by Robert Lynch; November 16, 2024
The ongoing standoff between a group of Enfield neighbors and Town Highway Superintendent Barry “Buddy” Rollins escalated another notch this week as one homeowner along Rockwell Road filed a Cease and Desist letter with the Town to halt aggressive pruning of roadside trees.
“Please be advised that this firm has been retained by Charles Elrod, owner of 101 Rockwell Road, Newfield, New York,” Ithaca attorney Raymond Schlather, partner in Schlather, Stumbar, Parks and Salk, wrote in a joint letter to the Enfield Town Board and the Enfield Highway Department, dated November 11th.
“Mr. Elrod is concerned that trees on his property and on his neighbors’ properties may be removed or severely trimmed imminently as a part of the town maintenance of Rockwell Rd,” Schlather’s three-paragraph letter continued. “To be clear, Mr. Elrod has not authorized, and is not authorizing, the removal of any trees from his property.”
Enfield Town Board members first learned of the directive Thursday evening, November 14th, when Elrod transmitted his attorney’s letter to the Town Board and Highway Superintendent, via email.
“Today the highway crew ravaged the trees across the road from our property,” Elrod, wrote in his transmittal. “I can only assume that the intent is to work down our side of the road tomorrow, Friday Nov. 15,” he continued. “We do not give the town permission to enter our property for the purpose of trimming or removing trees on our property,” Elrod stated firmly, reiterating his lawyer’s directive.
Enfield Supervisor Stephanie Redmond informed Town Board members Thursday evening that she would seek advice from Enfield’s retained legal counsel, attorney Guy Krogh. To date, neither Redmond nor Highway Superintendent Rollins has offered public comment on the matter.
The Highway Department’s treatment of roadside trees along both Rockwell and adjoining Porter Hill Roads has been an Enfield hot-button issue since late spring. It’s a controversy that’s pitted several roadside residents against Highway Superintendent Rollins and also at times against some Town Board members. It prompted a specially-convened meeting of the Town Board June 26th.
Superintendent Rollins has insisted that state law grants him the authority to prune or remove trees within a three-rod (49.5-foot) right-of-way along Town-maintained roadways. Complaining neighbors argue that the law is not as clear-cut as the Superintendent maintains, and they allege that Rollins’ workforce has at times trimmed beyond the permitted right-of-way.
A roadside inspection of Rockwell Road near Elrod’s residence at midday on Saturday (Nov. 16) revealed that while trees opposite Elrod’s house had been severely pruned, those on the south side of Rockwell Road, fronting Elrod’s home, had not yet been disturbed. A Town-owned elevated lift, used for pruning, was parked on the road’s opposite shoulder east of the Elrod home.
Although the attorney’s letter was dated on the Monday prior to the Enfield Town Board’s Regular November Monthly Meeting two nights later, Town Board members stood unaware of it when they met. The Rockwell Road tree issue received no significant discussion at the Wednesday session, and neither Rollins nor any concerned resident attended the board’s meeting.
“At the special town board meeting this summer, Mr. Rollins stated that he always contacts landowners before trimming trees on their property,” Elrod wrote in his Thursday transmittal. “We know this to be untrue. For the record, Mr. Rollins has not contacted us about any trimming which would take place on our property,” Elrod insisted.
“Kindly refrain from removing or severely trimming any trees on Mr. Elrod’s property without first consulting with Mr. Elrod,” attorney Schlather wrote in his letter to the Town. “If it turns out that any trees that are owned by Mr. Elrod are removed notwithstanding the above notice and request, Mr. Elrod will hold you and anyone who cuts down the trees fully responsible for all damages available to him under the law, including punitive damages,” Schlather advised.
“Mr. Elrod believes that his neighbors are similarly concerned, and also may hold accountable all parties who are responsible for any such unauthorized tree removal,” the attorney concluded.
On its face, any subsequent legal action Charles Elrod might take would likely confine itself to roadside areas fronting only the complainant’s property. However, based on the attorney’s final statement, Elrod may reserve the right to broaden his oversight to other portions of Rockwell Road as well.
Rockwell and Porter Hill Roads became the focus of this year’s tree-pruning complaints as both were listed for “permanent improvements” in Rollins’ highway funding request submitted to and authorized by the Town Board in January. Under the Superintendent’s standards, roads targeted for such permanent improvements receive shoulder improvements, ditching, and foliage removal as well as resurfacing.
Although state law may not demand that trees within a town’s right-of-way be given a “buzz-cut” treatment, thereby removing any overhanging limbs—otherwise known as the road’s “canopy”—Rollins has generally adopted such aggressive pruning as a purported best-practice. Among his arguments, the Superintendent has maintained that overhanging branches impede wintertime sunshine from melting accumulated snow.
Although the late-June Town Board session on tree pruning drew a larger resident turnout than has any since, Rollins’ anticipated resumption of pruning brought renewed criticism at the Town Board’s October ninth meeting. At that session, the topic’s most prominent speaker, Julie Magura, a tenant at the Elrod residence, directed her questions to the Board.
“People have said time and time again that they were not informed,” Magura stated to the issue of which trees Rollins’ crew plans to cut and when they plan to cut them. “There’s a sense of powerless and expectation,” she argued, “like you don’t know when the Highway Department’s going to come down and cut your trees.”
Magura complained that cutting sometimes extends beyond the 24-foot rights-of-way as measured from the road’s centerline.
“There have been some people that have brought up the issue that if they’re not notified and their trees are cut beyond that line that they will call the police, because that’s trespassing,” Magura warned the Board.
Supervisor Redmond then came to Rollins’ defense. She claimed that the Town’s attorney had advised her that crews can remove “obstructions” beyond the right-of-way if they’re “a threat to traffic.”
“No,” Magura countered the Supervisor, “he’s not legally allowed to go on someone’s property and cut trees that are beyond the line when they are not a danger of falling; that they’re not obstructing.”
Magura alleged that Highway crews have cut healthy trees posing no danger to anyone.
“Basically, the residents in Enfield, the Town of Enfield, are shit out of luck, and I’m sorry to be crass,” Magura asserted, “with the Highway Department doing what he (Rollins) wants.”
Buddy Rollins did not take the criticism well. Nor did Stephanie Redmond or some other members of the Enfield Town Board.
Councilperson Jude Lemke invited Magura to lodge an Article 78 action against Rollins’ behavior, should the resident deem it arbitrary, Lemke seemingly confident the law stands on the Superintendent’s side.
“This is not appropriate for our Town Board,” Redmond countered when Magura raised the prospect of litigation. “If you want to take that action… that’s your personal choice,” the Supervisor insisted. “But this is not something that the Town Board has purview over,” she said of Rollins’ authority. “There’s nothing else the Town Board has to offer at this point.”
“I hear you loud and clear,” an increasingly frustrated Magura replied.
“I would interject, though, that conversation is a heck of a lot cheaper for this town than litigation,” this writer, Councilperson Robert Lynch, observed. “So I would consider we keep the dialogue open to forestall a lawsuit.”
“I don’t understand why we would want to continue to have discussions,” Redmond answered. “If there was an actual item that the Town Board could do and we were being asked to do it, then people are welcome to come here and do that. But just to come here and reiterate the same thing over again doesn’t really help.”
The tree cutting issue hasn’t been discussed in Enfield circles since mid-October—until now.
Charles Elrod’s attorney hangs much of his legal argument on a 2008 local case decided by the same appellate court that would review on appeal any new lawsuit brought against Enfield. That case, Bauer v. County of Tompkins, at least to the lay reader, calls into question the so-called “three rod rule” relied on so heavily by Rollins.
Deciding in response to Tompkins County’s plans to “reconstruct and widen [a] highway’s driving lanes and shoulders” adjacent to petitioner Merry Jo Bauer’s property, the Appellate Division, Third Department in 2008 sided with the owner. A unanimous Third Department wrote that the lower court, “correctly concluded that the road is a highway by use and is only as wide as its actual use for public travel.”
The Third Department cited as precedent a 1961 Court of Appeals case also referenced by Elrod’s counsel.
“In this instance, the trees along Rockwell Rd. are beyond the portion of the road used by the public, and therefore outside of the public right of way,” Raymond Schlather wrote in the Cease and Desist letter sent to Enfield Town officials. Therefore, in the attorney’s opinion, the trees at issue remain beyond Rollins’ reach.
Where matters proceed from here remains uncertain, even to this writer, a member of the Enfield Town Board. The Town Supervisor has sought legal advice, any of which deserves to be kept in confidence until the Town Board’s majority votes to release it publicly. The Board is not scheduled to reconvene until December 11th. No special meeting has been scheduled.
Meanwhile the pruning lift remains parked along Rockwell Road. Rollins and his crew may revisit the rig this coming week. The next step remains with the people who hold its keys.
###