Washington County's zoning ordinance became effective Dec. 15, but the idea has been around since the first subdivisions started going up in areas that were traditionally farmland.

The Quorum Court decided it was time to put something in place to protect the remaining rural land in the county, and by a 7-6 vote, passed an ordinance Nov. 8 that zoned all unincorporated portions of the county agricultural.

The ordinance amends the zoning passed last November, which limited development in the twomile growth areas surrounding cities to agricultural and single-family residential. Commercial and multifamily developments or housing developments with densities above one unit per acre are required to go before the Washington County Planning Board to request a conditional-use permit. Now, any proposed use other than agricultural in the remaining unincorporated areas must also seek a conditional-use permit.

The case for zoning was made last September by a group of residents along Weir Road who claimed their rural neighborhood was being threatened by high-density development. Zoning came about primarily because of a group of people who started attending Quorum Court meetings, County Judge Jerry Hunton said. "They became more emphatic about what they wanted in their neighborhoods and having a say about the future of their community," he said.

Property rights go both ways, Hunton said, by allowing a person to do with their land as they wish while also allowing a person to have some say in what goes next door to their property.

"There came this idea that there needed to be a balance," he said. "The end result was residential and agricultural zoning in Washington County."

The zoning ordinance didn't prohibit all other types of development, Hunton said.

"You simply need to go through some steps to make sure it's as close to compatible with the surrounding area as it can be," he said. "It's really a pretty mild zoning ordinance."

In the year since the first ordinance became effective, 17 out of 19 projects requesting a conditional-use permit were approved and allowed to go forward.

The catalyst for the second phase of the zoning ordinance, which took all of the remaining portions of the unincorporated areas and zoned them agricultural, was a proposal to build a 324-acre rock quarry in an unzoned, rural area near Summers.

Several county residents, and even some residents of Oklahoma, attended the Planning Board meeting July 5 to voice their concerns about the project.

After hearing from residents, particularly one individual who owns a poultry farm about 100 feet from the proposed quarry, the board rejected the proposal, ignoring a warning from County Attorney George Butler.

Butler told the board that because the area was not zoned, they basically had to approve the project. Concerns about property values and compatibility were not things the board could consider.

Board member Gary Head expressed a point at the time that would later be echoed by Quorum Court members.

"This is a real good reason why we ought to have zoning in the county," he said.

The board's decision was appealed, and Hunton had no choice but to overturn the denial.

Without zoning in the county, he said, the only choice is to follow the laws and regulations.

A month later, Justice of the Peace David Daniel brought his zoning ordinance to the County Services Committee. Daniel said the intent of zoning the rest of the rural county agricultural is to protect farm land.

Planning Director Juliet Richey said projects like the Summers quarry will now have to apply for a conditional-use permit.

"Bigger projects will be monitored," she said. "Property values will be taken into consideration, and neighbors will have some input on use and compatibility."

Since the effective date, Richey said a couple of developers have applied for conditional-use permits in the newly zoned areas. Those projects will come before the board next month.

While the regulations require more work of the planning department, Richey said it will be easier to deal with issues like the quarry.

"It's hard for us to tell those people'Sorry, there's nothing we can do, ' when they have legitimate concerns about land values," she said. "I feel like we can help people more now."

The first zoning ordinance was passed at a time when the general housing market was beginning to slow down, Richey said. It increased the work load somewhat, she said, but it was a different kind of work.

The employees in the planning department had to be trained on the conditional-use application process, as did the planning board.

A year later, Richey said, the permit process, which includes getting comments from nearby property owners and coming up with ways to make the development compatible with the surroundings, can usually be completed within a month.

Despite some opposition to both zoning ordinances, Richey said she hasn't had any complaints.

"Mostly we just get questions," she said. "People have generally been understanding of the process and why it needs to happen."

Zoning, in her opinion, did need to happen.

"There was no use control in those areas at all. To me, that was really scary," she said. "If I was living out there in a single family residential home and someone wanted to put in a quarry or a huge storage complex, that's something that can really hurt property values, and there was nothing that could be done.

The ordinance doesn't mean there won't be any change at all in those areas, Richey said, but there will be some consideration as to what it does to the land value.

"It gives you assurance as a property owner that things might change, but it's probably not going to be catastrophic like it could have been."