Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Removal Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council upholds staff finding on unpermitted tree removals, denies appeal for Williams Drive property
Summary
After a public hearing, Georgetown City Council denied an appeal of a landscape planner’s decision that 24 trees were removed without a permit at 4142 Williams Drive, upholding an estimated $2,000 fine per tree and making permit issuance contingent on payment.
Georgetown’s City Council on a unanimous vote denied an appeal from a property owner at 4142 Williams Drive after concluding the removals of mature trees were unpermitted and that the pre‑2007 exemption did not apply.
Edgar (staff) told the council that aerial imagery and site visits indicate roughly 24 trees were removed and said the Unified Development Code prescribes a $2,000 fine per unpermitted tree when mitigation cannot be determined. "It's $48,000," Edgar said when asked for the estimate.
The applicant, represented by a Rockhouse company representative introduced as Mr. Gar, argued the property was platted before 2007 and has operated as a residential duplex since the mid‑1980s, which the speaker said should qualify the site for the exemption. He also said septic failure prompted the removal and that the firm is weighing whether to replace septic infrastructure or connect to Georgetown’s sewer system. "We read the code 8.02 as applying to parcels platted before 2007," the Rockhouse representative said.
Councilors and staff disagreed on the chapter's definitions. Staff pointed to chapter definitions that treat "residential" as single‑ and two‑family uses and said the property's current group‑home use falls outside that definition, causing the exemption to be lost. Council members pressed for clarity on the number and species of trees; staff said species were not identified and that a precise mitigation calculation was not possible because stumps had been completely removed.
Councilors discussed options including denying the appeal (upholding the landscape planner), denying but allowing the applicant to pursue a permit if fees were paid, or approving the appeal. Several council members voiced sympathy for the applicant’s situation but emphasized precedent and the need to follow the code; one council member said the city should not set a precedent of ignoring code requirements.
On the motion to deny the appeal "as presented," the council voted unanimously to uphold the planner’s decision. Council clarified that the permit process may resume if the applicant pays the assessed fees; staff said holding wastewater connection until enforcement obligations are resolved is standard.
Next steps: the applicant may pay the assessed amount or provide additional evidence to staff; council said future changes to the tree ordinance under development may provide clarity on similar cases but do not affect this decision.
