Edmonds Tree Service Appeal.pdfLAWYERS
BERESFO D � BOOTH PLLC
145 THIRD AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 200
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020
425.776.4100 ® 206.682.4000 -425.776.1700 (fax)
tivvi,it� beresJor•dlm>>.cora
ROBEU O. BERESFORD (1982)
WAYNE C. BOOTii (2005)
February 9, 2015
Shane Hope
Director, Development Services Dept.
City of Edmonds
121 Fifth Avenue No.
Edmonds, WA 98020
MATTHEW J. CRUZ
mattc @i beresfordlaw.com
Re: Chris Schuetz/Edmonds Tree Service, Inc.
Notice of Violation and Monetary Fine dated February 2, 2015
Request for Hearing, Notice of Appeal, and Application for Appeal
Our File No. 70667.01
Dear Mr. Hope:
I represent Edmonds Tree Service, Inc. ("Appellant"), who completed work for Chris
Schuetz at the property located at 8001 Talbot Road, Edmonds, WA. Appellant and Chris
Schuetz are both named in the above referenced Notice of Violation and Monetary Fine. Please
accept this communication as Appellant's Request for Hearing, Notice of Appeal and
Application for Appeal of the City's Notice of Violation and Monetary Fine dated February 2,
2015 (date served). Enclosed is a check in the amount of $705 payable to the City of Edmonds
for the appeal filing fee.
' Illfxal 11 D17
Appellant seeks dismissal of the Notice of Violation and Monetary Fine as to Appellant.
1. Statement of Facts.
In early 2013, Chris Schuetz contacted Appellant about trimming and removing some
trees. Appellant advised Ms. Schuetz that a permit was needed and she should contact Appellant
when she had obtained the necessary permit from the City of Edmonds. In February or early
March 2014, Ms. Schuetz contacted Appellant about the trimming and removing. She was asked
whether she had the permit. She answered affirmatively.
Shame Hope
February 9, 2015
Page 2
Appellant arrived on a Saturday with a work crew and asked about the permit. Ms.
Schuetz stated that she had the permit, but had not been able to pick it up from the City. Due to
an existing relationship between the principal of Appellant and Ms. Schuetz and her recently
deceased husband, Appellant relied on Ms. Schuetz' representation that she had obtained the
necessary permit to trim the trees. Although a work order was prepared that stated the scope of
the work to be done, Ms. Schuetz expanded the scope of the work through verbal directions
given on the day of the work. The work was done as specifically directed by Ms. Schuetz and
within the scope of work as modified by her on the date the work was done.
2. Argument.
a. Appellant proceeded in good faith prior to trimming the trees. Appellant had advised
Ms. Schuetz approximately one year before the trimming was done that a permit was required
and to contact Appellant when she had the permit. Shortly prior to the trimming, Ms. Schuetz
contacted Appellant and advised that she had the necessary permit. On the day the work was
done, Ms. Schuetz affirmed to Appellant that she had the necessary permit, but had not been able
to pick it up from the City. Due to an existing relationship between the principal of Appellant
and Ms. Schuetz and her recently deceased husband, Appellant relied in good faith on Ms.
Schuetz' representation that she had obtained the appropriate permit from the City of Edmonds
for the work to be done.
b. The tree trimming was done as directed by Chris Schuetz. A work order was
prepared that set forth the scope of the work to be done. However, on the day the work was
done, Ms. Schuetz verbally expanded the scope of the work to be done. The work was done as
directed by Ms. Schuetz.
3. Summary.
Because 1) the Appellant acted in good faith based on Ms. Schuetz' representations
concerning the permit and 2) the trimming work was done at the express direction of Ms.
Schuetz and consistent with her direction, Appellant respectfully requests the Notice of Violation
and Monetary Fine be dismissed without penalty as to Appellant.
RESERVATION
Appellant hereby reserves the right to submit further evidence and argument as such
becomes known to Appellant and in reply to any Response submitted by the City of Edmonds in
these proceedings.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The undersigned is counsel for Appellant herein, and hereby acknowledges:
Shane Hope
February 9, 2015
Page 3
1. The undersigned attorney is duly licensed as an attorney in the State of
Washington;
2. The foregoing Request for Hearing, Notice of Appeal and Application for
Appeal has been reviewed and approved by the Appellant;
3. The Appellant believes the contents of this Request for Hearing, Notice of
Appeal and Application for Appeal to be true to the best of its knowledge and belief.
Sincerely,
BERESFORD BOOTH PLLC
Matthew J. Cruz, WSBA No. 22345
Attorneys for Appellant
Enclosure