On February 8, 2007, the Washington State Supreme Court unanimously held that a Lacey ordinance regulating tree removal on “undeveloped” and “partially developed” property did not apply to homeowners removing trees in their backyard.

The Sleasmans live in a 1,967 square foot, single family residence on .29 acres in Lacey, Washington.  Soon after cutting down eighteen trees on their property, they were notified by the City of Lacey that they violated a Lacey code by removing the trees without a permit.  The Sleasmans were assessed a fine of $16,861, the trees’ appraised value.

The code prohibited the removal of trees from “undeveloped” or “partially developed” lot.  These terms were not defined in the code.  The City of Lacey argued that the Sleasmans violated the code because their lot was “partially developed.”  Under the statute, the City claimed, a lot was “partially developed” if additional improvements of any kinds were allowed under the applicable zoning code.  However, “development” is not the same as “improvement.”  Thus, although the Sleamsans’ lot was only partially improved, and additional improvements could be added to the land under applicable building code, the lot was nonetheless “developed.”

The Court held that “partially developed” described property in an area where part of the property is raw land unsuitable for building, or where the area as a whole is not yet finally developed so that it is not yet a lawful building site.  “Partially developed” could not possibly mean that any change could be made to the property, otherwise the term would describe all lots with any improvements.  Thus, the Sleasmans’ property was “developed” because it was a lawful home site ready for sale or use.