Edmonds Tree Permit Case: Appeals Court Won't Reconsider, Heading to State Supreme Court
Best for owners working in cities with strict tree ordinances and replacement requirements
Summary
The Washington State Court of Appeals denied a motion to reconsider a case challenging Edmonds' tree replacement requirements tied to building permits. In 2022, resident Nathan Rimmer was required to replace a dogwood tree and dedicate land for two more before the city would issue his permit. A lower court ruled the mandate unconstitutional in 2024, but the appeals court dismissed the case as moot since the permit was eventually issued and the property sold. Rimmer's attorney now plans to take the case to the Washington Supreme Court.
TSN Take
Tree replacement mandates tied to building permits are a recurring headache for property owners, builders, and the tree services that work with them. When cities pile on replacement requirements, removal jobs get more complex, paperwork-heavy, and expensive — and crews often end up explaining municipal code to confused customers. Watch this one. If the Supreme Court takes the case, it could reshape how aggressively cities can demand tree replacements as a condition of permit approval.
Why It Matters
Tree codes vary wildly between municipalities, and rulings like this can tighten or loosen what cities can demand. Crews working in jurisdictions with strict replacement rules should track this case.
Read the full story at HeraldNet
Read Source ↗Operator Question
How often do tree replacement requirements complicate your removal jobs?