Lamont takes ‘responsibility’ for ‘Tree-gate’
Gov. Ned Lamont took responsibility Monday for the clear-cutting of more than 180 trees near his Greenwich neighborhood, saying that he was never trying to get a better view of a pond.
Instead, Lamont said he was simply trying to clean up dead trees that had fallen during storms through the years.
Lamont told reporters that he and the Ashton Drive Association, which owns a building lot in the neighborhood, jointly hired a landscaper to complete the work. The cutting, however, was done without any wetlands permits, and the Stamford tree cutters started running when a neighboring property manager approached them at the site, according to testimony at the Greenwich wetlands agency.
“I think at the end of the day, I’m responsible, and the association is,” Lamont told reporters Monday in Bridgeport. “They hired a contractor to do the work. I think the contractor went beyond the scope a little bit. … I obviously called up the neighbors immediately when I found out about this. I wasn’t closely involved, and said, ‘Let us try and make good.’’’
Asked if the association had hired the contractor, Lamont responded, “We did this together. … Look, most of this was storm-damaged trees, trees that had come down over the years, some of the work that Aquarion had done in years past to put in a major water main. They did do some cleanup on the other side of the stone wall that belongs to the neighbors. I called up the neighbor immediately, and said, ‘If that’s the case, I want to make good on that.’’’
The tree-cutting controversy has captured the attention of state legislators and the general public, leading to widespread press coverage that has been dubbed “Treegate.” An attorney for Lamont’s neighbor describes the issue as a “chainsaw massacre.”
Lamont, though, was adamant that he had never been trying to obtain a better view of the nearby Indian Spring Pond, and his supporters said he has been living in the same home for about 30 years without ever making any attempts to clear-cut the land.
“Come look at the backyard. You’ll see nothing but trees — no lake,” Lamont told reporters. “You don’t see any lake. You see nothing but trees from the backyard.”
Asked why the proper wetlands permits were never obtained from the town, Lamont responded, “I don’t know. I’m afraid we rely on the landscaper for that. I didn’t know you need a written permit to clean up a dead tree, but now I know, and it will never happen again.”
The contractors, who have been identified in town documents as Your Gardening Angel LLC of Treglia Terrace in Stamford, have not spoken publicly since the controversy began.
Wetlands hearing
Within hours of Lamont’s comments, the Greenwich inland wetlands agency convened a public hearing Monday on the issue, focusing on the properties of Lamont and his neighbors. A previous hearing had been held in late March but had not focused specifically on Lamont’s property.
The largely procedural meeting lasted less than 30 minutes with no conclusions regarding the wetlands.
Lamont’s attorney, Thomas Heagney, said that he had spoken several times with John P. Tesei, a land-use attorney for the property owner of 148 Glenville Road, a large tract of more than 90 acres that was previously owned by members of the Rockefeller family. The current individual owner is not publicly known as the property is owned by a Delaware-based limited liability company that maintains an office on West 57th Street in midtown Manhattan.
The attorneys noted that a meeting has been scheduled at the site with various consultants to discuss the issue and craft a restoration plan moving forward.
“Our main goal here is to find out early whether we can really come together because right now we’re far apart,” Tesei told commissioners. “We’re most concerned that things don’t drag on.”
Noting the high level of public interest in the case, Greenwich environmental affairs director Beth Evans said that the general public can send questions about the properties to her via email.
“Our objective is to get the wetlands and watercourse restored as quickly as possible,” Evans said.
During the public hearing, Greenwich landscape architect Peter F. Alexander said the town could learn broader lessons from the controversy regarding wetlands and watershed planning.
“I think that this clearing will really help bring back migratory species,” Alexander said. “This could be an opportunity to take a second look at our incredible town. … I’m here to help.”
State Capitol
House Republican leader Vincent Candelora of North Branford said Lamont had mishandled the matter.
“It’s never good optics when you see a public official getting into this kind of situation, especially something that is so dramatic and devastating,” Candelora told reporters Monday at the state Capitol in Hartford. “It’s not as if one tree was cut down. We’re talking about clear-cutting over a number of acres. So obviously it’s going to bring a lot of attention, just the nature of what was done, regardless of the fact of who it is. But the fact that it is our sitting governor, who has been supposedly a champion of environmental issues, this is something that isn’t going away, and he’s going to have to answer to it.”
Candelora added, “People want to understand why this was done. You’re a public official. You’re held accountable. There is no privacy in your life.”
The best move for Lamont, Candelora said, would have been to answer all questions before the controversy reached the wetlands agency and became public. Although the tree cutting was discovered in November 2023, Greenwich first selectman Fred Camillo said he was unaware of the controversy until last week when it was printed in the local newspapers.
“If it was me, but I’m really not in a position to cut down that many trees, I probably would have gotten out in front of this,” Candelora said. “This happened in November. They should have had a better response. Eventually, it was going to become public. I’m surprised it took as long as it did. I heard it on the radio on the ride up [to Hartford] today. Everybody is calling in, talking about this Tree-gate scandal.”