An environmental activist from East Hills won a two-week reprieve in state Supreme Court on Wednesday for nine trees designated for removal for the construction of a new house being built in the village.
Justice Arthur A. Diamond ruled in favor of Richard Brummel’s emergency application that the Village of East Hills violated its own tree protection laws in addition to the state’s open meetings law in approving the removal of the trees, ordering the village of East Hills to halt activity at 90 Fir Drive until the lawsuit’s next hearing on Oct. 22.
“I was pleasantly surprised the court took the issue seriously and followed a recent liberalization of the standard for legal standing in environmental protection cases,” Brummel, 53, said in a statement.
“The judge acted very quickly on the emergency application I presented, so it must have clearly demonstrated to him – the second time a judge agreed – how sloppy the village is in allowing nature here to be wrecked by developers and new residents,” he added.
Brummel argued that the village’s architectural review board’s Aug. 5 decision to allow the demolition and reconstruction of the house at 90 Fir Drive ignored the village’s tree protection law, which requires residents to obtain a permit to remove trees more than 5 inches in diameter except in emergency situations.
Village law states that the village’s tree warden and architectural review board are supposed to determine whether a tree should be removed, according to the suit.
According to the lawsuit, architectural review board decisions approving tree removal permits have been issued without public notice and found only with Freedom of Information Law requests, and were a violation of village law and the state’s open meetings law as being “arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion.”
East Hills Mayor Michael Koblenz declined to comment on the pending litigation.
Included in the lawsuit was the written testimony to the architectural review board from certified arborist Richard Oberlander, who told the board he reviewed photos of the trees and found them to be “extremely valuable.”
In addition, East Hills resident Elaine Berger, who lives at 100 Chestnut Drive across from 90 Fir Drive, testified she was concerned about the loss of trees at the property, though other residents testified they were not opposed to the loss of trees, according to the suit.
“Trees fight global warming – which is the major human challenge of our time,” Brummel said in a statement. “They provide habitat for wildlife, they shade our homes and they provide other aesthetic and ecological gifts to us. It is appalling to me how many trees – and forests – are still being destroyed on Long Island and elsewhere in New York by developers and homeowners, out of panic and greed. In this case even local laws designed to protect them were side-stepped to allow this kind of activity.”
