It all started with a call to Greenwich Police on November 9, 2023 from a Greenwich property manager about alleged trespassing at 148 Glenville Rd, also known as 1 Indian Spring Road.
The property was part of the once-sprawling Rockefeller estate.
According to Greenwich Police Captain John Sulsarz, an officer responded and took a report, and from there the town’s Wetlands Agency was notified, because, “the reporting party had a concern that the trees may have been near or on wetlands.”
The Wetlands Agency issued violations for the unauthorized removal of trees and vegetation, resulting in a total of four applications submitted to the Wetlands Agency to rectify the situation at 148 Glenville, 0 Ashton Drive, 4 & 6 Ashton Drive, and 8 & 10 Ashton Drive.
At their most recent meeting, the Wetlands Agency agenda featured all four applications, but, after lengthy discussion – it was almost 11:30pm and other applicants were waiting on Zoom – the hearings were continued to a future meeting.
While the applicant was named as S.E. Minor & Co, the clients include Governor Ned Lamont and Ann Lamont, and neighbors on Ashton Drive who are part of the Ashton Drive Association.
It was noted that a conservation easement spans four of the parcels, including the association’s open space, Ned and Ann Lamont parcels, Carrie Vik parcels, and the R.P. Eddy parcel.
Beth Evans, Greenwich’s director of environmental affairs, said by the time surveys were complete and a tally was taken, 186 trees over 4-inch DBH (diameter at breast height) were removed, in addition to an unquantified amount of shrubs.
Also, Evans noted there were a number of trees with lower limbs removed to create a “limbing” effect.
Fred Jacobsen, the property manager for 148 Glenville Rd (owners INCT LLC) – who called in the original complaint to police – provided aerial video drone footage as well as before & after photos.
At the March 25 meeting, it was noted that no lawsuits had been filed.
The attorney for INCT, John Tesei, said his client hoped the parties responsible would step up for the cost of restoration, which he said was a high six-figure number.
Top row, left to right: Sarah Coccaro, Assistant Director of Environmental Affairs; Director of Environmental Affairs Beth Evans, Robert Rimmer. Second Row: Wetlands Agency chair Brian Harris, member Elliot Benton, member Ted Walworth, Jay Schoenfdorf. Third row: Jay Schondorf, assistant wetlands compliance officer, Kristen Lodato; Attorney John Tesei, Bottom row: environmental consultant Jay Fain, INCT property director Fred Jacbosen, environmental consultant Jim McManus. Via Zoom. March 25, 2024
148 Glenville Road
The application for 148 Glenville Rd proposes a plan prepared by Jay Fain from Fain & Associates, a environmental consultants.
Executive vice president of INCT, Peter Thoren, and Mr. Jacobsen also participated in the discussion.
Tesei said the parcel was about 90 acres and that his clients kept it as forest for privacy.
He said there were over 6 acres of disturbance in varying degrees, and that his client hoped to proceed quickly with Mr. Fain’s restoration plan.
Mr. Fain’s qualifications include having worked with the Rockefeller family properties for over 30 year.
Attorney Tesei evoked colorful language for the unauthorized work at 148 Glenville, including “carnage,” “devastation,” and a “chainsaw massacre.”
Ms Evans noted that some of the property owners may have approved of the clearing on their properties, but the owner of 148 Glenville Road had not.
Photo attached to Violation Summary and Cease & Correct Order by Kristen Lodato, Greenwich Assistant Wetlands Compliance Officer .
Mr. Jacobsen characterized the cutting as a coordinated destruction of an entire ecosystem, and said “perpetrators” should fully restore the area and spare no expense.
He recalled the day in early November he responded to the sound of chainsaws, which he said appeared to have been in use for days, with more than 10 workers engaged in cutting and clearing. He described a plywood path laid out for trucks and a wood chipper, with access from the Vik property at 10 Ashton. He recalled that when he walked over, the group of workers ran from the area.
Mr. Jacobsen also noted that in addition to 148 Glenville, INCT LLC also owned lot 7 in the Ashton Drive Association, and was a member of the association. He said the cutting had not been discussed before it took place, and there had been no notification from the association. Further he said it looked like views of Indian Spring Lake had been opened up from the Lamont and Vik houses in a coordinated effort.
Mr. Fain said his client preferred larger trees be planted during the restoration, but would consider incorporating smaller ones.
Ms Evans said that larger trees take longer to adjust, initially investing much of their energy to establishing roots.
There was also discussion about the length of a monitoring period after the planting, as well as the dollar amount of the bond to Wetlands and a possible reduction of the $36,560 application fee, given it was not the applicant who removed the trees, and trespassing had been involved. (The Wetlands agency is self-funding through fees.)
Soil scientist Jim McManus from JMM Wetland Consulting, who was part of the team with S.E. Minor & Co and attorney Tom Heagney, said it was unfair that Mr. Jacobsen’s before photos were taken in the summer when vegetation was in full bloom, and the after photos were taken in late winter.
Before and after photos shared by Fred Jacobsen.
“There was a mistake made,” he said. “We’re here to rectify the mistake.”
McManus insisted there was no significant averse impact to wetlands and resources.
“I didn’t just walk down the hill and say, ‘no impact here.’ I did an analysis. It included my site visits. It included an aerial photo interpretation where we went back to 1934 and moved forward to the present.”
He said smaller caliper trees were more appropriate and easier to plant.
Peter Thoren spoke at length, referring to “perpetrators” seeking forgiveness rather than asking permission, and said he believed many more acres would have been cleared if Mr. Jacobsen had not intervened.
“It’s no coincidence that the cutting opened up a very wide view of the lake for the personal aesthetic benefit and viewing enjoyment of two dwellings – Governor Lamont and the Viks,” Thoren said.
Before and after photos shared by Fred Jacobsen.
Before and after photos shared by Fred Jacobsen.
Before and after photos shared by Fred Jacobsen.
“In addition, we’re surprised that the Ashton Drive Association (president) RP Eddy, whose property adjoins the Lamont property…has consistently aligned himself with the both the perpetrators despite our repeated requests for input into their proposed plans,” Thoren said. “We were ignored, as were, to the best of my knowledge, the entire rest of the association members. The association should be protecting these lands and not agreeing with those who ignore the law and the town’s Wetlands regulations for their own benefit.”
“And as John Tesei might have mentioned, this is not only an Inland Wetlands & Waterways issue. It’s a Planning & Zoning issue and a Conservation issue,” he added.
After closing the hearing, the Wetlands Agency voted unanimously 6-0 to approve the application, which included a waiver for the $32,000 additional filing fee and a bond to the Agency of 50% of the planting estimate, not to exceed $25,000, plus a 10 year monitoring period. The bond would be released after four years.
0 Ashton Drive – Undeveloped Wooded Area
The next discussion was about the property at 0 Ashton Drive, which is 6.72 acres and includes a 2+ acre wetland on one side of the property. The parcel features a foot path and a stream that feeds Indian Spring Pond.
The parcel is subject to a Nov 28, 2023 Cease & Correct order for the removal of trees and understory in the wetland buffer. In total, 36 trees were selectively removed, and others were limbed.
Attorney Heagney said a substantial planting plan included 68 trees and 28 shrubs, which would be increased in both quantity and size by Staff’s recommendation.
Heagney said unfortunately, the project benefited from little direction and no supervision, and that his client was very sorry that it had gone as far as it had, not only at 0 Ashton, but on the property of the neighbor at 148 Glenville Rd.
He said his client was looking to do the right thing and provide restoration.
Ms Evans said 41 trees had been removed from the upland review area at 0 Ashton Drive.
Heagney said the planting proposal for the upland review area included 68 trees and 28 shrubs, which would be increased in quantity and size by recommendation of Wetlands staff.
Gigi Ma, CEO and managing director of SE Minor & Co, said additionally 32 trees were limbed on the parcel.
An extensive replanting plan was submitted by S.E. Minor & Co Mr. McManus, who studied the 0 Ashton parcel in addition to the other Ashton Drive parcels.
McManus said that previous work had been done on the parcel, including installation of a fence. “What happened should not have been done because it wasn’t owned by the applicant. However,” he said, “It’s not the first time this has happened.”
McManus said there was “very small wetland fringe” but no flood plane, and much of the area of management featured vegetation that was dormant and would return.
He said although there had been some limbing, no canopy had been removed, resulting in minimal thermal impacts.
“I didn’t see significant erosion due to the activity – meaning skidders or things of that nature,” McManus added.
His opinion was that the impact did not rise to the level of “significant adverse impact” to the protected resources, and that the cut shrubbery was mostly invasive anyway.
Further he noted the work was done without removing tree stumps so it did not disturb soil, and the proposed replanting plan would more than offset any major impacts.
There was some back and forth with agency members about “impact” versus “significant adverse impact” as outlined in the State of Connecticut statutes the town follows.
Mr. McManus acknowledged that “a mistake” had been made amounting to “no harm, no foul,” but repeated several times that it did not rise to “significant adverse impacts.”
He acknowledged that Wetlands staff at town hall did not reach the same conclusion he had.
Nor had Mr. Fain.
Ms Evans, a professional wetlands scientist herself, said she believed the removal of vegetation did have a significant adverse impact on resources.
The hearing was kept open.
April 29 Wetlands meeting agenda
– 4 and 6 Ashton – Lamont properties
In addition to 0 Ashton, the April 29 Wetlands meeting agenda includes an application submitted by SE Minor & Co on behalf of Edward and Ann Lamont for 4 and 6 Ashton Drive. It is in response to the November cease & desist order for the unauthorized removal of trees and understory in wetland buffer areas.
The application says approximately 486″ calipers of trees were removed, and proposed new plantings would aid in restoring the canopy and understory of the wetland buffer zone and help stabilize the soil where erosion may occur due to the removals.
According to the application narrative, 32 trees were removed and several more were limbed.
They propose to use native wetland plantings including red maples, tulip trees, red spruce, eastern hemlock, elderberry, American cranberry and winterberry.
According to the Wetlands staff report of March 19, staff does not agree with Mr. McManus’s conclusions that “the selective removal of trees and limb cutting along the perennial watercourse did not result in any significant adverse impact upon the regulated resources” and “that the proposed enhancement and buffer plantings will more than offset any minor impacts to the resources.”
– 8 and 10 Ashton – Vik Properties
The property at 8 Ashton is 2.37 acres, maintained lawn and a wooded area, and 10 Ashton is 4.31 acres, developed as a residence.
The application for 8 and 10 Ashton, submitted by SE Minor & Co on behalf of Carrie Vik is in response to a cease & correct order from Wetlands for unauthorized removal of trees and understory in the wetland buffer area.
Specifically, 13 trees were removed in the wetland buffer area, and additional trees were limbed.
The two properties contain one wetland area on either side of a brook.
Mr. McManus said the work done on these properties did not rise to the level of “significant adverse impact” on regulated resources.
April 29 Wetlands Meeting Agenda
An April 12 special meeting was scheduled and canceled because not all parties were available.
The April 29th 2:00pm meeting agenda is here, and includes 0 Ashton, 4 & 6 Ashton and 8 & 10 Ashton.
Minutes from the March 25 Wetlands Agency meeting are here.