Loading...
In this Chapter, the following words and phrases, have the meanings stated:
County forester: An individual in the Department of Transportation designated by the Director of that Department as the County forester.
Disease: The Dutch Elm Disease or virus disease Phloem Necrosis, commonly known as "Elm Blight."
Owner: Any individual, corporation, firm, partnership or association.
Suburban district: The Montgomery County Suburban District, as described in Section 68-1. (Mont. Co. Code 1965, § 113-1; 1973 L.M.C., ch. 25, § 8; 1996 L.M.C., ch. 4, § 1; 2008 L.M.C., ch. 5, § 1.)
Editor’s note—Chapter 18 [formerly Chapter 19 (1960)] is discussed in Montgomery County v. Kaponin, 237 Md. 112, 205 A.2d 292 (1964).
2008 L.M.C., ch. 5, § 3, states: Sec. 3. Any regulation in effect when this Act takes effect that implements a function transferred to another Department or Office under Section 1 of this Act continues in effect, but any reference in any regulation to the Department from which the function was transferred must be treated as referring to the Department to which the function is transferred. The transfer of a function under this Act does not affect any right of a party to any legal proceeding begun before this Act took effect.
The county forester is hereby authorized to inspect any tree within the suburban district which, according to his knowledge, information or belief, is or may be infected with the Dutch Elm Disease or the virus disease Phloem Necrosis, commonly known as "Elm Blight." If upon such inspection the county forester determines that any such tree is infected with such disease, he shall, if the tree is in or on any public highway, street, road, lane, alley, right-of-way or other public place within the suburban district, immediately remove and burn the same in such a manner as to prevent as fully as possible the spread of such disease. (Mont. Co. Code 1965, § 113-4.)
If a tree infected with Dutch Elm Disease is located on private property, the county forester shall immediately serve upon the owner of such property a written notice, in the manner herein provided, that such tree is so affected by the disease and that he shall cause the same to be removed and burned under the supervisionof the tree division within ten (10) days after the receipt of such notice, or to appear upon five (5) days notice before the county forester to show cause why the county should not remove such tree and charge the cost thereof to the person concerned. (Mont. Co. Code 1965, § 113-5.)
Upon failure of the owner to comply with the provisions of the notice, the county shall cause the tree described in such notice to be removed and burned. If the owner shall appear before the county forester pursuant to the notice, the county forester may thereafter withdraw his original directive or may issue a final order directing such person to remove and burn the tree within five (5) days from the issuance of such order. Upon failure of any person to comply with such final order, the county shall cause the tree described in such order to be removed and burned. (Mont. Co. Code 1965, § 113-6; 1970 L.M.C., ch. 26, § 1.)
Any person who feels aggrieved by any final order issued by the county forester pursuant to the provisions of the three (3) preceding sections, may, within five (5) days after issuance of such order, petition the county board of appeals in writing for a hearing. Within ten (10) days after receipt of such petition, the county board of appeals shall, after due notice to all interested persons, hold such a hearing, after which it may affirm, modify or reverse the order of the county forester. No enforcement action shall be taken, nor shall any tree be removed or burned by the county in any instance during the period within which an appeal to the county board of appeals may be taken or pending final action by the county board of appeals if a hearing is requested as provided above. (Mont. Co. Code 1965, § 113-7; 1970 L.M.C., ch. 26, § 2.)
Editor’s note-Section 18-7 [ formerly §106-8 (1955)] is cited in Lee v. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, 107 Md.App. 486, 668 A.2d 980 (1995); and is discussed in Schultze v. Montgomery County Planning Board, 230 Md. 76, 185 A.2d 502 (1962).
Loading...