A Country Club Road resident is seeking monetary damages from the town and a halt to any further tree removal or pruning on her property following what her attorneys are calling the ill-conceived and illegal removal of limbs from a tree not located in the public right-of-way, according to a civil complaint.
The owner of 259 Country Club Road also is seeking statutory damages (under a state law regarding tree removal) and reimbursement of legal costs after New Canaan’s tree warden later turned down her objection to planned tree removal of two trees in a denial that “was retaliatory in nature for the plaintiff’s reaction to the [tree warden’s] mistake and errors with respect to” the first tree, according to a complaint dated Feb. 8 and received Feb. 11 by the town.
On Dec. 9, following an exchange between the homeowner and tree warden regarding the posting of the tree—it was to be removed at Eversource’s request because it threatened power lines, the town official said—the utility “began to cut the limbs off of Tree One without any hearing.”
The area of 259 Country Club Road as seen from the public roadway. Credit: Michael Dinan
Though Eversource “almost immediately” stopped that work after the homeowner emailed the tree warden, “Tree One had been completely stripped of the majority of its limbs by the time Eversource ceased its operations,” according to the complaint.
“With virtually every limb removed from Tree One, the death of Tree One is all but a certainty,” it said.
The tree’s species and age isn’t clear. According to the complaint, it’s not located in the public right-of-way.
The town’s attorneys, Ryan Ryan Deluca LLP of Stamford, on Friday filed a petition to remove the matter to U.S. district court. Ryan Ryan Deluca representatives were not immediately available for comment.
The plaintiff’s attorney, Thomas Moyher of Westport-based Maya Murphy PC, did not return messages seeking comment.
A tree in the area of 259 Country Club Road. Credit: Michael Dinan
Number 259 Country Club Road encompasses 2.8 acres just west of the Fivemile River, at the valley bottom between Smith and Oenoke Ridge Roads.
According to the complaint, the tree warden posted the tree near the southeastern corner of the homeowner’s property on or about Nov. 26. The next day, the homeowner delivered a letter objecting to it and asking for time to engage a lawyer and arborist.
Four days after that, on Dec. 1, the tree warden emailed to say that Eversource wanted the tree down because it threatened power lines and he himself agreed, the complaint said.
Then on Dec. 9, the homeowners spotted Eversource workers pruning the tree.
No hearing had been held prior to that work, in violation of the state law the empowers tree wardens (Connecticut General Statutes section 23-59), the complaint said. Part of that statute reads:
“If any person, firm or corporation objects to such removal or pruning, such person, firm or corporation may appeal to the tree warden in writing, who shall hold a public hearing at some suitable time and place after giving reasonable notice of such hearing to all persons known to be interested therein and posting a notice thereof on such tree or shrub.”
According to the complaint: “The defendant’s [conduct] violated the plaintiff’s procedural and substantive due process rights under local, state and national law and equity.”
On Jan. 15, the tree warden emailed the homeowner to say that a hearing would be scheduled for Jan. 29 for the removal of two trees at 259 Country Club Road, the complaint said. At that hearing, held in a different resident’s driveway, no record-keeping was done and no stenographer was present, the complaint said.
Three days later, as required by law, the tree warden rendered his decision following the hearing. The decision to deny the objection “statutorily” aggrieves the plaintiff, the complaint said.
“Neither the town nor tree warden “made any findings of any conditions of Tree One or Tree Two where the public safety demanded the removal or pruning of Tree One,” the complaint said.
The two trees “did not violate any ordinances” and the town’s actions have deprive the homeowner “of her full interest in her property (Tree One) without any opportunity for Plaintiff to be heard,” the complaint said.
<iframe src=”https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m18!1m12!1m3!1d1501.7771207908172!2d-73.50882822825986!3d41.16607711661015!2m3!1f0!2f0!3f0!3m2!1i1024!2i768!4f13.1!3m3!1m2!1s0x89c2a7b1fdd7b7d7%3A0xfbbd42f5d981bdf0!2s259+Country+Club+Rd%2C+New+Canaan%2C+CT+06840!5e0!3m2!1sen!2sus!4v1457890265922″ width=”600″ height=”450″ frameborder=”0″ style=”border:0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>
FYI I find the actions of Lewis Tree and Eversource to be too aggressive and self serving on Laurel and Michigan Rd. They have placed pink ribbons on over 60 trees and my attempts to have an explanation of whether they will be cut down or pruned or wired go unanswered. Additionally as the former Chair of the Town Public Tree Board I can tell you that the computerized town property maps utilized by Lewis Tree and Eversource are in cases not correct. I also find the Tree warden overly none responsive to inquiries. This is a two way street and not a dictatorship of a large utility company seeking eminent domain over tree removal without considering the owner’s input. I also take exception to the fact that the permission enclosure is pre filled to favor permission. Very suggestive and misleading.
Roy A Abramowitz
I want to save as many trees as possible as well. I agree there needs to be better communication between Eversource/Lewis tree and home owners .. However the discussion of litigation is crazy.
Save that money and donate it to a good cause. There are far more important and worthy issues to address in this world !!!