New Search
MEDLIN Johnny R <br /> From: LIDZ Jerome <br /> To: MEDLIN Johnny R <br /> Subject: tree preservation ordinance <br /> Date: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 4:43PM <br /> Johnny, <br /> With my usual apologies for the delay (things WILL get better!), here are a few coments on the memo and the <br /> questions you forwarded late last week: <br /> 1. The ordinance is not intended to subject the arborists and landscape architects to lawsuits by citizens or the <br /> City. The private cause of action under EC 6.315 is against a "responsible person" for a "violation of this section <br /> or noncompliance with a permit..." EC 6.315 prohibits tree felling without a permit. The arborist is not the one <br /> cutting the trees, so he /she should not be a violator. If folks are still nervous -- and perhaps for general <br /> clarification anyway -- we should probably define "responsible person." That might be "the owner or other person <br /> in control of the property or the person who directs the tree felling." Let's discuss that. <br /> 2. One suggestion about the Handout sheet on the proposed revisions: Point #1 under "What are the Proposed <br /> Revisions ?" says the City would continue to require permits .... unless (a) mininum necessary to implement <br /> development or (b) trees are dangerous. Actually, I read the ordinance to require a permit to fell more than the 5 <br /> or 0 trees, but to authorize the permit if (a) or (b) is established by the arborist's report. I suggest revising that first <br /> line in point # 1 to say: "The City would continue to prohibit felling more than five trees per year on large lots and <br /> any tree felling on lots smaller than 20,000 square feet without a permit. A permit would be available only when: <br /> * * * ** or * * * ** .. <br /> 3. As to potential prosecution, the memo is accurate, except that our office (the City Prosecutor) will not file a <br /> complaint unless the police or city staff ask us to. The police will have to serve the citation on the violator. In <br /> practice, I expect that the police would call you or Scott to find out what was going on, as the police are not used to <br /> starting prosecutions for such non - traditional offenses. <br /> Thanks. Please call if you have questions. <br /> Page 1 <br />