Document text
SUNNY Temp: 57 °F Wind: S at 3 mph Saturday, September 27, 2003 SECTIONS Home Page Local News Sports Business Obituaries Life Opinion - Politics AP News Weather Classified Archives Site Map EXTRA HomeLife Magazine Joy Magazine Tempo A & E RogueValleyAutoFinder RogueValleyHomeFinder Real Estate Showcase Wellness Connection Newspaper in Education Prime Times Outdoor Journal Personals Movie Times TV Times E The People CLASSIFIEDS Find a Car Find a Home Find a Job Find Everything E SOUTHERN OREGON Automotive Communities Entertainment Publications Recreation Calendar ABOUT US FAQ What's New Advertise Home Delivery Classified Ad Employment Contact Us Media Kit Email Story to a Friend August 16, 2003 Jake Wells of Portland cuts up felled trees on a small parcel on east Medford�s Morrow Road. Neighbors were alarmed to see the large trees removed this week. Mail Tribune/Satsuki Doi Neighbors riled by loss of trees By MEG LANDERS Mail Tribune Neighbors are mourning Thursday’s felling of large, old evergreens as a small lot is developed on Morrow Road in east Medford. "It’s a crime," said Susan Jones, a nearby resident. "We bought our home on Corona (Avenue) 14 and a half years ago partly because of those trees." She said more than a dozen trees were cut down, many 40 to 60 feet tall, and some that had been planted in the 1800s. "I cried like a baby," she said. Advertisement The work comes just as the city is debating whether property owners should have the right to remove what they need to develop their property, or whether some massive trees should have protection. According to City Attorney Ron Doyle, a property owner can cut whatever he or she wants. "The city regulates trees on private property only to a limited extent," said Doyle. If a tree is diseased or has a blight, or if part of the tree extends over the public right of way, the city can require property owners to trim or remove their trees. But as far as protecting regal redwoods, there’s nothing in place. "The City Council in the past has chosen not to regulate trees on private property," he said. Councilman Sal Esquivel stands firm on the subject. "It’s your personal property, it’s your personal, private right," he said. He said he’s glad when people choose to keep big old healthy trees because it brings a lot to a neighborhood. But he doesn’t think the city ought to require it. Meanwhile, the city’s tree committee, which reports to the Parks and Recreation Commission, has put together a draft this week of proposed modifications to the city’s tree ordinance. Norm Nelson, who attends the committee meetings as the liaison to the Site Plan and Architectural Review Commission, said it was premature to discuss specifics of the recent draft. He said regulating trees on private property is a hot topic. "I’m sure that it will be debated at some point in the future," he said."There are potential property rights here. That’s a real slippery slope." Ashland does have a tree- protection ordinance, Nelson noted, adding, "I have no idea how effective it is." Ashland’s ordinance requires property owners to obtain a permit and approval by the city before removing trees larger than 18 inches in diameter on undeveloped residential lots. According to Donald Smith, who attends the meetings as liaison to the Parks and Recreation Commission, the recommended changes would pertain to things like opening up new large sites more than private land. He said the proposed changes still have to be run by officials, including the city attorney. "The new ordinance should be coming out in a few months," Smith said. Jones hopes the ordinance protects large, healthy urban trees like those on the lot at 1445 Morrow Road. The .70-acre property was purchased in 2002 and is owned by Katherine M. Kennedy of Ashland, as listed on the county’s planning and assessment Web site. It is subdivided into two .35-acre parcels zoned MFR-30, which allows up to 30 multi-family housing units per acre. No permits are on file, according to the city’s planning department. Attempts to reach the property owner for comment on Friday were unsuccessful. The benefits of towering trees include shade, air filtration, aesthetics, and wildlife habitat, Jones said. "There was a white owl that lived in there," she said. She said she thinks neighbors should be notified and given an opportunity to have input. She doesn’t want to see another neighborhood "devastated" like hers was. "There are some things that are just wrong." Audrey Berry, who lives across the street, said she misses the trees. "They helped keep it cooler, and enjoyable," she said. "They were beautiful." Berry said changing the ordinance so some stately giants remain "would be great," even if it’s too late for Morrow Road. "Maybe we could prevent it in the future," she said. Reach reporter Meg Landers at 776-4481 or e-mail [email protected] Printer Friendly Version Email Story to a Friend Subscribe Archive: Click to Search Mail Tribune Home Local News | Sports | Business | Obituaries | Life Opinion - Politics | AP News | Archives | Site Map E Southern Oregon | Classified Copyright © 1997-2003 Mail Tribune. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions Website Feedback A D V E R T I S E R S SPECIAL SECTIONS Rogue Valley Auto Finder Rogue Valley Job Finder --> Rogue Valley Home Finder Joy Magazine Homelife Magazine Tempo Real Estate Showcase Food for Thought Hike of the Week Wellness Connection Outdoor Journal Moving to Southern Oregon? Volunteer Openings Prime Times