Laserfiche WebLink
Agenda Item 5: October 8, 2025 Minutes <br /> <br /> - 1 - <br /> <br />CITY OF BATESVILLE <br />500 E. Main St. <br />Batesville, AR 72501 <br />870-698-2400 <br />www.cityofbatesville.com <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 2025 <br /> <br />1. Call to Order - Pursuant to due notice, the regular monthly meeting of the Planning Commission was <br />called to order at 5:31 P.M. <br />2. Roll Call - <br /> Chairman Christopher was absent so Vice Chairman McMullin served as acting Chairman. <br /> Mr. Baker took meeting notes and Mr. Middleton agreed to assist with proofing and editing of <br />draft minutes. <br /> Present were members Kyle McMullin, Joey Markowski, Clark Baker, Micah Bryant, and <br />Megan Ramsey. <br /> Absent were members Kyle Christopher and Jeffery Freiert. <br /> Also in attendance were Code Enforcement Officer Chad McClure, Consultant Rob Middleton, <br />and City Council Liaison Lackey Moody. <br /> One member of the public was present for the first half of the meeting, but left as the <br />Commission discussed agenda item 6. <br />3. Approval of Agenda - Mr. Markowski requested an amendment to the agenda to include a discussion <br />regarding public notice. It was decided that the topic would be addressed during Old Business. The <br />agenda was approved as revised. <br />4. Recognition of Quorum - There being five members present, a quorum was declared. <br /> <br />5. Approval of Minutes - Minutes of the September 8, 2025 were included with the agenda provided via <br />email prior to the meeting and a print copy was provided at the meeting. <br /> Mr. Markowski made a motion to approve the meeting minutes. <br /> Mr. Bryant seconded. <br /> McMullin, Baker, Bryant, Markowski, and Ramsey all voted to approve. <br />6. Continuing review of draft revisions to residential use zoning provisions [public hearing] <br /> Discussion was had regarding changes in accordance with recent amendments to state statute, <br />specifically regarding accessory single family residential uses on properties zoned for single- <br />family residential or currently used for single-family residential, regardless of zoning. Mr. <br />Middleton noted the law prohibits a city or county from prohibiting such accessory use and he <br />therefore recommends revisions to the zoning code to reflect the new law. He also noted that the <br />law allows for accessory single-family use to be attached to the primary single-family use <br />which was, in effect, a duplex. Several members noted that this effectively eliminated the <br />single-family only status of the R-1 zoning district. <br /> In response to a question as to whether the requirement also applied to private covenants, Mr. <br />Middleton explained that it did not.