Resolutions Put Navesink Ave. Clear Cutting Issues to Rest

For the Rumson citizens concerned with what will be done about the on Navesink Avenue back in May, the wait is over. At Monday night's Planning Board meeting, the Rumson Planning Board ruled that the tree removal permit for 35 Navesink Avenue must be modified to require the additional planting of trees.

The board ruled that the remaining trees are protected and erosion control measures are implemented.

Rumson residents Rick Jones and Cindy Zipf have been fighting for answers and seeking some resolution to what they call a that occurred next to their home. Back in June, Jones and Zipf appealed the tree removal permit for 35 Navesink Avenue as "aggrieved adjoining property owners."

The grounds for their appeal were based on their claim that the Tree Conservation Officer and Code Enforcement Officer, Frederick Andre, demonstrated improper administration and enforcement of the Tree Protection Ordinance. On their appeal was heard during a Rumson Planning Board meeting. 

"The area is very special to us," Zipf said at the first appeal hearing. "The canopy that the trees provided brought peace and tranquility to my family and now that is destroyed." 

At that first appeal hearing, Jones and Zipf's lawyer Andrew Provence presented evidence to the board and thoroughly explained their case. Provence used the evidence, which included a series of photos, diagrams and letters, to show the board how the Tree Protection Ordinance was violated. 

John Segaris, the project developer of 35 Navesink Avenue from Petcon and the tree expert who signed the original tree removal permit did not attend the first appeal hearing. The Board felt their testimonies were important to this case. Due to their absence and time restraints, the hearing was pushed to the next Planning Board meeting. 

The took place on September 12th. John Segaris from Petcon and the tree expert, Steve Becker, both attended the meeting. Jones, Ziph and Provence produced new evidence showing the damage caused by the removal of so many trees. Heavy amounts of rainfall, including Hurricane Irene, caused flooding on Jones and Zipf's property. They claimed this flooding was caused by drainage issues resulting from the tree removals. 

"I have a great deal of concern for the future of my property," Jones said at the second hearing. "I am concerned that our property will continue to bear storm water due to the removed trees."

Also present at the second hearing was Segaris's lawyer Mark Aikins. Aikins questioned Jones about his knowledge of Petcon's plans and informed Jones that procedures were in place to correct drainage issues. During Segaris's testimony, the board asked him many questions about his tree removal plans. When asked why he removed so many trees, Segaris said "we saved all the good trees on the property that we could." 

The second hearing ran from 7:30 p.m. until well past 10:00 p.m. Again, due to time restraints, the hearing had to be pushed back once again to the next Planning Board meeting on October 3rd.

This past Monday, the Planning Board met at for a regular meeting and finally came to a resolution for Jones and Zipf's appeal.

Local resident are finally satisfied after their hard work paid off with a decision to require the additional planting of trees, protect the remaining trees and implement erosion control measures.

Councilman and Planning Board Liaison, Mark Rubin, suggested the Planning Board maintain jurisdiction over 35 Navesink Avenue to ensure that proper drainage and replacement tree planting is acceptable to everyone. The board agreed to this.

According to Councilman Rubin, the appeal process worked well and the Board learned a lot from the hearings. "The existing ordinances are in need of review because they are subject to many different interpretations," Rubin said. "We have several ideas to improve them."

Jones called Rubin's suggestion an "unexpected and welcomed act."

Overall, Jones and Zipf applaud the Planning Boards ruling. "We are confident we have raised the Planning Board’s awareness regarding tree removal," Jones said. "It is clear that it's members are eager to amend the Tree Protection Ordinance to better protect trees, eliminate conflicts of interest, and assure that proper tree experts are consulted."

Jones and Zipf were only disappointed that the Board excused the actions of the Tree Conservation Officer, "who has such an important role in protecting trees in our town," Zipf said.