Permit denial sinks plans for property
Wye Mountain neighbors convince board that couple’s event center wouldn’t fit
Last spring, Wesley Snodgrass and his wife, K.C. Cagle, purchased 90 acres in northwest Pulaski County near the Wye Mountain neighborhood on Arkansas 113.
The couple had big plans for the sprawling, tranquil lot — a 4,000-square-foot Tuscany chateau beside a 1,600-square-foot log cabin, with natural spring-fed ponds in a meadow surrounded by a dense oak forest. By next year, they hoped to be booking weddings, corporate retreats or church events roughly four times a month at what they would call the Ever After Event Center.
But their plans were halted last week when, at the urging of several neighbors, the Pulaski County Planning Board denied the couple’s application for a conditional-use permit, which would have created a zoning variance for the development.
The board initially considered the permit last month but delayed a vote to allow more community input. In that time, Wye Mountain neighbors signed a petition and organized against what they felt would be a disruption in the tranquility of their neighborhood. Federal Judge Billy Roy Wilson and his wife, Circuit Judge Cathleen Compton, who have owned 15 acres next to Snodgrass and Cagle’s property for 25 years, hired real estate attorney Stephen Giles.
Collectively, they argued that an event center would be incompatible with the surrounding properties. They worried that weddings and other events could create disruptive noise and light pollution; they feared added traffic on the serpentine Arkansas 113 would exacerbate the road’s precariousness; and they were skeptical over the permit application’s “vague and overly ‘broad’ description” of how the property would be used, according to a letter Giles wrote to board members.
“Based on the uncertain and potentially unlimited magnitude of various events/ parties at this location, an ex-
tremely dangerous and unpredictable situation is being imposed on residents, neighbors and county tax payers navigating Highway 113 North at a time potentially inebriated/buzzed party goers will be driving South on the same road,” Giles wrote.
On Tuesday, the board denied the couple’s permit application in a 6-1 vote, with Val Yagos the sole vote against its rejection and board Chairman Neil Bryant abstaining. Snodgrass said he plans to appeal the board’s decision immediately in Pulaski County Circuit Court, as provided by Arkansas Code Annotated 14-17-211.
Snodgrass and his wife purchased the property in March 2016 for $700,000 before investing another $100,000 in renovations. Last fall, the couple moved into the log cabin after a fire destroyed their Maumelle residence, which they are currently working to rebuild. The additional 4,000-square-foot chateau structure they hope to build — with Tuscany masonry, sloping roof-lines and cedar
timbers — will cost another $300,000, Snodgrass said.
“This is heart-wrenching; it’s tearing our heart apart because we do live here, we love it, ” Snodgrass said before the planning board and a room full of his new neighbors. “We looked at many other places that we could have purchased for less money and more land, but we chose this place because it is beautiful. It’s everything that we have looked for and wanted. That’s why we have gone into two lifetimes of debt to buy this place.”
His permit application is the first zoning action being considered by the planning board since Pulaski County adopted the Lake Maumelle Watershed Zoning Code in 2014.
Under this code, the Wye Mountain neighborhood is
zoned under the “village” designation, which would require a conditional-use permit for any structure classified as a “meeting hall,” defined as any “private or quasi-private building designed and used for meetings, banquets, receptions, weddings, or social events.”
Also under the zoning code, however, are criteria by which the planning board can reject a conditional-use permit application. On Tuesday, siding with several of the Wye Mountain neighbors, the board chose three provisions by which the couple’s application was turned down: the development would impair other property owners’ enjoyment of their own property, it would create offensive noise or light pollution, and it could potentially be environmentally detrimental to the Lake Maumelle watershed.
According to Snodgrass, the 1,250-gallon septic system that came with the property could accommodate a 200-person capacity — “completely oversized for our needs.” Moreover, Snodgrass said the couple were prepared to abide by any ordinances applicable to the property, including a 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. noise prohibition ordinance.
But that assurance did little to allay the concerns of neighbors, whose main focus was the inadequacy of Arkansas 113 for any added traffic.
According to data provided by the state Highway and Transportation Department, 1,300 vehicles travel that route daily. Between 2011 and 2014, there were 41 vehicle crashes along that stretch of highway, with one fatality and four serious injuries.
“There are going to [be] fatalities and injuries on this road,” said Victor Horne, whose property lies just to the southeast.
In response to neighbors’ concern over alcohol consumption on his property, Snodgrass said the event center would operate strictly on a “bring your own” policy instead of selling alcohol. According to the state’s Alcohol Beverage Control, such a policy would not fall under the agency’s jurisdiction and would not require an additional permit.
“There’s not going to be alcohol sold here, there’s not going to be strippers or anything of ill-repute,” Snodgrass said in an interview.
Ultimately, the board sided with the neighbors when board member Ron Copeland made a motion to deny Snodgrass and Cagle’s application.
“There’s no assurance of what’s going to be done [on the property], there’s no assurance of how long it’s going to go on, there’s little control of the sound,” Copeland said. “In this case, I don’t think it’s compatible with the surrounding community. … I don’t see any controls on it, because as long as you’re leasing it to whoever calls, then you don’t have any control over how many come, or what kind of alcohol they serve.”
“There are a lot of loose ends here, and I’m not satisfied,” said board member Sandra Brown.
Snodgrass and Cagle now have 30 days to file an appeal in circuit court, or they must wait a year before they can apply for the permit again.