BENTON COUNTY — In July, county administrator Chris Glass met with representatives from cities in Benton County in an attempt to clearly define planning jurisdictions.
In reading Arkansas law governing planning jurisdictions, Glass discovered the law reads that cities shall plan in a jurisdiction that includes five miles outside of their boundaries. The word "shall," in Glass' opinion, meant that the additional five miles was not optional.
When Rogers made it clear that it would not exercise its option to plan in the five miles surrounding the city and opted instead to plan up to one mile outside of thecity limits, Glass and the Benton County Planning Board decided to secure an attorney general's opinion on the matter.
A request for that opinion was drafted because the county has decided to pursue a different route, Glass said.
"The state law itself has left certain ambiguities. It basically says that the five-mile area belongs exclusively to the cities, but we have had cities who have said they are not going to plan that far out," Glass said. "The reality is the law is not clear."
Clear or not, the state attorney general had already made a ruling on this exact situation.
In 2001, then Attorney General Mark Pryor addressed questions concerning planning jurisdictions and the five-mile planning territory outside of city borders. In that opinion, Pryor states cities are obligated to plan in those areas denoted by their planning-area maps but do not necessarily have to include the full five-mile radius surrounding a city.
"Apparently, the presumption is that the city will exercise its subdivision jurisdiction included on the (planning-area) map. If the area is not included, I believe it will be presumed that the city is not exercising its jurisdiction and that the county planning board must approve plats for record," Pryor's written opinion states.
The opinion, numbered 2001-234, goes on to state, "It is conceivable that fact questions could ariseregarding the exercised jurisdiction. As a general matter, however, I believe it is correct to say that the planning map will determine the city's subdivision jurisdiction."
Questions about the planning jurisdictions "are going to have to be worked out," said Scott Borman, a member of the Benton County Planning Board.
"The reality is we could still seek an opinion," Glass said.
For the time beingthough, Benton County won't seek an additional attorney general's opinion to determine which government should control planning in which areas. Now, the county Planning Board has opted to pursue intergovernmental agreements with each city, Borman said.
"The easiest way to go is intergovernmental agreements with the cities. Mutual-aide agreements have been in place for a long time, and they work really well," Borman said. "This is something that can be worked out."
The end result should be a map that clearly distinguishes where each of the county's cities and towns are going to plan and where the county is going to plan.
A classic example for why the agreements are needed is the Shady Grove Estates subdivision on Cozy Corners Road in Siloam Springs. The subdivision appeared on the Planning Board's Sept. 16 meetingagenda, Borman said.
The project falls in the unincorporated areas of the county between Siloam Springs and Gentry. Yet before the proposed subdivision reached the county Planning Board, both the Siloam Springs Planning Board and the Gentry Planning Board rejected the project because it was not within their jurisdictions, Borman said.
Siloam Springs' planning area does not include all of the fivemile radius around the city, and there are no immediate plans to extend the city's planning jurisdiction, said Ben Rhoads, the city's long-range planner.
"We are pretty much staying with what we have been doing all along, which is staying inside our established planning area," Rhoads said, noting that Siloam Springs' planning area has remained the same since it was established in 1978. "I have not received any information that we are planning on extending our planning boundaries."
Working with the cities to clearly define who plans where should make obtaining building permits easier for all involved.
"The only thing we are trying to do is have a bright line that says if you are on this side, you go here for all your planning and building needs, and if you are on the other side, you go here," Glass said.
News, Pages 1, 8 on 09/23/2009