Gary Creel, the community development director for the City of Biloxi, described how a developer altered a hotel site plan to save most protected trees and explained why two trees were removed for construction access. Creel said developers must go through the Development Review Committee and planning processes and must follow mitigation rules when they remove protected trees.

The dispute centers on the Redeemed Church property, where a proposed two-suite hotel was shifted on the site after the DRC review to protect an oak tree. Creel said one tree had to be removed for driveway placement and another had structural problems: "that tree was hollowed" and a consulting ISA-certified arborist concluded limbs and cavity damage made removal necessary. He said the developer will be required to provide mitigation — at least four replacement trees or payment into the city's tree fund — under existing ordinance requirements.

The issue drew public criticism from residents who said permits were issued improperly and requested greater adherence to the city's tree rules. A resident who appeared during public comment said they did not see required tree permits filed and urged the council to "follow the rules." Susan Peterson, who attends the Planning Review Committee meetings as a flood-plain representative, said the PRC is advisory and that developers are reminded of Land Development Ordinances: "Those rules can be found in our LDO Landed Development Ordinances. They are reminded of these rules by both mister Creel and me and have provided a landscape plan."

Councilmembers and staff also discussed the workload of tree-related complaints, with Creel saying the city receives "between 5 and 6 tree requests a day" from homeowners whose insurers require removal. Creel and others said the city does not currently employ a full-time arborist and relies on outside consulting arborists for assessments in disputed cases.

Councilmembers said they will pursue ordinance revisions intended to reduce the burden on single-family homeowners and to clarify mitigation and inspection procedures. Creel described a tree-ordinance revision committee that had been formed with six members and consulting arborists; he said the committee will produce recommendations, followed by public hearings before the planning commission and then the council. No final policy change was adopted at the meeting.

Supporters of the DRC process, including speakers who described having inspected the contested trees and reviewed arborist reports, framed the removals as the result of site-specific safety and engineering concerns rather than preferential treatment.

The council did not vote on a new ordinance at the meeting. Staff and councilmembers indicated they plan to return proposed revisions and hold required public hearings before any ordinance changes are adopted.