Laserfiche WebLink
development, and there was no control over where that wood was going. Oak was prime <br />firewood so small business owners would make a deal with developers. <br /> <br />Chairperson McDilda asked whether developers, because they are required to do a tree inventory <br />as part of a new plat, should also be doing an assessment for diseases. Environmental Specialist <br />Bacon stated there could be a checklist of diseases that the City can ask the developer to look for <br />inside their information packet. He stated that this would also buttress the ability of the City to <br />require private parties to fully participate in the open control. <br /> <br />Board Member Max stated this reinforces the discussion at the in between meeting when talking <br />about who should be doing the enforcement. He stated that ISA and SAF should be educated <br />about what all the species are. <br /> <br />Chairperson McDilda recommended that this particular section of the ordinance should be <br />rewritten at a different meeting. Environmental Specialist Bacon stated it should conform to the <br />Tree Preservation Ordinance. Chairperson McDilda summarized that the EPB had a discussion <br />around potentially rewriting this as around infectious disease so it becomes more generic, rather <br />than specifically calling out diseases. He noted that discussion about abatement and what could <br />be specifically done to monitor it. He also stated there would be more discussion around <br />removal which was difficult to enforce. Chairperson McDilda stated it would be addressed but it <br />is up to the discretion of the City Council. <br /> <br />Environmental Specialist Bacon stated that a disease control area could focus their efforts. <br />Chairperson McDilda stated he didn't recall putting out specific language regarding developers <br />versus private home owners. He stated that there was discussion about preservation tree but not <br />diseased trees. <br /> <br />Board Member Olds asked if the ordinance pertains to other properties in the City, why it <br />wouldn't pertain to developments. Board Member Max stated development presents a unique <br />situation because they are taking out and moving around a lot of trees. Chairperson McDilda <br />stated in large part, the developers would be okay with this because they usually chip things on <br />site, especially in large tracts if they were going to replace with canopy cover. <br /> <br />Environmental Specialist Bacon stated the diseased area, no matter who owns it, needs to be <br />actively monitored if enforcement is going to be effective. <br /> <br />Board Member Olds asked if this wouldn't be as part of the assessment of diseased trees. <br />Environmental Specialist Bacon stated that subdivision 3.B states that dead or diseased trees <br />should be identified on the survey. Board Member Olds asked if they have to be identified in <br />order to notify for enforcement. <br /> <br />Board Member Max asked about notification of disease centers. He stated he doesn't believe <br />anything happens if two neighbors have Oak Wilt and only one proactively deals with it. He <br />asked if this should be dealt with. Chairperson McDilda stated that would be treading on <br />sensitive ground because the City may be sharing information that could potentially be private <br /> <br />Environmental Policy Board / November 7, 2005 <br /> Page 6 of 10 <br /> <br /> <br />