Council remands 105 Bowles Drive tree‑fine appeal to staff for landscape management plan; applicant given path to vacate fine

The Woodstock City Council voted 5–0 on August 11 to remand an appeal about a $39,025 zoning fine levied for unpermitted tree removals at 105 Bowles Drive to city staff for negotiated remediation. The appellant, Benton Anderson, appealed the fine after staff found 24 trees had been felled or severely pruned without an approved tree permit; measurements totaled 256 caliper inches, and 23 trees were classified as protected and one as a specimen tree under the city’s Land Development Ordinance (LDO).

Staff presentation: Jeff Dunn (planning staff) summarized the enforcement timeline: city staff learned of tree work on June 6, approached the on‑site landscape contractor and found no permit; a stop‑work order was posted; a permit application submitted later the same day was denied because the work had already been performed and exceeded what a residential tree permit allows. Dunn reported the specimen tree appeared to be in good condition before felling and that much of the canopy on the lot had been removed without a permit. Staff recommended maintaining the fine given the scale of the work and lack of approvals.

Appellant’s case: Attorney Meredith Gardial spoke for Benton Anderson, saying Anderson is a homeowner (not a developer) who bought the overgrown property about six months earlier and hired a landscape company to clear brush and address trees. Gardial said Anderson believed the contractor had obtained necessary permits; she argued the $39,025 fine is disproportionate, would impede the owner’s ability to improve the property, and that the city official’s entry onto the lot to measure trees was done without the owner’s permission, raising procedural concerns. Anderson said some affected trees have new sprouting growth, that stumps and root systems were not removed and that the work was intended to clean an overgrown lot rather than prepare for large‑scale redevelopment.

Council deliberation and outcome: Councilmembers expressed concern about both upholding the tree ordinance and about proportionality for a homeowner acting on contractor advice. Several members said intent matters and suggested mitigation options such as replanting plans and an arborist survey to determine which trees remain viable. Staff advised the lot’s tree density requirement would be 58 caliper inches (3 inches per 0.58‑acre lot) and that an arborist’s assessment should determine whether partially felled trees could be counted toward that total.

Council’s motion: Councilmember Johnson moved — and the council adopted 5–0 — a motion to remand the matter to staff to negotiate a landscape management/replacement plan consistent with the code (including addressing minimum tree‑caliper inches for the lot), to require permits for any additional removals in the plan, and to vacate the fine if the appellant completed the agreed plan to staff’s satisfaction. The motion preserved the appellant’s right to re‑appeal to council if the parties could not reach agreement. Staff may require an arborist survey and a tree‑replacement plan reflecting code standards.

Related item: On a separate case the same night (item 9‑2), staff said a different appellant rescinded an appeal by choosing to pay the fine; that case required no council action.

Ending: Council directed staff to work with the appellant to produce the arborist‑led plan, to verify whether the current on‑site tree inventory meets code thresholds after arborist review, and to return or allow appeal to council if the parties cannot agree. The fine will be vacated if the negotiated plan is completed and approved by staff.