Clackamas County may ban urban clear cuts

Task force recommends compromise ordinance; some want high fines and greater restrictions

By Matthew Graham

The Clackamas Review, Sep 29, 2009, Updated Oct 30, 2009 (4 Reader comments)

After a brief explosion of interest and nine months cooking in a task force, the county has finally come up with the meat of a tree-cutting ordinance to prevent clear cuts of properties in the urban area.

Urban Green, a group of local advocates for tree protection, rallied after a parcel with 200 old-growth trees was cleared, Chips Janger told the Clackamas Review last year. When the county said it couldn’t do anything, Urban Green put together a proposal for a tree ordinance, which has been hashed over with staff and other community partners since.

What has emerged is a compromise, meeting the group’s concerns and offering some protection while taking into account an important issue for the county.

“It’s trying to weigh personal property rights with preservation of our canopy, two very good things that we’re trying to (balance),” said County Commission Chair Lynn Peterson.

The county commission sent the proposal back for a few revisions and clarifications, but essentially it would allow property owners the opportunity to cut two trees a year without interference and any more than that would have to be approved by the county. Stipulations for approval could mean mitigation, such as replacing the tree directly; paying into a county tree fund so the county can replace it elsewhere; or accepting a moratorium on developing the land for a number of years after the trees are cut.

Some trees would also be exempt, such as diseased trees, hazardous trees and trees smaller than eight inches in diameter.

Some grounds for the county to grant a permit include things such as proximity to buildings — is it growing onto your roof; new construction — could it be placed or replaced somewhere on the property; if it’s being removed because it’s blocking a solar energy system; or if it’s interfering with utilities.

The provisions would not apply to commercial or industrial lands or presidential parcels that, by county code, can’t be divided again into smaller parcels. It would apply to residential land within Metro’s Urban Growth Boundary but outside of incorporated areas.

1 | 2 Next Page >>

Facebook	Digg	Del.icio.us
Newsvine	Stumbleupon	Reddit