EDMONDS — Nathan Rimmer bought a 0.2-acre lot in Edmonds two years ago, with a dream to build a future family home. He didn’t expect a roughly 10-foot dogwood tree to hamper his plans.<\/p>\n
A year before Rimmer bought the property on Cedar Street, the city of Edmonds adopted a tree retention ordinance, calling for property owners to submit a tree restoration plan before developing any property. The ordinance prohibits landowners from removing trees without approval from the city’s planning and development director.<\/p>\n
When Rimmer submitted his building permit for a house, city officials told him if he removed the dogwood, he would have to plant two native trees as replacements. But he would also have to comply with a city dedication, a legal way of saying his private land would be converted for public use.<\/p>\n
“It would effectively bind current and future owners to maintain two replacement trees in perpetuity at a designated location,” court documents stated.<\/p>\n
Rimmer objected, and resubmitted the permit five more times.<\/p>\n
“I want to put a trampoline right there where the trees were gonna go for my daughter,” he said in an interview.<\/p>\n
After numerous permit denials, and believing the requirements were legally unfounded, Rimmer contacted the Pacific Legal Foundation, a national nonprofit law firm.<\/p>\n
“It’s not that he doesn’t want trees,” said Rimmer’s attorney, Brian Hodges. “It’s that he doesn’t want to hand over the keys to his property.”<\/p>\n
In January, after more than a year of litigation, Snohomish County Superior Court Judge George Appel ruled the city had violated Rimmer’s constitutional property rights.<\/p>\n
The court relied on two previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings.<\/p>\n
In 1982, a couple in Ventura County, California, Marilyn and Patrick Nollan, wanted to remodel their beachside one-story home into two stories. A California state agency would only grant a building permit if the Nollans gave a third of their property up for public beach access.<\/a> Patrick Nollan decided to take the agency to court.<\/p>\n In 1987, the case ended up in the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices ruled if California wanted “an easement across the Nollans’ property, it must pay for it.”<\/p>\n An additional Supreme Court case regarding a property in Tigard, Oregon, ruled that when a government attaches a condition to a building permit, the burden on the property owner must be roughly the same magnitude of the benefit the government receives.<\/p>\n Last week, Appel signed a final court order, finding the city responsible for financial damages accrued during the case.<\/p>\n Edmonds Mayor Mike Rosen said the city will wait for the state Court of Appeals to review the case.<\/p>\n “We will comply with the result of the appeal.” Rosen said in an email.<\/p>\n The amount of damages would be determined after the appeal. <\/strong><\/p>\n After the ruling in January, Rimmer ended up selling the property in April. The new owner took out the dogwood, and construction of a residential home is underway.<\/p>\n Eliza Aronson: 425-339-3434; <\/em>eliza.aronson@heraldnet.com<\/em><\/a>; X: <\/em>@ElizaAronson<\/em><\/a>. Eliza’s stories are supported by the <\/em>Herald’s Environmental and Climate Reporting Fund<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The city’s tree retention ordinance got in the way of Nathan Rimmer’s plans to build a home. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":347,"featured_media":837594,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,1024],"tags":[67],"class_list":["post-837593","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","category-top-news","tag-edmonds"],"acf":[],"parsely":{"version":"1.1.0","canonical_url":"https:\/\/heraldnet.com\/2024\/12\/18\/judge-finds-edmonds-tree-mandate-unconstitutional\/","smart_links":{"inbound":0,"outbound":0},"traffic_boost_suggestions_count":0,"meta":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@type":"NewsArticle","headline":"Judge finds Edmonds tree mandate unconstitutional","url":"http:\/\/www.heraldnet.com\/2024\/12\/18\/judge-finds-edmonds-tree-mandate-unconstitutional\/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"http:\/\/www.heraldnet.com\/2024\/12\/18\/judge-finds-edmonds-tree-mandate-unconstitutional\/"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.heraldnet.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/8\/2024\/12\/38161610_web1_TSR-EdmondsTrees-EDH-241216-fs.jpg?w=150&h=150&crop=1","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https:\/\/www.heraldnet.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/8\/2024\/12\/38161610_web1_TSR-EdmondsTrees-EDH-241216-fs.jpg"},"articleSection":"Local News","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Eliza Aronson"}],"creator":["Eliza Aronson"],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"HeraldNet.com","logo":""},"keywords":["edmonds"],"dateCreated":"2024-12-18T13:30:00Z","datePublished":"2024-12-18T13:30:00Z","dateModified":"2024-12-18T16:29:05Z"},"rendered":"