Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry Tree Removal topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Conway board approves removal of landmark live oak with mitigation requirement

2807453 · March 12, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Chair, City of Conway Community Appearance Board, opened a tree appeal for a landmark live oak on Tenth Avenue and the board approved removal with mitigation required under the city's ordinance.

Chair, City of Conway Community Appearance Board, brought forward a tree appeal for a property on Tenth Avenue after staff told the board the applicant had requested removal. Staff described the tree as a landmark live oak with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 32 inches that is significantly damaged: "The inside of the main portion of the tree, the large portion of it is hollow, and it is beginning to kind of pull apart from each other. So this tree is essentially appearing to begin to split in half," said Staff member, City of Conway Planning Department.

Staff said the tree board is the only body authorized to approve removal of a landmark tree but that staff would accept the board's direction; mitigation would be required under city ordinance. For a tree of the size described, staff said mitigation could require a minimum of eight replacement trees (4-inch caliper), though the board retains discretion to reduce the number or require a payment in lieu if suitable planting sites on the owner's property or city property are unavailable: "If there's not ample room, then we've got to be in lieu of," staff said. Staff also said the property owner owns additional mature trees on the parcel that were not part of the application.

Board members discussed whether diseased or naturally decayed trees receiving the same mitigation as healthy trees is equitable; staff said the current ordinance does not allow differentiation and that the city has limited ability to prove the cause of decline. Staff noted that a new preservation ordinance is still in preparation and has not been fully adopted.

A board member moved to approve removal of the tree and to require mitigation per the existing ordinance; the motion was seconded and the board voted in favor. The board recorded that a property owner may appeal mitigation decisions if they choose to do so, and that staff will work with the contractor and the property owner to determine whether mitigation planting can occur on private property, on city property, or whether an in-lieu fee will be required.

The board's approval allows removal to proceed with mitigation requirements to be determined consistent with city ordinance and any follow-up review by the tree board.