|
|
|
|
Please note there are many issues that can be pointed out within this document. The poignant question is: Show us evidence that Washington County is facing major problems and help us understand why existing laws and ordinances are needing to be restated, amended and added to? It is our contention this document has been taken from the U.N. Agenda 21 document. The ideas and rational reflect the Agenda 21 concepts in an amended form. Please note a statement made by Washington County resident Paul Davis at the Quorum Court meeting 12-8-05: "What we are facing is an ideological difference." Private property rights inherent in Arkansas State Constitution and the US Constitution verses Communist Style over-arching control.
DRAFT REPORT TO THE WASHINGTON COUNTY QUORUM COURT PARA TASK FORCE H.
L. Goodwin, Jr. and Randy Laney, Co-Chairmen Jeff
Hawkins, Facilitator Fayetteville, AR October 13, 2005 DRAFT
REPORT OF THE PARA TASK FORCE TO
THE WASHINGTON COUNTY QUORUM COURT Introduction
PARA
Organizational Framework In early June, Judge Jerry Hunton asked nearly four dozen Washington County citizens to participate in this effort. The Judge’s appointees to the task force were thought to be a representative cross-section of the areas and interests likely to be impacted by subsequent action (or inaction) regarding future growth management. They included citizens from the business, real estate and development, agricultural and environmental communities as well as mayors and school superintendents or their representatives. A complete listing of the PARA Task Force is shown in Figure 1. The PARA Task Force’s initial, organizational meeting was held on Wednesday, June 22nd. Randy Laney of the Washington County Planning Board and H.L. Goodwin of the Washington County Quorum Court were appointed co-chairs of the task force, with Jeff Hawkins of the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission as facilitator. In addition, the following county staff resources were made available to PARA: Karen Beeks, Quorum Court Reporter; Berni Kurz, Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service; Frank Ditmars, Road Department; Juliet Richey, Planning Director; Shawn Shrum, Environmental Affairs Director; Melissa Wonnacott, Arkansas Health Department; John Jenkins, Fire Marshall; John Luther, 9-1-1/Emergency Management Director; George Butler, County Attorney and John Gibson, Country Administrator. In an effort to insure and facilitate a full and thorough identification of the issues, the task force divided into the following sub-committees: Agriculture/water quality; Infrastructure; Government Services; Economic Development; Residential Subdivisions; Quality of Life; and Growth Areas (Figure 2). This approach allowed more participation and involvement of members in development of goals, objectives, and recommendations associated with those specific areas of concern. Beginning in late June and continuing to the present, the PARA Task Force has met every other Wednesday with subcommittee chairs meeting together on alternating Wednesdays. Agendas for the Task Force meetings appear in Appendix A. Three particular sessions were dedicated to the strategic issues of decentralized sewers, protection of agricultural lands (Appendix B) and a review of the current county planning regulations and issues associated with these regulations (Appendix C). The task force heard and took under advisement presentations regarding long range transportation plans; existing city and county land use and development regulations; “step” and de-centralized sewer systems; and most importantly methods recognized by the American Farmland Trust as tools being utilized nationwide to protect and preserve farmland. Arkansas’ right to farm statue was also reviewed. Respective subcommittees met in the interim at their convenience on numerous other occasions. Every effort was made to try and insure that all issues affecting unincorporated areas were identified. Besides the many task force and subcommittee discussions and meeting, public listening sessions were held on July 5th, August 1st, and October 3rd. These public listening sessions were considered critical in insuring the open and free expression and consideration of comments, concerns and views of the general public. To that end and in an effort to garner as much public input as possible, a website was created and posted at www.co.washington.ar.us/para and the following email address was established to receive further comments and views: para@co.washington.ar.us. After reviewing the county’s existing land use map created by Juliet Richey, Planning Director, with the cooperation of Lee Ann Kizzar, County Assessor, initial discussions centered on matters related to the rate of growth, types of development, existing conditions and existing and likely future development patterns. A deliberation approach was then undertaken in an effort to address the effects resulting from what the resolution called the “collision of interests” among agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial uses in rural and unincorporated areas. The process was structured as follows: first, a thorough identification of the issues; second, the development of specific goals and objectives, third, a review of existing rules, regulations, and policies, and their effectiveness in adequately addressing the issues raised; fourth, a review of the various methods and tools employed elsewhere to ensure orderly growth and development, and to protect agricultural and rural areas; and finally, the development of recommendations to address the identified issues and achieve the stated goals. Issue Identification As might be expected, there were duplications and overlaps in issue identification among subcommittees, as well as through the listening sessions. There were also many concurring statements of concern, including the necessity of balancing individual property rights with community interests and goals. There was very little debate that uncontrolled growth is having a negative effect on the county and that considerations should be given to managing growth in a way or ways that will have a minimal adverse effect on agricultural and rural areas—protection of those areas if you will. Obviously the more agreement there is on the issues, the easier and more acceptable it should be for solutions to be put into place. A sampling of some of the initial issues that were identified follows: Issues Identified
Goal Setting The subcommittees each developed extensive lists of issues affecting unincorporated agricultural and rural areas that they felt warranted attention. Once developed, the subcommittees were asked to prioritize their comprehensive lists to four overriding issue, which were then transformed into goals. These lists and their condensed and prioritized goals are shown in their entirety in Appendix D. In light of staff reports on existing rules, regulations and policies and their effectiveness (or lack there of) in addressing the issues raised the subcommittees narrowed their focus to their respective four most important objectives. These objections were subsequently reviewed and refined into the PARA Task Force goals:
More detailed explanations of the ultimate goals adopted by the task force is attached in Appendix E. Growth Management
Techniques Growth management techniques were discussed in detail and subcommittees were asked to prepare individual reports on tactics and growth management techniques that would best achieve their respective goals (see attached subcommittee reports). Of the 19 growth management techniques identified, the following were considered to be most applicable PARA goal achievement. In no particular order, they are:
More detailed discussion of these management techniques is available from the NWA Regional Planning Commission; a brief summary of the techniques deemed applicable by the Task Force are presented in Appendix F. Recommendations Detailed recommendations of the task Force subcommittees are presented in Appendix G. These recommendations will form the basis for the draft ordinance(s) that PARA is charged to deliver to the Quorum Court by its December 8, 2005 meeting. The process will be comprised of the same weekly meeting schedule followed since June and will include four committee chairs and staff meetings and one interim meeting of the entire Task Force. Of course, as always has been the case, the entire Task Force is welcome to the committee chairs meetings. Absent directions to the contrary the PARA Task Force will diligently proceed ahead toward achievement of the products called for in articles 5 and 6 of resolution 2005-15. There is no denying that rapid, relatively uncontrolled growth has serious negative consequences for Washington County’s agricultural and rural areas. We are pleased to be of service to the Quorum Court in its efforts to chart an acceptable course and develop specific recommendations and solutions for addressing these difficult issues. As Judge Hunton so aptly stated at the beginning of this effort, “Doing nothing is not an option”. The character, integrity, and viability of our agricultural and rural areas must be protected. The intent of this PARA Task Force is and has been from the outset to structure as many voluntary and fully incentive-type and appropriate opportunities for the residents of Washington County to protect its agricultural and rural history and character while allowing for rational and agreed upon growth for our residents and our future generations.
Figure 1. PARA TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP LEGAL ADVISER: George E. Butler, Jr., Esq.
Figure 2. PARA TASK FORCE SUB-COMMITTEES
APPENDIX A PARA Task Force Agendas MEETING OF THE Wednesday, June 22, 2005
2.
Introduction of Co-Chairs. 3.
Statement of Purpose (Reading of Resolution No. 2005-15). 4.
Introduction of Task Force Members. 5.
Name Sub-Committees & Make Assignments. 6.
Judge Hunton Remarks (Overview of Current Issues). 7.
Introduction of Resource Staff. 8.
Sub-Committee Breakouts (To Discuss Approaches to Issues). 9.
Sub-Committee Reports on Future Informational Needs. 10.
Discussion Regarding Public Involvement & Input. 11.
Scheduling of Meetings. 12.
Adjournment.
/kb MEETING OF THE Wednesday, June 29, 2005
1.
Call to Order 2.
Introduction of Co-Chairs 3.
Introduction of (new) Task Force Members 4.
The Process Ahead (Jeff Hawkins) 5.
Sub-Committee Breakouts (Further Identification of Issues) 5.
Sub-Committee Reports on Issues & Future Informational Needs (if any)
6. Scheduling of Meetings (Task Force, Sub-Committee Chairs & Public Listening Session) 7.
Decentralized Sewers (Guest Speaker) 8.
Adjournment /kb
MEETING
OF THE Wednesday,
July 13, 2005
2. Where
We Are (Jeff Hawkins). 3. Transportation Planning Impacting Washington County (John McLarty, NWARPC). 4. Sub-Committee Breakouts - 15 minutes (Finalization of Sub-Committee Objectives). 5. Report on Sub-Committee Goals and Objectives (Sub-Committee Chairs). 6. Report from County Staff on Status of Current Regulations: < Juliet Richey, Planning Director < Melissa Wonnacot, Health Department < John Jenkins, Fire Marshal < Shawn Shrum, Environmental Affairs Officer < Frank Ditmars, Road Superintendent < John Luther, Dept. of Emergency Management Director 7. The Process Ahead (Jeff Hawkins). 8. Public Comment. 9. Adjournment. /kb MEETING OF
THE Wednesday,
July 27, 2005 A G E N D A 1.
Call to Order. 2.
Status Report. 3. Meeting Objective: Alternatives to land use planning and regulations to get handle on growth in Washington County. 4.
Sub-Committee Breakouts (15-minutes). 5.
Report from Sub-Committee Chairs. 6.
Report on National Association of Counties Meeting. 7. Upcoming Listening Session – Monday, August 1, at 7:00 p.m. 8. Next Meeting Objective: Decision on strategic approach to meet PARA objectives. 9.
Public Comment. 10.
Adjournment. /kb
August 19, 2005 MEETING OF
THE Wednesday,
August 24, 2005
/kb
September 14, 2005 MEETING OF
THE Wednesday,
September 14, 2005
3. Presentation of
Committee Reports on Tactics to Achieve Goals Using Growth Management Techniques and
/kb
MEETING OF
THE Wednesday,
September 28, 2005
1.
Call to Order. 2. Status Report and Meeting Objective. 3.
Presentation of Remaining Committee Reports on Tactics to Achieve Goals Using
Growth Management Techniques and Agricultural Protection Methods. 4. Open Discussion on Report to Quorum Court. 5.
Next Meeting Objective. The next full Task Force
meeting is October 12. Report presentation to Quorum Court on October
13. 6.
Upcoming Listening Session – Monday, October 3, at 7:00 p.m. 7.
Public Comment Period (15-minutes). 8.
Adjournment. /kb APPENDIX B Summary of Current Planning
Shortcomings
Exemptions (land transactions exempt from the typical subdivision ordinance standards) were created to allow administrative review and approval of the distribution of land among family members and to expedite the review and approval process for subdivisions that have a low impact on existing County resources (will not require road improvements, etc). Problems with exemption regulations:
Exempt splits are treated the same on a Residential Drive as they are on an accepted and maintained County Road. Each additional exempt split means the addition of impact on a road not regularly scheduled for maintenance, therefore leading to possible access problems. Staff feels that a separate set of more stringent exemption regulations should perhaps be written to deal with splits along Residential Drives.
SUBDIVISIONS Right now subdivisions are just a basic set of minimum standards. The minimum standards are broad and tentatively cover a lot of ground, but generally do not encourage different types of growth one way or another. Staff feels that the Court must begin to make decisions on what the “growth vision” of this County should be via regulations that encourage certain standards of growth. Many rural residents have the preconceived notion that living in the country equates a larger lot size. As the county code stands right now, the minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet, roughly a quarter of an acre…Four lots to an acre is not what a lot of people think of when they think of rural living. This is an issue that has come up over and over at Planning Board meetings since I have been here. I realize that this was not such a large problem prior to the arrival of decentralized wastewater systems within the County, but that density is currently allowed and is being used…I think something the Court needs to think about is whether this is a good thing or bad thing… Again, what is the Court’s vision for this County? One option would be the creation of a stepped or categorized subdivision system based upon the density desired by the developer:
Broad/ minimum standards may have sufficed and worked well in the past, but now the County can use the density that the developers are asking for to get some things that the County needs…we just need to determine what those are… ie. Vegetative buffers around subdivisions, preserved green space, preserved agricultural land or woodlands, regional detention facilities, parks, playgrounds, etc? What are our needs, our wants…our vision? Also, there are issues with private road developments- we need to decide where the County wants to go with this in the future. Private roads are a hazard as far as fire and emergency safety go and hazard in general. Usually only one or two property owners end up taking care of whole road. The Planning Office has had many calls about this over the last few months. Realtors also do not seem to understand the private road system and the ramifications to the property owner who buys/owns land on a private road. Many times realtors erroneously inform property owners/ purchasers that they are buying property along a county road, etc. This is misleading to the public. The Court should also look at a different set of regulations to deal with small-scale subdivisions and replats. Right now the standards on the books for subdivisions are a blanket regulation treating all divisions of land (that do not qualify for the exempt process)- be it 2 lots or 1,000 lots- the same. This is a financial issue for property owners who are not developers by trade. Large Scale Developments The Large Scale Development ordinance is written somewhat effectively to deal with issues pertaining to large mining/quarry developments. It is not written to effectively address the issues of general commercial developments over one acre (which fall under the ordinance’s jurisdiction). The Quorum Court should begin to look at what does the Court think should qualify as a LSD and we sort of regulations can be enforced under the current staffing of the Planning Department? At this point in time all that the ordinance allows staff and the Planning Board to look at is drainage and roads/traffic impact. Does the public/Quorum Court feel that is adequate review for areas within the Planned Growth Areas and the County? The current result is that developers/people who intentionally bypass a city’s rules and ordinances will build in the County- sometimes directly adjacent to a city limit line. Does the Court feel that the County should be more stringent in planned growth areas and take up the slack the City cannot?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
