|
Trimmed Tree Law
May Still Face Ax In Falls Church By David Cho Two years ago, Dennis Tolliver committed a horrific act in the eyes of the Falls Church tree commission: In broad daylight and in full knowledge of the city's strong tree-protection laws, he chopped down two great white oaks in his front yard during a home renovation. The city acted quickly: It issued two summonses to Tolliver, detained and fingerprinted him at police headquarters, and demanded that he pay$2,000 or face jail. Tolliver refused to pay and the case wound up in court, where an Arlington Circuit Court judge dismissed the charges and ordered the ordinance changed. As a result, the Falls Church City Council last week completed the first major revision in 50 years to its 12-page tree and shrubbery ordinance -- one of the oldest and most rigorous in Virginia. Most notably,the council changed its criminal provisions to civil penalties, and it added an appeals process for the accused. But Tolliver, a 48-year-old systems analyst, isn't done yet. "I'm not against trees. I love trees," he said. "But the city literally threatened to put me in jail for cutting down trees in my own yard." Now he wants to trim the power of the city arborist, who, in consultation with the city's tree commission, decides the fate of every tree on every site being developed or improved within the 2.2-square-mile city. If a developer or a homeowner doing renovations wants to cut down a tree that the arborist says must be protected, the city can demand new plantings elsewhere on the property. Tolliver says the ordinance is arbitrary and invests too much authority in the arborist. "I'm quite convinced that it is illegal and unconstitutional," he said. So he has filed a lawsuit against the city that is scheduled to go to court next week. The haggling back and forth -- reminiscent of a Fairfax County case in which businessman John Thoburn has been in jail for three months for refusing to plant trees and shrubs at his golf driving range -- has stirred up a political storm in tiny Falls Church, an independent city of 10,000 that hugs the western boundary of Arlington. Last week, while they were amending their tree ordinance, council members also voted to oust the tree commission's senior member, who opposed the revisions. Clearly, they take their greenery seriously in Falls Church, which hosted Virginia's first Arbor Day, in 1892, and annually garners a Tree City USA designation from the National Arbor Day Foundation. The city has even gone after builders who tried to circumvent the law by felling trees on their land long before submitting development plans. While other jurisdictions may have laws allowing them to save specially designated or historic trees, Falls Church allows its arborist to spare even undesignated trees so long as they are on public property or a redevelopment site, said City Attorney Roy B. Thorpe. Tolliver's efforts, if successful, would essentially gut the city's far-reaching tree ordinance, Thorpe said. That prospect worries the five arborists and botanists who make up the Falls Church tree commission. They are concerned that Tolliver's legal actions and the council's response will weaken the city's long-standing commitment to tree preservation. Commissioners characterized the loss of Dave Eckert, whom the council voted last week not to reappoint after 11 years on the tree panel, as a major blow to their work. Such reappointments are usually routine, but the other commissioners suspect that the outspoken Eckert was let go because his zeal for preservation was seen as hindering the city's efforts to attract development. "We are small little Falls Church City and we don't have the economic base to support our school system and our other city services," said David Chojnacky, who was appointed to the panel last year. "Dave Eckert . . . hasbeen viewed as sort of a negative lightning rod." Mayor Daniel E. Gardner said that while he appreciates the dedication of the volunteer panel members -- who spend hours immersing themselves in the location, size and health of trees and shrubs that appear on site plan maps -- thechange in the ordinance was necessary to fend off legal challenges. Council member Lindy Hockenberry said she voted against reappointing Eckert because he is"too antagonistic" and outspoken to serve on a city advisory panel, and not because of his opposition to changing the ordinance. "He's done a lot for Falls Church, but he just goes a little bit too far," she said. But Eckert said he was forced to speak out on occasion because council members seemed to care more about development than tree preservation and rarely heeded the commission's advice. "It's hard not be paranoid as a tree commission member when [the council] does all of these things and they don't communicate with us," he said. The current maelstrom has left the tree commissioners -- who are more used to burying their noses in books about botany than in city ordinances and civil lawsuits -- feeling a mite helpless. "We are probably outmanned a little bit with trying to deal with all the political aspects," Chojnacky said. "Our real love is just trees." © 2001 The Washington Post Company
|