| ||||||||||||||||||||
NEWS
For Release: Upon receipt
December 2005
On July 10, 2004, during a routine property inspection, members of the Farmington Land Trust encountered
a serious and damaging encroachment on a steeply sloped area of its Carey Pasture property off Mountain
Spring Road, Farmington, Connecticut. The slope had previously been well vegetated, which protected both
the slope itself and the important wetlands below the slope from harmful erosion and sedimentation. In
order to maintain that protection, the Land Trust had placed clear boundary markers on its property line
along the slope to prevent accidental trespass and to assure that the stabilizing vegetation would be
maintained. Nevertheless, in the course of constructing a residential subdivision on the adjacent property,
the developers entered and cut trees and other vegetation on the Trust’s property and, essentially, clear-
cut most of the upper slope on their own property. The predictable result was that the soils on the slope
were severely eroded, and a great deal of sediment flowed into the wetlands on the Trust’s property,
damaging and burying portions of those wetlands.
The Land Trust immediately reported the problems to the developers, the Town of Farmington, and the
State Department of Environmental Protection. The developers appeared to be unwilling to take effective
remedial actions on their own accord, but the DEP ordered a re-engineering of the site drainage, which had
obviously been inadequate to prevent the damage that had already occurred. As a result of the measures
ordered by DEP, the site appeared to be stabilized by the end of Fall, 2004. In 2005, the Farmington Land
Trust turned its attention to remediation and culpability.
The Land Trust reported the trespass and the unauthorized tree cutting to the Farmington Police
Department, which presented the results of its investigation to the State’s Attorney’s office. However, the
Land Trust was advised that the State’s Attorney’s office would not prosecute the matter, because they felt
these circumstances would be best handled by civil rather than criminal courts.
The Land Trust employed an environmental consulting firm, All Habitat Services, LLC of Madison, Connecticut
to assess the damage and to create and estimate the expense of a plan to return the Carey Pasture to its
prior state. The firm concluded that the remediation, including protective measures, would cost in excess of
$100,000. Armed with this plan, the Trust began to investigate the civil remedies suggested by the State’s
Attorney’s office, only to discover that current laws provide wholly inadequate formulas for the valuation of
damages in these types of cases. For example, illegal tree removal is generally measured by the value of
the trees as lumber or firewood, not by the cost of replacement. This would pay pennies on the dollar in
situations like Carey Pasture.
An alternative measure of damages is to create before and after estimates of the commercial worth of the
damaged property, assuming the difference to be the true value of the loss. This, too, is inadequate since
land protected as open space for the public has little commercial value because the ability to develop these
lands has been given away as a condition of protection. It seems that land protected from development is
the most vulnerable from developers as neighbors.
While the Farmington Land Trust continues to pursue damages to assist in the remediation of the Carey
Pasture, it is apparent that the statutes and common law of Connecticut are not structured to protect public
open space. A survey of Connecticut land trusts conducted by Dr. Charles Leach, a Farmington Land Trust
board member, revealed numerous encroachments on protected open space throughout the state, and
State officials indicate that the problem extends to State-owned land as well. In this setting, the
Farmington Land Trust is extremely encouraged by Tuesday’s report by the Council of Environmental Quality
(CEQ) to Governor Jodi Rell, which recommended numerous changes to help protect open space from
encroachments like the one that occurred on the Carey Pasture. Not only do these recommendations call for
valuations of damages to look to restoration costs as the measure of damages, but also they clearly state
that trespass onto, and removing trees from, publicly protected open space should be deemed to be a
serious criminal violation. CEQ clearly understands the interest of the public. It is unreasonable for the
State, the municipalities, and local land trusts to spend time and money protecting open space only to have
developers trample those lands with little fear of significant consequences.
The Farmington Land Trust encourages other land trusts throughout the State and residents throughout the
State to contact their legislators and Gov. Rell to support these recommended changes.
The Farmington Land Trust has established a special fund to restore the Carey Pasture. Donations to this
fund can be made to the Carey Restoration Fund c/o the Farmington Land Trust, P.O.Box 1, Farmington
Connecticut, 06034.
The Carey Pasture is a 4.5-acre site on Mountain Spring Rd. It was donated to the Farmington Land Trust in
1996 by Ann Carey to preserve the meadow for the residents of Farmington. Together with adjoining Land
Trust parcel, the Carey Pasture is a part of a 25.6-acre preserve on which black bears, bobcats, deer, and
box turtles have been sighted.
The Farmington Land Trust is a non-profit preservation organization whose mission is to protect open space
in perpetuity through acquisition, stewardship, education and advocacy. The Land Trust was established in
1971 and currently protects 267 acres for the residents of Farmington.
Council on Environmental Quality's news release and final report: “Preserved But Not Protected”.
For Release: Upon receipt
December 2005
On July 10, 2004, during a routine property inspection, members of the Farmington Land Trust encountered
a serious and damaging encroachment on a steeply sloped area of its Carey Pasture property off Mountain
Spring Road, Farmington, Connecticut. The slope had previously been well vegetated, which protected both
the slope itself and the important wetlands below the slope from harmful erosion and sedimentation. In
order to maintain that protection, the Land Trust had placed clear boundary markers on its property line
along the slope to prevent accidental trespass and to assure that the stabilizing vegetation would be
maintained. Nevertheless, in the course of constructing a residential subdivision on the adjacent property,
the developers entered and cut trees and other vegetation on the Trust’s property and, essentially, clear-
cut most of the upper slope on their own property. The predictable result was that the soils on the slope
were severely eroded, and a great deal of sediment flowed into the wetlands on the Trust’s property,
damaging and burying portions of those wetlands.
The Land Trust immediately reported the problems to the developers, the Town of Farmington, and the
State Department of Environmental Protection. The developers appeared to be unwilling to take effective
remedial actions on their own accord, but the DEP ordered a re-engineering of the site drainage, which had
obviously been inadequate to prevent the damage that had already occurred. As a result of the measures
ordered by DEP, the site appeared to be stabilized by the end of Fall, 2004. In 2005, the Farmington Land
Trust turned its attention to remediation and culpability.
The Land Trust reported the trespass and the unauthorized tree cutting to the Farmington Police
Department, which presented the results of its investigation to the State’s Attorney’s office. However, the
Land Trust was advised that the State’s Attorney’s office would not prosecute the matter, because they felt
these circumstances would be best handled by civil rather than criminal courts.
The Land Trust employed an environmental consulting firm, All Habitat Services, LLC of Madison, Connecticut
to assess the damage and to create and estimate the expense of a plan to return the Carey Pasture to its
prior state. The firm concluded that the remediation, including protective measures, would cost in excess of
$100,000. Armed with this plan, the Trust began to investigate the civil remedies suggested by the State’s
Attorney’s office, only to discover that current laws provide wholly inadequate formulas for the valuation of
damages in these types of cases. For example, illegal tree removal is generally measured by the value of
the trees as lumber or firewood, not by the cost of replacement. This would pay pennies on the dollar in
situations like Carey Pasture.
An alternative measure of damages is to create before and after estimates of the commercial worth of the
damaged property, assuming the difference to be the true value of the loss. This, too, is inadequate since
land protected as open space for the public has little commercial value because the ability to develop these
lands has been given away as a condition of protection. It seems that land protected from development is
the most vulnerable from developers as neighbors.
While the Farmington Land Trust continues to pursue damages to assist in the remediation of the Carey
Pasture, it is apparent that the statutes and common law of Connecticut are not structured to protect public
open space. A survey of Connecticut land trusts conducted by Dr. Charles Leach, a Farmington Land Trust
board member, revealed numerous encroachments on protected open space throughout the state, and
State officials indicate that the problem extends to State-owned land as well. In this setting, the
Farmington Land Trust is extremely encouraged by Tuesday’s report by the Council of Environmental Quality
(CEQ) to Governor Jodi Rell, which recommended numerous changes to help protect open space from
encroachments like the one that occurred on the Carey Pasture. Not only do these recommendations call for
valuations of damages to look to restoration costs as the measure of damages, but also they clearly state
that trespass onto, and removing trees from, publicly protected open space should be deemed to be a
serious criminal violation. CEQ clearly understands the interest of the public. It is unreasonable for the
State, the municipalities, and local land trusts to spend time and money protecting open space only to have
developers trample those lands with little fear of significant consequences.
The Farmington Land Trust encourages other land trusts throughout the State and residents throughout the
State to contact their legislators and Gov. Rell to support these recommended changes.
The Farmington Land Trust has established a special fund to restore the Carey Pasture. Donations to this
fund can be made to the Carey Restoration Fund c/o the Farmington Land Trust, P.O.Box 1, Farmington
Connecticut, 06034.
The Carey Pasture is a 4.5-acre site on Mountain Spring Rd. It was donated to the Farmington Land Trust in
1996 by Ann Carey to preserve the meadow for the residents of Farmington. Together with adjoining Land
Trust parcel, the Carey Pasture is a part of a 25.6-acre preserve on which black bears, bobcats, deer, and
box turtles have been sighted.
The Farmington Land Trust is a non-profit preservation organization whose mission is to protect open space
in perpetuity through acquisition, stewardship, education and advocacy. The Land Trust was established in
1971 and currently protects 267 acres for the residents of Farmington.
Council on Environmental Quality's news release and final report: “Preserved But Not Protected”.
Photographs courtesy of Tina Delaney, Charles Leach, and others
Questions about this site may be directed to the Webmaster
SMALL LAND TRUST MAKES LEMONADE
by Charles Leach
January 12, 2008
The Farmington Land Trust was handed a lemon, but made it into lemonade. Here’s how it happened:
The Farmington Land Trust protects nearly 300 acres by fee ownership or conservation easements. Though
we are a small land trust, we are vigorous stewards of our properties. Moreover, we have, in recent years,
engaged in a number of advocacy and lobbying efforts on behalf of the environment. A serious
encroachment in 2004 called forth our best efforts at local and state levels; engaged us in litigation and,
eventually, led to passage of new legislation protecting conserved open space in Connecticut.
The Land Trust’s 4 ½ -acre Carey Pasture is a rich wet meadow lying atop a traprock bowl on the western
slope of Talcott Mountain. On it grow huge old black oaks, white ash, cedar and hickory trees. Upslope there
are spring-fed marshes and second-growth woods. There is a variety of habitat for wildlife, and several
species of hawks ride thermals high above. The Carey Pasture is also a link to Farmington’s agricultural
history.
In July 2004, we discovered that 8 large trees had been cut on land trust land by the developer of an
adjacent subdivision. The property boundary was clearly marked, and stumps of these 150-year-old giants
stood next to land trust markers. The forest canopy was greatly diminished, invasives now had perfect
conditions to propagate and there was major erosion damage due to poor runoff control from the only
house lot that had been sold & was being developed.
The Town of Farmington hesitated to take action. The town’s enforcement officer minimized the issue. A
cease and desist order was delayed. Land Trust officers were insistent and frustrated. The Department of
Environmental Protection was called in to investigate.Town action followed.
The Farmington Land Trust continued documentation of the damage with photos, field notes, and hired up
an environmental consulting firm. It kept copious notes and files of all correspondences regarding the
violation.
An official complaint to the Farmington Police led to the identification of the tree-cutter and his admission of
guilt. A local assistant state prosecutor declined to take action. The Land Trust took the issue up to chief
states attorney with same result. Each viewed the “crime” as a civil not a criminal matter. The 8 lost trees
were valued only as firewood or timber under an outdated 1726 law, with collectable damages of
approximately $400, insufficient to make restoration possible and therefore prosecution worthwhile. No
consideration was given to aesthetic or habitat value… or illegal trespass. The Attorney General’s office was
similarly unable to help based on existing legal tools.
FLT then hired legal counsel, despite the fact that cost of litigation would far exceed damages recoverable. A
lis pendens was attached to both neighbors’ properties, and further legal action threatened. The resulting
settlement, which has taken 3 ½ years, will minimally cover costs of remediation.
Serious erosion and siltation had resulted from inadequate control of runoff. The Land Trust, along with the
DEP pressed town officials to require better runoff control of the developer, and the problem, though less
severe, is still with us.
We were aware that we could never be properly compensated for our loss under existing law.
Nevertheless, we decided to “make lemonade from the lemons we had been handed” by advocating for new
protective legislation. As a preliminary, the author surveyed the [then] 116 Connecticut land trusts and
similar organizations. Most reported significant encroachments of all sorts. These data were reported to
the Council on Environmental Quality and evidenced the need for better protective laws as submitted in
their report to the legislature. We worked directly with our very helpful state representative’s [Giannaros]
office and state senator [Harris] in designing and introducing the legislation. We testified at environmental
committee hearings in favor of the resulting Bill, and lobbied legislators directly in support of it. The timing
was right and there was plenty of support from the conservation community as well.
The result was passage, in March of 2006, of Act 06-89, which grants restoration costs, quintuple damages,
legal fees and punitive damages for tree-cutting and other encroachments on private or publicly-owned,
preserved open space. These significant penalties mean that a developer can no longer pay a wrist-slap
fine for encroachment and treat it as an inconsequential piece of his overhead.
We have spent many thousands of dollars on legal fees and consultants. We do not expect to recoup those
costs, since the new law cannot cover the Carey encroachment retroactively. Nevertheless, in taking the
tree-cutting developer to task we feel that we have struck a blow for the common good. We have served
notice that encroachers doing damage to protected properties in Farmington will be held accountable.
More importantly, the Farmington Land Trust has played a role in passage of new protective legislation
which should discourage encroachers in the future. We are a small land trust, but have shown that effective
advocacy is not limited by size. We believe that advocacy for the common good is an essential activity of
voluntary organizations, and a duty for us all.
We have learned an important skill from the Carey experience: how to make “lemonade” from the “lemons”
which come our way. Our Land Trust has been energized by its advocacy efforts, and we hope that our
story will inspire other Connecticut environmentalists.
by Charles Leach
January 12, 2008
The Farmington Land Trust was handed a lemon, but made it into lemonade. Here’s how it happened:
The Farmington Land Trust protects nearly 300 acres by fee ownership or conservation easements. Though
we are a small land trust, we are vigorous stewards of our properties. Moreover, we have, in recent years,
engaged in a number of advocacy and lobbying efforts on behalf of the environment. A serious
encroachment in 2004 called forth our best efforts at local and state levels; engaged us in litigation and,
eventually, led to passage of new legislation protecting conserved open space in Connecticut.
The Land Trust’s 4 ½ -acre Carey Pasture is a rich wet meadow lying atop a traprock bowl on the western
slope of Talcott Mountain. On it grow huge old black oaks, white ash, cedar and hickory trees. Upslope there
are spring-fed marshes and second-growth woods. There is a variety of habitat for wildlife, and several
species of hawks ride thermals high above. The Carey Pasture is also a link to Farmington’s agricultural
history.
In July 2004, we discovered that 8 large trees had been cut on land trust land by the developer of an
adjacent subdivision. The property boundary was clearly marked, and stumps of these 150-year-old giants
stood next to land trust markers. The forest canopy was greatly diminished, invasives now had perfect
conditions to propagate and there was major erosion damage due to poor runoff control from the only
house lot that had been sold & was being developed.
The Town of Farmington hesitated to take action. The town’s enforcement officer minimized the issue. A
cease and desist order was delayed. Land Trust officers were insistent and frustrated. The Department of
Environmental Protection was called in to investigate.Town action followed.
The Farmington Land Trust continued documentation of the damage with photos, field notes, and hired up
an environmental consulting firm. It kept copious notes and files of all correspondences regarding the
violation.
An official complaint to the Farmington Police led to the identification of the tree-cutter and his admission of
guilt. A local assistant state prosecutor declined to take action. The Land Trust took the issue up to chief
states attorney with same result. Each viewed the “crime” as a civil not a criminal matter. The 8 lost trees
were valued only as firewood or timber under an outdated 1726 law, with collectable damages of
approximately $400, insufficient to make restoration possible and therefore prosecution worthwhile. No
consideration was given to aesthetic or habitat value… or illegal trespass. The Attorney General’s office was
similarly unable to help based on existing legal tools.
FLT then hired legal counsel, despite the fact that cost of litigation would far exceed damages recoverable. A
lis pendens was attached to both neighbors’ properties, and further legal action threatened. The resulting
settlement, which has taken 3 ½ years, will minimally cover costs of remediation.
Serious erosion and siltation had resulted from inadequate control of runoff. The Land Trust, along with the
DEP pressed town officials to require better runoff control of the developer, and the problem, though less
severe, is still with us.
We were aware that we could never be properly compensated for our loss under existing law.
Nevertheless, we decided to “make lemonade from the lemons we had been handed” by advocating for new
protective legislation. As a preliminary, the author surveyed the [then] 116 Connecticut land trusts and
similar organizations. Most reported significant encroachments of all sorts. These data were reported to
the Council on Environmental Quality and evidenced the need for better protective laws as submitted in
their report to the legislature. We worked directly with our very helpful state representative’s [Giannaros]
office and state senator [Harris] in designing and introducing the legislation. We testified at environmental
committee hearings in favor of the resulting Bill, and lobbied legislators directly in support of it. The timing
was right and there was plenty of support from the conservation community as well.
The result was passage, in March of 2006, of Act 06-89, which grants restoration costs, quintuple damages,
legal fees and punitive damages for tree-cutting and other encroachments on private or publicly-owned,
preserved open space. These significant penalties mean that a developer can no longer pay a wrist-slap
fine for encroachment and treat it as an inconsequential piece of his overhead.
We have spent many thousands of dollars on legal fees and consultants. We do not expect to recoup those
costs, since the new law cannot cover the Carey encroachment retroactively. Nevertheless, in taking the
tree-cutting developer to task we feel that we have struck a blow for the common good. We have served
notice that encroachers doing damage to protected properties in Farmington will be held accountable.
More importantly, the Farmington Land Trust has played a role in passage of new protective legislation
which should discourage encroachers in the future. We are a small land trust, but have shown that effective
advocacy is not limited by size. We believe that advocacy for the common good is an essential activity of
voluntary organizations, and a duty for us all.
We have learned an important skill from the Carey experience: how to make “lemonade” from the “lemons”
which come our way. Our Land Trust has been energized by its advocacy efforts, and we hope that our
story will inspire other Connecticut environmentalists.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |