Neighbors troubled by tree cutting

Seven ponderosa pines were toppled on a lot in Sisters last week as a property owner moved a home onto the site on Locust Lane near Black Crater.

The move took neighbors by surprise - and it cast the City of Sisters' permitting policies into sharp relief.

"I assumed (wrongly, as it turned out) that there was a permit to take down the trees," said Jerry Hanford.

According to City Planner Eric Porter, prior to 2008, there were no rules about taking down trees on private property. After Sisters' designation as a Tree City USA, new protocols were established, but cutting trees still does not require a permit.

"Basically, all somebody has to do is sign a consent letter," Porter said.

(Editor's note: After the 08/01 issue went to press, Porter clarified that the property owner must request a consent letter. Planning staff then makes a site visit. Once the consent letter is signed, it acts as a de facto permit).

That consent letter is an agreement to replace trees as required by the city's development code: Significant trees removed shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio of trees removed to trees planted. Replacement trees of an appropriate species shall have a minimum two-inch caliper size and shall be planted in a suitable location as substitutes for removed trees, at the sole expense of the applicant. Ponderosa pines may be planted as replacement trees where appropriate.

The owner will be required to put in three trees to replace the seven taken down.

According to Porter, the owner of the property did not sign a consent letter. That means he could be liable for fines totaling up to $3,500 ($500 for each tree).

"We haven't taken any action yet," Porter said on Monday.

(Editor's note: Planning Director Pauline Hardie notified The Nugget on Tuesday that, "We are going to work with the contractor to help bring him into compliance with our requirements. He is required to either plant replacement trees or pay an in lieu fee. We also sent out a press release educating the public about our tree removal policy." See sidebar.)

Potential fines and tree replacement doesn't mollify Hanford and his neighbors.

"You're not going to be putting in 80-foot ponderosas," he said. "They're gone forever. It's ... kind of tragic."

Porter acknowledges that the code requirement "is not a great enforcement mechanism, by any means." He further noted that, "This is a fairly serious problem. It's the age-old quandary of property rights vs. the good of the city."

Hanford was also dismayed that the house was moved onto the property without a building permit. However, that is not a violation.

Grading and other site work, including moving a manufactured home onto the site, can be done without a permit.

"Until you actually start building something, you don't need a permit," said building inspector Lisa Weishoff.

In this case, the owner is planning to put in footings and a stem wall and will have to produce a permit before that work goes forward.

"Does that make any logical sense?" Hanford asked when told of the permitting protocol.

He believes a permit should be required before a structure is placed on a lot.

Neighbors are also concerned about the dilapidated condition of the structure, which clearly has some siding missing.

Porter said that the house will have to meet design standards to create "architectural character." How, specifically, those standards would be applied in this case remains to be determined.

Author Bio

Jim Cornelius, Editor in Chief

Jim Cornelius is editor in chief of The Nugget and author of “Warriors of the Wildlands: True Tales of the Frontier Partisans.” A history buff, he explores frontier history across three centuries and several continents on his podcast, The Frontier Partisans. For more information visit www.frontierpartisans.com.

• Email: [email protected]
• Phone: 5415499941