XX. Board's Failure Causes Tree Travesty

A stand of more than 20 trees was removed in Dover Bay without the approval of the Design Review Board and with no formulated, approved plan to replace the trees. Don't let this board do this to Dover Bay.

Numerous Dover Bay property owners have expressed frustration and deep concern for the removal of more than twenty cottonwood trees on the busy corner of Lakeshore and Dover Bay Parkway. It affects all of us. Those trees hid large power lines, provided shade and beauty for Bayside South Condos and were a huge part of the grace and ambiance of Dover Bay that was meticulously planned by our PUD's Developer. Read about the plan and vision HERE!

There is reason to be upset. While the board has defended its actions citing safety and legal reasons for their removal, the project was overboard and without due process as indicated by notices sent to the DBPOA, the Design Review Board and to Sentry Management from a former longtime Design Review Board member, Marie Garvey. We include below her analysis from her letter to Peter Anastassiou, the current president of the DBPOA board:

---

"Dear Peter, 

See attached photos. (Click on to view photos)

We have carefully reviewed your email regarding the recent tree removals. While we acknowledge the concerns raised about safety and aesthetics, it is necessary to state clearly that the process required by our governing documents was not followed. 

1. Failure to Follow the CC&Rs

• The DRB has confirmed that this tree removal was not reviewed or approved in advance, as required by the CC&Rs.

• Section 4.3 of the CC&Rs states: “All structures and improvements must be pursuant to the CC&Rs.

• Section 4.4 of the CC&Rs defines improvements to include trees and landscaping.

• Section 4.7 states: “No improvements (including trees as defined in Section 4.4) shall be removed unless the appropriate plans have been reviewed and approved in advance by the DRB in writing, consistent with the CC&Rs and Design Guidelines.” 

"For 19 years, the DRB has consistently required applications and advance approval for all tree removals. This longstanding practice cannot be set aside without undermining both the authority of the DRB and the protections these covenants provide. 

2. Lack of Arborist Documentation

You referenced an arborist’s opinion that the trees were diseased and hazardous. However, there was no formal written report from a licensed arborist submitted to or approved by the DRB before removal. The DRB has already confirmed this in writing. Without such documentation, the claim that these trees were dead, dying, or dangerous remains unsupported. 

3. Evidence of Live Trees Removed

Photographs and observations show that green-limbed, apparently healthy trees were included in the removal. This raises serious questions:

• Which of the trees removed were in fact dead?

• Under what authority was the decision made to remove trees without DRB approval?

• Why was the DRB not provided with a signed arborist report certifying that the green trees were dead before removal? 

4. Undermining the DRB’s Role

The DRB exists to safeguard the rights of all owners and ensure consistent application of the CC&Rs and Design Guidelines. By removing trees without the required DRB application and approval, the established governance process was bypassed. This sets a precedent that weakens the DRB’s role and exposes the Association to potential disputes and liabilities. 

Request for Clarification and Records

Accordingly, we formally request to inspect:

1. A full accounting of who authorized the removal and under what authority.

2. Any and all written communications or documents that were relied upon to justify the removal. Including your emails and texts

3. A copy of any formal arborist report, if one exists, that certified the trees in question as dead or hazardous prior to their removal. 

Until such information is provided, we cannot accept that this removal was consistent with the governing documents. 

We expect a timely and transparent response to these concerns. The DRB process exists to protect Dover Bay’s character, prevent arbitrary removals, and ensure fairness to all property owners. That process must be respected."  

---

In Marie's notice to the DRB she also noted the violation of the city's ordinance:

"On August 20th, we were told the DRB had not approved this removal, and that the DBPOA Board authorized it. If true, this represents a failure by Sentry Management, the DRB, and the DBPOA to enforce the CC&Rs.

In addition, the City of Dover Zoning Ordinance requires that existing vegetation be retained to provide required buffering and screening wherever possible. Division 2, §J states: “All high-density development shall provide an effective buffer for existing commercial or industrial uses of public buildings, adjoining residences, adjoining undeveloped parcels, and the river. Existing vegetation shall be retained to serve required buffering or screening functions wherever possible.”  These trees were functioning as such a buffer. Their removal without DRB review and written approval therefore violates both the CC&Rs and the City’s zoning ordinance tied to the Dover Bay PUD approval."