Judge finds Edmonds tree mandate unconstitutional

A recent court ruling found Edmonds' tree retention ordinance unconstitutional, impacting Nathan Rimmer's attempt to build a family home on his property. The city had required Rimmer to submit a tree restoration plan, which included maintaining replacement trees if he removed a protected dogwood. After several permit denials and a lengthy legal battle, Snohomish County Superior Court Judge George Appel ruled that the city's requirements infringed on Rimmer's constitutional property rights. This decision draws on two significant U. S.

Supreme Court cases that set precedents for property rights and government conditions on building permits. Following the ruling, Mayor Mike Rosen indicated the city would await the outcome of an appeal while acknowledging the financial damages Rimmer accrued. Rimmer ultimately sold the lot in April, allowing for the removal of the dogwood tree and the start of construction on a new home. The case highlights the tension between local environmental regulations and individual property rights, a topic of increasing relevance in urban development discussions. As local governments navigate these complexities, the outcome may influence future legislation regarding tree ordinances and property development.