Letters
To the Editor:
If you’ve been on Maple Avenue lately, you may have noticed the extensive clear cutting that has occurred in the wooded area across from Mills Way. This is a project of the Norfolk Sewer District. The sewer line passing through these woods was determined to be in poor condition, requiring that it be dug up and replaced which led to the removal of some two dozen trees.
As owners of the homes at 72, 76 and 84 Maple Avenue, we are directly impacted by this undertaking. We were first notified over a year ago that this was a possibility, voiced strenuous objections and offered several suggestions to eliminate or reduce the impact, including rerouting the sewer pipe to Pettibone Lane; rerouting under the lawn/driveway at 72 or 76 Maple Avenue; or simply moving the pipe several feet from its current location in order to save a few of the trees. In fairness, the sewer district appears to have seriously considered at least one of our suggestions, but when the final engineering drawings were presented to us in May, the location of the pipe had not materially changed.
Over the years, we have expended considerable funds and labor to restoring this area—ripping out invasives; replanting with appropriate shrubs, understory trees and groundcover; and pruning and cabling the large, mature trees that grew undisturbed in the 100+ years since the sewer system was first established. The trees that have now been removed include some that we will not miss—invasives (Norway maple) and threatened species (ash)—but unfortunately also silver maple, poplar, cherry, spruce, pine and most disappointing of all, a beautiful stand of flowering dogwoods, no doubt planted by a forward-thinking Norfolkian decades ago. One dogwood survives.
While we respect the vital role that the sewer system plays in Norfolk, we are disappointed and frustrated by this outcome. Given that this portion of the sewer line serves just six homes to the north and east of us, the number and quality of trees that had to be sacrificed seems out-of-scale with the small number of homes served. We found the sewer district’s deliberations opaque. Not being privy to the details of their evaluation of alternative options, we can only hope that the analysis was done in good faith. We considered a legal challenge but were advised that the thousands of dollars that would have gone to lawyers on both sides would be unlikely to change the outcome.
For now we are left with a very damaged landscape. Of course, this will change over time. And as experienced, amateur gardeners we are mindful of the opportunity we are now afforded to help Mother Nature get things right. The Quit-Claim document that we were presented with establishing the easement for the sewer line (the existence of which none of us knew about when we purchased our homes) states that entrance and egress to this area is granted to the sewer district “provided however that no unnecessary damage shall be done and leaving the premises in the condition they were at the time of such entrance or egress.”
What this means, in practice, remains to be seen.
Clare Timoney/Joe Kelly Jill Chase/Bill Ticineto
I cannot let this letter pass without commenting. I have a property that abuts both of those of the letter writers. Most importantly, the sewer pipe in question runs through it. That the sewer system needed re-lining or replacement, after some century and a quarter of use, was without question. In fact, that some of the pipes only needed relining is testimony to the quality of the original construction and the efforts of the navvies who built it, unaided by mechanical equipment.
The notion that several trees were “sacrificed”, with all due respect, is a little “over-the-top”. These were not prime specimens worthy of preservation in some arboreal retreat. Rather, they had largely appeared promiscuously, without pre-planning, much like the secondary and tertiary growth that occupies our corner of Connecticut and indeed much of New England. They would have needed to be removed sooner or later, probably sooner. That, in my opinion, applies to a rather large pine tree that towered over one of the properties in question, in leaning tower of Pisa fashion. That it had been “cabled” would not have sufficed in extremis with some of the storms we have in all seasons.
As to the process, I did not find it particularly “opaque”, though it was afflicted with some delays, in part due to the objections raised by the letter writers, and partly, as I understand, due to the bureaucratic back-and-forth with the federal government that was partially financing the overall sewer project. As far as my interaction with the Norfolk Sewer team and their contractors goes, I found them considerate and professional, carrying out a sensitive task diplomatically and in good humor. And, if the standards of their work is anywhere near as good as the original, then it will be several generations before it has to be revisited.
Thank you. Grace & Peace, Roger Miller