Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance 1171 Vegetation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents raise questions as council holds second reading of vegetation-code changes
Summary
At second reading of ordinance 1171, residents questioned whether proposed changes to Maumelle’s vegetation code would affect pending prosecutions and whether the buffer setback is the key factor in business recruitment; the measure was set for third reading at the next meeting.
The Maumelle City Council held the second reading of ordinance 1171 on March 2, an amendment to chapter 90 (vegetation) of the Maumelle city code that includes language addressing pending prosecutions under the prior version of the code. Council heard public comment and questions but did not vote on final adoption; the ordinance is scheduled for third reading at the next meeting.
Geneva Gilbert (404 Riverlands Drive) told the council that a 50-foot buffer and setback have been presented as the main reason businesses avoid Maumelle, but she argued that other factors — including landowner decisions and an aging population — also affect recruitment. She said that even if the ordinance removes the buffer requirement, the city can still require a 50-foot clearing/grading setback through a preliminary development plan, meaning a developer would not necessarily be entitled to a reduced setback by right.
BJ Saunders (12 Riverwood Place) asked who would pay for new streets if an amended master street plan is approved and reiterated opposition to more multifamily housing in Maumelle.
Resident Alan Bruce Wagner asked whether the ordinance’s phrase “abatement of prosecution” would forgive past fines or relieve future enforcement. The city attorney explained that changes to the law ordinarily do not affect pending prosecutions, but council can include language to apply the change to pending cases for fairness — a provision the city attorney said Council Member Gardner had requested to address perceived unequal past enforcement.
The ordinance will return for a third reading at the next council meeting. Council did not vote on final adoption on March 2.
