Woodstock council allows replanting in two tree-removal cases, waives monetary repayment

The Woodstock City Council voted unanimously to accept replanting plans or tree-planting in lieu of monetary repayment in two separate zoning fine appeals related to unpermitted tree removals.

In the first case, staff reported that five trees (a total of 148 tree inches) had been removed at 306 Winchester Way before inspectors could determine specimen status. Because the landscape crew removed the trees prior to inspection and because ordinance updates now allow staff to assign fines to a responsible non-owner party, staff recommended allowing the property owner to plant replacement trees rather than pay a $22,200 fine. "Given the timing of the fine, the inability to assess a responsible party in this case, and the appellant's willingness to work with staff throughout this appeals process, staff does recommend that council allow replanting in lieu of repayment of this $22,000 fine," Mr. Dunn said. Appellant Roger Connick said he did not know permits were required and told council, "I'm more than willing to meet or exceed anything you guys want me to plant." Council approved the staff recommendation 4-0.

In a second, separate appeal involving 142 Bentley Parkway, staff explained that three protected trees had been removed (totaling 64 tree inches) and that one was a boundary tree. Staff recommended requiring the appellant to plant three trees in lieu of paying the $9,600 fine, citing the recent ordinance updates and nearby development that likely affected critical root zones. The property owner, who said he was not present when the trees were felled and had spent years contending with a neighboring vacant lot, asked council for reconsideration but the council approved the staff proposal 4-0.

Council members characterized the actions as consistent with recent changes to the tree code that allow staff to assign responsibility to contractors in many cases and expressed a preference for restoration over punitive fees when appellants show a willingness to work with staff. Motions to approve both remedies were made and seconded (motions carried 4-0 with Councilmen Potts and Wolf absent). The council noted these matters largely arose from cases that predated the ordinance change and that staff will continue to apply the updated code going forward.

What happens next: appellants will work with staff to finalize replanting plans and meet the city's tree-inch requirements; staff said the replanting plans will be reviewed to ensure species, spacing and long-term viability meet LDO standards.