By Gretchen Webster
WESTPORT — Enacting rules on when and where Westport property owners can cut down trees — which some local homeowners applaud and developers often oppose — were outlined Wednesday during a discussion of revised restrictions designed to protect mature trees.
If adopted, property owners will have to apply for a permit to:
- Remove three or more mature trees from their property.
- Cut down trees in property setbacks on properties of one acre or more.
- Take down trees on steep slopes.
- Remove trees in wetlands and watercourses.
The proposed amendments, presented during a Planning and Zoning Regulation Revision Subcommittee meeting, were met with approval by some homeowners, but opposed by others who worried that restricting their ability to cut down trees on their own property trampled on their property rights.
Clear-cutting trees blamed on developers
Developers are mostly to blame for the severe drainage and flooding problems that Westport endures when trees are cut down, both homeowners and P&Z officials said at the meeting.
“We have tremendous drainage problems … and many of them relate to the clear cutting of lots,” said Danielle Dobin, chairwoman of the P&Z.
Restricting tree removal would help mitigate flood-control issues and also preserve the mature tree canopy in Westport, she said.
Rules vs. property owners’ rights
While most Westport property owners attending the virtual meeting applauded efforts by the P&Z to halt the loss of mature trees, property owner Jay Keenan did not.
“I just don’t like it,” Kennan said. If homeowners want to remove trees that provide too much shade or other reasons, they should have the right to make their own decisions about their own property, he said.
The proposed amendments are challenging “the right to take care of your own property,” Keenan aid.
If the amendments are adopted, there also should be an appeals process, and remove the clause about limiting tree removal in property setbacks, he added.
Permits also often require surveys, he said, which can cost thousands of dollars. “This has morphed into trying to control every tree in within the town. Who decides what trees go and what trees don’t?” Keenan said.
Conservation Director Alicia Mozian suggested that Westport trees on the state’s list of notable trees should also be included among those trees requiring a permit to remove.
Proposals look for balancing act
“I feel your pain when you drive by and see some of these lots clear cut,” Mozian said, “and I understand how people feel about their property rights — it is a balancing act.”
The proposed amendment changes were presented at the meeting by Michael Kiselak, a planner for the Planning and Zoning Department.
Changes in the initial proposal were made in response to feedback from meetings already held on the proposed tree amendment, and modifying those that residents said would be “too onerous or burdensome,” he said.
To respond to those concerns, a clause was removed that would have required that every tree that was removed would have to be replaced with three new trees, he said.
The proposed rule changes will be forwarded to the full P&Zto accept or reject after more clarification and discussion, Kiselak said.
Bad idea. Let property owners make the call – in so many cases, trees need to come down because they’re unhealthy and create dangerous risks, at times tragically, as we have experienced in our own town in recent years. In addition, do we really need more bureaucracy in Westport, or to further burden the bureaucracy which already exists? No one hates trees. If you want to be a good neighbor, plant a new one. But in any case leave it to property owners to make those decisions.
This is a terrific proposal. It is long overdue and it becomes more and more important as drainage problems continue to increase. The proposal does not disallow the removal of trees subject to the coverage of the rule, only that a permit will be required, which may or may not be granted. I applaud the effort of P&Z Subcommittee and look forward to voicing my support when it is formally proposed. The rule, I believe, when adopted is subject to challenge by the RTM. Jay Keenan and others, Jay is on the RTM, can pursue an override. This is not any kind of constitutional question about property rights. So many use that phrase when they simply object to what is being proposed. Let’s use more analytical words than “property rights”.
This is insane. I’ve had large trees fall on my house twice in the past 10 years even though I’ve cut down at least 20. Now the town is going to make me jump through bureaucratic nonsense because some busybody read A Tree Grows in Brooklyn recently? Maybe it’s just a cash grab by the town or maybe something else but it is absolute nonsense.
This a terrible idea. Has anyone actually evaluated what percentage of a property the Town is proposing to police? I did the math twice-just to be sure I was correct. For a one acre square of 208.7’x208.7′ , the area within the setbacks is a whopping 19,163 square feet or 44% of your property. On a two acre parcel of 295′ x 295 ‘ that would be an extraordinary 56% of your property under the control of the Town. Not to mention how few surveyors there are around and what the backlog would be to survey and then have someone from the Town check……… a nightmare for homeowners of larger parcels. It seems that the major complaint here is developers clear cutting lots. Permits to build new homes are very expensive-why not offer incentives to reduce permit costs if a builder keeps a certain amount of trees?
This is a horrible idea. We have enough regulation in Westport and now the town wants to infringe on our property rights. We took down more than three trees a few years ago and the result is we didn’t have any issues in the past few storms thankfully.
If the town wants to regulate new development and demolition of existing homes please keep that a separate process than regulating home owners.