“This is a big one, and I don’t want to weigh in either way, but I just point out that this law took seven years to pass and this is kind of the worst-case scenario of what could happen,” Bob Plumb of the Sag Harbor Village Board said at a meeting Tuesday night.
He was talking about the continuing odyssey of 11 Meadowlark Lane, which is involved in a case that’s now seen two Sag Harbor Justice Court hearings and been the focus of a meeting of the historic preservation and architectural review board.
In February, the village adopted a new law concerning the removal of trees of a certain size, including penalties should the law be defied. On June 4, a Sag Harbor woman took down two trees, and is now facing two charges: One for removing a tree with a diameter at breast height of over 12 inches without a permit; the other for removing a tree that was on village property. The first tree had a diameter of 36 inches, the second tree had a diameter of 48 inches.
The woman, Augusta Ramsay Folks, who is relocating a septic system as she redevelops her property, maintains that she removed the trees in deference to the Suffolk County Health Department. The tree roots, she says, would have interfered with the system, as there is a shallow depth to groundwater there.
Mr. Plumb commented on that claim at Tuesday’s meeting. “I understand that the claim was that the Health Department told her that she needed to move the trees,” he said. “Well, anybody who’s been to the Health Department knows you can relocate if you want to avoid the big objects and things like that, you can do that within their guidelines.”
The details of Ms. Folks’s renovation came to light during a meeting of the architectural review board. She plans to build a seven-bedroom, nine-bathroom house across the two plots of land at 11 Meadowlark Lane, with additional plans for an accessory dwelling unit — an affordable housing unit, according to Ms. Folks — and a new swimming pool behind the main house.
The addition of the swimming pool set off a discussion. The spot where it would go is now occupied by the original septic system. The new one would be at the front of the house, where the two cut trees were.
The architectural review board was not aware that there was a case pending in Justice Court over the tree removal until Mary Ann Eddy pointed it out during the public comment section. “Fines and remediation do little to replace the fantastic trees that were removed,” she said this week, “but they are a small step to making the community whole.”
Ms. Folks had applied to the review board for a “certificate of appropriateness,” which was unanimously granted by four of the six board members. The other two, along with Mr. Plumb, the village board’s liaison to the review board, had left the meeting earlier.
According to Elizabeth Vail, the village attorney, “just because there is a pending Justice Court case, does not mean you can’t proceed before the land-use boards.”
This case represents the first true test of the recently passed tree preservation law. It is important, said Ms. Eddy, that it be given wide publicity, which, she said, is “key to alerting residents that there are consequences to flouting the law.”
Eileen Rosenberg and Jane Young, who worked together for almost a decade through four village administrations to get the new law passed, see the case as a proving ground. “With the case of 11 Meadowlark Lane currently being reviewed by the Sag Harbor Justice Court, we have an opportunity to set precedent,” Ms. Rosenberg said, “and the choices made now will communicate to the community the village’s commitment to tree preservation.”
The case is set to continue in Justice Court in September. If Ms. Folks is found guilty, there are two possible penalties. One is a $1,000 fine; the other is to replace the downed trees with new ones, with a diameter equaling the total of what was cut down.
Mr. Plumb explained it like this: “Seven feet of trees were cut there, and to [replace that] would be 21 six-inch trees.”
Ms. Folks was asked for comment through her representative, but had not replied by press time.
