Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Trees And Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Canton tables decision on tree at 506 East Second after competing arborist reports and conflict claims
Summary
A contested nuisance-tree matter at 506 East Second Street prompted testimony from the property owner and neighbors, allegations of a conflict of interest involving Commissioner Chris York, and discussion of ordinance 97.04; the commission agreed to obtain an independent third-party arborist opinion and table the item for further review.
The Canton City Commission heard extended testimony on an alleged nuisance tree at 506 East Second Street, where the property owner, neighbors and commissioners disputed prior arborist findings and raised conflict-of-interest and trespass allegations involving Commissioner Chris York.
City Attorney Sam Nelson summarized the city's authority under ordinance 97.04, describing it as written to allow the commission to declare a tree a danger to life, limb or property whether the tree is dead, dying or structurally risky. Nelson noted chapter 97 contains related provisions (97.09) addressing diseased or infested trees and explained that declaring a nuisance can lead to notice to the property owner and city mitigation with costs assessed to the owner.
Property owner Richard Lefebvre (appearing in the transcript under similar variant spellings) disputed recent actions and questioned impartiality, saying he had commissioned a private tree-health report prior to purchasing the house that did not find an immediate hazard and alleging Commissioner Chris York and Arrow Tree Services profited from removing a limb. Lefebvre asked that York recuse himself. York told the commission he had abstained from voting and said he had previously offered to share removal costs; York referenced South Dakota Codified Law 43-16-3 in explaining positions about storm-driven tree falls and insurance responsibilities.
Neighbors Parker and Terry Swanson testified that a large limb fell onto the Swansons’ roof during a storm (stated date in testimony: July 28) and that they later paid to have removal performed; Parker Swanson said the neighbor had been warned about the hazard and objected to perceived refusal to act. The police and city staff were involved at points during the dispute.
Two arborist reports were discussed: a report presented by the Swansons from Sam Pizar (identified as an ISA board-certified master arborist) dated August 8 that assessed the tree as having an "imminent" likelihood of upper canopy failure with a risk rating of "high" for the next year; and an earlier assessment (August 7, 2024, in the transcript) from Arrow Tree Care/Chris York described as a "tree risk assessment" that listed mitigation options and estimated mitigation costs (dynamic cabling option $600–$800; selective removal $800–$1,000). The property owner contested that the ISA master arborist had not climbed the tree and requested additional independent evaluations.
Given the dispute over prior assessments, the commission discussed securing a third-party independent arborist (outside the immediate local relationships) and the need for a follow-up inspection to confirm any required mitigation. Commissioners noted the ordinance allows action on specific limbs rather than mandatory whole-tree removal if that remedy addresses the hazard. The item was tabled for further evaluation pending additional third-party arborist reports and staff recommendations; no final removal order or cost assessment was issued by the commission at the meeting excerpt's close.
The transcript includes multiple allegations of trespass, claims of improper influence, and requests for recusal. The city attorney advised process and reminded participants the mayor controls discussion during the public meeting. Commissioners indicated the city could obtain an independent arborist and follow up to ensure any directed mitigation was completed.
