[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6488708,"mediaKeyId","5653712-c4a08eb06e7fbe44e94239d61410d1d9","parentId",5653712,"title","Quorum court adopts consolidated planning and zoning code; planning board reconstituted","audioSeconds",4828,"startMs",3229000,"endMs",8057000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5653712-c4a08eb06e7fbe44e94239d61410d1d9&start=3229&end=8057","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5653712-c4a08eb06e7fbe44e94239d61410d1d9/thumbnail_3229000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6488708/Washington-County/Arkansas/Quorum-court-adopts-consolidated-planning-and-zoning-code-planning-board-reconstituted","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6488708-60a4b0506d2a12a66b841478842a04d6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770663087&Signature=FV7I94W7GhHHrumplzGcz41oBVSgvL4tgpvr~~G~Hnuuw-Q9W2PpGHBhU68F5SS9mY56T-oJUrxqDitwTXIGhabV5uWfTz1zHNT~Ij0uCcXHfXw8xgWI9rW6wBuqOJAxdgAOskkT56gCICeNsXMM1ShDgYSlfnxQKxQXCadhfgXWnThbnoNcEUx8bjVHu3xZExqwblbfYeX5x6Z4jTTw~kt~lPKgASV~o3N339vb62CdoOKwBOmjKRD6LpyAf4OXyoBQ6nh6sHVL7nZJz7JMthHaBt2tfwKEEklkhopZCmyTZk70UrMn6qXBd23UiIu6~IwLpt2v~nYAjMwfX7u7~w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Washington County","date","2025-08-22T01:39:25.357Z","article","The Washington County Quorum Court voted to adopt a consolidated planning and zoning ordinance during its August 2025 meeting and approved appointments to reconstitute the county planning board.

The ordinance (considered as item 9.1) passed on a roll call of 10-5. Proponents said the ordinance consolidates dozens of separate, scattered amendments into one searchable code, improves public access and enables improved enforcement of land-use rules. Justice Lyons described the proposal as \"taking every one of those... and putting it into one document\" to make requirements easier for residents and developers to find.

Supporters, including County Judge Patrick Deakins and Justice Rio Stafford, said the consolidated code corrects historical drafting errors, updates territorial jurisdiction language to reflect state changes effective Aug. 5 and raises penalties designed to deter illegal operations such as unpermitted dirt pits. Judge Deakins told the court that, once codified, the Association of Arkansas Counties (AAC) would prepare an indexed, searchable official version for public access.

Opponents criticized parts of the draft as disorganized and flagged specific procedural concerns. Justice Koger said the ordinance centralizes too much authority in the county judge's office and questioned provisions that shift notice responsibilities from the county to developers. Other critics said the draft includes a repealer clause that, if successfully challenged, could create temporary gaps in the county's zoning code; several justices urged further cleanup and indexing before final codification.

The court also approved reappointments to the planning board and a new appointment. County Judge Deakins nominated reappointments for Lauren Shackleford, Jay Piercy, Chantelle Perrier, Anthony McNutt, Robert Daugherty and Marla Pearson and presented Micah Thompson as a new appointee; the court approved the slate during the meeting and signaled the planning board would resume business following the appointments.

Public comment before the vote included residents, developers and advocates offering both praise for consolidation and requests for further refinement. Residents raised concerns about enforcement, fines that may be insufficient to deter large-scale illegal mining operations, the need for clearer definitions (for example, agritourism and what constitutes a quarry) and the suggestion that the court hold a dedicated public forum for Q&A rather than relying solely on the meeting's comment period.

Outcome and next steps: The ordinance passed and will be transmitted for official codification; the court and staff said they would pursue indexing and digital publication through AAC and consider follow-up amendments to address the drafting issues raised in debate.

Ending: Supporters emphasized the practical benefits of consolidation and urged subsequent targeted changes; opponents requested amendments to appeal provisions and notice procedures before the final codification stage.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Washington County Regular Quorum Court Meeting 08/21/25","oneSentenceSummary","The Washington County Quorum Court voted to adopt a consolidated planning and zoning ordinance and reconstituted the county planning board at its August 2025 meeting.","taxTitle","Washington County, Arkansas","taxId",4592,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6488713,"Quorum court rejects repeal of conditional-use permit rule for Eagle Crest recovery home",2614,2602000,5216000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5653712-c4a08eb06e7fbe44e94239d61410d1d9&start=2602&end=5216","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5653712-c4a08eb06e7fbe44e94239d61410d1d9/thumbnail_2602000.jpg","/articles/6488713/Washington-County/Arkansas/Quorum-court-rejects-repeal-of-conditional-use-permit-rule-for-Eagle-Crest-recovery-home","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6488713-12ea9ea0b292d57d0fb95b0a8f1fd11c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770663087&Signature=BORXZuTaQILpkpQKxnXTutxx7M2e3GBAIfw2L92bVkBXXpbySLPv9KUIzWzdYxbucBVCmO6NkfxihyrTr3k5v3pjAoVjgeUIl35iRvg9znaPqm1C-WLEgVSpci5MHXqJeDqYfCt5aIxCmVKVNJIyNWk367dyTwvfGzdxUDshwn-lXuhDrBHtQeIyky5aPGi-NXzrzcTgMWanVs~TYxpgP66UpGk5L2myE08rmTvnRd736HfkFkQSWXDDfpmmgxj7ZmRjdTxLpwGNycrsYCZq~T7HHb0fWnxCB0OyxVlWb2DGLvtsQLDPBuwUpagM1jUsgxcLLojb4gjpxg99~a83~A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At its August 2025 meeting, the Washington County Quorum Court voted against an ordinance that would have repealed the county's conditional-use permit (CUP) requirement as applied to the Eagle Crest recovery facility.

The vote on the motion to pass (moved by Justice Lyons, seconded by Justice Rio Stafford) failed, with 4 voting yes, 7 voting no and 1 abstention. The court had before it legal guidance and public comment arguing both that federal disability law preempts local zoning and that neighborhood safety and planning oversight remain pressing concerns.

The issue drew the meeting's longest debate. Justice Lyons argued the county risked a large civil-rights judgment if it maintained a CUP requirement, citing a November 2016 joint U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development/Department of Justice statement and a temporary injunction by U.S. District Judge Brooks that, Lyons said, \"concludes that there is a substantial probability that the plaintiff . . . will succeed at trial.\" Justice Lyons said treating recovery homes differently from other shared-occupancy arrangements could violate the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act and expose taxpayers to legal fees.

Opponents told the court they sympathized with federal-law concerns but said local planning oversight and neighbors' safety needed to be protected. Justice Koger described the outcome as \"setting a dangerous precedent\" that could undermine land-use integrity if local conditions and oversight were removed. Several neighbors and attorneys representing neighbors urged the court not to adopt language that explicitly names a private party or that appears to be a carve-out for a single operator.

County legal counsel, identified in the meeting as Counselor Lester, told the court there is a pending federal case and that an agreed injunction allows Eagle Crest to continue operating while the litigation proceeds. Counselor Lester said the case is set for trial in U.S. District Court in February 2026 and that the county previously had a repeal that was overturned in state court because the planning board had not held a required public hearing.

Public commenters included neighbors who said they feared traffic, noise and safety impacts, and supporters of Eagle Crest who said recovery residences provide needed services and should receive the same protections as other housing for people with disabilities. Speakers included Mary McKinney and Charles McKinney (neighbors), attorney Steve Zaga (representing the McKinneys), and Seth Haines (representing Eagle Crest).

After roll-call voting, the motion to repeal failed. The court did not pass any alternative conditions or direct staff to prepare a substitute ordinance during the meeting.

What happened next: item 8.1 failed and the pending federal litigation remains active; several justices called for caution and for the county to avoid further litigation costs.

Ending: Several justices said they hoped to find a way to address neighbors' complaints through enforcement of state building, septic and fire codes (which local officials said are enforced by state agencies) or through negotiated conditions short of reopening litigation, but no formal follow-up motion was adopted at the meeting.","At its August 2025 meeting the Washington County Quorum Court voted down a proposed ordinance that would have repealed the county's requirement that certain recovery homes obtain a conditional-use permit, after extended debate about federal civil-rights law, local zoning authority and potential legal costs.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Quorum court adopts consolidated planning and zoning code; planning board reconstituted

Quorum court rejects repeal of conditional-use permit rule for Eagle Crest recovery home