Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Topping topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board orders removal and replanting after contractor topped oak at Rolling Hill Court; owner given option to replant
Summary
The code board found that a large oak at 5125 Rolling Hill Court was illegally topped, ordered removal and replanting, and offered an option to the owner to plant two replacement trees within 60 days instead of paying a $1,000 fine per tree.
Case number 25‑1379: The Municipal Code Enforcement Board found that a large oak at 5125 Rolling Hill Court had been topped in violation of city tree rules, declared the damage irreparable and ordered removal and replanting with mitigation; the board set an alternative that the owner may plant two replacement trees within 60 days in lieu of a $1,000 fine.
City testimony and arborist opinion: Code Compliance Officer Laurie Smith told the board the complaint originated with a citizen report in March 2025 and that photographs showed that a large oak had been "improperly trimmed." City Arborist Joe Ferris told the board the work amounted to topping: "That is the one cut that is prohibited per our code is topping trees." Ferris said the tree had been left with essentially no canopy, was off‑balanced and "should be removed and replant[ed] 1 canopy tree somewhere on the property."
Owner statement and context: Owner and respondent Grant Webb said he had hired a tree service and did not know a permit or approval was required before aggressive trimming. Webb described hiring contractors via an online marketplace and said he had been trimming other trees on the property and was unaware that the extent of the cutting would be prohibited. "Bluntly speaking, I was not aware that a permit was needed to cut a tree on a property that I own," Webb said.
Board action and conditions: The board initially moved for a $1,000 fine per tree, removal and replanting; after discussion members amended the order to allow the owner to plant two replacement trees on the property within 60 days (the board set a compliance deadline of July 9, 2025) as an alternative to paying a $1,000 fine. The motion, as amended, required removal or trimming to an arborist‑approved safe condition, replanting two trees, and coordination with City Arborist Joe Ferris. The board recorded the owner had been communicative and that he had been working with staff; the motion passed.
Why it matters: City code explicitly prohibits tree topping. The arborist testified that topping removes canopy and prevents a tree from sealing wounds, increasing the likelihood of rot, pests and structural failure. The board weighed the homeowner’s stated lack of knowledge and willingness to replant against the city’s interest in preserving healthy canopy and public safety.
Implementation notes: The board gave a 60‑day timeframe for the owner to plant two replacement trees or face the $1,000‑per‑tree fine; if removal is required for safety the arborist will determine the safe scope and the owner must coordinate with the city. The transcript shows the board discussed alternatives and agreed to the option of replanting in exchange for avoiding the fine. The record includes the arborist’s recommendation that the remainder of the topped tree be removed and replaced with a canopy tree.
