Castleberry Park residents press city on tree planting, open storm drain and final paving

Residents of the Castleberry Park subdivision told the Oregon City Commission they had gathered signatures asking that money the developer set aside for parking-strip trees instead be used for ongoing maintenance of the strip between the subdivision fence and the sidewalk along Marsh Road and for other entryway improvements.

Ted Petty and Joel Rogers, both identified as residents of Castleberry Park, said they had counted existing trees in front yards and that most lots already contain at least one tree. Petty said the neighborhood has a petition signed by most residents requesting that the developer funds be turned over to the community for maintenance and landscaping. He provided commissioners a map showing tree counts by lot and the petition.

"We feel we have complied with the spirit of the regulation, if not the technical requirements of the trees being a parking strip," Petty said.

Petty and Rogers also asked the city to follow up with the developer about final paving of Castleberry Loop and Squire and to address a storm-sewer drainage ditch that runs between Lots 4 and 5. Rogers described the open tile as large enough for a child to enter and said he had observed children playing in water that collects there. He said the city engineer had inspected and had told him the issue would be addressed this summer, but he asked that the exchange be recorded for the public record.

City staff and commissioners said the distinction between homeowners' CC&Rs and city planning requirements matters: if the parking-strip trees are a private CC&R obligation the city may have no enforcement authority; if trees were required by city regulation, the city is obliged to enforce. City staff said they would research the record, follow up with the developer on paving, and coordinate next steps with the residents. Charlie asked Rich (staff) to coordinate and provide a schedule of possible actions and what would be within city authority.

No formal action or vote was taken at the meeting; staff were directed to investigate the CC&R versus city requirement question, confirm records about paving timing and developer obligations, and follow up with the petitioners.