2001_1211_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

e Due process: I believe that the notice # 1 cited above was served to my home without following due process. I am not sure if the facts of the case were thoroughly looked into before concluding that the tree under question is a hazard. I am not aware of any inspection (per section 706.07,E of the City Code) of the tree conducted in my residential property before being served with this notice. When I had contacted you over phone on 1 1/20/O1, you had admitted that you had not inspected the tree located in my property nor could inform me if any one inspected the tree (in my premises where the tree is located) entering into my property with or without prior notification to me. I am unable to understand as to how the notice was served even without inspecting the tree from close quarters in the property where it is located. Responding to my question if there was a complaint/concern from my neighbor to the City that this tree is a potential hazard for his property, you had admitted so, which seems to be the basis for the notice. In the above telephone conversation, I had also provided you the following facts: That the said tree was trimmed twice in the past - including the recent trimming (in October 2000) with the help of NSP who inspected the tree (upon my request based on the concerns of my neighbor at 653 Lovell Ave) and trimmed down the potentially hazardous branches. NSP did not cut down the tree, apparently, as it was not believed that the tree was likely to fall. However, the said neighbor was not satisfied that the entire tree was not cut down. The said crack in the tree has not developed overnight and has been there for many years. As pointed out earlier, I have had the pruning done twice in the last four years that I have been in the property, but I am unable to meet the demands from my neighbor unless there is genuine justification. While I completely respect City's looking into neighbor's concerns or complaints of potential tree hazards, I believe City's tree inspection should be done following a due and fair process and in the public interest with due consideration of a11 facts of the case. � Nx�1 a�ned e� �lier, there was no inspection of the tree at my propertylt�iat� or any o�my �arriily living in the properiy was aware of. ,� The City inspection staff seem to have concluded that the tree is a hazard (vide notice #1 dated November 16, 2001) even before the tree was inspected closely at my properiy pursuant to section 706.07-E of the City Code on November 26, 2001. 2