I’m not saying that it doesn’t, under our zoning rules, just asking whether it should. Everyone loves tree huggers, but perhaps they should restrict their arboreal affections to their private lives and actions, rather than impose them on the public.

P&Z Says No to Removing Oak Tree from Approved Landscape Plan at 40 West Way

At their Sept 15 meeting, the Greenwich Planning & Zoning commission discussed a proposed modification to a previously approved landscape plan that was part of a 2025 approved application to demolish and existing house and build a new 7,559 square foot single family residence as at 40 West Way in Old Greenwich.

The applicant wanted to cut down a 24″ diameter tree located 20 feet from a sea wall, ten feet above sea level.

….

The applicant included a letter from Connecticut arborist Dan Holmes who said the tree was exposed on three sides with the “potential for catastrophic failure due to strong winds.”

The arborist said a concern was that the tree leaned toward the sea wall and might put pressure on it.

“With increasing storms along the coast, this will likely lead to failure with the potential for structural damage and harm to human life if not dealt with prior to construction completion,” Holmes added in his letter.

…. P&Z commission Chair Margarita Alban said, “It’s not that you haven’t convinced us. It’s that neither your arborist or our tree warden cited there being a danger.”

“The tree is alive,” said P&Z alternate Brooks Harris. “It’s not in danger of dying. It’s a healthy tree. It’s leaning out toward the water. It hasn’t fallen in previous storms.” [emphasis added to highlight the moron effect — ED]