Unwanted tree-cutting on land trust open space is never a pretty picture. Yet that is what the Madison Land Conservation Trust (MLCT) had on its hands in 2008; two encroachments, one on either end of town, which left, among other stumps, the ghost of a Black Oak that measured 41” dbi (diameter inside bark). As always, MLCT attempted to resolve the problems by speaking with the encroachers/adjacent landowners in hopes of a peaceable settlement. Unfortunately, this approach proved ineffective. It would have been easier on the psyche to walk away from the problem at that point -- we are tree huggers, not fighters -- but, having adopted LTA Standards and Practices, we knew our responsibility as stewards of land entrusted to us for the public good. We had a responsibility to take appropriate action.

Prior to 2006, walking away may have been, in fact, the appropriate response. In those days, the remedy for tree-cutting was the value of the cut wood as firewood or timber -- barely enough to pay for court costs, let alone attorney’s fees. But in 2006, thanks to the efforts of many individuals and groups, including Charles Leach of the Farmington Land Trust and the Council for Environment Quality, the Connecticut legislature passed what is now codified as C.G.S. § 52-560a, which offers a real remedy for nonprofit land conservation organizations, municipalities, and the state. C.G.S. 52-560a provides that an encroacher who damages or alters open space owned by any of these entities must either restore the land to its former condition or pay the cost of restoration, including management costs. In addition, the court may order the encroacher to pay the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs, as well as punitive damages.

As the first step on the road to legal action the MLCT hired a forester. The cut trees were too large to be replaced with nursery stock. A forester, therefore, had to determine the appraised value of the trees that had been felled. Using professional standards, the forester extrapolated the value of each tree from the size of the stump, the cost of the largest transplantable tree available, and the cost of installation. He then adjusted the value based upon the species, condition, and location of each tree. The forester determined that the replacement value of the nine trees cut on our parcel on the west side of town was $61,541.22. The replacement value of 14 trees cut on the east side of town was $19,524.04.

The MLCT then hired an attorney to file suit, beginning with an application for a “prejudgment remedy” to allow us to place liens on the landowners’ properties while we waited for a trial date. In response to the prejudgment remedy actions, the defendants finally took our initial advice and contacted their homeowners insurance carriers. Their attorneys, faced with the powerful language of C.G.S. § 52-560a, agreed in each case to a fair settlement. From those settlements, the land trust netted a total of $49, 810. MLCT will use the funds to restore the affected properties and to set up a stewardship reserve fund. Perhaps more importantly, the MLCT, by using C.G.S. § 52-560a, sent the message – to itself and to the community - that the land trust will not (because we should not) tolerate encroachments that damage the lands we preserve.

Diana Insolio, President
Madison Land Conservation Trust, Inc.