Ark. Code Ann. » Title 22 Chapter 03
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 22-3-310 (2020)

Appeal of Capitol Zoning District Commission action

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
      1. Any person aggrieved by any rule, decision, or order of the Capitol Zoning District Commission may appeal the action to the Secretary of the Department of Parks, Heritage, and Tourism.
      2. The secretary shall overturn the decision of the commission upon a finding that the commission's decision is clearly erroneous.
      1. The decision of the secretary may be appealed to the Pulaski County Circuit Court.
      2. The commission and the secretary shall provide the Pulaski County Circuit Court with a record of all proceedings concerning the action on appeal.
      3. The Pulaski County Circuit Court shall review the appeal of the secretary's decision de novo.
  2. The filing of an appeal shall in no respect suspend the operation of any rule, decision, or order, nor shall the secretary or the Pulaski County Circuit Court order any suspension without a full hearing.
  3. This section does not preclude enforcement of the commission's rules by the City of Little Rock in Little Rock District Court under an agreement with the commission under § 22-3-308.

History. Acts 1975, No. 267, § 7; A.S.A. 1947, § 5-241; Acts 2013, No. 1338, § 2; 2016, No. 228, § 4; 2019, No. 315, §§ 2352, 2353; 2019, No. 910, § 5681.

Amendments. The 2013 amendment added (c).

The 2016 amendment rewrote (a); and inserted “director or the” in (b).

The 2019 amendment by No. 315 deleted “regulation” following “rule” in (a)(1)(A) and (b); and substituted “rules” for “regulations” in (c).

The 2019 amendment by No. 910 substituted “Secretary of the Department of Parks, Heritage, and Tourism” for “Director of the Department of Arkansas Heritage” in (a)(1)(A).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2012–2012 · leading case: Capitol Zoning Dist. Comm'n v. Cowan, 429 S.W.3d 267 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Capitol Zoning Dist. Comm'n v. Cowan, 429 S.W.3d 267 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “8 in its entirety, highlighting the relevant portion concerning fence height, and noted that "[t]he dissenting commissioners cited their concerns that the proposed height of the fence was out of scale with property’s primary structure and not in keeping with the residential…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.