June 29, 2010

SHARE

By Janet Schoenheit

After almost a year of a study costing about $120,000 of taxpayers’ money and a preponderance of negative public testimony over 3 meetings, the Clackamas County Commissioners are reconsidering the tree ordinance.
The tree ordinance would have meant that property owners within the county Urban Growth Boundary (not including cities) would have needed a permit to: cut any tree larger than 8” in diameter; cut a limit of only 2 trees or 10% of trees on their property every 2 years. They would have needed to obtain a certified arborist report to cut a diseased or hazardous tree; would have had to replace a cut tree with a tree from the county’s approved trees list; and, buy a permit if a utility company had required a tree cut, get a county permit approved, replace the tree, provide maintenance of it; and, there would have been no appeal to the ordinance.
The Clackamas County Planning Commission spent time studying the intricate plan a citizens’ commission had put together and came to the conclusion that a tree ordinance should not be proposed by a county, but by a city and sent the county commissioners their recommendation to table the ordinance. The commissioners ignored that recommendation and proceeded to bring the ordinance for public hearing testimony. This suggests that the commissioners, or perhaps commission Chair Lynn Peterson wished to promote the tree ordinance regardless of their advise.
Deborah Gerritzen, District 40 candidate for state representative said, “The issue needs to be taken to the voters that are in the unincorporated areas of the Urban Growth Boundary of Clackamas County.”
The Planning Commission stated that any county department wishing to cut a tree would also have to purchase a permit from the other county department issuing the ordinance permit according to the ordinance rules. Would one arm of the county also fine the other?
At the commissioners’ June 8th hearing, about 3 to 1 testified against the ordinance. There was excitement in the air when a pro-ordinance man was permitted to speak past his 3 minutes. People from the back of the room yelled out that it was unfair for him to be given more time when he reached 40 seconds over his limit. Chair Peterson warned that she would remove anyone who spoke further; called a recess; called the police; and, did not return. Commissioner Ann Lininger took over the hearing without further incident.
Citizens belonging to Americans for Prosperity, The 912 Project, other groups, and many non-affiliates attended the hearings to voice their opposition and concerns about the tree ordinance. A common theme from county homeowners was that they loved their trees, but did not want the county to dictate to them how they should care for their trees on their own property. Many were concerned that their rights were to be taken away and that there would be unknown permit fees and report costs relating to the ordinance. The county did not say what the cost would be to obtain a permit, an arborist report, or what fines relating to the ordinance would be, let alone the cost to the county to administer and enforce the ordinance. The Planning Commission had stated that the county did not have the funds to run the program. Where would those funds come from? Surely the county could not charge enough for a permit to pay for the program’s costs.
The commissioners decided to return the issue to the Planning Commission with instructions that it be re-worked to only include regulations for new development. They stated that perhaps the rule should be that a property that is clear-cut have a moratorium of 5 years placed on it before building could start. After more study and county money is spent, we will see what new tree ordinance develops.
The result of many citizens voicing their opposition to the county tree ordinance was that the county commissioners appear to have changed their focus to clear-cutting and developers, and away from the individual property owner on an undividable lot. September 8th 10 AM was advised as the date for further action by the commissioners on this issue. This looks like a win for citizens’ opposition to a tree ordinance that would have limited your property rights and shows the importance of paying attention to what county government considers and of you voicing your viewpoint about it.
http://www.clackamas.us/transportation/planning/treetaskforce.htm