FAYETTEVILLE — About 100 people packed the City Council chambers Tuesday as aldermen considered a proposed streamside protection ordinance for the second time.
Many of the more than a dozen members of the public who came to offer their comments on the proposed ordinance spoke after press time Tuesday.
WEB WATCH
Streamside Protection Proposal
For more information about the city’s proposed streamside protection ordinance go to www.accessfayetteville.org.
The proposal, if enacted, would be the first in Arkansas. It’s aimed at reducing harmful nutrients in waterways by limiting new activities within 50 feet of those waterways. About 1,300 landowners in the city would be affected. They would not be able to build an addition to homes or a large storage shed, for example, without an existing permit or without being granted a variance.
The proposal has drawn support from those who view it as needed to improve waterways flowing through Fayetteville and criticism from others who view it as overly intrusive and hastily concocted.
“I can understand clearly that this ordinance is good for the city and good for the Fayetteville citizens,” said Angie Albright, a Ward 1 resident and a member of Fayetteville’s Environmental Action Committee.
“We’re naive if we think that our property rights operate in a vacuum. What you do on your property absolutely effects what I do on mine.”
Offering a different viewpoint was Lee Owen, part of whose 11-acre property near Old Wire Road and Arkansas 265 would fall under the proposal if approved.
“If this was affecting your property, would you still vote for it?” Owen asked the council.
Kevin Babin, whose home is on the Niokaska Creek, again urged alderman to slow down and give more thought to what impact the ordinance would have.
He called the ordinance a “taking” of his property with no compensation and argued it likely would decrease the value of his home.
But not all affected property owners spoke against the proposal.
Nancy Varvil, who lives on the south side of Mount Sequoyah, said when she purchased her house in 1999, it was not in a federal floodway.
Over time, Varvil said the floodway has encroached nearer to her home, and she credited much of that to erosion upstream from where she lives.
“I accept this legal oversight as necessary,” Varvil said of the proposal, adding she believes it may prevent a reduction of her home’s value.
The council considered two amendments Tuesday, both pertaining to prohibited activities under the proposal. But any potential vote on those amendments came after press time Tuesday.
The amendments would change the word “cultivation” to read “management of lawn and gardens” in the proposal and modify “clearing of noninvasive woody vegetation” to “clearing of noninvasive trees.”
Karen Minkel, city planning director, said the changes were for clarity’s sake.
Under the new language, new gardens and landscaping would be allowed, however they would be subject to “best management practices,” such as mowing on a lawnmower’s highest setting or planting gardens with rows parallel to streams and putting in a barrier around the garden to reduce runoff.
The City Council is scheduled to take up the proposal for a third time at its March 1 meeting.