Vegetation - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

in 1 I the alley adjacent to a property between the property line and the center of the alley is the property owners responsilbility to maintain (in the case of the berries, to maintain them clear of the alley). An inspection revealed that the neighbor had also sprayed the berries on I her I side of the alley as well. It also appeared that the berries overhanging I I the waterway h p, which y v of the stormwater pollution ad bee discharge rayed ordinance . In have conferring been a with ti Kathy Jensen I 1 Fred McVey, it was decided that the appropriate action to take was to send an informational letter to the property owner who did the spraying to alert I him to the pollution discharge ordinance and the need to keep pesticide I I applications from entering the channel. (this letter is attached to this summary) In a follow up conversation with the complainant, I discussed the vegetation I control ordinances regarding the alley and the fact that I could not direct I the property owner to stop spraying or removal of the blackberries on the I I portion of the alley under his maintenance control. I also informed the III complas con or the pesticides inant , that that State the City & Federal doe agencies not et regulate regulate pesticides use and their use. I The City's involvement would be limited to the issue of a possible violation of the stormwater pollution ordinance which may have resulted from I the application of a pesticide to foliage which hung out over the waterway. I On 5- 30 -95, I received a call from Judy Geirs. She was upset because the I I neighbor had just cut out all of the berries which had been sprayed last 1 I ( month. She also said that the neighbor was planning to apply Casaron to III he dirt alley to kill the berry roots. She wants the City to prevent this application. I don't perceive that this application will result in a direct or apparent discharge of a pollutant into the channel, which would have to Page 3