The Carroll County Quorum Court discussed the possibility of creating a land use commission at its regular meeting Tuesday, June 20, but tabled the issue until August at the suggestion of District 3 Justice of the Peace Harrie Farrow, who had initiated the discussion.
Farrow, whose district includes Eureka Springs, had requested that the discussion be placed on the agenda as a proposed “wind farm” near Green Forest continues to be a hot-button topic at quorum court meetings.
Scout Clean Energy, based in Boulder, Colo., plans for its “Nimbus” project to expand over approximately 9,000 acres — about 14 square miles — in Carroll County, much of it along County Road 905 southeast of Green Forest. Scout says the project could generate up to 180 megawatts of electricity at peak demand — enough to power almost 30,000 homes. Scout says it has signed lease agreements with more than 50 landowners and estimates that the 30-year project will generate more than $14 million in lease payments and $25 million in tax revenue for the county.
The planned project has drawn vigorous opposition from opponents who say it will be harmful to wildlife, have adverse health effects and pose a potential safety risk for humans and potentially cause significant damage to county roads, along with disturbing the natural beauty of the area.
Some Quorum Court members have said the body has no power to intervene in the issue, as the county has no zoning ordinances. Previous discussions of potential zoning regulations in the county have been met with heavy opposition from county residents.
Farrow said at Monday’s meeting, however, that state law would allow the quorum court to establish a land use commission that could set parameters for large-scale projects in the county without adopting zoning ordinances. Farrow pointed to a section of state code that would permit the entire quorum court to serve as the land use commission.
“We can have a planning commission without having zoning,” Farrow said. “We can have a planning commission solely for the purpose … to create a permitting process for any large development.”
Farrow acknowledged that the creation of a land use commission might not allow the quorum court to intervene in regard to the Nimbus project, but she said it could empower the quorum court to act in citizens’ best interests in regard to future development.
“Forget Scout,” she said. “There’s going to be other things coming. They’re going to keep coming and we need to put something in place so we can’t just sit here and all these people come in and are upset and some of us are upset and we’re going: ‘Well, sorry, we can’t do anything.’ That’s our fault if we don’t.”
Farrow asked her fellow JPs for their thoughts on the issue, noting that JPs aren’t allowed to discuss county business between themselves in private under state law.
District 11 JP John Howerton indicated that he would not support a land use commission.
“I guess, Harrie, that I don’t see any difference,” Howerton said. “You say it’s not about zoning. When you require the land owners that’s out in the county to come to us and say ‘What can I do on my piece of property?’ that’s a land-use ordinance, and I’m against it.”
“My understanding about what the word zoning means is you divide the property in a county and you go ‘This is residential, this is commercial, this is industrial. You can’t do something in the industrial area that doesn’t fit. You can’t have a big factory in the middle of a residential … .’ That, to me, I think of as zoning. This is, you’re coming into an area and doing a project that hasn’t been done here before, like a quarry out in the middle — well, I know we do have a quarry — but one, here it is at the Kings River, and there’s a permitting process. … It’s not even saying ‘No, you can’t put this project here,’ but it’s like, if you want to put this project here, you’ve got to have meetings that tell the public what you’re doing. You’ve got to give them a chance to give feedback. You’ve got to show us you have a safety plan. You’ve got to let us know what the economic impact is. It could be a situation just that makes them go through those steps.”
Farrow pointed to studies conducted by Scout in regard to the Nimbus project.
“When I asked Scout, ‘Are both of those studies you did required by federal law?’ Yes. They’re only doing what they have to, for the most part, right? And if we don’t give them have-tos, they won’t do them. So some of this is just making it safer for people that we have some say to say ‘OK, you’re going to put up this big thing. We need to know what your fire plan is. We need to know what your construction plan is. We need to know what your decommission plan is. We need to know that you have insurance in place. So it’s not saying ‘You can’t do this on your land.’ It’s like ‘You’re going to do this, it’s going to impact people, it’s going to impact our roads, it’s going to impact our whole way of life. We want to know that you’ve done studies that how that might affect the waterways and that sort of thing.’ ” District 7 JP Kellie Matt said she wouldn’t object to a land use commission.
“I wouldn’t have a problem having, like, a planning commission just like we have a budget committee and a personnel committee and a building committee,” Matt said. “I know we all want one more committee, but I wouldn’t have a problem with having planning. They’ve already voted down that nobody wanted an actual zoning and all that, but I wouldn’t have a problem with a planning commission just to kind of over our bases.”
District 1 JP Jack Deaton said he’d like to study the issue more but questioned Farrow on specifics.
“Say for instance, somebody wants to build a housing addition just north of the Kings River, and you say ‘No, you can’t do that,’ ” Deaton said. “What grounds are you using, for saying no?”
“Well, yeah, I mean, that’s the things we’d have to work out,” Farrow replied. “What would be the grounds for saying no to a project. What would be considered a large project? Like maybe housing would be, that’s just traditional. We wouldn’t object to housing. But … industrial or a new technology or a new industry, we’d have to figure all those things out.”
“Now you’re zoning,” Deaton responded, drawing applause from spectators before County Judge David Writer admonished them to quiet down.
“We’re not saying ‘This would be allowed here, but not here, or this is …,” Farrow said. “It’s more like, we’re making a decision about what kind of large-impact projects we would require a permitting process for. And maybe housing would be one of them. I don’t know. That would be something we’d have to decide. We’d have to figure all those things out. We’d have to sit down and think about that and agree on it and vote on it.”
After some further back-and-forth between Deaton and Farrow, Farrow said: “I just think it would be a really great way to not shirk our responsibilities.”
Farrow then suggested that JPs table the discussion until the August meeting to allow more time to study the issue. The nine JPs in attendance voted unanimously to do so.
