'I Was In Shock': Fairfield Cherry Trees Removed; Lawsuit Filed

FAIRFIELD, CT — A week ago, Fairfield resident James Hughes was going about his day in the town center when he witnessed a startling sight. Four Kwanzan cherry trees outside the Sacred Heart University Community Theatre were being removed.

“I was shaking, I was in shock, I was incredulous,” he said.

The removal of the trees was particularly surprising because Hughes, an attorney whose office is a block from the theater at Post and Unquowa roads, had filed a legal complaint only days earlier challenging the town’s decision to allow the trees' removal and seeking an injunction to save them.

“The town was aware of the lawsuit, and yet they moved forward,” he said.

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

Hughes, who filed the complaint with fellow Fairfielder Alyssa Israel, learned in February the trees were at risk of removal and attended a March 22 hearing to discuss the fate of the trees, where 16 people asked they remain in place. Some were concerned about replacing one of the trees with a northern red oak, which could grow excessively tall and drop thousands of potentially dangerous nuts, according to the complaint. Arborist Elias Papageorge argued the original four trees could live at least another 25 years if cared for properly.

Tree Warden Jeffrey Minder also received 129 emails against the removal. Two people at the hearing supported uprooting the trees, according to Minder, and the warden got 12 emails in favor of the plan.

Minder issued a decision March 25 approving the removal of the trees, and Hughes and Israel filed their complaint against Minder and the town April 1. Then, on April 5, Minder put forth an amended decision, citing a different statute than the state law he had initially referenced.

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 Town Attorney Jim Baldwin, who said 23-65(f) is the appropriate statute to use when a company seeks permission to remove trees from a right-of-way.

“Everything has gone through the appropriate process,” he said.

Regardless of the statute cited, Baldwin said he did not believe Hughes and Israel had the legal right to pursue an appeal, and added the town intends to request a dismissal of the complaint.

Hughes, however, said he feels the town is in contempt of court because Minder’s decision was amended and the trees were removed after the complaint was filed. Hughes said he expects to pursue sanctions, fines and monetary damages over the removal of the trees, which he feels represents a significant loss for Fairfield.

“The location is the direct heart of downtown,” he said. “They have been an annual feast for every citizen in town.”

Baldwin, on the other hand, said residents have been awaiting the theater-area redevelopment.

“This is part of that revival and I think that people will welcome it once it’s in place,” he said.

A conference to discuss the complaint is scheduled for April 27.