counted
toward the four parcels exempted in this section.
There are two
existing residences on this property. The one located on Tract A is going to be
removed and a new residence will be placed on that property. The new residence
must not be located within the Washington County setbacks as the existing one is
shown to be. The residence must also not be located in the floodplain.
This property
has an existing septic system on Tract B. At review by a designated
representative for the Health Department (DR), it was found that only one septic
system was servicing both residences. This is not allowed by the Arkansas
Department of Health. Each residence must have its own septic system.
An inspection has been completed to confirm that the existing system is in
acceptable condition and showing no signs of failure. Soils work has been
completed, and found suitable for a septic system, for Tract A. The new system will still need to be designed and approved by
the Health Department before being installed.
(pg A-7)
The septic system must be
designed, approved, installed and inspected before the new residence (replacing
the existing one) on Tract A is occupied.
Tract A will be
utilizing an existing well, but Lincoln Water may be contacted in the future
about water tap availability. Tract B already utilizes Lincoln Water.
The existing
well is approximately 102 feet away from the existing septic system on Tract B.
When the septic system is placed on Tract A, it must be at least 100 feet away
from the well in order to meet Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) regulations.
Utility
connections for both residences are located on Tract B. At staff’s request,
the applicant added a 20-foot utility easement that connects to Tract A in order
to make sure that the utilities can be accessed from either Tract.
Most other
concerns have been addressed and only minor checklist items remain to be
completed.
One neighbor comment “in
favor” of this project was received. Staff will update the board at the
meeting if any additional comments are received. (pg A-9)
CHECKLISTS:
*Please note that if an item is marked inadequate,
staff will usually recommend tabling or denial of a project.
It is up to the Planning Board’s discretion whether or not to agree
with staff recommendation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Preliminary and Final Plat approval of the
proposed Langley Minor Subdivision with the following conditions:
1.
When a new residence is
placed on Tract A, it will not be located within the County setbacks or within
the Floodplain shown on the plat.
2.
The septic system shown on the plat for Tract A must be labeled as
“Proposed Septic System Location”.
3.
The proposed septic system for Tract A must be placed a minimum of 100
feet away from any well.
4.
The septic system must be designed, approved, installed and inspected
before the new residence (replacing the existing one) on Tract A is occupied.
5.
Pay mailing fees of $24.92.
6.
Any further splitting or land development not considered with this
approval must come before the Planning Board.
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.
The Circuit Clerk is not accepting plats that are over 18" x
24" and must have one copy that is 81/2” x 11” for scanning.
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION:
Any work completed in the
Washington County Right-of-Way requires a permit prior to beginning work. So, if
a second driveway is added, contact the Washington County Road Department.
Phone # 479-444-1610.
No stormwater permit will be
required by Washington County at this time. Must comply with all ADEQ rules and
regulations.
Arkansas Western Gas has no gas main in this area.
Contact James Boyd at 479-582-8652 with any questions.
No
representative was present.
Courtney
McNair, Washington County Planner, stated, “It is located on the west side of
the County just north of the City of Lincoln.
It is not located in a Planning Area, but it is zoned agricultural and
single-family one unit per acre, in other words, it doesn’t require any zoning
review because it does meet the zoning. It
is off of Highway 62 on WC #676 Summers Mountain Road.
You can see Hulse Minor Subdivision located right next to it that was a
similar split that was approved January 8, 2009.
There are two residences and several small sheds.
It is just a proposed split; it’s a total of 10 acres and they want to
split it right down the middle to make 5 acres apiece.
The house on Tract A is going to be removed.
Tract A is on the west side and it is going to be removed and replaced
with a newer home and then this one will remain. The reason this project can’t come through administratively
is because it has been split too many times, so it had to come through as a
minor subdivision. The new
residence that is going to be placed needs to be set just a little bit further
back to keep it out of the building setback area.
There is a little bit of floodplain on the property, but they are not
proposing to build anywhere near the floodplain, so we’re not worried or
concerned about that at all. Property
has an existing septic system on Tract B, which was the east tract. The designated representative went out and found that there
was only one septic system serving both residences, which is not allowed by the
Health Department, so when they replace that house they are going to be
including a second septic system. They’ve
done all the soils work everything looks fine for all of that and there are no
problems with the existing system as it is.
Tract A is also going to be using a well and because they are using a
well they must place their septic system 100’ away from it.
Right now the current system is 102’ and this one is proposed to be
much further back so it should be okay. The
only other thing that with concern was that the utility hookups for Tract A are
located on Tract B, but they made a 20’ utility easement, so that they can
access that in the future if they need to.
They really didn’t have any concerns left just some minor checklist
items. One neighbor commented and was in favor of the project.
In conclusion, Staff does recommend for Preliminary and Final Plat
approval of the Langley Minor Subdivision with conditions.”
Hummel
asked, “Who will inspect the septic system?
Does that come from the County Health Department?”
McNair replied, “Yes sir.” Hummel
asked, “Then they report to you guys?”
McNair replied, “Yes. They
don’t have to report just I’ll follow up on this like they don’t regularly
report to us for everything, but I will follow up with this project to make sure
it is all installed and inspected correctly.”
Hummel asked, “You will alert them the location and everything?”
McNair replied, “Yes, we do.”
Roy Hummel moved to approve
Langley Minor Subdivision Preliminary and Final Plat and in that the developer
has to adhere to Staff’s conditions. Cheryl West seconded.
Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of approving
Langley Minor
Subdivision Preliminary and Final
Plat.
County
b. Robinson
Mountain Estates Replat Tract D (Preliminary and Final Approval Request) To
be tabled at the request of the applicant (1)
Location: Section 1, Township 15 North, Range 30 West
Owner/Developer: Rick Nichols and Dale Foster
Engineer/Surveyor: Alan Reid & Associates
Location Address: 11599, 11603, and 11609 Mountain
Spring Drive (WC #5007) East Black Oak (WC #57)
42.5 acres Lot line adjustment / Proposed Land Use:
Residential / Coordinates: Longitude-94°6’46.485”W Latitude-36°0’33.857”N
Project #: 2009-091 Planner: Jessie Pettit, e-mail at jpettit@co.washington.ar.us
Roy Hummel moved to table
Robinson Mountain Estates Replat Tract D
Preliminary and Final
Plat at the request of the applicant.
Cheryl West seconded. Motion
passes.
All Board members were in
favor of tabling
Robinson Mountain Estates Replat Tract D
Preliminary and Final Plat.
Lincoln’s Planning Area
c. Holt’s
Addition CUP (Conditional
Use Permit Request)
Location: Section 31, Township 15 North, Range 32
West
Owner/Developer: Donald Holt
Location Address: 104 and 208 W. South Street (WC
#11 Bush Valley)
16.55 acres / Proposed Land Use: Single-Family
Residential / Coordinates:
Longitude-94°25’29.934”W Latitude-35°56’.729”N
Project
#: 2009-090 Planner: Courtney McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
REQUEST:
Conditional Use Permit Approval for Holt’s Addition CUP,
to place one
additional residence on a parcel of 16.55 acres with two existing residences,
making the total three residences on the property.
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 Lincoln’s Planning Area.
QUORUM
COURT DISTRICT: District 10, JP Jack Norton
FIRE SERVICE AREA:
Lincoln Fire Department
SCHOOL DISTRICT:
Lincoln
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water – Lincoln Water; Electric-Ozark
Electric; Phone-Prairie Grove Telephone; Gas – Arkansas
Western Gas; Cable–Cox
Communications
BACKGROUND/ PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
This project is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow a total of three residences on a parcel of land that is 16.55 acres on a property zoned Agricultural or Single-Family Residential with a maximum of one unit per acre (with one unit per parcel).
The owner/applicant for this project is Donald Holt.
This property is
located at 104 and 208 W. South Street (WC #11 Bush Valley). It is directly
adjacent to the Lincoln City Limits. The property to the North has an Industrial
Use (Tyson Hatchery), the Lincoln Wastewater Treatment Center is located to the
South, and the other surrounding properties appear to be a mix of agricultural
and residential uses. (pg C-8).
TECHNICAL CONCERNS:
Fire
Issues:
The
structure must be placed generally as shown on the sketch plans provided by
staff. The Fire Marshal requires residences to be placed a minimum of 20 feet
from other structures. As shown, the residence will meet this requirement.
Septic:
Soils
work has been completed. The Health Department reviewed and issued a permit for
construction on 8/14/2009. The system must be installed and inspected before the
residence is occupied. (pg
C-9-C-14)
The
City of Lincoln has sewer lines running on this property to reach their
treatment center to the South of this property. The applicant should take care
to avoid these lines while placing new residence (if placed as shown on the
sketch plan, this will not be an issue).
Water/Electric/Gas/Cable/Phone:
Chuck
Wood, the Lincoln City Manager, stated, “a 12-inch water main is available on
the front of the property.” And, according to an email from Sherry Bannister,
the Office Manager at Lincoln Water, “water service is available…on the lot
between 104 W. South St. and 208 W. South St.”
Ozarks
Electric commented that there is “an existing power line on the front of this
property to supply power to the new residence.” They had no other comment.
There
is natural gas service to the property in the Northwest corner of the property
if the applicant chooses to connect.
There
were no additional comments from the phone company or the cable company for this
proposed project.
Roads/Sight
Visibility:
This
property has road frontage along WC 11(Bush Valley) called “South Street” in
this area. A driveway for the new residence has been installed to the Road
Department’s satisfaction. Staff visited the site and determined that there
are no issues with the sight visibility from the new driveway.
City
of Lincoln Comments:
A
vote to annex this property will be held in October, but should not affect this
proposed project if a CUP is granted prior to the annexation election. Chuck
Wood stated that Lincoln has no issue with the addition of a third residence,
and no issue with the variation from the City of Lincoln’s Future Land Use
designation in this area (Industrial,
pg C-19)
Other:
The
additional residence must be placed generally in the location shown on the
sketch plan. It must be 20 feet
from all other structures and meet all Washington County setbacks. (Placed
generally as shown on the attached sketch plan C-22, the project meets these
requirements).
COMPATIBILITY
CONCERNS:
Surrounding
Area:
The
surrounding uses are Agricultural or Single-Family Residential (subdivision and
rural) with the exception of the property directly to the North and South of the
site, which have industrial uses (7 parcels with 34.28 acres).
The
average density adjacent to the site is:
·
1 unit/10.4 (using acreage with residential use) acres or,
·
0.09 units per
acre.
The
average density within approximately 1/5 mile is:
·
1 unit/ 2.38 (using acreage with residential use) acres or,
·
0.41 units per
acre.
The
highest density in the surrounding area is:
·
1 unit/ 0.20 (using acreage with residential use) acres or,
·
5 units per
acre.
And
the lowest is:
·
1 unit/ 14.63 (using acreage with residential use) acres or,
·
0.068 units per acre.
There
are also several agricultural pieces with no residences (Total of 21.03 acres
with no residences directly adjacent to the property (not including Industrial
uses); total of 77.48 acres with no residences within approximately 1/5 mile
(not including Industrial uses).
The
proposed density of 1 unit/ 5.5 acres or 0.18 units per acre is compatible with
the surround densities, and the proposed use of residential is compatible with
the surrounding uses. (pg
C-20)
County’s
Land Use Plan (written document):
According
to the County’s Land Use Plan,
1.
RESIDENTIAL
Several goals surfaced as paramount in the PARA Task Force
meetings and in a meeting held by the Quorum Court. These include:
a.
Provision of a safe living environment that offers
quiet, privacy, and a rural flavor and atmosphere;
b.
Provision of quality residential development of good design, developed in
a manner accessible by an adequate street system to avoid costly infrastructure
extensions;
c.
Protection of residential areas from incompatible
adjacent land uses;
d.
Protection of property values; and
e.
Provision of safe and adequate access to residential areas, installed in
a manner to accommodate emergency and other services.
To achieve these objectives, it is essential to:
a.
To provide for development of residential areas at
appropriate densities.
b.
Update, administer and enforce subdivision regulations; and develop,
adopt, and enforce zoning and related regulations and codes;
c.
Require development to be connected to utilities and utilize zoning as a
means to guide the progression of development;
d.
Protect the character and integrity, and property
values, of single-family, residential areas;
e.
Protect residential neighborhoods from inappropriate non-residential
influences through the use of regulatory controls;
f.
Ensure land use and development patterns which provide for the most
efficient and effective use of available utilities and services, including fire
protection; and,
g.
Maintain an adequate county road plan and standards to guide and
accommodate traffic movement; to develop differing categories of roads; and to
protect rights-of-ways for planned, future roads.”
Staff
feels that the proposed project does meet several of the goals listed in the
County’s Land Use Plan (underlined). In addition, any that do not directly
apply are not applied because of the nature of this project. The addition of one
single-family home will not significantly impact access, utilities, and
protection to the property or neighboring properties.
Future
Land Use Plan
The
Future Land Use Plan for this area shows the “General Industrial” category.
Staff has discussed this with the City of Lincoln, and they do not feel that
adding one additional residence will greatly impact the intended use of the
area. Several Industrial type businesses are already located in this area with
other residences surrounding them. Staff does not feel that this CUP should be
rejected because of this designation. (pg
C-19)
NEIGHBOR
COMMENTS/CONCERNS:
Staff
has received one “in favor” comment from a neighbor, and no “opposed.”
Staff will update the Planning Board at the meeting if any additional comments
are received. (pg
C-15)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff
recommends Conditional Use Permit approval of the proposed Holt’s Addition CUP
with the following conditions being met.
1.
The residence must be used as a single-family home only.
2.
The residence must be located a minimum of 20 feet from other structures.
3.
The residence must be placed generally where shown on the sketch plan and
meet all Washington County Building setbacks:
·
20’ from the rear property line,
·
10’ from the side property line(s), and
·
25’ from the front of the property and from any road
right-of-way (ROW)
4.
The septic system must be installed and inspected before the house is
occupied.
5.
The water tap must be installed and inspected before the house is
occupied.
6.
The applicant must not disturb the Lincoln Sewer lines on this property
while placing the new residence.
7.
Pay Mailing Fees of $16.95.
No
representative was present.
Courtney
McNair, Washington County Planner, stated, “It is on the west side of the
County. It’s adjacent to the City
of Lincoln’s city limits. It is
located in Lincoln’s Planning Area and it is zoned, which is why they are
coming through because they are asking for a variation of their zoning.
A Conditional Use Permit to allow a different zoning.
It’s just off of South Street, which is also Bush Valley (WC #11) once
you get further out. The Lincoln
Wastewater Treatment Center is to the south and then the Tyson Hatchery is to
the north. There are two existing
residences and some small sheds. What
they are asking for is to allow three residences on a parcel of land that is
16.55 acres. They do meet the
required density, but the way we have a Staff interpretation that says each
residence must be on its own parcel or come through the Conditional Use Permit
process; that’s why it is coming before you today.
There weren’t concerns from the Fire Marshal.
The way that this structure is placed he is happy with because it is far
enough away he requires 20’ of separation.
It meets all County setbacks. A
septic permit was issued and the only thing remaining is that the system must be
fully installed and inspected before they can move in. Water service is available and they just have to have that
inspected. The new driveway on the
plans has been installed by the Road Department they installed those culverts
and it is already there; it looks good; they approved it.
The City of Lincoln did comment on this because it is in their Planning
Area there’s a vote to annex this property October 13.
Lincoln said it shouldn’t affect it as long as this project gets
approval before then because once it is annexed it will be under different
rules, but as long as it gets approval before then they’re fine with it.
They had no concern with the addition of a residence and they had no
concern that it varied from their Future Land Use map, which shows that area as
general industrial. The area is
really a good mix of industrial and residential, so they didn’t feel like it
was going to deviate from their plan for that area to have an additional
residence. The surrounding area is
mostly agricultural single-family residential and then there is industrial to
the north and south. The proposed
density, which was that one unit per 5.5 acres, is compatible as far as
Staff’s research went. It also
follows the Washington County’s Land Use Plan (written document) where it says
that residential should be placed at appropriate densities and Staff feels like
this meets our Land Use Plan. We
have one in favor comment from a neighbor and no neighbors opposed to this
project. They were in the process
and called us to see what they needed to do from the County.
Staff is recommending Conditional Use Permit approval of Holt’s
Addition Conditional
Use Permit. Lincoln does have some sewer lines on the east side of the
property, but they are further back. They
wanted to make that known that they have some lines running on that property
going back to their wastewater treatment.”
Walker
commented, “I may make a motion to defer this to the Quorum Court because we
may not be able to act on this properly. I’m
serious, if we send every trivial little thing to them then maybe they’ll
decide they don’t need us or that we carry a stick.”
Daugherty stated, “Point well taken.”
Roy Hummel moved to approve
Holt’s
Addition Conditional
Use Permit per
Staff’s recommendations. Kenley Haley seconded.
Motion passes.
Larry
Walker abstained.
Fayetteville’s Planning Area
d. Zion Care Center CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request) To be removed from the agenda due to lack of submittal
Location: Section 20, Township 17 North, Range 29
West
Owner/Developer: Inspired Design Construction –
Marc Pirolo
Location Address: (closest addressed property) to
the north of 4079 E. Zion Road (WC #92)
4.9 acres and 4 phases 84 units / Proposed Land Use:
Assisted Living Units /
Coordinates: Longitude-94°6’4.005”W Latitude-36°8’1.846”N
Project
#: 2009-066 Planner: Courtney McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
Roy Hummel moved to remove
Zion Care Center
Conditional Use Permit from the agenda
at the request of the applicant. Cheryl
West seconded. Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of removing Zion Care Center Conditional Use Permit
from the agenda at the request of the applicant.
5.
OLD BUSINESS
6. OTHER BUSINESS
Juliet Richey stated, “This is something that a
surveyor has been badgering me about. I
do think that it bears some looking into. We
were talking about this a little bit before the meeting started.
We have lots of things that move from an administrative process to a
process where the Board reviews it. One
of those is platted subdivisions when they are not in a City’s Planning Area.
If it is in a City’s Planning Area and they’re doing a replat or
reconfiguration of lots, a lot line adjustment, then it goes to the city first
and then comes to us, and if it is four lots or less then we just do an
administrative review and the Board doesn’t see it.
If it is a subdivision that is outside the city limits and in the County
then that always comes before the Board. For
instance, there was one, I think, at the last meeting that was near Kenley’s
(Haley) house, Sundowner Good Earth Estates, and they were reconfiguring some
lots and because it was in a platted subdivision and not inside the city’s
limits it came to you all. If
people are creating additional lots then I think it should still come to the
Board. If they’re just moving a
lot line and maybe it just concerns two lots then it could be something that we
could review in house. What I was
telling Bob (Daugherty) earlier when we were talking about it was that I do feel
like when it comes to subdivisions we do quite a bit of research.
Jessie (Pettit) is working on a replat right now and the subdivision
itself and replats that have happened with it you’re talking about folders of
information and there were plat notes that was put on the original plat that we
want to make sure we’re not doing anything in violation to those and things
like that. It would be a more
extensive review than our regular administrative review and I feel like that
Staff should have the ability to say, ‘Hey, there’s some weird stuff going
on here’ and if we don’t feel comfortable doing it administratively then we
can have the option to send it to the Board.
I’m trying to do this because a majority of these lot line adjustments
that involve only two lots; somebody accidentally built too close to the line
and the corner of their house is hanging over and they want to move it over.
Somebody accidentally built their septic system on somebody else’s lot
and so they’re adjusting it so they can have it on their lot and things like
this. 90% of the time it’s not a
big deal, but they do have to come before the Board and it does cost a little
bit more money and so if that’s something that you would be interested in then
I could work with George to write up something to process those.”
Daugherty commented, “I am personally interested
and I think we could write up something maybe to leave it at your discretion,
but with the expense of everything if we could do something that would make it
simpler for some of these people I’m all in favor of it myself personally.”
Richey stated, “To me the only weird part; I’m all for it too,
because we can get things done faster than the Board meets once a month and I
know you have lots of things that you would rather be doing besides reading
packets of information, so I think it’s an okay idea, however, if something
weird does come up, I do think that we need to have some discretion to be able
to bring it to the Board. I want you to realize that is a little bit of a weird
circumstance to have that discretion because potentially somebody can say, ‘I
did all the same requirements that this (other) person did, but your Staff
person felt uneasy about it and they made me come before the Board and now I had
to spend more money than this other person,’ so to me that is a weird
situation that can come up, but I guess we can just see how it goes.
Obviously, we’re not going to put something in front of you and not do
it administratively unless we think there’s a good reason to do so.
Instead you’ll be helping people more than there was before.”
Haley asked, “How would they save money they still
have to notify neighbors they are still responsible for the mailings,
correct?” Richey replied, “We
could get it done faster, which is the main thing.”
Haley commented, “I can see the faster, but I don’t a cost
savings.” Richey stated, “Lots
of times these people they hire surveyors… I don’t know that it would be a
for sure cost savings rate. Right
now, they hire surveyors and sometimes they don’t feel comfortable taking
their projects to the Board and they pay that surveyor extra to show up at the
meetings and be here to answer questions about a replat if you have any,
whereas, if people are just doing administratively through my office I usually
just talk to their surveyors on the phone or something like that.
To me that is the real savings because I want it to go through the same
process like get utility signatures and things like that, which does add more
cost above and beyond our regular administrative process so probably the main
thing would be once people hire someone to represent them for meetings because
they don’t feel like they can answer the questions about the plat, which is
understandable they’re not drawing it up, they’re hiring a surveyor to do
it.” Haley asked, “Why would we
not want to do this? I’m trying
to just think the whole process through.”
Richey replied, “The only reason that I can think of is what I just
said because I would like to have some discretion and to me as long as you feel
like you can trust us with our discretion I think it is okay.
I guess if we have some weird situations come up where people feel like
they’re being treated unfairly then we can talk about it then.”
Daugherty commented, “We can change the rules at that point.
Lot of times what I found in dealing even with city administrations is
that even if you have rules different people interpret those rules differently.
I can give you an example of a city that I’m dealing with right now
that is interpreting their rule entirely different than they did two years ago. It’s their interpretation; the inspector’s
interpretation, so I think sometimes it ends up being the discretion of the
Planner or the individual anyway, regardless, so in this case I feel like we
have a Planner and a group of people that has a lot of common sense and tries to
do the right thing and I have all the confidence in their ability to make those
decisions. At some point if this
doesn’t work in my opinion the rule could be changed if we feel like it is not
working adequately or everybody is not being treated fairly, but I’m for
making it simpler if it is possible.”
Walker asked, “How would you write guidelines for
it? Case by case is going to vary
so much.” Richey replied, “I
think that George can help me write something to where if something raises a
flag for us at all this is administrative process that we’re changing from
having to go before the Board so if something raises a flag then we can just
send it through the Board.” Walker
asked, “So what you’re doing really there is something that if comes up
between the people, ‘You did so and so’ then you can say it didn’t meet
this criteria. Is that what
you’re trying to do by writing something up?”
Richey replied, “Yes, everything else is going to be by the same
regulations that we have now for replats we’re just going to process it
through our office instead of sending it through the Board.
We’ll still get Health Department comments on it.
Utilities will still review it. All
of that needs to be done.” Butler
asked, “Notices to the surrounding property owners are still going to be
sent?” Richey replied, “Well,
that’s true.” Butler stated,
“Normally, we don’t do that in an administrative process we don’t send out
notices to surrounding property owners.”
Richey commented, “If we send out notices to property owners to me
those are some things that the Board look at.”
Butler stated, “When you get an objection.”
Richey commented, “Lot line adjustments and we’re not doing anything
where people create new lots. I
don’t know that would be something different.”
Daugherty stated, “If you felt like it was necessary then if you had
objections I guess you could bring it before us or write it in such a manner.
I can’t see many objections.” Walker
asked, “Usually when it is a lot line adjustment that party or both parties
are in agreement that that line needs to be adjusted.
I remember I had a piece of property one time that the back line was
10’, 15’ or 20’ off it had been that way for hundreds of years. Then these people bought it and had a FHA loan and they had
to have it surveyed. They wanted
everybody to move their fences over; well, I wasn’t going to move my fences
over. How does something like that?
That’s really not our problem.”
Richey replied, “That’s not really a lot line adjustment, though,
that’s a fence being… nobody moved any lot lines they just wanted you to
move your fence. We’re talking
about actual moving of lot lines.” Walker
commented, “Years ago you bought what was inside the fence.
Every farm around you bought what was in the fence, well come to find out
when they surveyed this the fence had been there for 50 some odd years was 10’
off of the old rock that was put there back in the 1800’s.”
Richey stated, “Just like that was between you and your neighbor the
Planning Department was not involved. That
would be between two neighbors. We’re
talking about when somebody actually wants to move the property line not the
perceived property line and who perceives it where, but actually moving an
actual property line legally with a survey deeds the whole bit.”
Haley asked, “I’m just trying to think this is
for a subdivision only. Let’s say
we’ve got 5 plats (lots) on one side of the road and 5 on the other and John
Doe wants to divide one of those in two. It
could somehow, with the integrity of the subdivision, be a concern to
neighboring property owners? So how
would they have a voice if that was a concern?”
Richey replied, “To me that’s kind of where things fall apart.
He wouldn’t be splitting it (not creating no additional lots).
If somebody wants to create additional lots in a platted subdivision it
has to come…” Haley commented, “Just moving (the property line).
It could still compromise the integrity of the subdivision, perhaps.”
Richey stated, “We’re going to review it the same way we review it
now.” Haley commented, “We’re
not going to hear the people’s concerns.”
Richey stated, “No, to me if you want to be able to hear concerns on
lot line adjustments then I think it needs to come before you because I think
that puts me in a weird position to actively take comments and then decide which
ones matter or not. That’s not a position that I want to be in, so to me if
it’s going to be an administrative process, then we don’t request public
comment.” Daugherty asked, “In
your experience dealing with these lot line adjustments in the past, have most
of them been to correct an error or where a building has been not in the
setbacks or something?” Richey
replied, “That is what most of them are, or if somebody bought this property
and now they want to… they own two lots and they want to reconfigure a piece
of it because they want to sell this part to somebody else, but keep part of the
yard that they like or whatever.” Hummel
commented, “The big advantage to this administratively is the speed in which
it gets done. It keeps somebody
from waiting a month to hear an elementary problem, and I don’t know how you
define elementary problem. Richey
stated, “Lot line adjustments are the most simple kind of land transaction
that you can do generally that we see because you’re not creating an
additional lot. Theoretically,
you’re not creating any more potential impact than what was already there.
There’s already a lot there, somebody could build a house tomorrow and
they wouldn’t have to ask you or me or anybody because it is already a lot.
To me they’re moving a line from one place to another.”
Daugherty commented, “Typically there are two people in agreement.”
West stated, “This is basically between two landowners it’s not going
to be like a whole subdivision.” Haley
commented, “It is a subdivision.” West
stated, “My daughter just got into this mess.
They’re building a house and this guy decides to build a woodshed over
on their property and they had to go through this whole thing.
It’s basically just the line between… and you’re saying it’s just
because of something like that they just got over on the other person’s
property.” Daugherty commented,
“Usually that’s typically what you see.”
Richey stated, “Usually those two property owners are going to be in
agreement.” West commented, “I
do have the concerns that if surrounding people have a problem.
That’s the only part of this that I have a problem with.”
Haley stated, “Me, too.” West
asked, “If they want to voice their opinion on it.
If you’re going to do this you’re not going to send letters out to
everybody around it, is that what you’re saying?
Is there really going to be a need to if it’s just between the two?”
Haley asked, “In a subdivision it’s not really
between the two. Let’s say that
there is a subdivision and they have decided to split it differently between
relatives, it’s an estate issue, they’ve gone from a two acre they have two
5 acre lots and they want to make one a two and the other one a three, would
that meet our guidelines if they wanted to put another house on that?
Let’s say two five acres and they’re going to do a two and an eight
and then they decide to put a personal shop on the larger tract.”
Richey replied, “Personal shop, we couldn’t do anything about that
anyway. They could have put a
personal shop on it when it was two five-acre pieces.
What if I kind of troubleshot all this and then we can point out the
things that are different? I
don’t feel comfortable taking public comment in the same format that the Board
does because that puts me… there’s a reason that you are a Board and
you’re appointed and that you’re more than one person because you consider
those comments differently. There’s
a limit to what we can consider by law anyway, but I don’t want to be sending
out a comment form and then people… then I have to make some sort of call on
what public comment matters and what doesn’t.
To me we shouldn’t have it if it’s just going to be one person.
I’ll just make a list of pros and cons and there’s a couple of other
processes that we have that I’ve been thinking about expanding the
administrative boundaries of do things faster.
I’ll just do all of them and we can go through the pros and cons and
then we can just decide if it’s something we want to do or not.
I kind of want to see if you’re interested.”
Daugherty commented, “I’m interested one thing you could do is see if
any other counties are already doing this and see if they have any feedback for
us one way or the other; pros and cons. If
we can see a county that is already structured this way that is doing it this
way and they have no problems or not seeing any then give us some kind of
guideline; to me if we can speed the process and make it simpler for us at our
meetings because some nights we’re overloaded. Not now necessarily, but we have been in the past.”
Richey asked, “Another thing we can do we can limit it to lot line
adjustments that were for minor encroachments accidental issues things like that
and then you wouldn’t get like major lot reconfigurations.
So you think maybe that might be a better way to start out?”
Haley replied, “I agree.” Hummel
stated, “We’ve seen all the subdivision plats anyway.”
Richey commented, “Right.” Hummel
stated, “If you do this you are preventing us from duplicating what we’ve
already done.” Haley commented,
“Not necessarily though because if it was an old one that was grandfathered
in.” Richey stated, “Yes,
that’s the thing. Subdivision
plats 20 years ago they’re not the same as they are today.”
Hummel commented, “Grandfathered in you’re not going to do anything
about it anyway.” Richey stated,
“They do fall under our current subdivision regulations that part of it when
they go to replat. They don’t get
to replat under rules from 1980. We’re
not going to make them build a full lane highway in front of their two lots.”
Hummel commented, “We’re not going to change the size of the road or
you’re not going to change the setbacks.”
Richey stated, “We do change the setbacks.”
Hummel asked, “If it was grandfathered in?”
Richey replied, “Yes, we do.” Hummel
asked, “How can you do it with the buildings on it?”
Richey replied, “They’re replatting a platted subdivision, so
you’re changing that part of the plat, that’s what it means, you’re
legally changing those two lots in that platted subdivision and it’s filed and
it’s linked to that plat in the Circuit Clerk’s office.
You are actually changing those two lots, so yes we do implement new
setbacks on it. If there’s
already a building there then they get then we go ahead and give them a variance
and we just say that if your house is ever removed or burned down then you will
need to come into compliance with the new setbacks.”
Daugherty commented, “I think that was a good idea to look at the
corrections that need to be made like you stated.
You might do that and come back to us.
I would be in favor anyway.” Richey
stated, “We’ll try to figure out where the pitfalls could be.”
Richey stated, “We’re not doing a lot of administrative splits right
now. We did a total of seven splits
for 12 lots this month administratively. I think that might be our record
slowest. It does look like we have
a fairly good-sized agenda for next month.
Right now, we have that A+ U Pull it, Inc, Automobile Recycling LSD I
don’t know you all remember that it came through for the Large Scale
Development outside of the City of Lincoln they’re coming through for
final.” Walker commented, “I
thought that moved into Lincoln’s.” Richey
stated, “They haven’t annexed yet. I
think it’s slated for annexation. It
hasn’t been annexed yet.” Daugherty
asked, “It’s just ready for our final approval?” Richey replied, “Right.
Then Newcastle Estates you all remember that was denied last month
they’ve reconfigured some things and we looked at density we just got the
plans yesterday we haven’t looked at them yet, but that’s coming back next
month and there’s a couple of other smaller things.
We’ll keep you posted depending on how much stuff they get done if
they’re lacking too much they may table before next time.”
Cheryl West moved to adjourn. Roy Hummel seconded.
Motion passes. Larry Walker abstained.
Planning Board adjourned.
Minutes submitted by: Amanda
Kimbel
Approved by the Planning
Board on:
_________Randy Laney_______________ Date: _10/01/09__
Randy Laney, Planning Board Chairman
MINUTES
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
&
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
October 1, 2009
5:00 p.m., Quorum Courtroom, New Courthouse
Fayetteville, Arkansas
DEVELOPMENTS REVIEWED: ACTION TAKEN:
County
a. Robinson Mountain Estates Replat Tract D Preliminary and Final Approval
County
b. Wallin Mountain Estates Tabled
Lincoln’s Planning Area
c. A+ U Pull it, Inc, Automobile Recycling LSD Tabled
County
d. Crystal Hills Family Fellowship CUP Tabled
e. Newcastle Estates CUP Conditional Use Permit Approval
1. ROLL CALL:
Roll call was taken. Members present include: James F. Gallagher, Kenley Haley, Randy Laney, Roy Hummel, and Robert Daugherty. Absent: Larry Walker and Cheryl West.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (from the September 9, 2009 meeting) Robert Daugherty made a motion to approve as written. Roy Hummel provided the second. Motion passes.
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
Juliet Richey, Washington County Planning Director, stated, “No changes to the agenda; it is the same.” Robert Daugherty made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Roy Hummel seconded. Motion passes.
4. NEW BUSINESS
County
a. Robinson Mountain Estates Replat Tract D (Preliminary and Final Approval Request)
Location: Section 1, Township 15 North, Range 30 West
Owner/Developer: Rick Nichols and Dale Foster
Engineer/Surveyor: Alan Reid & Associates
Location Address: 11599, 11603, and 11609 Mountain Spring Drive (WC #5007) East Black Oak (WC #57)
42.5 acres Lot line adjustment / Proposed Land Use: Residential / Coordinates: Longitude-94°6’46.485”W Latitude-36°0’33.857”N
Project #: 2009-091 Planner: Jessie Pettit, e-mail at jpettit@co.washington.ar.us
REQUEST: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Replat Approval (lot-line adjustment) for Robinson Mountain Estates Replat Tract D1, D2 and D3. The total acreage of the property is 42.5 acres. Tract D-1, D-2, and D-3 are connected to Mountain Spring Drive (WC #5007), which is a private drive, through a 30 foot and a 60 foot easement.
Following is the proposed changes in acreage:
Robinson Mt. Estates Tract. Existing acreage Proposed Altered Acreage
Tract D1 19.42+/- ac. 14.90+/- ac.
Tract D2 10.76+/- ac. 12.86+/- ac.
Tract D3 12.32+/- ac. 14.74+/- ac.
Combined total of D1, D2 & D3 42.50+/- ac. 42.50+/- ac.
CURRENT ZONING: Project does lie within the County Zoned area (Agriculture/Single-Family Residential 1 unit per acre).
PLANNING AREA: With the exception of the northeast corner, 3.00 acre piece of Tract D-1 which lies in the City of Fayetteville’s Planning Area; this project (D-1, D-2, and D-3 Robinson Mountain Estates) is located solely in the County.
The City of Fayetteville Planning has determined that they will not be reviewing this project because all land/ adjustments are taking place outside their Planning Area jurisdiction. The portion of Tract D-1 that is in their Planning Area is not a portion of the replat where any lot-line adjustments are taking place.
QUORUM COURT DISTRICT: District 9, JP Butch Pond
FIRE SERVICE AREA: Round Mountain SCHOOL DISTRICT: Greenland
UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water –Mt. Olive Water
Other Utilities - The lot is in the service area of Ozark Electric and AT & T Telephone.
BACKGROUND/ PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
Following are the properties/ address involved in the Replat (lot-line adjustment) along with the corresponding owners:
Tract D-2 (parcel #414-10004-002) / 11609 Mt. Spring Drive
Owner: Dale Foster
Tract D-1 (parcel #414-10001-000 & #414-10004-000) / 11599 Mt Spring Drive
Owner: Nichols Family Trust
Tract D-3 (parcel #414-10004-001) / 11603 Mt. Spring Drive
Owner: Nichols Family Trust
The project proposal is to replat subdivision D1, D2, and D3; there will be not be any additional lots created through approval of this proposal request. See “Request” section on page A-1 of the staff report for additional request information.
Alan Reid and Associates is the surveyor and representative for this project.
Tract D-1, D-2, and D-3 are connected to Mountain Spring Drive (WC #5007), which is a private drive, through a 30 foot and a 60 foot ingress/ egress easement. This is the arrangement that was approved back in 2004 (Project #2004-052) by the Washington County Planning Board. Mountain Springs Private Drive is located north of East Black Oak (WC #57). Mountain Springs Drive has a 60 foot (total width) private right-of-way which was originally designated to serve Lots 5-8, and Tracts A-D of the Robinson Mountain Estates Subdivision.
This private road cannot have any additional lots created on it, as it already has the maximum allowed for a private road within the County. Staff has come to the conclusion that due to the current project being a lot-line adjustment/ replat (no new lots created) the inadequate road situation should not be an issue. The Washington County Road Department had no comment on this project. See page A-9 of the staff report for further information regarding roads/ access.
Select Previous Development Notes on subject property proposed to be replatted.
*Please see previous plats for all notes in their entirety. Page A-10 through A-11 of the staff report provides a summary of all previous development/ projects involving these lots, on Robinson Mountain Estates.
· Robinson Mountain Estates original subdivision plat states a variance was granted that allowed Farm splits for Tract “C” and “D” which are less than 40 acres, but more than 39 acres.
· Replat Tract D, Robinson Mountain Estates plat (approved March 4, 2004) notes (Note A) Private water and drainage easement. Rights reverted to Tract “D” one year after final plat of Robinson Mountain Estates was filed. Plat approved 07/10/1997.
· Replat Tract D, Robinson Mountain Estates plat (approved March 4, 2004) No further division of Tract “D’ may occur until such time as Mountain Spring drive is improved to meet Washington County standards.
· Replat Tract D, Robinson Mountain Estates plat (approved March 4, 2004) No further division of any tracts or lots may take place until the Mt. Olive Water Authority can document that water capacity is sufficient to serve additional development.
Staff received two adjacent property owner comments; both were in favor of the replat and had no issues with the project. See page A-19 through A-21 of the staff report to see adjacent property owner comments in their original format.
Staff did receive a comment from the Round Mount Fire Department (Chief Shane Wood)
that voiced concerns regarding adequate fire-flow for fire fighting.
If this an addition to the subdivision itself with more lots I would love to see a hydrant at the intersection of Mountain Springs and Black Oak. We have a very high risk with large houses in the subdivision and the closest hydrant is about .5 miles away at Ed Edwards. With that said we will have a hard time with a constant water supply in this addition, especially towards the end of the road where the largest structures are.
It does not appear that there are any outstanding items for the proposed lot-line adjustment / replat. There would be issues if this were a proposal for additional tracts/ lots. All that remains are a few plat correction and notes to be added. No comment was received from Mount Olive Water; it appears in the past water availability was an issue; again no new lots are proposed to be created where this would be more of an issue.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Preliminary and Final Plat approval of the proposed Robinson Mountain Estates Replat Tract D with the following conditions:
1. Pay mailing fees of $30.51 for adjacent property owner notification, as per Ord. No. 2007-71, applicant has been provided a copy of the invoice.
2. No further division of Tract D may occur until Mountain Springs Drive is improved to County Road Standards. *This note is currently on the plat
3. Add information that Ozark Electric needs on the plat (underground electric line easement information). It appears there is currently some contradictory overhead electric easement information on the plat.
4. Add plat notes:
· Plat notes on the original recorded plat of Robinson Mountain Estates, filed July 15, 1997 and the Replat of Tract D filed April 07, 2004, filed with the County Clerk’s Office, shall apply to this replat.
· Potable water is not being provided to this development by the developer. Individual lot service is the responsibility of each lot owner. Mt. Olive water is responsible for determining ability to provide service to each tap.
5. Correct all checklist items.
6. Provide a pdf. or jpeg. AND .dwg of the final plat.
7. Any further splitting or land development not considered with this approval must come before the Planning Board.
8. 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" and must have one copy that is 8 1/2” x 11” for scanning.
Dale Foster, owner of the proposed project was present to answer any questions.
Foster had nothing to add.
Robert Daugherty moved to approve Robinson Mountain Estates Replat Tract D Preliminary and Final Plat with conditions. Kenley Haley seconded. Motion passes.
All Board members were in favor of approving Robinson Mountain Estates Replat Tract D Preliminary and Final Plat.
County
b. Wallin Mountain Estates (Preliminary and Final Approval Request)
Location: Section 14, Township 15 North, Range 30 West
Owner/Developer: Britt Freyaldenhoven (Kerb Properties)
Engineer/Surveyor: Blew & Associates, Inc.
Location Address: (closest addressed property) to the north of 13708 Wallin Mountain Road (WC #32)
39.22 acres and 4 lots / Proposed Land Use: Residential minor subdivision/Coordinates: Longitude-94°7’53.857”W Latitude-35°58’50.165”N
Project #: 2008-092 Planner: Jessie Pettit, e-mail at jpettit@co.washington.ar.us
Robert Daugherty moved to table Wallin Mountain Estates Preliminary and Final Plat at the request of the applicant. Roy Hummel seconded. Motion passes.
All Board members were in favor of tabling Wallin Mountain Estates Preliminary and Final Plat.
Lincoln’s Planning Area
c. A+ U Pull it, Inc, Automobile Recycling LSD (Final LSD Plan Approval Request)
Location: Section 27 & 28, Township 15 North, Range 32 West
Owner/Developer: Daugherty-Goshen Farms, LLC / Four Square Properties, LLC
Engineer/Surveyor: Ozark Civil Engineering, Inc. – Rick Dayton
Location Address: 17314 W. Highway 62
17.955 acres and 1 unit/Proposed Land Use: Commercial/Coordinates: Longitude-94°22’44.139”W Latitude-35°57’7.243”N
Project #: 2008-074 Planner: Courtney McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
Robert Daugherty moved to table A+ U Pull it, Inc, Automobile Recycling LSD Final Plan at the request of the applicant. Roy Hummel seconded. Motion passes.
All Board members were in favor of tabling A+ U Pull it, Inc, Automobile Recycling LSD Final Plan.
County
d. Crystal Hills Family Fellowship CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request)
Location: Section 30, Township 15 North, Range 28 West
Owner/Developer: Jason Jones / Jasper Hankins / Jackie Baker
Location Address: 19979 Durham McCord Road (WC #42)
21.46 acres (10 acres split off) / Proposed Land Use: Church/Coordinates: Longitude-93°59’45.182”W Latitude-35°56’38.791”N
Project #: 2009-096 Planner: Juliet Richey, e-mail at jrichey@co.washington.ar.us
Robert Daugherty moved to table Crystal Hills Family Fellowship Conditional Use Permit at the request of the applicant. Roy Hummel seconded. Motion passes.
All Board members were in favor of tabling Crystal Hills Family Fellowship Conditional Use Permit.
Fayetteville’s Planning Area
e. Newcastle Estates CUP (Conditional Use Permit Request)
Location: Section 29, Township 17 North, Range 29 West
Owner/Developer: SML Landholding II, LLC
Representative: Appian Centre for Design
Location Address: (closest addressed property) to the east of 4501 E. Gulley Road (WC #345)
13.27 acres and 32 single-family condominium units / Proposed Land Use: Single-Family Residential
Coordinates: Longitude-94°5’41.468”W Latitude-36°7’22.171”N
Project #: 2009-109 Planner: Courtney McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit Approval for Newcastle Estates CUP. The total acreage of the property is 13.27 acres for 32 single-family residential units, for a proposed density of 2.4 units per acre.
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 FIRE SERVICE AREA: Goshen SCHOOL DISTRICT: Fayetteville
INFRASTRUCTURE: Water – Fayetteville Water; Electric-Ozark Electric; Phone-AT &T Telephone; Gas-Arkansas Western Gas; Cable-Cox Communications
BACKGROUND/ PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
The applicant for this project is Todd Jacobs with Appian Centre for Design, and Austin Rowser with Engineering Innovation. Mike McClendon is the property owner (SML Landholding II, LLC). This project has access on Gulley Road (WC #345) and Castle Rock Drive (WC #2306). The closest addressed property to the west is 4501 E. Gulley Road (WC #345).
This property was previously platted as a 10-lot subdivision and Final Plat approval granted on 6/3/04.
Then, in 2006-2007, the owner requested a Conditional Use Permit to allow 37 units to be placed on the site. This project was tabled repeatedly and then removed by the applicant from the agenda on 7/5/07. Prior to the CUP submittal of this project in 2007, the owner began working on some of the structures and Mr. Butler, Washington County Attorney, had to issue a stop-work order. This construction left partial foundations and additional disturbance on the site.
Please see the list of past submittals below:
· Previous/Different Submittal
The Planning Board granted Newcastle Estates Subdivision Preliminary Plat approval on October 2, 2003 and Final Plat approval on June 3, 2004 for a 10-lot subdivision.
· Previous/Different Submittal
This project came before the Board as Preliminary LSD. (Project # 2006-297) Tabled: 12/07/06, 01/04/07, 02/06/07, 03/01/07, 04/05/07, 05/03/07, & 06/14/07
Removed from the agenda: 07/05/07
· Previous/Different Submittal
(CUP Project #2007-185) CUP Tabled: 12/07/06, 01/04/07, 02/06/07, 03/01/07, 04/05/07, 05/03/07, & 06/14/07
Removed from the agenda: 07/05/07
· Previous/Different Submittal
(CUP Project #2009-064) At the August 6, 2009 Planning Board/Zoning Board of Adjustments Meeting, the project was denied by the Planning Board members based on the density proposed. The applicant had requested 38 single-family units to be placed on 13.27 acres (density of 2.86 units/acre) utilizing a decentralized sewer system.
Now the applicant is requesting 32 single-family units to be placed on 13.27 acres (density of 2.4 units/acre) utilizing a decentralized sewer system. According to the Letter of Submittal (page E-17-18), the applicant intends to vacate the original 10-lot subdivision plat and demolish the partial, existing structures if this CUP is granted. The applicant intends the homes to be operated as single-family units, where someone will buy each individual residence, but the common areas will be owned/operated/maintained by the Property Owners Association.
Staff feels this current proposal more adequately addresses the protection of neighboring properties while maintaining design elements that are favorable. Staff will be recommending approval of this proposed CUP with conditions based on this proposal.
In this proposal, the applicant has pulled the development to the center of the property. They have left buffer areas (around the perimeter of the site) where good, natural buffering exists, and are proposing additional buffering in the areas without an existing natural buffer. Detention drainage ponds have been added to help reduce any runoff to neighboring properties, and this will be studied more extensively at LSD plan review. This differs from the earlier proposal that the Planning Board denied that included residences almost at the edge of the project property, little attention to detention, and no additional planned buffering.
Planning Staff feels that if the density is reduced further the design elements will suffer. As the applicant explains in the submittal letter, the idea is to form a “physically and socially connected community”. With the current density, the applicant is required to have a second entrance that helps provide a framework for the residences. All of the residences are designed to open on to greenspace, have a sidewalk connecting them, and are oriented towards the community building. If the density is reduced further, at some point it will become less feasible for the applicant to design this project with this structure, all of the residences will be crowded down Castle Rock Drive and face the street. While this may leave more open space, it will not necessarily be the communal, usable space with the Traditional Neighborhood Development feel, which the applicant is proposing.
Yes, the development style and density is different from the surrounding area, but the applicant has responded to existing conditions and made several concessions to make this a good fit with minimal impact on surrounding properties.
Staff feels that the developer has addressed many of the concerns from the previous project that was denied, and feels that this current proposal offers a good balance of density and protection for surrounding properties.
TECHNICAL CONCERNS:
Several conditions remain from the previous submittal. Some of these conditions will be addressed at Preliminary and Final Large Scale Development if this proposal receives the requested Conditional Use Permit. Any new information will be bolded in red.
The Staff Report, attachments and additions from the August 6, 2009 Planning Board Meeting are located online at “www.co.washington.ar.us/planning” and then under the “County Planning Board / Zoning Board of Adjustments Meetings” for reference. If you require a hardcopy of this report, please contact the Planning Office.
Water/Plumbing/Fire Issues:
City of Fayetteville Water Utility services this property.
Shannon Jones of City of Fayetteville Engineering requested in the previous submittal that the water line be looped. This has been shown on the plans to his satisfaction (to be constructed at LSD) (page E-35). Mr. Jones also requests a note on the plans “that shared utilities in an easement shall be a minimum of 30-inches from the outside of the pipe to the outside of the pipe.” He has no other concerns about the width of the utility easements at this time. Additional review will be required if the CUP is approved and the project proceeds to Large Scale Development (LSD) Review. The water line must be fully constructed before any water accounts are activated.
The City of Fayetteville Fire Department commented. Captain Mark Stevens, Deputy Fire Marshal for the City of Fayetteville (email from 8-3-09) stated that “The Cul-de-sac on Castle Rock drive (phase I) appears to be less than the required 96 feet in diameter (see Arkansas Fire Code D103.4); it appears to be approximately 80 feet. This is now shown on the plans submitted 9.22.09. I see no problem with both public street NO. 2 locations regarding dead-end turnarounds (phase II)”. He is also concerned with the radius for the curbs at each intersection. These need to be not less than 28 feet. The exception in this case would be the bump out at Castle Rock. Both street connections at Gulley Road and the intersection of Public Street #1 and #2 are at 25 feet. (Phase I and V). This still needs to be corrected. Captain Stevens also stated, “The drawings do not identify the water main size and connection points for the fire hydrants. To ensure adequate water supply for fire protection the water line needs to loop back to the main supply line after connecting to all fire hydrants so there are no dead-end water lines in the development. The existing water line does not provide enough flow as currently designed. The old design was for 10 single-family homes, not the current 38 residential and 1 public building. After phase I is completed the current water supply infrastructure for phase II, III and V will need to be improved.” This concern should be resolved with the water line loop that is required by the City of Fayetteville Water Department.
In addition, this property is within Goshen’s Fire District. Lorel Hoffman, Goshen’s Building and Zoning Official has asked for additional information to be submitted about the design of the community building and stated that this project must be submitted to the Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) for preliminary plumbing review. This is also information that will be further investigated at the LSD Review stage.
Ms. Hoffman also commented, “no porches are allowed in the 10-foot Building Setback (BSB)” (is really the 10’ separation between the buildings, not an actual setback). The 10’ dimension shown on the plan is the distance between walls; the applicants are allowed a maximum 1’ overhang, but it must be fire rated per the building code. Also, there will be no covered porches in the separation area, but uncovered patios are allowed.
Proposed fire hydrants are shown but the fire flow needs to be listed on the plans.
And, Ms. Hoffman requires that the applicant diagram 150-foot distance from fire road and designate fire lanes on the plans. This has been completed; the 150’ diagram has been added to the plans.
John Jenkins, Washington County Fire Marshal, requires that before there are 30 units, the second entrance must be completed. The phase plan shows its completion in Phase 4, before 30 units are to be built, but, if any phases are built out-of-order, this could change. Therefore, before a phase is complete that will put the total number of units over 30; the second entrance must be complete. No parking signs must also be placed to maintain a clear fire access.
Septic:
The applicant is proposing to utilize a Decentralized Sewer System (DSS) for this project. There have been several concerns from Melissa Wonnacott-Center, ADH, and Rhonda Hulse, Public Utilities Coordinator, about this system.
Soils work appears to only support 38 units, which will reduce the density to 2.86 units per acre. However, based on an email from the applicant’s soil classifier, Sheri Herron, (page E-49-50) the State Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Department should be contacted because “they are reviewing these on a case by case basis…. [the applicant should] try to eliminate potential issues before they arise”.
In addition, Ms. Wonnacott-Center has concerns because the required setbacks on this type of system can be between 100-feet and 300-feet from property lines and other structures. These setbacks could reduce the number of units the applicant can place on the site. The actual space required for the treatment units is also not calculated. Melissa Wonnacott-Center, Health Department, email from 8-4-09:
“I spoke with Roy Davis (State Health Department- Engineering Division in Little Rock) and the only thing that he added is that with the large trees in the dispersal field that some of them would not be taken out because that would disturbed the area and therefore could possible require more field lines installed. This can not be calculated until full review is conducted.”
Email in response to Newcastle’s Staff Report for the October 1, 2009 Meeting from Project Engineer, Austin Rowser:
With regards to the septic system (page
E-4), the setbacks that are required by the Arkansas Department of Health (ADH)
are as follows: 1) All treatment units, tanks, and other primary treatment
appurtenances shall be setback 100’ from all property lines. Since this project
is a horizontal property regime, the ADH considers each exterior house wall to
be a property line, and this setback will apply to the houses. As currently
designed, this setback is more than sufficiently met. 2) All treatment units,
tanks, and other primary treatment appurtenances shall be setback 300’ from all
drinking water sources. To my knowledge, the nearest drinking water source is
Beaver Lake. There may be wells in the vicinity, but none are within 300’ of
the proposed system since all adjoining properties are served by City of
Fayetteville culinary water. As currently designed, this setback is more than
sufficiently met. 3) All drain lines for the drip irrigation system shall be at
least 10’ from any property line or house. As currently designed, this setback
is more than sufficiently met.
Also, there is a statement from Ms. Wonnacot-Center that the actual space for
the treatment units is not calculated. This is not an accurate statement. The
treatment units are shown to scale on the current drawings, and sufficient space
is accounted for the units.
There are some inaccurate statements on page E-9 with regards to the size and use of the decentralized system. Based on initial testing results performed by Sheri Herron, the available drip dispersal rate is 0.20 gpd/sf. The design loading rate is 32 units @ 250 gpd/unit = 8,000 gpd. The required drip dispersal area is 8,000 gpd / 0.20 gpd/sf = 40,000 sf. The area required for the septic tank and the treatment units is approximately 3,000 sf for a total required treatment area of 43,000 sf, which is approximately 0.99 acres (not 2.18, as indicated in the staff report). We are also required to have a secondary area in the event the drip field ever fails and requires reconstruction. Therefore, we have reserved a secondary area of 40,000 sf. This area is required ONLY TO BE SET ASIDE; THERE WILL BE NO CLEARING OR CONSTRUCTION IN THIS AREA AND IT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO BE ROPED OFF except for in the very unlikely event of a failure. Also, the larger trees are allowed to remain within the treatment area, so it will not be completely cleared. There are several examples around the county of areas that are roped off, but still available to be accessed as play fields for the residents. This area is still useable space, especially the secondary area, and should not be removed from the project’s density calculations. Additionally, it is not entirely accurate to state that trails are not allowed; while paved trails are not allowed, mulched natural paths are allowed within these areas. Benches can also be placed under large trees that remain to provide very usable passive space within the project.
Email from Roy Davis, (State Health Department- Engineering Division in Little Rock) 9.15.09:
“Courtney, we would not recommend trails over the drip areas themselves, but they could have trails around the area. The drip area should not be used for contact type activity such as soccer, baseball etc. I think we will have to look at the final proposal to determine how the development is planning on utilizing the area. We really need to see finalized plans before we can say what and what will not be allowed. The area will have to be roped off with signs stating something to the effect that the area is being treated with treated wastewater. Normally we would think that would keep down the number of people that will utilize the area. Any use for the area will have to be addressed when final plans are developed......... I really can't answer specific questions unless I have something in writing to run through the entire staff here. I hope this helps you, but I realize the answer is not as specific as you would want........Roy”
As these decentralized systems are still being reviewed on a “case by case” basis, a full, decentralized sewer system study must be completed (if the CUP is approved). It must be approved by the Health Department. If units must be removed to accommodate the sewer system, then staff will support the reduction. However, if a redesign is necessary because of a reduction, this project must come back through the CUP process.
Electric/Gas/Cable/Phone:
The general statements from the utilities servicing this project are:
· As the utilities were designed for a 10-lot subdivision, some utilities may need to be relocated and additional improvements may be required to service 45 units.
· Any relocation or damage to existing utilities will be at the owner/developer’s expense.
The proposed utility easements (u.e.) are now shown, and staff has received additional comments from the utilities about the proposed sizes and locations. Please see the attached letter from Greg McGee, Ozarks Electric. (page E-45-47). Ozarks Electric has a 50-foot U.E. specifically for Ozarks Electric Transmission Lines. “All proposed roads, trails, utility lines, water lines, sewer lines, ROW, and all UEs crossing or inside Ozarks Electric Transmission Easement will have to be approved prior to any construction beginning. No buildings or fences will be allowed inside of the OECC easement”.
The City of Fayetteville Water Department also commented about the UEs, these are located in the “Water, Plumbing, Fire Issues” Section of this staff report.
Roads/Sight Visibility/Ingress-Egress/Parking:
In the platted subdivision, a 70-foot Right of Way (ROW) is shown on the West side of the property, according to Fayetteville’s Master Street plan at the time of subdivision approval in 2004. This street is no longer shown on the City of Fayetteville’s Master Street Plan, so if CUP approval is granted and the developer vacates the original plat, the 70-foot ROW shown can also be vacated. Please see the email from Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director for the City of Fayetteville (page E-27-28).
By adding 35 additional units that access Castle Rock Drive (WC # 2306), the road moves from the Class II category to the Class III category. This will require improvements and additional width to be added to this County Road. The road will be required to be 28-feet wide, not 24-feet as shown. If street parking is allowed on one side of the road, 8 additional feet will be added to the total width. If street parking is allowed on both sides of the road, 16 feet will be added, making the minimum width be 44 feet.
The developer does not feel that the entire road must be upgraded to this standard because less traffic will access the Southern portion of the road. They only want to upgrade the road to just after the intersection of Public Street #1 (the Northern most crossroad). The Road Department has stated that they will accept the road if it is upgraded to just past the intersection of Public Street #2 (the Southern most crossroad-on the newest plans there appear to be two Public Street #2-- so the Southern one). Staff will recommend that the road be upgraded to the Road Department’s recommended location.
Even with the reduction of units (from 45 to 38 and now 32), the road will still need to be updated to a Class III road. The Road Department is making the same recommendation to the extent of the required road upgrades.
The applicant has agreed to upgrade the road to the Road Department’s recommended location.
Castle Rock Drive is an approved, accepted County Road, so any work on this road must be permitted through the Washington County Road Department prior to any work beginning.
Gulley Road (WC # 345) may also need improvement. The Road Department needs to review this further to determine if offsite improvements will be needed because of the traffic increase (32 units = 320 trips per day). The applicant will be required to complete a traffic study if the CUP is approved.
Drainage:
Comment during a previous submittal (project 2006-297) highlights a potential, serious drainage issue (E-66). Staff is not aware if this issue has been addressed, but should be addressed at the LSD plan review.
The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report for Clay Grote, Washington County Contract Engineer, to review. Mr. Grote has reviewed the drainage and is satisfied with it for the CUP request. At Preliminary LSD, the applicant will be required to submit a full report to Mr. Grote’s satisfaction.
Additional detention ponds have been added to the current submittal.
Environmental Concerns:
At this time, no stormwater permit is required by Washington County; however, the applicant must comply with all rules and regulation of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).
City of Fayetteville Comments:
Please see the latest statement and all previous letters from the Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner for the City of Fayetteville (page E-33-34). The City of Fayetteville does not feel that this project reflects surrounding uses or transitions well with the surrounding properties. This project does not reflect the City of Fayetteville’s Future Land Use Plan. Mr. Fulcher recommends the denial of the CUP as proposed. Even with the slight change in density, the City of Fayetteville still does not support this proposal (page E-25, previous comments also included page E-26-33).
Sight Distance:
Washington County recently passed an ordinance increasing the amount of required sight distance for intersections. The speed limit on Gulley Road is 35 mph, therefore, 390 feet of sight distance is required for left turns out of the project site.
The applicant has submitted that the sight distance is approximately 1,100 feet to the West of the proposed entrance at Public Street #1, and 900 feet to the East (page E-29). The applicant performed this sight distance measurement on the site, not based on computer models.
The Road Department is still concerned about the sight distance at the 2nd intersection. The Road Department needs to meet with the engineer on site and check site distance.
The Road Department inspected, sight distance is adequate, utilities must be moved out of the ROW.
COMPATIBILITY CONCERNS:
Surrounding Area:
The surrounding uses are mainly Agricultural or Single-Family Residential.
The average density adjacent to the site is:
· 1 unit/ 3.05 acres or,
· 0.33 units per acre.
The average density within approximately ¼ mile is:
· 1 unit/ 3.66 acres or,
· 0.27 units per acre.
The highest density in the surrounding area is:
· 1 unit/ 0.38 acres or,
· 2.63 units per acre (only one parcel within approximately ¼ mile),
And the lowest is:
· 1 unit/ 7.41 acres or,
· 0.13 units per acre.
There are also several agricultural pieces with no residences.
The proposed density of 2.4 units/acre is not compatible with the surrounding area based on density alone.
(page E-72) (page E-48)
County’s Land Use Plan (written document):
According to the County’s Land Use Plan,
1. RESIDENTIAL
Several goals surfaced as paramount in the PARA Task Force meetings and in a meeting held by the Quorum Court. These include:
a. Provision of a safe living environment that offers quiet, privacy, and a rural flavor and atmosphere;
b. Provision of quality residential development of good design, developed in a manner accessible by an adequate street system to avoid costly infrastructure extensions;
c. Protection of residential areas from incompatible adjacent land uses;
d. Protection of property values; and
e. Provision of safe and adequate access to residential areas, installed in a manner to accommodate emergency and other services.
To achieve these objectives, it is essential to:
a. To provide for development of residential areas at appropriate densities.
b. Update, administer and enforce subdivision regulations; and develop, adopt, and enforce zoning and related regulations and codes;
c. Require development to be connected to utilities and utilize zoning as a means to guide the progression of development;
d. Protect the character and integrity, and property values, of single-family, residential areas;
e. Protect residential neighborhoods from inappropriate non-residential influences through the use of regulatory controls;
f. Ensure land use and development patterns which provide for the most efficient and effective use of available utilities and services, including fire protection; and,
g. Maintain an adequate county road plan and standards to guide and accommodate traffic movement; to develop differing categories of roads; and to protect rights-of-ways for planned, future roads.”
Previous report: Several aspects of this proposed project are not compatible with the Washington County Land Use Plan. The provisions are underlined that staff feels are not met with this proposal. However, due to changes in the design, the proposed project has offered several solutions to buffer and reduce impact on the surrounding property owners. These include additional buffering, additional detention ponds, and pulling the development into the center of the property so as to reduce the impact to surrounding properties.
Previous report: By placing a residential project at this density in a rural area where there are no similar residential densities, staff feels that it will not “offer … a rural flavor and atmosphere” to the surrounding properties. The applicant has provided some buffering and preservation thorough the use of a 50-foot setback/preservation area along the property lines of this project. In addition, small pockets of tree preservation remain throughout the design. Staff feels that this will not adequately mitigate the clearing that must take place to support the proposed Decentralized Sewer System. It appears to staff, that the minimum amount of land to be used for the sewer system is 2.18 acres or 16% of the site. All of that area will be cleared of existing vegetation and inaccessible once the system is completed. This results in 11.09 acres of actively usable land remaining for 38 units to be placed, and that brings the density up to 3.4 units per acre. While the DSS may work as an additional buffer (not tree buffer, but space), it cannot be used for anything other than a sewage drip field. Staff has learned that the area used for the DSS can be used for light, passive activity, such as walking. Trails cannot be built, but the area will not be completely inaccessible. The area must be sectioned off so that no vehicle traffic can access it, but will be allowed to have access for pedestrian. (See attached email from Roy Davis, AR State Health Department E-21-22).
Previous report: Staff feels that this density is incompatible with the surrounding densities, when the highest surrounding density is 2.63 units per acre (only one parcel within approximately ¼ mile), which is not very close to the proposed 2.4 units/acre. The average density in this area is 1 unit/ 3.66 acres or, 0.27 units per acre. While the density alone is incompatible, the applicant has provided several methods to reduce the impact to neighboring properties. They have pulled the developed area into the center of the property, added additional buffering in areas without good natural buffering, and have added additional detention ponds.
Future Land Use Plan
The Future Land Use Plan for this area shows that it is “Rural Area Residential” which is listed as 1 unit per 15 acres. (page E-73) (page E-49)
NEIGHBOR COMMENTS/CONCERNS:
Staff has received several neighbor comments. Some comments were received shortly after the last hearing on August 6, 2009 (before the redesign was submitted), those are included from page E-39-43.
In addition, staff attended a neighborhood meeting held by the developer on September 17, 2009. Several neighbors attended and had questions and concerns for the developers. Two of the neighbors in attendance stated that they did like this redesign and were not opposed. Another neighbor still had several concerns, including, density being too high (feels like it should be closer to what the property is zoned), management of the POA and management of the property if it is a 5-year build out, and that the second entrance is located in a high traffic area and will be dangerous.
Staff also received comments from neighbors unable to attend the meeting held by the developer. Three were “opposed, ” and none “in favor”. (page E-36-38).
Staff will provide the Planning Board Members with any additional comments that are submitted at the Planning Board Meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
If the Road Department has confiremed the sight distance at the second entrance is adequate,Staff recommends approval of the proposed Newcastle Estates Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions:
Mike and Judy McClendon, SML Landholding II, LLC, and Austin Rowser, Engineering Innovation, and Todd Jacobs, Appian Centre for Design, were present to answer any questions.
Laney stated, “I think everybody on the Board was on the Board the first time (August 6, 2009). So we will maybe a little bit more summary than normal and talk about the changes because it was only two or three meetings ago. Just make sure everybody had that background on it.”
Juliet Richey, Washington County Planning Director, commented, “Courtney, if you want to skip over some of the more technical stuff. We did get a couple of letters from surrounding property owners and just to be clear we tried to explain this to the property owners and I know that we’ve talked about this before, but it is an area that is zoned single-family residential and agricultural with a minimum lot size of one acre by right. Then all other uses are Conditional Use, so it’s not that those uses are strictly prohibited; there’s nothing compromising about granting a Conditional Use if you feel that it’s appropriate. This is a project that Staff has reviewed extensively and we do feel that they’ve made quite a few concessions (when they re-submitted) that we feel like makes it a much better project and makes it fit into the neighborhood and have very little impact on the surrounding neighbors.”
Laney asked, “Can you show me what is existing and what’s not; new screen and what’s going to be preserved screen?” McNair replied, “They will be putting their decentralized sewer system here which will clear out part of it. There was a big gap right here they are proposing to fill in. They are going to be doing an inventory to see the good vegetation. It really has reduced the impact on those exterior edges. They really concentrated it more in the center and added much more detention pond area and they’re planning on using some bioswales in that area. They have the additional buffering and the additional tree screening that they’re going to add in those places that didn’t have good natural buffering. Planning Staff is recommending approval of this project because we feel that if the density is reduced any further some of the design elements of this project will suffer. As the applicant explained in his submittal letter he wanted a physically and socially connected community. Right now, these all have access to greenspaces; they are very communal they all have access to sidewalks and they face inside not out onto the street. With the current density; the applicant is required to build the second road, which helps give some structure to the project, but in the future if the density keeps being reduced it won’t be feasible for him to do that second road and, therefore, I believe that they will probably wind up just utilizing Castle Rock Drive and lining them up - up and down that road facing the road and while there may be more greenspace left that way I’m not entirely sure that it means that it will be the good communal greenspace that they’ve got proposed right now that with the sidewalks and with the connections that that second road adds on.”
Hummel asked, “Courtney repeat that for me. Are you saying what we’re looking at is not what he’s going to do?” McNair replied, “No, this is what they’re proposing right now. If he reduces density if this Conditional Use Permit doesn’t get approved, then the developer will probably come back with a lower number, but if they do that the second road won’t be required. When you have less than 30 units you don’t have to have but one entrance. Once he does that he’ll probably wind up all the houses along Castle Rock Drive facing the street and then you won’t have that same sense of the community spaces that are created right now. We understand that the development style and the density is different from the surrounding areas, but the applicant really has responded to existing conditions and made several concessions, like Juliet said, to make this a good fit and have minimal impact on the neighboring properties. Staff feels that the developer has addressed many of the concerns from the previous project that was denied and feels that the current proposal offers a good balance of density and protection for the surrounding properties.”
McNair commented, “There are some technical things, but Randy said that he wanted me to skip over quite a bit of t