‘The unique forest setting has been altered’
Lamont’s Greenwich neighbor claims far more trees were removed
A report submitted to Greenwich officials claims far more trees than originally estimated were removed from the shared land behind Gov. Ned Lamont’s Greenwich home.
The report, commissioned by an abutting landowner who is upset with the removal of the trees and thousands of bushes, claims significant environmental damage was done as a result of the clearing.
The work spanning 1,200 feet across several acres occurred without permits in a protected wetland in November and has prompted an investigation, according to the Greenwich Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Agency.
With Lamont involved, it has turned a neighborhood dispute into an issue of statewide interest as he and his neighbors look to rectify the situation and face fines due to the unauthorized work.
Lamont took some of the blame in a late-April interview, stating that he and the neighborhood association were responsible for the removal of the trees.
He pointed to the contractor, who has not returned requests for comment from CT Insider, for going “beyond the scope a little bit” with the work.
In addition to the cutting deemed illegal by town officials on property owned by the Lamonts and the Viks and the Ashton Drive Association (named after the street they live on), workers also crossed a property line and cleared trees on neighboring lands owned by INCT LLC and Ashton LLC, Lamont said.
The Greenwich Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency continues its investigation into the matter and the new report submitted April 26, along with drone video submitted as testimony, is being reviewed. The report was submitted to the Greenwich IWWA on behalf of neighboring property owners and contests documents submitted on behalf of the governor by the SE Minor Co., calling them “seriously deficient.”
The 59-page report, along with other filings from both the wetlands agency and others commissioned by the Lamonts and Viks show a significant gap in terms of where the property owners are in negotiating a restoration plan for a site that has a rich history, including have once been owned by a Rockefeller family member.
Jay Fain and Associates LLC, an environmental consulting and landscape architecture firm, claim they found that, in total, 375 trees had been removed from all three sites adjacent to the Indian Springs Pond wetland. Greenwich officials had only counted 186 trees in their citation of the governor. The SE Minor assessment said there were only 87 cut trees.
Beth Evans, the director of environmental affairs for Greenwich told CT Insider that they were reviewing all submitted evidence and that members of the IWWA visited the parcels “numerous times” as part of the investigation.
“We take all the testimony and input we get from the various parties, look at it and try to summarize it. Then there will be testimony at the (next) public hearing,” said Evans. She said that the next public hearing was scheduled for the week of May 20th. “Based on all of that, our review of what’s been submitted, the agency will make a decision on what steps need to be taken to restore the wetlands.”
Environmental issues
While the sides are at odds over the restoration plan, environmental experts have been called in by all sides to determine both the history and potential future of the land, along with what the extent of the environmental damage is. Besides the removal of trees, wildlife, flooding, soil quality and even the character of the wooded area being taken into account.
The new report commissioned by INCT states that Indian Spring Pond was “originally created for aesthetic and recreational purposes” and that the owners’ purchase of the property “was guided by its privacy, remoteness and bucolic character.”
“This character has been destroyed by the clearing activities,” the report states. “The site is no longer private with open views of the Lamont and Vik houses. The unique forest setting has been altered for at least a generation.”
Lamont is adamant that his view of the property still does not include a view of the pond.
“The notion that the trees were cut to give the governor a better view is patently false,” Lamont spokesperson Julia Bergman said in an emailed response to a list of questions sent by CT Insider. “As the governor has said, these were largely storm damaged and dead trees. The governor has taken responsibility for what happened and said he will make good on the damage.”
Lamont’s office did not respond to specific questions about the discrepancy in the number of trees or in some cases why only limbs were removed from trees. Representatives for the Viks and INCT did not return requests for comment.
The overhead footage from the video shown at a March 25 public meeting shows a clearing between the pond and the homes, with numerous trees and bushes clearly removed. Some of the trees appear to only have had limbs removed. According to the governor’s office, Lamont had not read the report commissioned by his neighbor as of Friday, nor was he aware of the video prior to to CT Insider sending it to his office.
The drone video, filmed hovering above the property and at times near ground level, shows a view of houses in the distance. The view from the Lamont house is unclear, but from the property only part of the house can be viewed through a thick wooded area. The drone video was submitted as testimony by Fred Jacobsen, a property manager for the neighboring property owners, Ashton LLC and
INCT LLC.
The home of the Viks is seen in the video, with a clearing running down an embankment into the area where trees had been cleared. A brook appears to run through the property, connecting to Indian Spring Pond.
At least some clearing had been done in 2021 by Aquarion due to a water main replacement. Both the report from Jay Fein & Associates and the governor’s office noted some clearing that can be seen was due to the past work, with wetland and scrub left intact nearby.
The report notes that the midcanopy of trees was “virtually totally removed by limbing, and the entire understory” of the area was removed. Some trees that remain standing in the woods can be seen as being tagged and missing branches.
The report considers the “disturbance” an “ecological perturbation,” which is “generally recognized as a quick change in the nature of an ecosystem resulting in a change in function.” Fain and Associates wrote that the removal of the 100-year old forest affected all layers of life in the area, severely diminishing habitat for animals like wood ducks, hooded mergansers and wood frogs.
“This habitat has been inextricably altered and can no longer provide the same habitat types,” Jay Fain & Associates wrote in their report.
The report goes on to offer an impact assessment on the wetland’s ability to provide storm surge protection, water filtration and habitat services. It claims that the removal of the wetland vegetation will result in increased siltation and sedimentation
of the Indian Springs Pond.
The report includes a twopage document from local civil engineer Craig Flaherty, president of Redniss & Mead, who determined runoff in the area will increase by about 78 percent for normal storms and about 167 percent for 100-year storms. This means that they anticipate the wetland will be less able to control flooding, and be more prone to erosion.
Both increased flooding and erosion are known side effects of wetland and river vegetation removal and are cited as part of the rationale for the 1972 Connecticut inland Wetlands and Watercourse Act.
Flaherty added in his written assessment that he has walked the property “dozens of times” having worked for the adjacent and prior landowners, Indian Spring Land Company and J. Stillman Rockefeller.
What’s next?
The Greenwich IWWA issued a cease-and-correct order in November, which was sent to the Lamonts, the Viks and the Ashton Drive Association. The order requires a restoration plan for the site, but the two sides have disagreed on what that plan should look like.
“Our main goal here is to find out early...whether or not we can really come together because right now we’re fairly far apart,” John Tesei, a lawyer representing INCT, said at an April 29 IWWA meeting.
The owners of the INCT and Ashton LLC properties on Ashton Drive are calling for an extensive plan to restore the habitat.
“While no amount of money will return the mature forest any time soon, the (owners) are seeking the restoration of the native wooded-wetland environment to re-establish the once private and rural setting and restore wetland functions in accordance with the application of proper and prudent re-forestation and landscape ecology principles,” the report commissioned by the owners stated.
The extensive project could prove problematic, as Peter Orszulak, an arborist with Davey Expert Tree Company, detailed in an April 25 letter to SE Minor after he was asked to assess the project. Orszulak noted that the wet area along the brook would not suit the heavy equipment needed to install large trees well “without causing extensive ruts.” There is also a bridge crossing the brook that “appears too old and likely to be compromised” by heavy equipment. Instead, he recommended smaller trees for the area.
“This approach not only addresses logistical challenges but also promotes the health of existing trees and vegetation, optimizes the survival rate of the new plantings, and ensures the long-term sustainability of the landscape,” Orszulak wrote.
Matthew Popp, a wetland scientist and landscape architect hired by the IWWA reviewed the SE Minor restoration report and issued a response April 26 and made some further recommendations. He noted there were “no significant signs of erosion” during a site visit, that “tree removal may result in a minor increase of thermal pollution and a loss of wildlife habitat,” and that many of the cut trees and shrubs were showing signs of resprouting. He noted that smaller trees should be planted on the site.
Tesei said at the meeting consultants from both sides are scheduled to visit the site and work toward a plan. A specific date for the next meeting has not yet been set. Lamont, the Viks and the neighborhood association could still face fines for the work that was done without proper approval and permit.
“If they can’t agree then the agency ultimately makes the decision,” said Evans. “If the consultants can’t agree it’s unfortunate but it doesn’t stop the process.”
The IWWA, in accordance with state law, has the authority to impose fines of up to $1,000 per violation per day, according to the Greenwich town website. Evans said that she hoped that the IWWA would be able to take action at their next meeting the week of May 20.