Whose trees are they anyway?
North Stamford residents petitioned city; then state chopped them down
STAMFORD — When Caryn Cosentini heard the state planned to remove trees off of High Ridge Road, she jumped into the public process feet first. Cosentini requested a public hearing, readied her arguments, and rallied the neighbors.
Two months later, she feels shortchanged. Stamford officials held the public hearing, spoke with residents, and fielded ideas from the community about the lot adjacent to the Merritt Parkway to no avail. A few days later, the state Department of Transportation continued with the project as planned, chopping down the trees in question.
Now, Cosentini wants answers on what happened.
“Whether they were right or wrong, the state and city had a breakdown,” she said. “But they engaged the public. Because of their breakdown, we’re getting no answers.
And that feels like a stonewall.”
The plot of land in question straddles the Rippowam River in North Stamford, right next to the highway exit, abutting Wire Mill Road. The state tagged 38 trees on the property for removal in January in order to replace and expand a strip of road that runs over the river.
The state argues the bridge — first built in 1931, but replaced 43 years later — requires
substantial updates due to “inadequate curb-to curb width” and flooding from the river. However, neighbors expressed concerns about the project’s environmental and aesthetic impacts in the community.
The new roadway will include an additional travel lane and sidewalks on both sides. The structure is slated for completion in November 2023.
After demands from Cosentini and others, the city granted residents a public hearing on the trees along High Ridge Road on April 5. About 20 residents showed up to hear city officials talk through vegetation-related concerns, along with the project’s design.
Representatives from the state Department of Transportation did not attend the public hearing, but the DOT announced in late March that it formally would begin the High Ridge Road bridge replacement on April 1.
The hearing was only the first step by the city. Ultimately, residents expected Stamford’s tree warden to render a decision on the trees. But before that could happen — only two days after the hearing — laborers arrived to continue work on the project and axed 37 of the 38 trees in question.
With with the trees in question no longer standing, the city opted not to issue the recommendation and told Consentini that “the need for a decision from the City’s Tree Warden (was) moot.”
The state did not notify the city officials that it would begin tree removal on city property, according to city spokesperson Arthur Augustyn. That same day, the city contacted the state to object to the tree removal.
“However, the State continued tree removal anyway,” wrote Augustyn in an email.
“The Department’s ability to acquire property, temporarily or permanently, is set forth in the state’s general statutes,” DOT Spokesperson Kevin Nursick said in an email. The state acquired the parcel in April 2020, when the Board of Representatives granted the DOT a temporary construction easement.
The department then gained full control over any vegetation “fully or partially” within the limits of the state highway, according to Nursick.
“Once an acquisition or temporary construction easement is in place, the property essentially becomes the state’s, and the authority to perform vegetation management is codified in state statute,” he wrote, pointing specifically to Connecticut General Statute § 13a-140.
State law establishes that the transportation commissioner can remove any trees or vegetation either partially or wholly within the limits of state highways if necessary for safe and convenient travel.
Though the state has final say on what happens to the trees, Dr. Gary Page of Sacred Heart University said the Stamford situation is emblematic of a larger issue. According to him, state government has become more bureaucratic over the years, and traditional channels of communication with local governments have broken down.
“Even though local governments are still very vibrant units of our state, the distance between the state and the local levels of the policy have become much more distant over the years,” said Page, an expert on Connecticut government. As bureaucracy grows, he said, the once-intimate relationships between appointed government officials and municipalities become more strained.
Government in Connecticut also skews local, a through-line Page traces back to the its Puritan origins. The state’s home rule provision, passed in the 1950s, only further solidified that tradition into law.
“There’s a long history in Connecticut and throughout the New England area of local governments,” Page said. “We’re pretty protective of that here. This tree issue, in many ways, is a perceived violation of this longstanding culture that we have of local activity and local power.”
Even after reaching a dead end with the city, Cosentini and her allies still want a say in High Ridge Road’s future.
“I do not think the matter is moot and I do not think the city should hide behind that conclusion. In fact, I think they should call for an oversight review of the state's conduct,” she said.
In fact, the DOT’s course of action only motivated Cosentini to stay involved. While the trees are gone, the state still has to start rebuilding the road and must remediate the vegetation with the help of a landscape specialist.
“With respect to the site, the city should give us the opportunity to review the remediation plan,” Cosentini added. “The state should step up and engage with us on a better bridge design.”