Fairfield Cherry Trees Are Gone, But Debate Over Removal Rages On

FAIRFIELD, CT — The four cherry trees that once stood in the center of town have been gone for weeks, but the debate over their removal shows no sign of stopping.

Attorneys met Tuesday with Judge Barry Stevens to discuss a legal complaint challenging the town’s decision to allow the Kwanzan cherry trees to be removed and requesting an injunction to save them. Now that the trees are down, plaintiffs James Hughes and Alyssa Israel intend to pursue sanctions, fines and monetary damages. The town has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

“I don’t think the motion to dismiss has legs to stand on,” Hughes, a Fairfield lawyer, said in a phone interview following Tuesday’s conference.

A remote hearing for the complaint is scheduled for June 8, when arguments are expected to take place concerning the motion to dismiss.

“I feel quite confident the matter will be dismissed,” Town Attorney James Baldwin said in an interview Tuesday.

Hughes and Israel filed their complaint April 1, after Tree Warden Jeffrey Minder issued a decision March 25 approving the removal of the trees. On April 5, Minder put forth an amended decision, referencing a different statute.

The statute in Minder's first decision, Section 23-59, allows for a legal challenge, while the statute in the amended decision, Section 23-65(f), does not, according to Baldwin, who has said 23-65(f) is the appropriate statute to use when a company seeks permission to remove trees from a right-of-way.

The trees, which were owned by the town, were removed April 9 with permission by Kleban Properties as part of the ongoing redevelopment of the Sacred Heart University Community Theatre and surrounding area. They will be replaced with three different Kwanzan cherry trees and a northern red oak.

The potential removal of the trees elicited over 100 emails in favor of keeping them. Several people also spoke at a March 22 hearing on the removal.

The hearing itself has become a subject of public scrutiny. Jill Vergara, the leader of the Representative Town Meeting’s Democratic Caucus, in a letter to Patch accused the town of failing to give proper notice of the hearing and violating the Freedom of Information Act.

The outdoor hearing was originally set for March 15 before being moved to March 19, and, finally, to March 22. The date changes were due to the unavailability of the applicant and a poor weather forecast, according to Baldwin.

Information provided by Vergara indicated the town’s agenda management system listed the hearing date as March 19 even after it had taken place March 22. The system now reflects the correct date. Vergara also said the hearing agenda was incorrectly dated March 15, although the version available online Thursday is accurately dated.

“Rather than re-schedule a public meeting for the tree warden, the Town instead altered the original notice, erasing the mistake on the original agenda,” Vergara said in the letter. “This fraudulent notice was then retroactively posted on the town’s website."

According to Baldwin, the town clerk’s office changed the date on the town calendar ahead of the March 22 hearing, but, “for reasons unknown,” the date was not changed on the tree warden’s webpage.

“After my review I stand behind the actions of the tree warden which in fact went above and beyond the statutory requirements and I welcome the objective review by the Freedom of Information Commission and the courts on their legality,” Baldwin said in a public statement.

According to the Freedom of Information Act, special meeting notice should be posted at least 24 hours before the meeting “on the public agency’s Internet web site, if available.”

Baldwin noted in an email to Patch that under Section 23-65(f), Minder was not obligated to hold a hearing on the tree removal.

Given the pending litigation, Vergara argued the town’s authorization of the removal was “premature and misguided at best, underhanded and contemptuous at worst.”

Baldwin, in turn, accused Vergara of grandstanding and political vitriol.