03/13/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-- trees 12 inches and under are still standing and he has never had the intention of cutting smaller trees. He also said if a person were to look at the Third Addition of Panorama, it. would be very difficult to see where the trees had been cut. Regarding the statement he was going to cut 60 trees, he said he had plans to cut only 21 trees which was what the law permitted. He had also notified all involved of his plans to cut those trees and had complied legally. Regarding fir trees, he noted it was impossible to top them as sucker limbs would grow and create a danger in that strong winds would possibly cause them to fall through roofs of houses. He noted in December 1977 during the heavy winds and ice, there were many instances, not only in Eugene but in the Beaverton area, where trees fell through houses. He cited a feeling of responsibility to those persons who live in the Panorama area to protect them from trees falling on their houses. He said he would demand the City pay a bill if he were to be sued because of trees falling if he were not allowed to remove the ones he considered to be dangerous. Also, he noted that some people buy a lot from him but do not build for several years. He questioned what will happen to those dangerous trees on that lot that might endanger the houses in the adjoining lots before a building permit is obtained so that trees could be cut. He felt his subdivision in the Panorama area was one in which plans were made ahead to clear out the dangerous trees and to save the hardwood trees. He felt he had done a very good job in clearing the trees without leaving scars and had been very careful to locate the roads parallel to the hills so that there would be no erosion. He noted this most recent instance of cutting 21 trees would be more costly to him than any profit he might accrue. e Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. In response to the question of liability, manager said it was his assumption that the liability would be that of the property owner where.the tree is located. In the instance of dangerous trees in the streets, that would be the City's liability. Regarding dangerous trees, there was a provision in the ordinance for removing same if there is an appeal made to the Tree Appeal Board. Thus, it would be possible to take care of dangerous tree situations. , Torn Slocum, 2125 Fairmount Boulevard, member of the Tree Preservation Committee, questioned what would happen if a permit was requested, denied, and the person went ahead and cut the trees. City Attorney replied he could not see a case where a permit would be denied if a dangerous tree were involved. He said it is a discre- tionary decision to be made by the City, and the City would not be liable; however, he doubted such a situation would occur. - 3/13/78--3 \51