After six months, I finally got a response to my analysis in October 2025 of problems with the so-called “tree protection” rules.

Here’s a link to the response and my interleaved reply.
https://sunriverneighbors.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/responsetomeyersletter.pdf

I sent this email to the Design Committee and copied the Board:

Design Committee,

Please read the attached document.

I appreciated Mr. Meyer providing responses. However, I have to wonder why these responses were delayed until after the Design Committee submitted proposed amendments to the Board.

As a result of this six month delay, the committee did not have a chance to consider the remaining serious flaws in the so-called “tree protection” rules, as I’ve noted in my comments provided in the attached document.

Such simple flaws as retaining the reliance on a “diameter” restriction, when many enclosure shapes may not even have a “diameter,” could have easily been fixed if the committee had conducted an open process instead of behind closed doors. (As I suggested long ago, you could just limit the length of fencing around the perimeter of the “physical protection barrier.)

Now the Board is left with the choice of either — one more time — ignoring the flaws in your proposals, or sending it back to you to fix what should never have been submitted to the Board.

Respectfully,

Paul Conte

7 & 8 McKenzie Lane