“People move here because they love the country. Then they get rid of everything that’s country.”
That’s Ken Novenstern’s pithy analysis of Westport homeowners.
The attorney speaks from experience. His home off Kings Highway North sits downhill from new construction, and property with far fewer trees than when he moved in 10 years ago.
It’s also a short walk from downtown. There, he’s seen the effect of ever-more-frequent flooding — caused, as his own neighborhood’s is, in part by the ever-more-frequent removal of trees.
A home near the Novensterns’, before teardown …
Novenstern does not think there’s a better way — he knows there is. From 1988 through 2013 he lived in New Castle, New York. He served as a councilman, and on its Conservation Board. on its Conservation Board. He was a member too of the Saw Mill River Audubon board.
Though New Castle is just 34 miles from Westport, right over the border in Westchester County, regulations are far different, he says. There, they prohibit — or at least strongly discourage — clear-cutting and similar actions. “There has to be a good reason to take a tree down, especially in a buffer.”
They also regulate the size of new homes.
“There’s less regulation in New England,” he says. “That translates to little power for planning boards to prevent taking down trees.”
… and after trees were removed, for new construction.
Near his own home, one uphill property owner removed a number of trees to create a play area. Meanwhile, he says, he can “almost touch” a new nearby home.
A pair of Capes have been replaced by 5,000-6,000 square foot homes. During construction, “they cut down every tree and weed on the property.” When flooding resulted, “the contractor put gravel in a drainage ditch. That was it.”
Last week, “a couple took down a beautiful oak tree. The wife didn’t like acorns falling on their cars.”
Several years ago, Novenstern sought advice from Town Hall. He says an engineer told him simply, “Water flows downhill.”
Water flows downhill, long after the rain ends.
He learned that in Connecticut, a tree warden can only protect trees on public property and rights of way. “What percentage of town is that?” he asks rhetorically.
“Planning boards need more power to protect and preserve,” Novenstern reiterates. “It’s incredible there is no oversight, planning or thought given to the impact on neighboring properties of removing trees.”
Too many people, he says, “don’t seem to appreciate the significance of trees. ‘We have enough,'” they seem to think. “If take down a few, it won’t matter.”
The problem, Novenstern notes, is not simply this administration’s.
“It probably goes back decades. No one has ever addressed it.
“No one in New England wants to be told what they can do on their own property. I thought our society was premised on the common good.”
Another view near the Novensterns’ home.
Thirty years ago in Westchester, Novenstern says, he helped pass legislation including building bulk, limiting impervious surfaces, and expanding wetland buffers. He also helped secure an Open Space Preservation Fund.
Later, involved with a community land trust, he helped develop strategies for runoff in open spaces.
“I’ve been here 10 years,” he says. “It seems like there’s no plan at all. It doesn’t seem like the Planning & Zoning Commission does much more than tell people they can do pretty much as they want. Maybe they don’t have the power to do more.
“It’s crazy,” Novenstern concludes. “No one is watching the store. If it’s this bad today, what will it be like 15 or 20 years from today?”
(“06880” often covers the environment, and real estate — and, like today, their intersection. If you appreciate stories like this, please click here to support our work. Thank you!)
Would love to learn what policies in New Castle could be applied to our town. Thanks for sharing this hard truth!
I have friends that live “downhill” from the old Kowalsky farm property (12 acres) in Greens Farms. The property was recently purchased by a wealthy Westporter, with plans to develop/construct three large (very large) houses by all accounts. The flow of water onto the adjacent properties, when it rains, is often beyond remarkable. A small river. The town of Westport Conservation Department is well aware of the situation, historically, as they have been involved in discussions with the prior owners (Kowalsky and possibly Rhimes) and now, with the current owners. I have read accounts of other Westport construction projects that have lead to flooding on adjacent properties, despite the oversight of the Westport officials to remediate any water overflow. I’m not an expert on building codes/requirements except I believe that new construction cannot lead to additional water flow shedding onto neighbors land. Any suggestions on how to ensure that this already troubling water flow issue, and potentially made worse, is avoided ?
David – I struggle with same at my home. It is literally a waterfall from the properties above that deluge my street. With all of the tree removal from above, combined with no drainage on the street – it’s devastating. The town must take action.
Dan /Westport love to name drop, but it seems Westport doesn’t like the inevitable raindrops; Shonda Rhimes: Purchased the Kowalsky property later in 2022 for $5.9 million through her corporate entity, Wildflower Haven. She held the property until January 2026, when she sold the 12 acres to financier Marc Lasry for $7.0 million.
Westport is not New England. That’s an insult to the rest of New England.
Being involved in environmental efforts, I was on the Flood and Erosion Comm but quit because its purview isn’t strong and detailed enough to limit flooding and prevent erosion. I think the approriate body (RTM?) should review and rewrite its goals.
This is a collective action problem. Everyone hates when their neighbor sells to S.I.R. or Coastal or one of the other barbarians who clear cuts the land to build a flimsy McMansion with a lifespan of about 15 years. But when the time comes, everyone wants to sell their own house to the barbarians for top dollar. It’s sadly all about regulations for thee and not for me, just like how everyone wants affordable housing to be built near someone else.
There is insufficient measures & oversite from our Town agencies (P & Z, Building Dept, & Engineering), to sufficiently protect adjacent properties (taxpayers) from new construction projects. Outdated rules & regulations, regarding developers clear-cutting every last tree & shrub on a property, and insufficient data used regarding climatic changes as it relates to regulations for the formulas used to calculate the necessary drainage systems to handle water run-off from maximized building sizes on both large & small lots. Until enough adjacent residents “burnt” by the aftermath of new adjacent construction projects come together and demand protection, and updated rules & regulations, nothing is going to happen. Right now, the only people/taxpayers hurt (in their pocket) and to remedy their new flooding problems, are these adjacent properties. And, it’s happening all over town! NOT RIGHT! There should be some accountability from our Town!
“People move here because they love the country. Then they get rid of everything that’s country.”
What an insightful quote which summarizes what I’ve been saying about Westport for years. I haven’t lived there since 1975 but grew up there and am a Gen3 Westporter.
Even back then people from “the city” would come visit and succumb to the many charms the town offers and move there. It seemed almost immediately they were disappointed it wasn’t Tribeca, or wherever and want to start changing everything.
Developers in recent years from all the teardown photos online appear to have a hatred for trees of any size and shrubbery destroying it all. I guess understanding how erosion works in a coastal town isn’t a concern to these folks but it sure is to neighbors of these new builds. It didn’t used to be like this.
I agree with Ken’s points and the comments above. We have resided in our home for well over 40 years and never experienced anything that remotely approached the flooding that has occurred in the last 8 years. A principal contributor was landscaping on an “uphill” property that involved large tree removals. My daughter experienced significant flooding damage around the same time in another part of town shortly after construction and tree removal on an abutting property.
Granted, climate change has brought us mega bursts and intense storms that we have not experienced before. But it is only going to get worse.
And the trend of “tear down and build big” is showing no signs of withering.
If we can require buildings or property owners to pass assessments to ensure the Wetlands are not harmed by construction projects, it seems a similar assessment should be on the affects of tree removal on neighboring properties as well as public spaces.
There are times when trees need removing for disease or safety reasons. That’s a given. But, before it is too late, proactive measures should be introduced to mitigate future issues that are created when large trees are removed.