Village: Too Many Trees Coming Down

Southampton Village officials may stiffen the fines for illegally removing trees. They are also considering taking legal action against homeowners they say wrongfully removed more-than-100-year-old trees in front of new houses.

According to Trustee Nancy McGann, trees have been removed from village rights of way like sidewalks, with the owners of newly built houses claiming the trees had been rotting or dead. However, after evaluating the stumps—the remains of trees that in many cases dated back more than 100 years—it became clear that the trees had in fact been thriving.

Halsey Lane, Old Town Crossing and Hill Street were among the streets on which trees had been removed.

Ms. McGann is pushing to increase the fines for illegally cutting down trees on village property as well as to consider jail time for future offenders who cut down the trees either without permission or after securing permission by misleading village officials.

“It is alarming,” Ms. McGann said at a Village Board meeting on Tuesday night. “If you go over and look at the tree stumps, they are not hollow, they look very healthy, to the point that we are very upset over it. One of the things that we have going for us is our beautiful tree-lined streets with mature trees. It is important to our community, and people here love them.”

According to the trustees, several property owners had purported tree experts submit reports to the Village Superintendent of Public Works, Gary Goleski, who must approve the removal of trees from all village rights of way. The reports indicated that the trees in question were dead and needed to be removed.

However, after the trees had been removed by private firms, the stumps were determined to be healthy by neighbors and village officials.

Last week Village Mayor Mark Epley submitted a letter to the Public Works Department saying that from now on all future applications to remove trees must be approved by the Village Board, which will do its own evaluation in an effort to save as many trees as possible.

But Ms. McGann, who serves on the village beautification committee, said that is not enough, because some people—believing that they, not the village, own the trees—are not filing applications before removing them. Ms. McGann wants to find a way to educate property owners about where the village right of way sits in relation to their properties, which she said is not always clearly delineated on property surveys.

She also wants to raise fines for illegally removing trees. Currently, village attorney Richard DePetris said, the fine is $1,000. Trustee Michael Irving pointed out that that sum could be inconsequential for someone building a multimillion-dollar estate, and that in many cases people who cut down trees claim not to know about village regulations, when in actuality they do not care about the fine.

“A lot of the tree removal that has been brought to our attention so far was purposefully done, and it is out of line,” Mr. Irving said.

Ms. McGann is proposing significantly higher fines for violators, suggesting that they be as much as $50,000 to $75,000 per tree. Homeowners would have to replace the tree themselves, which can cost more than $1,000 yet still would not match other trees on the block, as it takes upward of 20 years for young trees to mature. It was also suggested that the village consider requiring jail time for people who repeatedly violate ordinances and continue to tear down trees.

“It seems like an epidemic, because this is happening on too many job sites,” Ms. McGann said. “And I’m not understanding it. To have a beautiful tree in front of your house would enhance it, and I have no idea what they are thinking—and that is a tragedy as far as I’m concerned. It should not be allowed to continue, so now they will come before this board and we will handle it.”