Pictured above: an imaginary book I wish I had when I first started learning about County Planning and Zoning
When I first saw the proposed Washington County Planning and Zoning Ordinance (link) in February 2024, I had a lot of questions. Many of you did too. I wondered what it would mean for development, property rights, and the future of our rural and agricultural areas.
Since then, the proposal has changed a lot. Over the past 17 months, it’s been amended many times, with hours of public discussion and review. I brought forward several of the successful amendments myself. The current version removes all commercial zoning and the commercial zoning map - those were taken out months ago. It also does not give the County Judge any new powers.
Some people may be surprised that I support it, especially if they opposed earlier versions. Here’s why:
It Strengthens Enforcement
Right now, our zoning rules are hard to enforce. Violators can be fined $250 a day, but those fines stop while the case is on appeal. That loophole has allowed bad actors, like rogue dirt mine operators, to game the system by filing endless appeals, so they can keep operating without facing any consequences.
The new ordinance raises the fine to $1,000 a day and keeps the penalties going even during appeals. That gives us stronger tools to protect neighbors and the environment.
It Fixes Legal Problems
Some of our existing planning ordinances were passed decades ago in ways that might not hold up in court today. This problem was only discovered in recent years. In legal terms, some of our older ordinances amended the “codification” rather than the actual laws themselves. It’s a small but important distinction that could put parts of our current planning and zoning code at risk.
This new ordinance is a chance to fix those issues - crossing our t’s, dotting our i’s, and creating a legal foundation that will stand up if challenged.
I also helped pass an amendment that addresses legal questions over the definition of a single-family home. It removes language requiring “one family” that could be seen as discriminatory. Instead, the ordinance would focus on occupancy, with a maximum of two individuals per bedroom. This mirrors HUD guidelines.
It Matches Updates in State Law
In early 2025, the Arkansas Legislature ended “territorial jurisdictions” - the areas outside city limits where cities used to have some control over planning. Now, counties like ours are responsible for those areas.
I sponsored a multi-page amendment in April 2025 to ensure our ordinance matches this new law. It rewrote several sections of the code to remove references to city territorial jurisdictions and clearly assign planning responsibility to Washington County. Without this change, the ordinance would have been outdated the day it passed. This update makes sure our rules reflect the current reality and are legally enforceable going forward.
It Puts All the Rules in One Place
Right now, figuring out what you can build and where in Washington County means digging through dozens of ordinances passed over many decades. It’s confusing and hard to follow.
The new ordinance puts everything into one clear document, using a template from Municode. This is actually a big improvement for transparency, compared to what we have now:
Here’s a sample of what our current planning and zoning code looks like. Yikes!
What This Ordinance Doesn’t Do
No One’s Zoning Will Change
All the commercial zoning proposals were removed months ago. The zoning map will stay the same as it has been. Unincorporated land in the county will remain low-density residential and agricultural by right, with everything else requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) on a case-by-case basis.
I believe allowing some Mixed-Use Zoning (commercial plus residential/agricultural) is worth revisiting in the future. Land-use experts I've spoken to think it should be limited and clustered in certain locations, like at some major state highway intersections. But that is not in this ordinance.
It Doesn’t Give New Powers to the County Judge
This is one of the biggest misunderstandings. The proposed ordinance keeps the exact same appeals processes we already have today - nothing changes about who makes the final decision.
I helped pass an amendment that clarifies the county has two existing appeals processes for different things - land development appeals and zoning appeals:
- Land Development Appeals - These are appeals of the county’s Land Development standards and regulations, which the Quorum Court has approved over many decades. The process is on page 46 of the proposed ordinance, and it's the same one we’ve had since 1991. In this process, the County Judge hears the appeal as a quick, intermediate step. The ordinance ends by saying the County Judge’s decision is “final”, but that just means there is no higher administrative appeal within county government. It does not mean the case is over. Anyone who disagrees can still appeal to Circuit Court, which has the true final say under state law. Appeals like this are rare; only one has happened since 2021.
- Zoning and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Appeals - These are completely separate from Land Development appeals. Zoning Appeals are on page 70 of the proposed ordinance. State law is clear: these appeals go to the Quorum Court, not the County Judge. This process remains exactly the same as it is today.
I would not support anything that hands more authority to the County Judge, and this does not.
In short: the County Judge has no new powers in the proposed ordinance. The Land Development appeal process is unchanged from the one we’ve had since 1991, and zoning-related appeals still go to the Quorum Court just as state law requires.
Here's a comparison between the 1991 ordinance and the new proposal:
Town Halls, Regional Planning, and Some Valid Criticism
Some have rightly criticized this process for not having a public town hall meeting with open Q&A. I agree this is something the administration should have done. Without it, misinformation has been allowed to run rampant. While there has been public comment at every meeting where this ordinance has been discussed, and we’ve answered all questions from anyone who reached out, I agree that for big changes in the future, a town hall must be part of the process.
We should also work closely with our regional partners on future updates, including Benton County, city leaders, local experts, and the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission (NWARPC).
The NWARPC was part of drafting this ordinance starting in 2019. Their years of contributions are part of the long history of work that brought us to where we are today. Jeff Hawkins, the former NWARPC director, and his team worked with county staff to review the shortcomings in our current zoning rules and suggest improvements. The original commercial zoning section in the ordinance (before it was removed a few months ago) was written under Hawkins’ guidance. He submitted his last version of a recommended zoning code in October 2023, before stepping away for personal reasons. After that, county staff decided not to replace him with someone else from NWARPC, because the draft ordinance was finished by then - it came to the Quorum Court just four months later, in February 2024. However, I think we should continue having a dialogue with NWARPC about big planning and zoning changes, because our whole region needs to work together.
Laying a Foundation for the Future
In my view, this ordinance is a first step: the foundation. It organizes the rules we already have, fixes legal issues in the current code, updates it to match new state laws, and strengthens enforcement. But there’s more to do.
For example, I’ve heard good suggestions for improving the Conditional Use Permit process. Those deserve a look. But we shouldn’t try to "boil the ocean" and change everything all at once. One of the problems early in this process was that the ordinance tried to take on too much at the same time.
That’s why I consider this Phase 1: a consolidated version of our current rules with a few needed updates. Future changes can build on this foundation.
Our ordinances should be living documents, updated as needed. I’m committed to making sure we keep improving them.
Final Thoughts
I understand why some people are still wary. Much of the opposition is based on earlier versions of this ordinance that included controversial items, like commercial zoning and a zoning map, that were removed months ago. Others may not know the ordinance would help us crack down on violators, like rogue dirt mine operators. Or that there are no new powers going to the County Judge, with the appeals process for Land Development decisions the same as it’s been since 1991, and Zoning Appeals still going to the Quorum Court under state law.
Over the past 17 months, I've listened to the public, debated openly, and I’ve gotten significant changes passed. I think the result is an ordinance that strengthens enforcement, fixes legal problems, matches state law, and brings all our rules into one clear document.
This is a foundation we can build on. It protects our land, our neighbors, and our shared future. And that’s why I’ll be voting yes.
Thank you so much, Evelyn! I admit I had not been following the zoning issues closely, but you have clearly, concisely, and comprehensively explained them to me.
Thank you for your work and attention to this Evelyn.
What about the INDUSTRIAL Zoning? Have those been removed from the map?
I live next door to one of those Limestone Quarries in the County which were miraculously changed to INDUSTRIAL ZONES in the proposed new ordinance. This is terrifying to think that MORE Heavy INDUSTRIAL projects could be easily clustered in these areas which are already under environmental strain, create unbearable nuisance level noise, dust and dump truck traffic.
I forgot to mention Industrial Zones. Those were removed months ago along with the Commercial Zones.
Excellent- thank you for all your hard work!