title
Minutes for the Land Use Advisory Committee on April 17, 2014
body
Members present: James Dunivan, Bill Hall (chair), Terry Bare, Dr. Jim Sanders, Darren May, Pam Alexander, Wixson Huffstetler and Todd Burton
Members absent: Shawnie Carrier, Kevan Inboden, Don Parker, Eric Scarbrough, Faye McCall, Jerry Halsey, Jr., Joe Tomlinson, Mark Hogue, Nadine Straitt, Mark Enos and Carroll Caldwell
MPO Director Dr. Marsha Guffey explained the purpose of the meeting today is to discuss extraterritorial jurisdiction with the county. The State Legislature sets a city the size of Jonesboro at boundary limits of two miles outside of the city limits. She noted they are currently looking at setting the planning boundary one mile outside of city limits. County Judge Assistant Tony Thomas was present as a representative on behalf of Craighead County.
Chairman Hall questioned what the county’s current process is regarding development and how the city can become involved in that process. Mr. Thomas stated the county has no standards regarding the building process, but they do require developers to meet state code in terms of things such as electrical and plumbing. They do not perform inspections. They do not require paving of streets, but if they are paved there are standards they have to meet. The Quorum Court adopted standards for roads improvements several years ago.
Mr. Bare explained the committee’s thinking was if the county had fees for development, then maybe one could be added for an inspection. Mr. Thomas stated the legislative body of the county does not want to impose fees related to the building process in the county. They have looked at requiring permits, but at no cost. Mr. Thomas explained that developers have to file plats with them concerning development of subdivisions and then come back to the county for addresses. He further explained there is currently no coordination between the county and the cities in Craighead County, but they are open to that and have been looking at that.
Mr. Bare then questioned if anyone who has purchased a home in the county has ever complained about the construction of the home being sub-standard. Mr. Thomas answered yes. He discussed a recent incident where a home was built, and then someone purchased that house and had to re-wire the home. Mr. Bare asked if there was coordination between the county and city and fees were collected on construction within the one mile radius in the county to pay for services such as inspections, if the county would collect those fees or if the city would collect them on the county’s behalf. Mr. Thomas reiterated that the county does not want to impose any fees on county construction. He noted the only fee the county requires is from plats recorded in the Circuit Clerk’s Office, as required by the county. The fees for those recordings are set by state law.
Chairman Hall questioned what the county requires concerning commercial developments. Mr. Thomas explained there are no county standards or regulations for commercial buildings. It goes back to state requirements for that development. The state fire inspector inspects developments from a fire code perspective, while the Health Department inspects developments regarding plumbing and septic systems.
Dr. Guffey stated as long as they stay within the two-mile radius as allowed by state law, they can impose city regulations on county developments. The regulations would be geared towards subdivisions, streets in particular, and it would go through the city processes with the applicable fees imposed. Chairman Hall asked what the implications may be for that regarding the county. Mr. Thomas stated they are willing to help develop a process, but that process needs to work for both sides without placing any unfair burden on individuals who want to build in the county.
Mr. Bare questioned whether roads are automatically accepted by the county. Mr. Thomas answered no, but the significant differences between county and city regarding roads will be in curb and gutter requirements. Petitions are filed to accept roads, but the county usually waits about a year to ensure the roads can hold up over time and then accepts them. They do have standards set as to how many homes in a subdivision have to be constructed before the petition is filed. Mr. Bare expressed concerning about the county not requiring paving; he explained if the developer doesn’t want the expense of paving the street, they may just put gravel down. He stated he would like to see paving standards for the county. Dr. Guffey explained if the city doesn’t plan on annexing in property in the near future, then the regulations for paving may not be of great concern at the time. But, if the city may annex in property, then they’ll want to look at ensuring the regulations don’t leave room for possible sub-standard development. The gold standard is to look at properties that the city may annex in within the next 5-10 years. Mr. Bare stated he would hate to eliminate opportunities because of annexation. He noted they could continue to look at their view of whether or not to annex and change it in the future since the plan will be looked at every two years now.
Discussion was then held regarding services that have to be provided to properties that are annexed into the city. Dr. Guffey pointed out that the city has to provide city services to those annexed properties within two years. She stated the city services would include fire, police and sanitation. She noted City Water & Light is not a city service.
Mr. Thomas stated that from the county perspective, they are not worried about large scale developments because those developers typically do a good job. They are more concerned with citizens who build on a smaller scale, such as one or two acres. Dr. Guffey asked if they do anything concerning stormwater. Mr. Thomas noted they have a representative on the city’s Stormwater Management Board in order to coordinate efforts with the city.
Ms. Alexander questioned how they would enforce a decision to recommend no annexations. Dr. Guffey explained the Land Use Plan will have to be adopted by the City Council, so they would adopt the recommendation along with the plan. Ms. Alexander expressed concern over the city possibly being opened to a lawsuit if they target only certain areas concerning the boundary as opposed to having a blanket one-mile boundary all the way around the city. She noted committee members Mark Enos expressed the same concern at the last meeting. City Planner Otis Spriggs explained the city does not currently have a policy regarding annexations, but the committee can recommend it if they see fit.
Dr. Sanders stated he is concerned with county property not being taken care of. He asked if there is anything they can do to help with that. Mr. Thomas indicated if they choose to impose a jurisdiction on the county with city regulations, then they would require the city to enforce those regulations. They are open to helping with administrative oversight, but they will not help with enforcement of the regulations. That will be left to the city.
Discussion was then held concerning using the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (MAPC) as a way to oversee development within the one-mile boundary outside of the city limits. Mr. Thomas indicated they would like to look at using a function such as the MAPC to look at oversight in the county as well as Jonesboro. Dr. Guffey noted there is a little used part of the state code that does allow for county oversight under the MAPC. She added a unified sense of planning may be helpful. Mr. Burton expressed concern that it could be problematic forcing city standards on the county because there are people who live in the county who don’t have the financial means to build to city standards. He added he would like to see cooperation through areas such as the MAPC.
It was noted the proposed growth sectors map (see attached) does show a boundary line for the one-mile radius around the city.
Ms. Alexander questioned whether the MAPC would need staffing, and possibly fees, to support new functions if the MAPC started looking at county developments. She also asked if the MAPC could be restricted to just having oversight within the one or two mile boundary outside of Jonesboro city limits. Dr. Guffey answered yes, they could have MAPC look at just the boundary outside of Jonesboro. She added she thinks there would be a need for a common fee structure to help with the cost of the extra duties and staffing that may be needed. Mr. Thomas noted the county already pays the city a fee for the MAPC services, so they could look at raising that fee. He noted that would be an easier sale as opposed to asking that the county take on the oversight of that area.
Mr. Dunivan asked why the MAPC isn’t involved in county developments at this time. Mr. Spriggs explained it’s mostly due to the fact that the conversation just hasn’t been held. But, this is a start. They will need to look at the original agreement with the county concerning the MAPC and a possible increase in funding. Mr. Thomas agreed, adding that it’s easier to refine the process as opposed to reinventing it. He stated avenues are available; they just need to be better utilized. It was also suggested that a county representative be placed on the Land Use Committee to better facilitate cooperation.
Mr. Bare motioned, seconded by Mr. Dunivan, for the MAPC to work with the county for planning within one-mile perimeter outside of city limits. All voted aye.
Dr. Guffey stated the next meeting will be on May 1st. At that meeting, she’d like the committee to decide whether or not they like the growth sectors on the map in general and if they are generally okay with the map, or if revisions are needed.
Mr. Burton stated he has a conflict with the next meeting. Mr. May stated he also has a conflict. Dr. Guffey indicated the next meeting can be moved to another night if needed.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:22 p.m.