Trees - Complaints - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

that a building permit would be sufficient authorization to remove trees from tax lot 1000. This is consistent with the application of Eugene Code 6.330(b) which exempts the requirements of Eugene Code 6.305(2) for occupied parcels consisting less than 20,000 square feet. Finally, the $1,000 administrative civil penalty d by the City is with the application of a minimum $100 per tree fine required levie by Eugene Code 6.990 consistent (3) to a violation of Eugene Code 6.305(2). Application of Law to Facts: Eugene Code Section 6.305(1) provides: "Except as provided in section 6.330, no person may fell more than five trees within a period of 12 consecutive months from a parcel of private property consisting of 20,000 square feet or more of area without a permit." This section of the Eugene Code did not change during the chronology of events leading up and through the imposition of the administrative civil penalty. When the Respondent first inquired about tree felling regulations a permit was required to fell more than five trees within 12 consecutive months on a parcel of 20,000 square feet or more. At no time during this period did the acquisition of a building permit exempt a prospective tree cutter on a parcel of this size from this permit requirement. Based upon uncontroverted testimony regarding the number and size of the trees cut, the Respondent was technically guilty of felling five trees in excess of the limit established by Eugene Code 6.305(1). The real issue in this case revolves around the apparent mutual confusion of the City and the Respondent regarding the size of tax lot 1000. Both parties apparently assumed that the parcel was under 20,000 square feet in size and it was upon this mutual misunderstanding that the Respondent acted when the ten trees on tax lot 1000 were felled. At this point, the Hearing Official must emphasis there is no allegation from the City or indication in the record that the Respondent was either fishing for the "right" answer or that, with the intent to mislead, supplied false information to the City. The mistake seems to have been honestly and mutually obtained. It is the belief of this Hearing Official that the equities surrounding this matter warrant the dismissal of this administrative civil penalty. This dismissal is not officially based upon the confusion of the Respondent regarding the size of her property (and corresponding relationship to applicable Eugene Code sections) since the burden lies with the property owner to have knowledge of both the law and facts required to meet the law. This dismissal is rather based upon the following: 1. There is a certain responsibility of City officials to provide accurate and complete information regarding permitting processes when queried by a prospective permtttee. In the present case, the permitting process appears to have broken down subsequent to the initial contact by the Respondent. Apparently both the Respondent and PIC officials assumed that tax lot 1000 was less than 20,000 square feet in size. There is no evidence in the record that the Respondent warranted this fact although she obviously also relied upon this assumption. Under these circumstances, the Hearing Official believes that the PIC officials had an obligation to verify the parcel size through either accessing the assessor's computer records or have the Respondent confirm the area of the parcel. The conclusion that a building permit was not needed was imprudent under the circumstances. 2. The Notice of Civil Penalty cites a violation of Eugene Code Section 6.305(2). This miscitation is prejudicial to the Respondent's appeal as the size of tax lot 1000 is critical to Tamara Breach Appeal of Administrative Civil Penalty Page 4