Precedent on tree protection law in Sag Harbor

Two large specimens are gone, how will the village deal with this?

“This is a big deal and I don't want to comment on it, but I just want to point out that it took seven years for this law to pass and this is pretty much the worst case scenario that could happen,” Bob Plumb of the Sag Harbor Town Council said at a meeting Tuesday night.

He spoke about the ongoing odyssey of 11 Meadowlark Lane, which is embroiled in a case that has now seen two hearings in Sag Harbor court and was the focus of a meeting of the Historic Preservation and Architectural Review Committee.

In February, the village passed a new law regarding the cutting of trees of a certain size, which provides penalties for violations. On June 4, a Sag Harbor woman cut down two trees and now faces two charges: one for cutting down a tree with a diameter of over 12 inches at breast height without a permit; the other for cutting down a tree that was on village property. The first tree was 36 inches in diameter, the second was 48 inches in diameter.

The woman, Augusta Ramsay Folks, who is installing a septic tank as part of redevelopment on her property, claims she removed the trees out of respect for the Suffolk County Health Department. The tree roots, she says, have disrupted the system because the groundwater is shallow there.

Mr Plumb commented on that claim at Tuesday's meeting. “My understanding is that the claim was that the health department told her she had to replant the trees,” he said. “Anyone who has been to the health department knows that if you want to avoid large objects and things like that, you can replant the trees. That's within the guidelines.”

The details of Ms. Folks' renovation came to light during an architectural review board meeting. She plans to build a seven-bedroom, nine-bathroom home on the two lots at 11 Meadowlark Lane. There are also plans for an additional housing unit — an affordable housing unit, according to Ms. Folks — and a new swimming pool behind the main house.

The construction of the swimming pool sparked a debate. The original septic tank is now located where it was supposed to go. The new one would be in front of the house where the two felled trees stood.

The architectural review board was unaware that a case was pending in U.S. court over the tree removal until Mary Ann Eddy pointed it out at the public hearing. “Penalties and remediation can hardly replace the amazing trees that were cut down,” she said this week, “but they are a small step toward restoring the community.”

Ms Folks had requested a “certificate of adequacy” from the audit committee, which was unanimously granted by four of the six committee members. The other two, as well as Mr Plumb, the council's liaison to the audit committee, had left the meeting earlier.

According to Elizabeth Vail, the village's attorney, “just because a case is pending in Justice Court does not mean you cannot sue before the land use committees.”

This case represents the first real test of the recently passed Tree Protection Act. It is important, said Ms Eddy, that the law is widely publicised because this is “the key to making residents aware that there are consequences for violating the law.”

Eileen Rosenberg and Jane Young, who worked together for nearly a decade in four township councils to get the new law passed, see the case as a testing ground. “With the 11 Meadowlark Lane case currently under review in the Sag Harbor court, we have an opportunity to set a precedent,” Ms. Rosenberg said, “and the decisions made now will demonstrate to the community the village's commitment to tree protection.”

The case is scheduled to go before the US court in September. If found guilty, Ms Folks faces two penalties. One is a $1,000 fine, the other is to replace the fallen trees with new ones that are the same diameter as the total diameter of the trees felled.

Mr Plumb explained it this way: “Seven-foot trees were cut down there, and [replace that] That would be 21 trees with a diameter of 15 cm.”

Ms Folks was asked for a statement through her representative, but no response was received by the time of publication.