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.
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.
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.
“It would effectively bind current and future owners to maintain two replacement trees in perpetuity at a designated location,” court documents stated.
Rimmer objected, and resubmitted the permit five more times.
“I want to put a trampoline right there where the trees were gonna go for my daughter,” he said in an interview.
After numerous permit denials, and believing the requirements were legally unfounded, Rimmer contacted the Pacific Legal Foundation, a national nonprofit law firm.
“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.”
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.
The court relied on two previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings.
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. Patrick Nollan decided to take the agency to court.
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.”
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.
Last week, Appel signed a final court order, finding the city responsible for financial damages accrued during the case.
Edmonds Mayor Mike Rosen said the city will wait for the state Court of Appeals to review the case.
“We will comply with the result of the appeal.” Rosen said in an email.
The amount of damages would be determined after the appeal.
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.
Eliza Aronson: 425-339-3434; eliza.aronson@heraldnet.com; X: @ElizaAronson. Eliza’s stories are supported by the Herald’s Environmental and Climate Reporting Fund.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
