A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
Tidings file photo
West Linn landowner Joe Chan violated city code when cutting down trees at 23156 Bland Circle earlier this year. After his arraignment last week, he still faces maximum penalties for the Class A civil infraction, which will be discussed in September.
ADVERTISEMENTS
Joe Chan didn’t mean to let crews chop down two protected Douglas fir trees in his backyard, his attorney said last week.
Chan didn’t comment at his arraignment in West Linn Municipal Court on Thursday.
But his attorney, Erick Haynie, said Chan essentially pleaded not guilty, though a formal plea was not required for the case.
“The reason for this challenge is we do not believe there has been the violation that was alleged, which requires intentionality,” Haynie said.
Chan is challenging the city’s allegations that he violated West Linn’s municipal and community development codes when two firs, both with trunks two feet or wider, were felled at 23156 Bland Circle, where he is building a new house.
His case became relatively high profile in a city that places high value on trees for the aesthetic and environmental benefits they provide.
Neighbors in Savanna Oaks reported the tree cutting, which occurred over a weekend in April. Several also railed against Chan at a city council meeting soon after.
Those trees were specifically protected under the original 2007 terms for development of the property, and the city had denied Chan’s appeal to be able to remove some of the trees despite their size and value.
The city is now seeking the maximum penalties for the Class A civil infraction, including a $2,000 fine and reimbursement for the city’s legal expenses, planting six new trees on his property and paying $3,800 to a city fund to provide new vegetation elsewhere.
He also faces another fine of three times the appraised value of each illegally removed tree, as much as $30,000 total for the pair removed.
The case is scheduled to come back to municipal court for a hearing at 1:30 p.m. Sept. 30.
the protection of these trees had to be specified in the sale papers, both by the state, the city, and the county for descriptions. if the real estate agent did his or her job there would have been no question about the status of these trees. ignorance is no excuse to the law. better check things out before you start cutting, trenching, digging, and/or removing wild shrubs. it might cost you more that you bargained for and may even end up spending a night or two in jail. you do have a responsibility as a property owner to follow the laws and statutes.
(email verified)
Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 07:32 AM
Just to clarify, "Trailblazer Tom" has misrepresented the real estates agents responsibility. Very few real estates agents know how to read a legal description let alone go over it with the buyer. They only sell the land and disclose the elements/findings of the title report. Tree mitigation's are not part of the legal description, generally,unless specifically stated otherwise. However, at times certain trees are noted and referenced for true corner point location purposes. The city planning department establishes the rules and regulations, a sometimes long a painfully drawn out process. A Realtor has nothing to do with the planning department or their decisions about land use. Trailblazer Tom was correct however, you need to check these things out before you dig, trench, etc. As stated earlier the land owner was armed to the teeth with the information prior to the being issued the building permit. It is a "no brainer", this guy said "to heck with you" and did it anyway. I find it hard to feel sorry for the guy and what is more appalling is he is using the defense, "the tree cutter did it". My guess is the "to save" trees were plainly marked probably with paint...no/cut. If not marked they would have been clearly shown on the proposed site plan submitted by the land surveyor of the project. This is all public record, to those that wish to scream then here is your starting point.....the planning department. I am sure somebody will make their day.
(email verified)
Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 08:28 AM
It's really too bad we've become such a controlling society
(email verified)
Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:11 AM
The city should buy all treed lots and wetlands it wants to preserve. I think the citizens are tired of all this government control over the use of an owners relatively small lot.
(email verified)
Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:44 AM
No, if you want to do anything you want, there are many other places you can live. This is not a matter of government "control." It's a matter of a community deciding it will protect one of its most precious and outstanding resources - its trees. I am a strong property rights advocate, but when I moved to West Linn, I knew the rules and was willing to abide by them. And I know the value of MY property is enhanced by those rules.
(email verified)
Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 04:21 PM
I find it very ironic that the people who complained to the city, the "neighbors in Savanna Oaks"; I wonder if they know that trees the same size and larger were cut by the developer when their homes were built? Guess it's a case of "I have mine, no one else can have now!"
I wonder if the City is going after the Developer of the property on Cedar Oaks (just down from the school) who a couple of weeks ago fell several trees over 2 feet in diameter. Oh yes they made it look good, they put orange construction fences around a few of the old oak tress on the property, but quickly fell the large firs on the property. But I guess it's a developer, the city turns a blind eye to them.
(email verified)
Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 09:08 PM
"Hoping for" - did they apply and receive a permit? Then fine. Cut cut cut. Rules, abide by them. Chan did not.
(email verified)
Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 07:43 PM
Well Ed, that's a question for the City...if they will ever answer it! But from the outside looking in it smacks of a possible double standard; developers, give them what they want they make BIG political contributions; Home owners, hold them to the letter of the law, they make SMALLER (if any) polical contributions.
(email verified)
Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 04:52 PM
Find a paper
Enter a street name
or a 5 digit zip code
Browse archive
The West Linn Tidings
News feed
Facebook
Digg
Del.icio.us
Newsvine
Stumbleupon
Reddit
Re: West Linn developer denies intent to cut trees
This is a classic example of a land owner doing what ever he feels like and saying to heck with rules and regulations. I have been involved with the various phases of construction for many years, working with various city officials from the small cities to the large. I can assure you this landowner knew exactly what was required to obtain the building permit. Only a fool would think this was an accident. He knew these trees were to be protected and I am positive there is a site map showing buffer zones and protected areas along with the trees to be protected during and after all construction.. I also understand the land owners frustrations in dealing with any city government and why he would adopt the attitude he did. Yeah, make him pay for his arrogance and better than "you" attitude. It is people like this that eventually cost us all.
"Stewart"
(email verified)
Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 07:09 AM