According to the July Sunriver Scene, the SROA staff sent letters to owners of 265 Sunriver properties asserting there were plant protections on their properties that violated the “tree plant protection” rules in the Sunriver Design Manual.

If you received one of these letters, you may have been subject to an erroneous evaluation of your case just as our properties were. In the rest of this post, I’ll provide you my understanding of the rules, as they were adopted.

DISCLAIMER: I am not offering “legal advice.” You should form your own opinions of what the rules require and your options in response. You should not rely on my comments and should consult an attorney for legal advice.

APPLICABLE RULES
The rules are set forth in the Design Committee Manual of Rules and Procedures, Revised August 2024. (All links in this post are to the documents posted on the SROA website as of July 24, 2025. The rules in this document end after Section 6.09.e, followed by the comment: “Continue to Section 6, Table 1 on next page & other Manual Appendices”; however, these portions of the manual are posted as separate documents available at this link.)

There are two subsections in the manual related to tree protections. Section 3.18.c “Tree Protection – Deer Browsing” covers putting up to 5′ high fences more-or-less 2′ away from up to five trees per lot to prevent deer from eating leaves, and Section 3.18.d “Beavers & Porcupines” covers 4′ high fences 4″ to 12″ away from tree trunks.

Appendix A Definitions of Manual Terms and Appendrix F Landscaping [In Sunriver] are also relevant to interpreting the rules.

To begin with, owners need to understand that these are ridiculously crafted rules. When you think that don’t seem to make sense, it’s not you; it’s the rules. Other sections of this website go into more detail.

There’s one Design Manual section that provides an over-arching provision for owners to “grandfather” in most instances of previously allowed development:

Section 2.02 Nonconforming Development states: “Existing, previously approved nonconforming development is allowed to continue subject to the limitations and requirements of this section.” The relevant limitations regarding plant protections of any sort are that the “grandfathered” development can’t be expanded in a nonconforming way. An essential aspect of this rule is that items which were allowed by prior Sunriver rules and which did not have to be submitted for Design Committee formal review and approval were considered “approved.” (I asked SROA staff about this a while ago, and my understanding is based on their written responses.)

Let’s then take a look at the subsections that require some items to be removed:

Section 3.18.c.10 Any existing physical tree, plant, grass, ground cover, or shrub protection barrier in place on private property (that has exceeded four years as of July 1, 2024) must be removed. Any existing non-approved physical tree, plant, grass, ground cover, or shrub protection barrier that doesn’t meet the above rules (regardless of maximum timeline), must be removed as of July 1, 2024.

Section 3.18.d.7 Any existing non-approved physical tree, plant, grass, ground cover, or shrub protection barrier that doesn’t meet the above rules (regardless of maximum timeline), must be removed as of July 1, 2024.

To be subject to immediate removal, a plant “protection barrier” must meet two conditions:
a) It was never “approved,” and
b) It doesn’t conform to the new rules.

When Section 3.18.d.7 is considered with respect to tree trunk protections, such as tape wraps, perforated ABS drainpipe, or other ways to prevent damage by beavers gnawing or bucks rubbing their antlers, it’s clear (at least to me) that these items were allowed until the new “tree protection” rules were adopted in 2024. Accordingly, such protections are allowed to continue as a nonconforming use. Of course, the new rules do limit what trunk protections might be added in the future. (This is the simple case. See more below.)

The “nonconforming” rule also applies to Section 3.18.d.7; however, the most common means of prior protection against deer browsing was a surrounding fence. In my prior conversations with SROA staff, including the former General Manager, the question was not satisfactorily settled as to whether such protections were allowed or not. I can report that the former General Manager allowed my use of high-quality, vinal coated fencing to remain in place around trees, shrubs, and flowers. The current General Manager has taken a contrary position.

“BARRIER DEFINITION”
There is a more significant aspect of these poorly written rules that impacts Section 3.18.c.10 (as well as 3.18.d.7) — What comprises a “physical tree, plant, grass, ground cover, or shrub protection barrier”? Leaving the broken grammar aside, what would be considered as a “physical protection barrier”? The posted Appendix A Definitions doesn’t provide any definition of “physical,” “protection,” “barrier,” or any combination of those terms.

The pivotal question is whether something can be considered a “barrier” only if it entirely prevents all access to the plant(s), e.g., by deer, beavers, porcupines, or even other animals, such as Flickers who can damage Aspen by their pecking? Or should something that only hinders, impedes, or dissuades some animals from browsing, rubbing, or chewing on plants also be considered a “barrier?

In the context of the rules, it would be reasonable to stipulate that a 5′ high fence surrounding a tree at a distance adequate to completely block access to the trunk and leaves by deer, beavers, and porcupine would be considered a “barrier.” But what about a row of firewood stacked as permitted by the Sunriver Rules & Regulations, Section 4.02.A, Or, a picnic table, as permitted by the Sunriver Rules & Regulations, Section 4.02.F? Needless to say, there are likely hundreds, if not thousands of things on both single-family and condominium properties that hinder, impeded, and/or dissuade animals’ access to some plants.

There is a legal principle (and I am not offering legal advice) that an interpretation of a law cannot lead to an absurd outcome, and that same principle would apply to the Design Manual prohibitions on “physical protection barriers.” In my opinion, the only reasonable interpretation in this context is that fencing or other structures that prevent all access to plant(s) are “barriers,” and other structures are not.

FENCING
What is a “delicious” surprise is that the rules would allow any owner to appropriately place sections of fencing to promote deer movement that avoids approaching landscape plants, while not preventing dear from getting to the plants.

The Sunriver Rules and Regulations do not address fencing other than “invisible fencing,” and on single-family lots, the Design Manual only prohibits fencing on berms, property perimeters, and in setbacks. My understanding of the Design Manual text is that owners are allowed to place sections of fencing in various other locations in order to encourage deer, for example, to avoid some areas of

the lot.

“TREE PROTECTION”
Here’s another flaw in the poorly crafted rules, which I believe allows owners to use a conforming “tree protection” to protect shrubs and wildflowers. Simply plant a small tree close to what you want to protect and place the permitted fencing so that the tree is enclosed along with the shrub or wildflowers.

It would be absurd to interpret 3.18.c.10 to disallow any form of “plant, grass, ground cover, or shrub” to be inside a “tree protection barrier.” So, your shrubs and wildflowers can enlist the protection of a neighboring tree to keep away destructive deer browsing,

In conclusion of this first post, my understanding of the plain text of the applicable Sunriver regulations is that:
a) Prior trunk protections that were allowable can be maintained.
b) A combination of fencing, yard structures, and firewood rows can be effective in dissuading deer and other animal predation and damage to Sunriver owners’ native trees, shrubs, and wildflowers.
c) A “tree protection barrier” can be used to protect shrubs and wildflowers within the same enclosure as a tree.
d) And, of course, for a limited number of trees, owners can use conforming fencing for protection.

Stay tuned for thoughts on how we can get the SROA Board to recognize how unnecessary, irrational, and expensive this whole misguided approach is. It’s incredibly simple — If Sunriver owners want to limit the use of fencing, regulate fencing. On the face of it, letting significant fencing be used to protect trees, but not allow fencing to protect shrubs and wildflowers, is ridiculous on its face,