Proposed solar and zoning rules spark intense public feedback

By Mark Humphrey, Record Editor

The comments varied but the consensus among more than 150 people in attendance at a public hearing was they were not in favor of seeing zoning or solar regulations implemented by the Madison County Quorum Court. 

A standing-room only crowd packed Huntsville City Council chambers during a Madison County Planning Board meeting on Jan. 6. 

The meeting lasted three-and-one half hours, ending with the planning board tabling its proposed zoning map, along with proposed solar and wind turbine regulations, and considering the formation of a subcommittee to address concerns voiced at the meeting. 

The public meeting was not live-streamed but the entirety of the recorded meeting is available on the Madison County Record’s website. 

For months, the planning board has worked on various zoning, wind farm and solar proposed regulations it planned to forward to the quorum court. The Dec. 5, 2025, and Jan. 6 meetings drew more public interest and comments than all of the planning board’s other meetings throughout 2025 combined.

Proposed regulations

Two proposals placed regulations on wind and solar energy developments.  

No one spoke regarding the wind regulations, but several objections were voiced against the solar regulations.

The solar regulations classified the systems by size and use, placed permit fees on solar developments, and provided building requirements. All permit applications were to be reviewed and approved by the planning board. 

The proposed zoning ordinance created four zones for the unincorporated areas of the county, including an Urban Growth Zone with one mile around the city limits of Huntsville, Hindsville and St. Paul; and a multi-use zone “that shall be regulated for agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial use and shall extend one-quarter (0.25) mile from the center line of the thoroughfares as shown on the official zoning map.”

Article 4 gives the planning board authority to define “uses permitted,” while Article 5 provides definitions, including agricultural, single family residential, and non-conforming uses or “a use that is not in compliance with this Ordinance or the rules and regulations enacted in accordance with it.” Within those zones, all non-conforming uses were to be declared conditional and may need a permit. 

The language states, “Conditional Uses may be only allowed by a majority vote of the entire board membership.” 

The proposal required an applicant for a conditional use or variance to pay a $100 fee to the county clerk’s office when submitting an application.

The proposed ordinance stated that “conditional uses” may be permitted based upon certain factors, including a written application filed with the county clerk’s office and the appropriate fee paid.

Planning Board Chairman Jeff Marley, who is also a member of the Madison County Quorum Court, called last week’s meeting to order. 

Marley informed those in attendance, “We’re talking about the last public meeting on [adopting the] solar regulations,” which he said, was the last step in the process before it would be forwarded to the quorum court for approval.

Along with Madison County Judge Larry Garrett, Madison County Clerk Austin Boatright and Deputy County Clerk Christie Vachon, planning board members attending the meeting included Travis Dotson, mayor of Huntsville; Ray Eaton, manager of Mount Olive Water; Rodney Reynolds, manager of Madison County Water Facilities; Cord Riley, a member of the quorum court; and Jason Villines, a full-time farmer who is also a volunteer with the Clifty Fire Department.

Huntsville Planning Director Jennifer Thomas and city engineer, Charlee Presley, both of whom serve as consultants to the county planning board, also attended.

Dotson asked how many people in attendance were concerned about the proposed solar regulations.

“Solar, there’s a lot of things we’re concerned about,” one resident said.

Dotson counted several hands that were raised.

“The decorum here will be that each individual gets a chance to speak their mind,” Dotson said.

Marley said each speaker would be limited to five minutes.

Permits questioned

County resident Zachary Bauer was the first of 13 speakers who addressed solar regulations.

“It’s simple, it doesn’t take five minutes,” Bauer said as he stepped to the podium.

“If you’re going to try to push this through, we need to figure out when is the next election so that we can get you guys out because you’re trying to tell people what they can do with their own property,” Bauer said.

That brought a round of applause.

“That’s why we’re here,” another man yelled.

“In New York City right now, they’re talking about taking away people’s land and taking away people’s businesses. That’s the slippery slope you guys are on,” Bauer said.

Bauer said that leads to homeowner’s associations (HOA) and all kinds of things that Madison County residents don’t want.

“That’s why we live here, and if you’re going to do that, let us go to the courthouse. We can vote you guys out,” Bauer said.

Bauer asked why residential solar systems would need to purchase a permit.

“Because if you don’t have it at the lower end, the guys at the top are going to ask, ‘Why do you get treated special?’” Marley said.

“I’m not connected to the grid so why would you care what I’m doing,” Bauer asked.

“Then you’re probably not going to tell us,” Marley said.

Another resident pointed out the proposed regulations as he interpreted them would subject those in violation to “a $1,000-a-day penalty.”

Marley explained there were four tiers in the proposed regulations, and differing permit fees would apply to each tier. 

The permit fees range from $100 in a Class 1 residential solar system to a 4 commercial utility-scale solar system at $2,000 plus $1,000-per-megawatt over 1 megawatt. 

Property Owner’s Rights

“The reason why you have so many people here tonight is because you’re trying to tell people what they can do with their property. They’re angry, they’re concerned, and they’re not happy because you’re going to be telling them what they can do with their own personal property that doesn’t affect anyone else,” said a resident.

Marley suggested the board consider tabling the proposed regulations, but the resident objected to that.

“Table it? Table it to when?”

Clifty  resident Marlin Bashaw said, “This ain’t Benton and Washington counties. We don’t even have half the population in Madison County as they do over there. I can understand that they need zoning over there, but not here,” he told the planning board.

“We are one of the cheapest and poorest counties in the state and one of the most packed counties in the state. So, if you rezone the county and tell us what we can and can’t do, we got to hold your hand to get approval to do what we want on our own land, we’re going to pay more taxes,” Bashaw said.

Bashaw said he didn’t think anybody present was OK with that, and several voiced agreement with his statement.

“The bottom line is all about dollars. It’s all about money and power and we’re tired of giving it up. I, for one, will not, no more,” Bashaw said.

Ryan Wilkinson said he works for Bates and Associates as a surveyor.

“I’ve talked to the quorum courts. I’ve talked to the city planners. Anything I say doesn’t represent anything my company does in Fayetteville,” Wilkinson said.

He thanked the board members for being there, then pointed at the proposed zoning map and regulations.

“This is Washington County’s. This is everything we do to survey. I’m telling you right now it’s a deviation of standards,” Wilkinson said. “It starts with a little bit now, then I see where it goes. First, it’s how many acres do you own? How many kids do you want to pass on your property to? Well, hold on, has it got frontage on a county road? Now, we got to talk utility and ingress, egress access and easements. Oh, you only got this many [acres], but this many kids. Now there’s minimums and maximums. You got your building setbacks.”

He said everyone moved to Madison County as a retreat. 

“You want to go to the city, then go to Little Rock or Pinnacle Hills and flip Pinnacle Hills. The reason why people are here is because this is a respite away from the rat race,” Wilkinson said. “By bringing all of this in, you’re completely flying in the face of everyone who lives here.”

Wilkinson described efforts to implement the regulations as “a slippery slope.”

He asked the board a series of questions.

“What kind of a template are you using for your zoning, for your individual lot setbacks, for you ingress and egress rules? How many lots can you access with one ingress/egress? Did you guys talk about that?” Wilkinson said.

Marley said the goal was to get an idea of how to proceed with managing progress so that when someone walks into the courthouse, they could get more information than their name and property location.

“You’re supposed to have an idea of what you’re asking us to say yes to before you call a meeting for it,” Wilkinson said.

Wilkinson asked if Dotson had any experience with listening to the Washington County Quorum Court deliberate, and Dotson said he had. Wilkinson asked if the board had any experience with surveying driveways and planning.

“These people, once you agree, once you are subject to a minor subdivision split, you got a hoop you got to jump through. You got to file everything. The logistics is a bureaucratic nightmare, the sludge you’re pushing through to build your son a house on multi-generation land,” Wilkins said. 

Wilkinson painted a scenario of the conflicts he said could potentially arise.

“Granddaddy says, ‘I want my grandson to have a house.’ Well, granddad, I’m sorry, we’ve only got 110 [acres of] frontage on [U.S.] 412, we need 165.’ Grandson is just going to have to kick rocks,” Wilkinson said.

Wilkinson made some recommendations to the board.

“I would suggest, with all due respect, that maybe you guys get a template of what you’re asking people in this county to say yes for or no to before you bring it up because you’re going to have a lot more questions by a lot more people smarter than me,” Wilkinson said.

Wilkinson’s comments drew a round of applause.

Boatright stated comments were to be limited to solar and wind regulations because those were the items on the agenda.

“Because they keep coming up talking about zoning,” Boatright said.

Marley advised the crowd, “We’re just talking about solar now.”

Joseph Harrah introduced himself and quoted from the proposed regulation.

“Here at the top it says, ‘The quorum court has determined that zoning is wanted and desired in the unincorporated areas of the county by the citizens, the citizenry.’ Where does this statement come from? What citizens are the ones coming to you saying we want all of this? How does that line even get put in here because I’m pretty certain it’s false,” Harrah said.

Harrah said it was “absolutely false that [in] unincorporated areas of the county zoning is desired by the citizenry.”

“I’d really like to know how that got put in there because if it deals with a solar issue, who is requesting this function of this planning board to the quorum court. Where are the people at, who are demanding this?” Harrah asked, adding, “‘cause I can show  you a whole bunch of people that are not.”

Theodore “Ted” Walker spoke after clarifying that the board was discussing solar and wind issues as opposed to zoning. Marley said yes, and said Harrah had gotten off topic, but the planning board was attempting to be considerate of the public’s desire to give feedback during the meeting.

“We’re talking about the solar, then we’re going into zoning,” Marley said.

Walker, who is running for Madison County Judge in the March 3 Republican Primary,  inquired if the fee-scale was the same for all four tiers in the solar regulation proposals. Marley said no, and explained that the high end would pay at a higher level.

The proposed regulations classify four solar energy systems and charge a different amount for each tier. The fees range from $100 to up to $2,000 plus $1,000 per MW over 1 MW. 

“So the quorum court or you guys are going to dictate who can put solar in? Is that being coordinated with the people that own solar? Is that anything that’s being coordinated with Carroll Electric or any of that kind of stuff?” Walker asked.

Marley replied that the fees would be paid by individuals wanting to install their own solar fields, and they would have to coordinate that with the electric company in their area.

“So, it’s an additional expense and you’re not going to break even, putting in a solar?” Walker asked.

“We’re just going to have a permit fee,” Marley said. He added, “There’s no enforcement fee, it’s just a permit fee.”

Walker said the nature of the regulations would tend to create enforcement fees.

“There kind of is,” Walker said, explaining that as a contractor, he has had to pay permit and inspection fees.

“Then any time they deem that inspection isn’t right, then I have to wait for a recall or [for] them to come back out and reinspect it once I fix what’s going on, what they don’t agree with. So then I have to pay another fee, and that just keeps on adding up,” Walker said.

Walker referred to a previous speaker and said he advocated for property owners rights.

“Like the gentleman said, it’s his house and if he wants to put a hole in the roof, I don’t think it’s something like this that should be regulated on an individual basis,” Walker said.

Zoning feedback 

Local Realtor Brent Owens was among 18 speakers offering feedback on zoning regulations.

“A comment and a question. My comment is I appreciate you guys doing what you do. We all know in Madison County that there’s things coming our way that somebody needs to control, and I think you all recognize that you went a little fast and that information wasn’t out, and I appreciate you all recognizing that,” Owens said.

“Change is hard for everybody but babies. They need their diapers changed. They like it, but change is hard for everybody else,” Owens said.

“My question is, all the zoning, that quarter mile from marked highways, so what is the intention of that and do we actually need that?” Owens said.

Dotson  said the board hadn’t discussed the distance in depth. 

“I don’t think we ever discussed, we may to a certain extent, not got down in the weeds with that quarter of a mile,” Dotson said.

He said when the planning board first got the map, Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning had projected maybe a mile and the board had some conversations about shorter distances.

Looking longer term

Lee Williams said he agreed with comments against the proposed zoning.

“I’m down in Aurora. I don’t want to deal with that. OK, 10 years from now, I get it. I don’t want to see that. I’ve got four houses going on my property, and four more and so I don’t want to deal with all that garbage in the meantime,” Williams said.

Williams said he understands there is a need to plan for the future, but what property owners are looking for is protection at this point. 

“If your plan is to gain control, and just snatch control of the entire county and throw a bunch of burdens on us, well then, we don’t want your protection and want to move forward in a way that actually protects homeowner’s rights,” he said.

Forming a sub-committee

Vann Bennett said location makes all the difference in value.

He noted three subdivisions have been developed within a mile of his residence.

“It’s in my backyard basically. I think we need zoning regulations. Without zoning regulations we should expect everything to be mismatched,” Bennett said. “For years I’ve wished for protection from developers.”

Dotson said the city and county growth has been documented.

“In five years time the county has grown 3.4% per capita. The City of Huntsville grew at 26.4%. That’s a quarter more people than we had before,” Dotson said.

Marley agreed, saying, “The growth is coming.” He referred to a proposed subdivision in Hindsville that projected anywhere from 780 to more than 1,000 homes with a proposed well and sewer system that the planning board questioned if it was sustainable.

Harrah said, “All of this is hobbled by the fact” that the county doesn’t have the infrastructure to accommodate a rapid population explosion.

County Attorney Alex Allred explained that regulations are needed because some developers tend to disappear, sometimes through bankruptcy, after building a subdivision and selling all the houses.

 “Ten years down the line, the well’s gone dry or the sewer’s failed … the homeowners would be stuck with it,” Allred said.

“It’s not just the homeowners. If it’s a sewer problem, it’s a public problem. We are legally obligated to take care of it,” Boatright said.

The consensus of the planning board was to form a sub-committee and include several of the citizens who offered public comment and to address concerns of the public before submitting the regulations to the quorum court.