SOUTHBURY — Contrasting portrayals cast a Southbury couple as either being responsible for unintentionally trimming back a small number of trees on a slice of neighboring town-owned land, or intentionally damaging and destroying 138 trees on a swath of wooded open space roughly the size of a football field to get a better view of Lake Lillinonah and the Shepaug River from their overlooking mansion.
Attorneys for Alan C. and Teresa Salzman and the town of Southbury painted starkly different portraits of events and the Salzmans' actions and motives in post-trial briefs in the town's lawsuit seeking $1,463,458 in restoration costs and damages of $7,317,290.
The town is suing the Salzmans under a 2006 state law that authorizes the awarding of restoration costs and up to quintuple damages against trespassers causing damage to preserved lands owned by the state, municipalities and nonprofit land conservation organizations.
The final written arguments were submitted Monday in state Superior Court in Waterbury where Judge Joseph Pellegrino concluded a bench trial on Feb. 20.
The post-trial briefs represented each side's last chance to frame the case from their perspectives and try to poke holes in the other side's arguments, evidence and legal theories before Pellegrino issues his ruling that could potentially result in a combined $8,780,748 judgment against the Salzmans, plus any attorney fees and costs that may be awarded to the town.
On behalf of the Salzmans, attorney Ashley Noel argued the town's allegations and claims for damages against the Salzmans are overstated, unsupported by the evidence in key respects, and unreasonable. Noel and Alan Salzman did not respond to requests for comment for this report.
On the part of Southbury, attorney Thomas A. Kaelin contended the Salzmans understate the extent of their culpability and damages they are responsible for causing and remedying to minimize their liability and exposure.
"This case is about the owner of a mansion on a hill who wanted to improve his view of a river and was willing to encroach on town open space land to do it," Kaelin wrote.
To achieve that end, the Salzmans hired contractors in 2017 who cut down, damaged and destroyed 138 trees in a corridor on the town property about the size of a football field leading down from their 10-acre property at 216 Kuhne Road to the dammed up man-made lake on the Shepaug River below, according to the town's post-trial brief.
Not only that, but Kaelin argued Alan Salzman twice admitted during an appearance before the Board of Selectmen at a videotaped June 2018 meeting that he was responsible for the tree cutting on the town-owned open space land, and it was done to improve the view of Lake Lillinonah from his property.
"The defendants’ conduct was intentional," Kaelin wrote. "Defendant Alan Salzman admitted that he hired contractors to improve his view of the river and that the area where the trees were cut were in a straight line from his mansion on the hill down to the river."
Not so, Noel argued in the defense's post-trial brief because Salzman never admitted responsibility for all the tree cutting, and he and his wife had uninhibited views of the Lake Lillinonah from the time that they purchased the property in 2015.
Noel stated Alan Salzman accepts responsibility for two independent contractors pruning trees on town-owned land on the north side of Gunnar Road that he mistakenly believed was part of his property, but he denies responsibility for tree cutting on the south side of Gunnar Road where the bulk of the tree work occurred, and the town presented no evidence to corroborate its claims that he was responsible for all of the tree cutting.
"This was a reasonable mistake," Noel wrote. "Notably, no trees were completely removed on the north side of the road and the town does not even claim damages for the topping of the trees in this area."
She stated Salzman knew he did not own the property on the south side of Gunnar Road. She further stated that Salzman invited the first selectman, the assistant to the first selectman and the town attorney to visit his property to view the tree damage from there, and she disputed that he would extend the invitation if he was responsible for the tree cutting on the south side of Gunnar Road.
"In sum, Mr. Salzman’s statements have been consistent for almost seven years and the town has never been able to produce any evidence to refute Mr. Salzman’s testimony, as it is what occurred," Noel wrote.
She also argued that Salzman is not liable for any unauthorized tree cutting allegedly performed by contractors on the south side of Gunnar Road because that exceeded his scope of directions to them.
"The evidence at trial established that Mr. Salzman in no way directed the contractors to cut down trees on the south side of Gunnar Road. He cannot be held liable for their unauthorized actions in doing so," Noel stated.
Kaelin called Salzman's credibility into question, including his recounting of how he came to hire the tree contractors.
"The story simply is unbelievable and there at too many inconsistencies with Mr. Salzman’s story to lend it any credence," he wrote.
Salzman told the Board of Selectmen in June 2018 that he hired a couple of men who approached him in a van one day offering to cut trees on his property for a "relatively cheap" price if he paid in cash. He stated he could not recall who they were, but estimated he paid them $300 to $400.
Kaelin also cited conflicting deposition and trial testimony in which Salzman stated he had paid the men $1,200 to $1,400.
"Defendant Alan Salzman’s story suggesting that this was unintentional is simply not credible," Kaelin wrote. "From the encounter with two strangers with a Rottweiler in an unmarked van at the end of his driveway early in the morning, to the hiring of these two strangers and giving them cash and then leaving them with instructions to improve his view to the river and then leaving, to claims that the work was done in a couple hours to a later claim that I did not tell them to cut trees on the south side of Gunnar Road (where the bulk of the tree cutting took place) is all simply unbelievable."
Noel called the town's claims for restoration costs and quintuple damages overstated and unreasonable.
"The best way to restore the town open space property to its prior condition is to allow the natural regrowth that has already occurred over the past 7.5 years to continue, while performing more aggressive invasive species management," she wrote.
Noel proposed hand planting smaller trees on the town property would constitute a reasonable alternative cost of restoration.
She also argued punitive damages were unwarranted because Salzman did not willfully direct his independent contractors to cut down trees on town-owned open space land.
Kaelin argued the Salzmans are liable for the cost of restoration regardless of whether their conduct was intentional or accidental, and he further contended that court should award quintuple damages.
"The defendant Alan Salzman never fully took responsibility for his conduct and worse he told an unbelievable story in an effort to shield himself from the multiplier by attempting to negate one of the factors by attempting to argue that his conduct was not intentional," Kaelin argued.
He contended the town presented evidence and expert testimony regarding the cost of restoration required under the 2006 statute, and the defense's experts experts did not dispute the cost of restoration and did not provide a different amount or calculation as to the cost of restoration.
Of the 138 trees that were damaged, only 59 live trees were completely chopped down, and 75 were cut or topped. Another four trees were dead or dying. The partially damaged trees and dead or dying trees were not included in the town's estimate of the restoration costs.
"The loss included mature trees, some estimated to 80 to 140 years old with full heights estimated to be 70 and 90 feet. The loss of these mature trees that provide a canopy, habitat and protection of habitat is incalculable and significant," Kaelin wrote.
He recapped the breakdown of the estimated restoration costs from the town's experts in the post-trial brief: $918,047 for the purchase, delivery and installation of 59 trees to replace all the trees that were felled on town property, $114,985 in establishment and warranty costs for the 59 replacement trees, $40,064.00 as a partial estimate of the cost of a temporary road for the installation of the replacement trees, and $430,516.00 in additional restoration costs not reflected in the cost of the 59 trees.
April 3, 2025
Reporter
Most Popular
1.
2.
3.
5.
Find the Best Near You
Best of
Best of
Best of
Best of
Best of
Best of
Best of
Don't Miss