Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conservation Easement Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies request to add walkways and most replacement plantings in Anasazi Plateau conservation easement
Summary
Council denied a request from the owners of 3101 Apache Circle (Anasazi Plateau Lot 34) to construct concrete walkways in a conservation easement and to place the majority of required replacement trees inside the easement, finding the proposed work inconsistent with the easement's purpose.
Get email alerts on the Conservation Easement Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Springdale Town Council voted Nov. 13 to deny an application by the owner of 3101 Apache Circle (Anasazi Plateau Lot 34) to install concrete walkways inside the neighborhood’s conservation easement and to plant most required replacement trees within that easement.
Tom Dansy, community development staff, explained that the town holds the conservation easement and that its purpose is to "preserve and protect the natural resource values" of the protected area. The easement prohibits "the placement, construction, or maintenance of any building structure or improvement of any kind," with narrow exceptions for flood control and similar remediation activities.
Pat Campbell moved to deny the combined request. In explaining the motion, Campbell said the proposed walkways were not necessary for flood control or drainage and that the plantings and walkway "do none of these things. In fact, it does not protect or preserve the easement and in fact, may degrade the aesthetic and wildlife values of the easement." The council recorded affirmative roll‑call votes and denied the request.
Council members questioned the applicant’s planting and removal counts during the discussion. Staff said the original plan documented 11 trees removed (requiring 22 replacements) but that inspections showed 16 trees removed in total (requiring 32 replacements), and that finding space for those replacements on the lot had become problematic. An HOA representative disputed the staff count and said the lot had been cleared.
Council and staff agreed to treat the sidewalk (a permanent improvement) and planting requests separately in analysis but ultimately denied the combined request, citing specific conservation easement provisions (including sections 3.c, 4.1.c and 5.2) that allow the easement holder to withhold approval when an action would be inconsistent with the easement’s purpose.

