Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Natural Landscaping Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conway council repeals controversial natural‑landscaping ordinance; plans public rewrite
Summary
After public questions about outreach and enforceability, the council voted 7‑1 to repeal ordinance O25‑06 via O25‑40 (emergency clause also approved). Staff will reopen the proposal for public input and redesign with master gardeners and the extension office.
The Conway City Council voted 7‑1 to repeal ordinance O25‑06 and directed staff to redraft a natural‑landscaping policy with broader public input. The repeal (O25‑40) carried an emergency clause by the same 7‑1 margin; Mister Grimes was recorded as the lone No vote.
Public Works and code staff said the original ordinance was intended to create a voluntary pathway for residents to designate portions of their property as “natural” or wildflower areas while preserving safety and neighbor protections. The proposal would have allowed a limited percentage of a front or back yard to be designated as a natural area (the packet referenced 10% front / 25% back), required a border treatment (timbers, rock or edging), and included a $35 administrative fee payable to the tree board to support outreach.
Mister Clausen (Public Works) and other staff framed the measure as deregulatory for citizens who want to encourage biodiversity, pollinators and stormwater benefits, and said the ordinance included guardrails such as a five‑foot setback from fences and attention to fire‑safety concerns. Clausen said staff had chosen a permissive approach to let citizens participate without the expense of professional planting plans, and that the intent was not to create additional enforcement burdens.
Council members asked for more public engagement and expert input. Councilmember Drew (spoken in meeting as the councilmember supporting public process) and other members said they supported the policy’s intent but wanted clearer definitions, enforcement guidance and an outreach process that includes master gardeners and the county extension office before adopting a final ordinance. Planning and public works staff agreed to withdraw O25‑06, accept the repeal, and return with a revised proposal following public input and technical review.
The repeal does not change the existing city code limiting grass and weeds to an 8‑inch maximum in zoning areas (Section 3.2.4); staff said they had not been issuing certificates under the disputed ordinance and that the goal is a transparent process to replace it with a refined program.
Vote: Ordinance O25‑40 (repeal O25‑06) — passed 7‑1. Emergency clause — passed 7‑1.
