By Urling Searle President, Greenwich Tree Conservancy
Do you know that you live in an Urban Forest?
A quick online search on the benefits trees provide yields a remarkable and extensive body of work. In the US alone, trees are estimated to provide an annual economic value of $18.3 billion from their removal of air pollutants, reduction of energy use, holding of carbon and avoidance of pollutant emissions.
Trees are often the welcome patch of green our eyes seek when looking out a nearby window and the familiar backdrop of outdoor enjoyment with family and friends. The trees along our streets and in our parks, and backyards, make up what is termed an urban forest. A collection of woody plant vegetation growing within a city, town or suburb. In Greenwich we are fortunate to have an internationally recognized arboretum.
As the first leaves of spring unfold, they begin absorbing carbon dioxide transforming it into oxygen through photosynthesis. This produces a measurable spring cleaning of our air. When that rumble of thunder brings with it a downpour, trees retain great quantities of rainwater in the ground, allowing it to filter slowly into the soil where it supports life and fills underground aquifers. This greatly reduces the quantity of toxic chemicals that would otherwise run onto neighboring properties, nearby waterways and Long Island Sound.
When you cross over to the tree shaded side of a street or seek out a spot under a tree to relax on a hot summer afternoon you know how well trees cool the air. The shade created by trees lowers the energy bills of surrounding homes and offices. It also lowers the temperature in parking lots that otherwise act as large heat islands….[continued]
Last Thursday afternoon, the major tree supporters of the Town of Greenwich gathered in front of Town Hall to pay homage to Cheryl Dunson, retiring president of the Greenwich Tree Conservancy (GTC). Standing beneath the branches of a pin oak tree planted on the front lawn the year the Tree Conservancy was founded 15 years ago, First Selectman Fred Camillo read his “Certificate of Special Recognition” to Dunson, citing “her dedication to and advocacy for the Greenwich Tree Conservancy which she helped co-found in January 2007, and served as vice president and president during her 15-year tenure.”…[continued]
As the Greenwich Tree Conservancy celebrates the 15th anniversary of its founding, the Board of Directors announced the election of Urling Searle as its new president.
Searle has served in a variety of GTC leadership roles, including as a Tree Party co-chair, Communications Committee chair, Program Committee chair and vice president, according to JoAnn Messina, the nonprofit’s executive director.
Among her community contributions, Searle has served on the Town of Greenwich Conservation Commission and currently serves on the First Selectman’s Sustainability Committee and the board of the Greenwich Land Trust…[continued]
The Greenwich Tree Conservancy is a non-profit group of over 1000 supporters whose mission is to preserve and enhance Greenwich’s urban forest to benefit the community. We are writing to underscore the need for a mix of hard and natural sound barriers and a documented vegetation plan to be adopted before road work commences on this project.
CTDOT has a responsibility to do no further harm, and to work with the Town of Greenwich and community stakeholders to mitigate the damage to our roadside forests that has been done in recent years. A century ago, a Connecticut native Gifford Pinchot was named the first Director of the National Forest Service, and he founded the first American Forestry School at Yale. In those early days, it was recognized that trees offered a sense of place, an appeal to tourists and increased property values. We need to apply those criteria to the Greenwich Gateway to Connecticut.
Unfortunately, clear cutting, whether for maintenance or road improvements, has been the favored vegetative management strategy along transportation corridors throughout the State. This management approach is inconsistent with the goals of the recent Governor’s Council on Climate Change report: Taking Action on Climate Change and Building a More Resilient Connecticut for All, which recognizes the importance of protecting and enhancing our forests for both climate mitigation and adaptation/resiliency benefits.
Trees provide many ecosystem and health benefits including purifying air, filtering water which flows into Long Island Sound, the sequestration of atmospheric carbon, enhanced nutrient cycling that promotes biodiversity, and also road noise reduction. Trees act as noise barriers through a phenomenon called sound attenuation, which is the damping of sound. Trees attenuate noise by absorption, deflection, refraction, and masking. Tree parts such as stems, leaves, branches, and wood absorb sound waves. Broadleaf trees are most effective at deflecting sound. However, when broadleaf trees drop their leaves in winter, the sound barrier is lost. Evergreen trees provide a consistent buffer against sound because they keep their needles or leaves across seasons. Evergreens are also fast-growing and can be planted close together, which creates a denser vegetation barrier. So, layering a mix of various species will provide long-term noise reduction results.
The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Roadside Revegetation: An Integrated Approach to Establishing Native Plants 2007 manual presents a thorough guide and notes:
Where modification and increased capacity are needed, ecological health, safety, and efficient transport should not be seen as mutually exclusive goals. Understanding roadside environments, how they interface with adjoining lands, and how to minimize environmental impacts has become a key focus of the Federal Highway Administration (Fekaris 2006). Given political will and proper levels of attention, integration of environmental concerns with transportation can result in significant gains.
We urge you to apply the same strong leadership to ensure that State actions on state land are consistent with climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies. Successful vegetation management mitigates risk while ensuring that our urban forests are conserved, restored, and made more resilient. Many residents speak to their experience of moving to Connecticut because of the beauty they have seen in their daily commutes, removing this vegetation undermines this quality of life.
The Greenwich Tree Conservancy agrees that there are various methods of noise abatement and this project may require sound barriers, combining hardscape and greenscape solutions. We need to take a multilayered approach in Connecticut to increase the benefits of a “No-Net-Loss” healthy natural roadside environment.
As CTDOT develops its landscape design specs we would like to include the following requests:
• REVIEW MANUAL: CTDOT should review the FHA U.S. DOT ROADSIDE REVEGETATION AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO ESTABLISHING NATIVE PLANTS Manual.
• REVIEW SITE PLANS: Based on the UTC results, the I-95 reforestation plan should be completed, and reviewed by the Town of Greenwich before work begins, to ensure the plans are consistent with both Greenwich and Connecticut’s current environmental goals and standards.
• DETERMINE SOIL QUALITY: Soil samples must be included in the planting plans to determine soil quality. Based on the soil findings, the appropriate fertilizer must be used to ensure trees will thrive. • DBH & HEIGHT: Trees should have a minimum DBH of 3-4 inch caliper.
• NOISE REDUCTION PLANT SPECIES: Year-round noise reduction requires a mix of evergreen, deciduous, and broadleaf trees, and a combination of evergreens such as arborvitaes, spruces, pines and hollies. To be effective sound barriers, these trees must have foliage that reaches to the ground. Trees must be densely planted in staggered rows to decrease noise.
• ABUTTING NEIGHBORS & NEIGHBORHOODS: Trees should be planted in front of sound barriers to further decrease noise and create a sense of place, and behind sound barriers to provide larger canopies that can provide lush skyscapes and shade for abutting and sometimes under-resourced residents and property owners.
• SETTING CANOPY GOALS: “Establishing a Tree Canopy goal is crucial for communities seeking to improve their green infrastructure. A Tree Canopy assessment is the first step in this goal-setting process, providing estimates for the amount of tree canopy currently present in a municipality as well as the amount of tree canopy that could theoretically be established.”
• SURVIVAL AND REPLANTING: Monitoring and management is required to assess the effectiveness of the revegetation project. Monitoring the density of live plants following the first and third year after planting will determine if they have survived and whether the site will need to be replanted.
• VISIONARY DESIGN: A visionary design for the CT Gateway must emphasize the rich environmental assets that we have here in our beautiful state while protecting the quality of life for our residents.
The Federal Highway Administration Revegetation manual notes: “As roads are modified or updated section by section, a tremendous opportunity presents itself to remedy the oversights of the past, mitigating environmental impacts and improving conditions for healthy ecosystems.
Connecticut is filled with beauty, let travelers see trees and vegetation that store carbon, clean our air, provide flood control, provide pollinator pathways, respite for migrating birds, and mitigate noise. The repair project on I-95 is an opportunity create a vision for our State’s future by rebuilding better, together!
The decision that involved reconfiguring the intersection on The Avenue “moved the (parking) spot (away) from the best spot it could be in to make it easier for everyone with a disability,” Gunzburg told the Board of Selectmen.
For a town tree warden to prevent access by keeping a tree in place, Gunzburg said, it violated the ADA’s Title II. which applies to state and local governments.
“When we talk about ADA and trees in the sidewalk, those trees do not belong to the tree warden,” Gunzburg said. “He has no right. He has no standing, and he has no place to do this.”
Instead of involving the tree warden, Gunzburg said the town should have an official policy of calling for the Department of Public Works to come to a resolution with the town’s ADA coordinator when it comes to access.
At the meeting, Tree Warden Greg Kramer said there should be “consideration and collaboration” with town agencies and the public on a case-by-case basis for town projects.
“To suggest bulldozing trees without any consideration from the tree warden I think is inappropriate,” Kramer said.
Assistant Town Attorney Aamina Ahmad agreed.
“You can’t simply cut out the tree warden out of a process,” Ahmad told the board. “There has to be a collaborative process and coordination. But if it turns out a particular tree in question, if it is allowed to remain, will have such an impact on the project that we in any way, shape or form not be in compliance with the ADA, then I think that’s where we say as a municipality that the ADA comes first.”
First Selectman Fred Camillo said, “Let’s continue this conversation and see what we can come up with.”
Sunshine Avenue hearing
Gunzburg called the Sunshine Avenue tree hearing “one of the most ableist things I have ever been through.”
At the hearing, “person after person after person” from the Greenwich Tree Conservancy “talked about how more important trees are than the safety of people and how much more valuable trees are than the safety of people,” he said.
But on Friday, JoAnn Messina, executive director of the Greenwich Tree Conservancy, said that was a “strong mischaracterization” of the hearing. Two or three conservancy members were among the speakers, who were mostly from the neighborhood, she said.
“I don’t recall anyone saying trees are more important than safety,” Messina said. “I see a world with ADA compliance and all the health benefits of mature, healthy trees.”
Kramer said that he didn’t have any comment about Gunzburg’s claim.
Moving a parking space
The issue that sparked Gunzburg’s appeal began in February, when a plan to remove a tree at 235 Greenwich Ave. was appealed. As part of the intersection improvement project at Elm Street, the town planned to build an accessible parking space with a ramp in the curb that would provide easier access to the sidewalk.
The appeal led to a hearing, after which Kramer ruled that the tree could be removed but said the town must plant seven other trees nearby. But Kramer’s ruling was appealed to Stamford Superior Court by a group of residents and Greenwich Avenue business owners who were save the tree.
Ultimately, a resolution was reached to save the tree but move the parking space. But Gunzburg said that deal, which has still not been finalized because of his complaint, violated his civil rights and he appealed it to the town ADA coordinator, Demetria Nelson.
Nelson denied Gunzburg’s appeal, saying that the jurisdiction of the tree warden in matters related to the ADA’s Title II “will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.”
But Gunzburg had the right to take the issue to the Board of Selectmen, which he did last week, saying there should be a set town policy.
“Without a policy, government cannot run,” he said. “We can’t ad hoc every single moment and try to figure out who we’re going to involve in order to make things work to be in line with federal statutes.”
At the June 23 Hamill Rink User Committee meeting, chair Bill Drake summarized five reasons not to build a new Hamill Rink in the existing location: Possible loss of 2 seasons of skating, Loss of $1.2 million (2 years) revenue from not having a rink for two seasons, expense of purchasing ice time elsewhere, $1m+ cost to build a temporary rink, and more challenging fundraising for the project.
Previously, at the May 5 meeting, in a discussion about adding a two lane access road into the park via Western Jr Hwy, Al Monelli said the project was definitely a two year project, not one.
Brent Brower from the Greenwich Skating Club said his organization was the largest purchaser of ice at Hamill Rink. They also purchase ice time from Chelsea Piers CT, Hommocks in Westchester, SONO in Norwalk, and both STR and Terry Connors in Stamford. He said the group also planned to purchase time at a facility in Brewster, NY.
“Even if we wanted to replace the ice, if Hamill were to close, we wouldn’t be able to. It is not available,” he said.
Brower and Nancy Leamy, who runs the rink skating school, both said they’d support an effort to develop a “support group,” whether it be via email or Facebook.
“To get more people interested in the development of the rink, perhaps it might be good to invite some of these people in person,” Leamy suggested.
Mr. Drake suggested scheduling face-to-face meetings with the BNA and BVA to discuss the project in the week of July 12, though there were veterans on the Zoom meeting, and there was a representative from the BNA on the committee, Liz Eckert.
Ms Eckert, noted that though she happened to be an RTM member for District 4, she was on the committee to represent the Byram Neighborhood Association. She said while the rink committee was assembled to design a new rink, its mission had changed.
“Now it has morphed into designing an entire park, with several user groups, homeowners, and taxpayers affected,” she said.
“We need to have more representation from these user groups on this committee so they have a voice in deciding what’s going to happen with our park. This is not just a rink,” she added.
Mr. Drake disagreed. “I think we have a very broad representation. We have baseball fans, people from the Planning & Zoning committee, and we have you,” he said, though neither Nick Macri from P&Z, nor Mike Bocchino who has spoken in support of Strazza field users was able to attend the meeting.
The committee does not have representation from the Byram Veterans. Nor does it have anyone from the RTM districts in the area of the rink.
In addition to Ms Eckert, Mr. Drake, Mr. Macri, Mr. Bocchino, and Mr Brower of Greenwich Skating Club, the committee also includes Ric Loh of the Parks & rec board, and three town employees: Sue Snyder (Parks & Rec Superintendent of Recreation), Rink Manager Rich Ernye, and head of the skating school, Ms Leamy.
During public comments, Francia Alvarez from the Greenwich Tree Conservancy suggested looking at the project from a land use perspective.
She said it would be helpful if renderings showed exactly where and how many trees were to be removed depending on where a possible access road might be located.
There was talk about the expense of running utilities from Western Junior Highway to the rink. Mr. Monelli said there would be five separate trenches for utilities.
“You can’t mix water and sewer. You can’t mix water and electric,” he said. “There will be five different excavations.”
He said it would cost about $2,000 per lineal foot for trenching for all five utilities (including piping, conduit and/or cast iron and labor) and that the shortest run was to option A or B, for about a 50 ft run for $110,000.
He said the difference in running utilities to A or B to putting the building on the parking lot was almost 500 ft for a total of $1.2 million.
The difference in approximate cost to run utilities to option A or B and C, D or E is $1.1 million.
Ms Alvarez noted that utility trenches are notorious for damaging tree roots.
“Trenches go in and two, three or four years later a tree dies,” she said. “I’d like to know when they’re put in those utility trenches, where they’ll go and how you can limit tree damage in the process.”
Alvarez said there has been talk in the RTM about the Housing Authority’s interest in developing affordable housing in the area of McKinney Terrace, which abuts the park to the north and might potentially share the access road. McKinney Terrace is housing for elderly and disabled and is run by the Housing Authority.
“Is that driveway going to provide access if it were to move forward putting in housing in the area?” she asked.
Mr. Drake said the questions deserved a “careful review” and said he proposed to respond in writing rather than “on the fly.”
Mr. Drake said he had looked at the Parks & Rec website which lists the town’s parks.
“There are 62 items that come up on the list. There is no Morlot Park listed.”
Mr. Drake said Eugene Morlot Park had no official designation in the Town of Greenwich, though he said the committee intended respect the memorial grove of trees in the northwest corner of the park.
“We’ll probably enhance it if we can with assistance, opinions and feedback from the vets and the entire community,” he said. “As part of this process, we should indeed, for the first time, we should formally recognize and establish a Morlot Park with these trees and flagpole.”
After the meeting, Byram Veterans said they were surprised at the claim that the park didn’t exist.
The Byram Veterans Association provided Town documents and clippings referring to Eugene Morlot Memorial Park dating back decades.
A clipping from Greenwich News from December 5, 1991 reported that a gift for $10,000 to $12,000 from Greenwich Junior Babe Ruth League to improve the hardball field at the former Byram School, “now the Eugene Morlot memorial Park” was approved in a unanimous vote by the Greenwich Board of Selectmen.
During public comment, Don Sylvester from the Byram Veterans Association challenged Mr. Drake’s claim that the park did not officially exist.
He said it was his job as commander of the veterans group to preserve the park, but that he and fellow veterans had been excluded from the committee.
“For anyone to say that Eugene Morlot Park does not exist is a disservice to the veterans of this town,” he said to Mr. Drake, adding that it was “wrong” to chop up the park.
Mr. Sylvester said the entire park was dedicated as a memorial park, including the parking lot, skating rink, Strazza field and the memorial grove of trees.
“Until all the questions are answered, there’s going to be hell to pay before one shovel full of dirt comes off of that property….This is a disservice to veterans all over the US to do anything to that memorial park. It’s no different than Washington, DC. What do you think people would say if they were going to put a Walmart size building in the middle of the Mall where the reflecting pond is? It would be unheard of.”
Don Sylvester, Commander of the Byram Veterans Association and Officer with CT Veterans of Foreign Wars
“Parks are open space…What you’re doing here is dividing up this property, chopping it up,” Sylvester said, arguing that the existing location should be maintained. “Keep the open space as what it is.”
Mr. Sylvester said he did not want a Walmart size building placed in the middle of the park’s open space, and preferred a new one be built on the existing rink location.
“I don’t understand why everyone is so hell bent on putting this building in the middle of a park,” he continued, before going on to question the need for the access road, which will stretch the project to two years and add significant expense according to Mr. Monelli.
He noted that the representative from SLAM, the design firm hired by Parks & Rec, had said large pieces of equipment and sections of steel and concrete would have to be brought into the park and it would be a challenge to come in via Sherman Ave and Sue Merz Way.
“What happened when they did the original building? I think they had to bring large pieces of steel in for that one,” he said.
Also during public comment Ros Nicastro from Byram said she thought the new rink should be built on its existing location.
She complained the committee lacked RTM representation from District 3 and that a third of the D3 RTM members lived in the apartments across the street from the park, where a new access road is being planned and trees will be removed.
“Instead of a quiet bucolic park across the street, we’re going to have a Sears, Roebuck & Company size building and an access road across the street,” she said.
Nicastro said she agreed with Francia Alvarez from the Greenwich Tree Conservancy that when tree roots would be destroyed by trenching, and that she was concerned trees would die that currently protect people in apartments in her complex.
Ms Nicastro was joined by Molly Saleeby in agreeing that the committee did not have broad enough representation.
“This is not the Balkans where we need a delegate from Herzegovina,” Mr. Drake said.
David Wold, a member of the Byram Veterans Association, lamented that the two-way access road would “cut the park in two.”
He asked how many trees would be eliminated, where the ADA parking and existing playground would be relocated. Mr. Drake said answers were yet to be determined.
The committee members did not vote on a preferred option, but those in attendance agreed they leaned toward option A or B in which the rink would be positioned in the northeast corner of Eugene Morlot Park, just below a possible access road via Western Junior Highway.
They agreed that options C, D and E would have setback issues with respect to the memorial grove.
By the end of the meeting, only Bill Drake and Liz Eckert were in attendance to vote on the previous meeting’s minutes.
The Town of Greenwich Tree Warden on Tuesday announced his decision on the fate of numerous trees proposed to be removed, including 21 in the area of the Riverside Train Station. Other trees are in the area of Cos Cob Park, Arch Street Y Summit and Sound beach Ave at the Old Greenwich Train Station for a total of 29 trees.
After the trees were posted, complaints were received, triggering a public hearing on May 26.
At the hearing, Kathy Ferrier, Transmission Vegetation Manager for Eversource said all 29 trees needing to be removed in order to achieve a 25 foot clearance from the transmission lines. She said any new vegetation could not exceed 15 ft. in height.
“Existing listed vegetation is currently in one of three conditions; being pruned cyclically away from wires, physiologically improbable to grow large enough to reach any high wires or is much too young at this stage of structural development to cause any service disruptions,” Kramer said on Tuesday.
The 21 trees posted at Riverside Train station:
Four (4) Arborviteas (Thuja occidentalis) Diameter Breast Height of 12, 12, 12, and 8 inches.
Three (3) Callery Pears (Pyrus calleryana) DBH of 24, 20, 20 inches
One (1) Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana) DBH of 6 inches
One (1) Japanese Falsecypress (Cedar), (Chamaecyparis pisifera) DBH of 22 inches
Two (2) Flowering Cherry Plums (Prunus cerasifera) DBH of 4, 4 inches
Two (2) Black Cherries (Prunus serotine) DBH 12, 12 inches
One (1) Norway Spruce (Picea abies) DBH 20 inches
At Cos Cob Park 5 Oak trees were posted.
Arch St and Summit 1 Western Cedar was posted.
Two Japanese Zelkova were posted at the Old Greenwich Train station.
Any party aggrieved by the decision may, within 10 days, appeal the decision to superior court.
The Tree Warden is charged by state statute with the “care and control” of all town-owned trees.
Dr. Kramer ruled that none of the trees may be removed with the exception of the Western Cedar at Arch St and Summit Road and one Norway Maple at the Riverside Train Station.
Further, he said the trees cannot be removed until Eversource submits a landscape plan that includes replacement trees and species.
“The Tree Division doesn’t take this responsibility lightly,” Kramer said. “Each and every tree slated for removal is
inspected and decided on a case-by-case basis.”
“The Greenwich Tree Conservancy is very concerned that Eversource is stating that they need to remove trees ground to sky 25 feet from both sides of their wires,” said JoAnn Messina, director of the Greenwich Tree Conservancy on Tuesday.
“This is not what PURA has agreed to and we need to refute. Many towns in Connecticut are being attacked by Eversource in similar ways,” Messina continued. “In Greenwich, we have been planting “right tree, right place” for decades and these trees requested for removal will not interfere with our power lines. We thank the Tree Warden for his decision to save our important town resources and treasures.”
Last Wednesday, Greenwich Tree Warden Dr. Greg Kramer held a public hearing on the fate of 34 trees posted for removal on the GHS campus as part of the Cardinal Stadium project.
Architect for the BOE Russ Davidson said that the number of trees had been reduced to 21, and it was necessary to cut them down for fire and emergency access, utilities, storm drainage requirements and ADA Access and parking.
Several people spoke in favor of ADA parking, which unfortunately pitted people involved in the stadium upgrade project against people from the Greenwich Tree Conservancy, who don’t oppose ADA parking or accessibility to the stadium.
At the end of the day though, the discord stemmed from the fact trees are posted for removal at the end of a project, rather than the beginning.
On the day of the hearing, Russell Davidson, architect representing the Board of Education, stated for the record that 13 of the 34 trees would not need to be removed for the current phase of the construction project after all.
This brought the number of trees requested for removal down to 21 trees.
Kraemer said the number of trees, species, and Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) measured in inches requested for
removal are as follows:
(4) Japanese Falsecypress (Cedar) (Chamaecyparis pisifera) DBH of 20, 20, 18 inches and 13 inches.
(1) Japanese Maple (Acer palmatum) DBH of 23 inches (Not shown in the landscape plan)
(2) London Plane (Plantanus x acerifolia) DBH of 20 and 18 inches.
(11) Norway Maples (Acer platanoides) DBH of 29,19,18, 18, 18, 11, 9, 8, 8, 6 and 3 inches.
(3) White Mulberry (Morus alba), DBH of 27, 20, and 13 inches.
(1) White Spruce (Picea glauca), DBH of 9 inches.
(4) Sugar Maples (Acer saccharum), DBH of 42, 13, 13 and 9 inches.
(3) Japanese Yews (Taxus cuspidate), DBH of 29, 24 and 20 inches.
(5) White Fir (Abies concolor), DBH of 28, 28, 27, 23 and 17 inches.
On Monday evening Dr. Kramer announced that of the 21 trees remaining posted for removal that an additional 7 would be spared.
“After careful consideration and having listened objectively to the facts and opinions presented by all parties, I have ruled in the following manner on the posted trees listed above and referenced again below: It is my decision and have concluded that the following trees shall remain;
(2) London Plane Trees (Plantanus x acerifolia) consisting of a Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) 20 and 18 inches located along Putman Avenue.
The trees residing in the proposed rain garden (infrastructural improvements) location; (3) Japanese Falsecypress (Cedar), (Chamaecyparis pisifera) DBH 20, 18, and 13 inches, (1) Norway Maple (Acer platanoides) DBH 18 inches, and (1) Japanese Maple, (Acer palmatum) DBH 23 inches.”
The 12 trees Kramer indicates for removal are:
Additional 12 trees have been approved for removal as part of the A.D.A. Access and Parking, the trees approved are as follows:
(2) Japanese Yews (Taxus cuspidate), DBH of 24 and 20 inches.
(1) Japanese Falsecypress (Cedar) (Chamaecyparis pisifera) DBH of 20 inches.
(1) White Mulberry (Morus alba), DBH of 20 inches.
(2) Sugar Maples (Acer saccharum), DBH of 42 and 13 inches.
“However,” Kramer said. “The trees approved for removal will only be granted to the Board of Education with the agreement that upon replanting, tree numbers will be doubled the current design requirement of 34 trees; this would equal a total of 68 trees of a size no less than a 2-inch caliper with the species to be determined at the discretion of the Tree Warden. Additionally, the Tree Warden requests an overall comprehensive landscape improvement plan that enhances the areas after construction.”
Kramer shared two notes.
(1) London Plane Tree (Plantanus x acerifolia) DBH 20 inches on Putnam Avenue is on State property and was not posted or part of the tree hearing, however is shown for removal on the plan.
(2) Arborvitae (Thuja occidentalis) DBH 12 and 18 inches along Putnam Avenue are on State property and were not part of the tree hearing, however is shown as removals on the plan.
This is the final decision of the Tree Warden of the Town of Greenwich. Let it be known that Chapter 451, Section 23-59 of the Connecticut General Statutes states “the Tree Warden shall render his/her decision granting or denying the application, and the party aggrieved by such decision may, within ten days, appeal therefrom to the superior court or the judicial district within which such town or borough is located.”
This decision will be posted in the lobby of the offices of the Parks and Recreation Department located on the 2nd floor of the Town Hall, the lobby of Town Hall, the Town Clerk’s office, and the Town of Greenwich website ww.greenwichct.gov/AgendaCenter Parks & Recreation – Public Tree Hearing. It will also be sent to persons present at the Public Hearing and to those who appealed the posting of these trees for removal.
As your Tree Warden, by Connecticut statute, I am charged with the “care and control” of all Town-owned trees. The Tree Division doesn’t take this responsibility lightly. Each and every tree slated for removal is inspected and decided on a case-by-case basis.