New Search
1 <br /> Evidentiary Standard: <br /> All findings of fact herein are made based upon the determination of the hearing official that they <br /> are supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the formal record made at the appeal hearing <br /> on this matter on February 4, 1994. <br /> Findings of Fact: <br /> 1. Exhibits R -1 and E -1 through E-7 accepted at the February 4, 1994 hearing are described <br /> above. <br /> 2. On February 4, 1994, Respondent appeared at the time and place scheduled for the hearing. <br /> 3. On December 11, 1993, Respondent was provided with a written "Notice of Civil <br /> Penalty." Respondent appealed the Notice of Civil Penalty on December 16, 1993 and filed <br /> an answer thereto (dated December 15, 1993). <br /> 4. The Respondent and her husband considered purchasing the property subject to this civil <br /> penalty in the early summer of 1993. The Respondent checked with the City of Eugene <br /> Public Information Center (PIC) prior to the purchase. At that time, the Breaches were <br /> referred to the office of the Urban Forester. Mr. Staszewski, the City's Urban Forester <br /> advised the Breaches that there were regulations governing the removal of trees on property <br /> located outside the corporate limits of the City of Eugene but within the Eugene - Springfield <br /> Urban Growth Boundary. Mr. Staszewski further advised the Breaches that these <br /> regulations were being reviewed by the Eugene City Council and that they should check <br /> back in periodically to determine the status of any changes. At the time of this conversation, <br /> no tree cutting permit was required if a person received a building permit to construct a <br /> residential structure on property less than 20,000 square feet of area. <br /> 5. The Breaches purchased tax lot 1000 on July 9, 1993. <br /> 6. During the Summer and early Fall the Breaches periodically talked to officials at the Eugene <br /> PIC in regard to whether the tree felling regulations had changed. In each instance, the <br /> Breaches were informed that the rules had not changed and that no tree felling permit would <br /> be required as long as they acquired a building permit to place a single — family dwelling on <br /> their property. <br /> 7. Immediately subsequent to a final inquiry to officials at the PIC the Breaches obtained a <br /> "quickstart" building permit (issued October 7, 1993). Within a week, around October 11, <br /> 1993, and in preparation of residential development, the Breaches proceeded to cut down <br /> ten trees on tax lot 1000. Each of these trees had a diameter of about eight inches. No tree <br /> felling permit had been issued for the felling of these trees. <br /> 8. The City issued the Respondent a Notice of Civil Penalty for violation of Section 6.305(2) <br /> of the Eugene Code on December 11, 1993. <br /> 9. There was confusion on the part of the City and the Respondent regarding the size of tax lot <br /> 1000. The Notice of Civil Penalty cites Eugene Code 6.305(2), which pertains to parcels <br /> less than 20,000 square feet in area. (The City amended its civil penalty at the February 4, <br /> 1994 hearing to allege that the parcel was 20,190 square feet in area.) Uncontroverted <br /> testimony of the Breaches indicates that City officials at the PIC uniformly advised them <br /> Tamara Breach Appeal of Administrative Civil Penalty Page 3 <br />