DocketNumber: No. 109328
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 7228
Judges: PURTILL, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
Filed Date: 6/9/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
Section
At the time of trial plaintiff filed a motion under General Statutes §
Before removal of a tree, §
The record indicates that defendant is the tree warden for the City of Norwich with authority to remove trees within the limits of public highways when in his opinion public safety demands such removal. Defendant determined that a large elm tree within the limits of the highway at 35 Lincoln Avenue required removal to protect the public safety.
At the request of the plaintiff a public hearing was held concerning the removal of the tree. After such hearing defendant again decided that the tree should be removed.
Defendant personally examined the tree and noted the weakened structural condition of the tree. He caused the tree to be inspected by two independent arborists and a representative of the Department of Public Utilities. All of these parties noted the weakened structure of the tree and hazard which it presented to the public.
Although plaintiff introduced evidence against the necessity of removal of the tree, it was not binding on the tree warden.
In an appeal such as this, the court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the tree warden, who has been vested by statute with authority to remove this tree, unless there has been CT Page 7230 an abuse of the warden's authority.
It has not been established that the tree warden failed to follow the statutory procedures required or that his decision to remove the tree was clearly erroneous. There was substantial evidence in the record to support his decision.
Under such circumstances it cannot be found that substantial rights of plaintiff have been prejudiced.
Accordingly, judgment is rendered affirming the action of the tree warden.
Joseph J. Purtill Judge Trial Referee