Planning Commission Meeting
Monday, August 5, 2025 6:00 PM
Greenland Community Center
170 North Letitia

Members Present: Brenda Reynolds, Charlotte Carnes, Colbi Johnson, Bill Yoes
Meeting called to order at 6:00 PM.

1. Annexation Zoning

• Council passed this to Planning, per last Council meeting, to begin public hearing process
and establish zoning for the proposed annexation area.
• Agenda did not include “public hearing” listing, so this meeting was a ‘general session’
meeting, not a public hearing.
• Several questions raised by citizens about notice, not receiving notification letters, and how
to know about the annexation; they were advised to attend Council meeting to inquire on
this because Planning is not involved in that part of the process.
• Inquiry as to why the annexation is being sought– Chair advised that it has been explained
as “squaring up” the boundary line to the south; Chair also explained that recently, state
law changed and the “planning area” has been dissolved. This means that any properties
existing in the county are subject only to development codes that exist in the county– city
planning no longer has any input in order to try and prevent a non-compatible use (i.e.,
prior Hog Box business in residential area). Since the planning area has been dissolved,
there are no protections/input available, so annexation would provide zoning protection in
that regard.
• Pros/cons discussed on “RE” vs. “R1” zoning regarding lot size, determining what would
be the best fit to accommodate current use/future use
• Jerusha inquired about how much acreage is in the proposed annexation area– Planning
does not have any information on that; she inquired about how many residences and
businesses are in the proposed area, how many businesses that if no longer used or
discontinued would contribute to blight in the area– Planning has no information as to the
number of people/businesses, but this would be an inquiry that could be asked to the
Council when they are considering the ordinance;
• Question raised about sewer and road upgrades– it has not yet been accomplished for the
prior annexed areas, will it be done for the new area? Chair advised Planning does not
have any involvement in the infrastructure upgrades, it is not part of Planning, and this
would be a question for Council and City Engineer.
• Question about animals, number of animals–
• Chair provided reference to GMC 6.08.01 and 6.08.02 (attached), discussed
“grandfathered” uses and how the use would continue; however, “new” parcels created
later on will be limited to what the Code allows;
• Discussion that the Code does not reference a “zone” regarding animals; it applies to
“all” zones where a person has property large enough to have animals

• Question raised about “goats”– there is a goat farm in the proposed annexation area;
again, ‘grandfathered’ use would allow that to continue, but if someone else wanted to
later own a goat, they could not, per the Code.
• Question about firearms– Chair referred to Code 7.16.02 (attached)
• Morgan inquired about the maps on the website– doesn’t appear to be updated and the PZD
zoning for the Sweetser property is not showing.
• Jerusha inquired about timeline being sufficient to get on November ballot
• Inquiry about whether a “new zone” could be created for farming/agriculture for properties
on outlying areas of city; Chair advised it is plausible and would benefit areas which are
more remote/prone to farming/agriculture; this is something that can be asked of the
Council/City Attorney as to whether this may be an option.
• Planning Consensus: no zoning recommended at this time until further inquiry can be
made of council/city attorney as to new zone possibility; approximate size of area being
annexed; information on number of residences vs. businesses that exist; etc.

Public Comments

• James Iglehart – 10006 N. Campbell Road; annexed into city as industrial; house and two
buildings; selling part of his property which has the house and one building; wanting to
keep one building; buildings exceeded setback requirements before annexation, but will not
meet the “I” setback requirements where the buildings currently exist. Building being
retained will partly be used for personal use, but also for his small business which he has
had for years.
• Chair explained the buildings are “grandfathered”, existing at the time of annexation, and
where the lot split occurs, there is no other way to achieve the separation of the one
building from the house & building other than where proposed. Since he will be using the
building for his small business, this eliminates any issue with creating a parcel that only
has an “accessory structure” without a principal structure. The existing buildings create a
“topography” issue which variances can address; he was directed to apply for lot split and
variance; also directed that the 5 this the cutoff date for next agenda; Chris (admin) was
present at the meeting so he is also aware of what Mr. Iglehart needs to do.

Motion to adjourn by Yoes. Seconded by Carnes. Meeting adjourned 7:22 PM

• CHAPTER 6.08 – OTHER ANIMALS AND FOWL

  6.08.01 – Horses and cows.

  A.

  It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to keep, maintain or permit to run at large within the corporate limits of the city, any cows and/or horses except as provided in this chapter. The violation of this section is hereby declared to be a misdemeanor. It shall be the duty of the proper law enforcement official to enforce the provisions hereof.

  B.

  The keeping of horses or cows within the corporate limits of the city of Greenland, Arkansas, is permitted where they are maintained on an enclosed pasture containing one (1) acre for each animal.

  C.

  The harboring and/or keeping of horses and cows in enclosures as provided herein within the corporate limits of the city of Greenland, Arkansas, shall be under the supervision and control of the proper law enforcement official. Should the aforesaid enclosures become breeding places for flies, mosquitoes and rats, or should they become unsanitary, obnoxious, unhealthful and discomforting to any of the citizens of the city because of conditions created by the owner keeping said animals, the proper law enforcement official, upon investigating such enclosures and thus finding any such conditions to exist, shall serve written notice upon the owners or occupants of such premises as to the conditions thereof by delivering a copy of such notice to the owner or keeper, or by posting same in a conspicuous place on the premises, and if within five (5) days after service of such notice said owner or keeper has not corrected the conditions the City Attorney is authorized to institute an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to abate same as a nuisance.

  (Ord. No. 303, Sec. 7)

  6.08.02 – Hogs, goats and sheep.

  It shall be unlawful for any person to keep any hogs, goats or sheep within the city or to permit any such animals to run at large within the city, except when in transit, they may be kept for a period not to exceed twenty-four (24) hours in an established stockyard.

  (Ord. No. 303, Sec. 8)