Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Arborist Testifies Trees Near Shoreline Are Hazardous; Hearing Examiner Will Issue Written Decision
Summary
A certified arborist testified that five shoreline trees—four alders and one cherry—on a residential property are structurally defective and likely to fail, including one that recently fell; the county contends there is insufficient evidence of significant property or life risk at the present locations. The hearing examiner closed testimony and will issue a written ruling.
During the second item on the San Juan County hearing agenda, a certified arborist called by the appellant testified that four alder trees and one cherry tree near a lawn and shoreline are at the end of their lives, exhibit significant rot and dieback, and present a risk to groundskeepers and recreational users. John Gennich, who identified himself as a certified arborist and tree‑risk assessment qualifier, described one alder that “catastrophically fell” after the county’s denial and said similar trees had a high likelihood of failure. “They are likely to fail… I expect within 0 to 2 years they would all have fallen down,” Gennich testified.
The appellant (represented by Nick Power) rested on written submissions and the arborist’s testimony, which included an assessment of tree height (roughly 40 feet) and trunk diameters (16 to 30 inches) and use‑area exposure (frequent groundskeeping and community events). Gennich said the county’s critical‑areas code exempts hazard‑tree removal when an arborist determines a tree is hazardous and argued the applicant satisfied both prongs of the county’s hazard definition (structural defect/disease and probable consequence of significant property damage or injury).
County representatives did not dispute the trees’ poor health but questioned whether the location and actual use patterns produced the threshold of “significant property damage or personal injury.” Zeb Jones, identified as a county department head, acknowledged the trees’ condition but said he had not personally visited the site and relied on aerial imagery. Jones told the hearing he did not think the county should expend public funds for an additional review in every case and indicated the county’s concern was whether a close nexus exists between the trees and regular congregation areas.
Hearing Examiner Gary McLean closed evidentiary testimony, took the record under advisement and said he will issue a written decision. The record includes arborist reports, photographs of the fallen alder, the county’s denial decision, and written submissions from both sides.
Next steps: the hearing examiner will evaluate the written record and testimony and issue a written ruling on the appeal.
