LITTLE ROCK — Flipping through the 60 pages of proposed landuse regulations in the Lake Maumelle watershed on Friday, Lorie White said the technical language Pulaski County is considering adopting is so burdensome on a small landowner that building a new fence would be too expensive and difficult.
“If this was about water, I’d be all for it. But it’s not,” said White, whose husband’s family has owned 30 acres in the watershed longer than Lake Maumelle has existed.
“It’s so overreaching for what they need. This is a 60-page document that could be three pages,” she said.
The Pulaski County planning board and Central Arkansas Water commissioners are to vote this week on whether to endorse the land-use regulations that would ban landfills and other potentially harmful developments near the lake that provide much of the region’s drinking water. The regulations, under review for the past year, would also limit the number of houses that could be built per acre and require developers to set aside land not to be developed.
Central Arkansas Water commissioners are to meet at 3:30 p.m. Monday in the utility’s administration building at 221 E. Capitol Ave. in Little Rock. Pulaski County’s planning board is to meet at 3 p.m. Tuesday in the County Administration Building at 201 S. Broadway in Little Rock.
Arkansas counties have long taken a hands-off approach to regulating development in unincorporated areas. But in Pulaski County’s case, the measures are meant to prevent pollution from draining into Lake Maumelle in the decades to come.
Central Arkansas Water adopted a watershed management plan in 2007 that called for limits on development, but it has no regulatory authority in the watershed. The utility relies on Pulaski County to adopt and enforce ordinances to protect the lake and the creeks that flow into it.
Central Arkansas Water commissioners are to vote on whether to support the new regulations, which have drawn some criticism even from their longtime supporters who say the county’s proposed ordinance differs too much from the utility’s 2007 plan. After much consideration, Graham Rich, the utility’s director, said he would be recommending to commissioners that they support the county’s land-use plan even as they lobby for last-minute changes on how small landowners are defined in the ordinance.
“The proposed zoning code does provide the framework to protect the watershed,” Rich said Friday. “Obviously it does allow the potential for more density, but it also does place a cap on density. It does require a certain amount of undisturbed area. It does have prohibitions of certain activities in the watershed.”
“There are a lot of good things contained in that,” he said.
If water commissioners don’t support the regulations, Pulaski County Judge Buddy Villines said the plan will be dead in the water.
“Frankly, I’d see no point in going any further,” he said Friday. “They’ve been a part of this process from the very beginning. They’re the ones who asked us to develop these protections for the watershed. If they decide they don’t want it, well that’s up to them.”
The utility paid $253,000 to draft the proposed regulations, as well as a recent subdivision ordinance that set limits on pollution and direct developers on how to meet those limits. The subdivision ordinance didn’t delve into density or how many houses per acre, or address prohibited uses that utility officials say are needed to protect the watershed.
Landowners like White are not happy about the latest land-use regulations, which she sees as limiting what she can do with her property and devaluing it in the event that the extended family chooses to sell a few acres.
The land-use plan is aimed at large developers, but White and her attorney, Kent Walker, say the regulations would end up treating small landowners as developers if they want to build fences or barns or additions to homes.
White said the county could address prohibited uses without the multiple layers of land-use regulations and that dirt roads that contribute to pollution in storm-water runoff could be paved with the money the utility is charging for protecting the watershed.
White thinks the county should start over and rewrite the regulations to be less burdensome and to clear up inconsistencies.
“There’s no reason that it cannot wait,” she said, especially since the utility is waiting on an updated analysis from the U.S. Geological Survey on watershed protections.
Villines disagrees and sees no need to scrap the proposed ordinance.
“They can wait as long as they want to wait, but at some point we’re going to have to move on to something else. The question is are you ready to protect the watershed? If you’re ready to protect the watershed, then let’s get this done,” he said.
In response to opponents who say the plan is overbearing and treats small landowners like developers, Villines said most of the landowners in the watershed have the potential to become developers.
“You can’t treat people differently. If you’re going to change the use of your land, then that’s development of the property,” he said. “Property owners say, ‘I’m not a developer.’ Well, you’re not until you decide to become one, by selling off 5 acres. Once houses go up on that 5 acres, you’re a developer.”
If county planners pass the regulations Tuesday, the ordinance will go to the Pulaski County Quorum Court for final approval.
Arkansas, Pages 17 on 11/20/2011