If you currently have any form of fencing or other “physical” protection around your Quaking Aspen(s), even just “wraps” around their trunks, you are likely to be violating one or more SROA Design Manual rules and subject to a $250 fine, which may even double if you don’t submit an application and receive approval from the SROA Design Committee.

DISCLAIMER: This post is not legal advice. You should consult a licensed attorney if you have any legal questions or contemplate taking any legal actions. I am only providing my own, personal understanding of the SROA documents and actions.

The SROA recently sent one or more notices to a set of owners stating that the owners’ properties had “tree protection barriers” that did not conform to the requirements of the SROA Design Manual Sections 3.18.c and/or 3.18.d.

Some owners received a second postcard reminding them of their alleged nonconformance and setting October 31st as the deadline to remove or correct the nonconforming protection barriers. The postcard stated adamantly that there would be no further extensions for complying with the rules.

Consequently, each instance of a nonconforming protection barrier that remains in place at this time is a violation of the Design Manual and a Class C infraction, subject to a $250 fine. If you have four nonconforming protection barriers, that would be four infractions, subject to a total of $1,000 in fines.

Any physical protections around Quaking Aspen are a violation and
subject to fines unless you have applied for and received approval
by the Design Committee!

This may sound preposterous, but it’s true. Design Manual subsections 3.18.c.13 and 3.18.d.10 state: “Design Committee approval is required for continuous welded wire physical protection barrier (per the rules defined in this section) of any trees not listed in Appendix F of the Manual.” Appendix F Landscaping in Sunriver does not list Quaking Aspen in the “TREES” section.

In response to my request to SROA enforcement staff for clarification, I was told to submit a “Form E” for approval of our existing protections around several Quaking Aspen on our Sunriver lot. The Design Committee responded to my initial Form E and required a site plan showing each tree and providing a description of the type of protection for which I was seeking approval.

Click here to read my resubmitted Form E and the Design Committee’s approval (final page).

The “Takeaway” — As absurd as it seems, for now I strongly suggest you submit a Form E with a site plan showing the location of Quaking Aspens with existing or proposed protective barriers. Indicate whether each barrier is proposed under Section 3.18.c Tree Protection – Deer Browsing or Section 3.18.d – Beavers & Porcupines.

* * * * *

Click here to read an important follow-up message that I sent to Jacki Bue, Community Development Department Director. This puts the SROA on notice that unless they rigorously enforce the requirements of subsections 3.18.c.13 and 3.18.d.10, the SROA cannot (in my opinion) lawfully enforce any of the requirements under Sections 3.18.c and 3.18.d.

If you share my view that the addition of the “tree protection” rules is misguided and muddled and should be replaced with simpler, sensible, community-supported rules on the use of fencing, share your opinions with the SROA Board, either at a meeting, by email to infosroa@srowners.org, or by submitting the on-line Contact Form.

Stay Informed! Sign up to receive occasional updates by subscribing to my blog. See the pinned message above.