New Search
HAMMITT Bob <br /> From: MEDLIN Johnny R <br /> To: MILLER Marsha A <br /> Cc: BELLMORE Mike; FOERSTLER Kevin J; HAMMITT Bob; PLAMONDON Scott F; LYLE <br /> Les A; CHILDS Jan W; MCKERROW Mike J <br /> Subject: RE: Hunter's Glen <br /> Date: Wednesday, July 24, 1996 4:44PM <br /> Hi Marsha, <br /> While PWM has never taken previous tree enforcement action on this PUD project (Hunter's Glen) , I can <br /> see where it would be easy to make that assumption since we did take action on this parcel of land prior to <br /> it entering the PUD process. <br /> A couple of years ago, prior to any of the land use actions being implemented, Benchmark came in with a <br /> permit application requesting under EC 6.300 -330 to remove trees on this private parcel of land (same <br /> piece of land they later submitted for a PUB) under the category "removal of diseased and hazardous <br /> trees ". This is an allowable reason to grant a tree removal request under that code and a conditional <br /> permit was issued. <br /> What benchmark got into trouble for was exceeding the conditions of that permit. They took out about 20 <br /> over 8" in diameter trees (and a whole lot of little ones not regulated) which the permit didn't allow. We <br /> filed a complaint through municipal court as allowed in Chapter 6. The $10,000 fine was a settlement <br /> arranged by the various attorneys involved in order to avoid the municipal court lawsuit. <br /> Section 6.300 -330 is intended to regulate trees on private property which is NOT involved in a current <br /> development application. The exceptions to trees involved with this section of the code is specific that <br /> things such as PUDs are exempt. The existing code language in 6.300 -.330 is working pretty well in <br /> dealing with the private property owner and I would hesitate to suggest changes. Where I believe <br /> additional work might be beneficial is in the enforcement around the PUD conditions as they relate to trees. <br /> I'm not sure if this would mean additional code work in Chapter 9 or perhaps just some modification of <br /> administrative rules. <br /> As we discussed the other evening the process can easily be confusing for someone dealing with it from <br /> outside the organization. It is usually not understood that PWM has lead on managing tree removals when <br /> dealing with private property owners outside the development process and then Planning Division and the <br /> LUMS of Building Division have lead when the removal is an incidental of the land use or building process. <br /> In the latter, PWM provides Urban Forestry consulting services on request to Planning and Building. I do <br /> believe we need additional discussion on our joint coordinations on this process. <br /> As I mentioned, if we as a group (Planning, Building, and PWM) want to move PUD tree conditions <br /> enforcement responsibilities away from the LUMS and to PWM, I'm not opposed. However it clearly <br /> becomes a staffing resource issue for us that would need be addressed in some manner. <br /> I hope this has been helpful. <br /> Thanks <br /> Johnny <br /> From: MILLER Marsha A <br /> To: MEDLIN Johnny R <br /> Cc: BELLMORE Mike; FOERSTLER Kevin J; HAMMITT Bob; PLAMONDON Scott F; LYLE Les A; <br /> CHILDS Jan W; MCKERROW Mike J <br /> Subject: RE: Hunter's Glen <br /> Date: Tuesday, July 23, 1996 5:27PM <br /> I understand that you did take enforcement action on the other <br /> part of this project. Is that accurate? How did that occur, <br /> through Municipal Court? If we can impose a civil penalty per <br /> tree that would be much more effective. I think we need to <br /> revise the Code. Thanks. <br /> Page 1 <br />