Connecticut General Statutes|Sec. 23-59. Powers and duties of tree wardens.

                                                

Sec. 23-59. Powers and duties of tree wardens. The town or borough tree warden shall have the care and control of all trees and shrubs in whole or in part within the limits of any public road or grounds and within the limits of his town or borough, except those along state highways under the control of the Commissioner of Transportation and except those in public parks or grounds which are under the jurisdiction of park commissioners, and of these the tree warden shall take the care and control if so requested in writing by the park commissioners. Such care and control shall extend to such limbs, roots or parts of trees and shrubs as extend or overhang the limits of any such public road or grounds. The tree warden shall expend all funds appropriated for the setting out, care and maintenance of such trees and shrubs. The tree warden shall enforce all provisions of law for the preservation of such trees and shrubs and of roadside beauty. The tree warden shall remove or cause to be removed all illegally erected signs or advertisements, placed upon poles, trees or other objects within any public road or place under the tree warden's jurisdiction. The tree warden may prescribe such regulations for the care and preservation of such trees and shrubs as the tree warden deems expedient and may provide therein for a reasonable fine for the violation of such regulations; and such regulations, when approved by the selectmen or borough warden and posted on a public signpost in the town or borough, if any, or at some other exterior place near the office of the town or borough clerk, shall have the force and effect of town or borough ordinances. Whenever, in the opinion of the tree warden, the public safety demands the removal or pruning of any tree or shrub under the tree warden's control, the tree warden may cause such tree, shrub or group of shrubs to be removed or pruned at the expense of the town or borough and the selectmen or borough warden shall order paid to the person performing such work such reasonable compensation therefor as may be determined and approved in writing by the tree warden. Unless the condition of such tree, shrub or group of shrubs constitutes an immediate public hazard, the tree warden shall, at least ten days before such removal or pruning, post on each tree or shrub and may post on each group of shrubs a suitable notice stating the tree warden's intention to remove or prune such tree, shrub or group of shrubs. If any person, firm or corporation objects to such removal or pruning, such person, firm or corporation may appeal to the tree warden in writing, who shall hold a public hearing at some suitable time and place after giving reasonable notice of such hearing to all persons known to be interested therein and posting a notice thereof on such tree, shrub or group of shrubs. Within three days after such hearing, the tree warden shall render a decision granting or denying the application, and the party aggrieved by such decision may, within ten days, appeal therefrom to the superior court for the judicial district within which such town or borough is located. The tree warden may, with the approval of the selectmen or borough warden, remove any trees or other plants within the limits of public highways or grounds under the tree warden's jurisdiction that are particularly obnoxious as hosts of insect or fungus pests.


(1949 Rev., S. 3497; 1957, P.A. 13, S. 83; February, 1965, P.A. 614, S. 3; 1969, P.A. 768, S. 250; P.A. 76-436, S. 463, 681; P.A. 78-280, S. 1, 127; P.A. 84-146, S. 15; P.A. 85-216; P.A. 00-106, S. 2; P.A. 16-86, S. 1.)


Tree warden doing this work himself, for pay, comes under workman's compensation act. 102 C. 573. Exclusive control in warden over trees within highway, or parts thereof, even though trees themselves stand on private grounds. 128 C. 674.


Cited. 26 CA 599. Court's jury instruction re tree warden statute was correct in law. 68 CA 284. In view of Supreme Court decision and statutes vesting exclusive control in town tree wardens over trees located in whole or in part in public roadways, court correctly held that owners of private, adjoining land were not liable to plaintiffs injured by falling tree, despite the fact that private landowners unintentionally created the condition that caused the tree to decay and fall, upon facts that demonstrated private landowners gave town timely notification of the decay before tree fell. 97 CA 31. Some of the duties of town tree warden, including duty to inspect upon receipt of complaint concerning potentially hazardous tree, are ministerial, but failure to inspect means that discretionary act governmental immunity does not apply. 135 CA 364.


Exclusive control of all trees standing in whole or in part within limits of a highway is vested in town or borough tree wardens even though trees stand on private grounds. 17 CS 108.


History: 1965 act deleted provision that cost of hearing “shall be taxed ... as provided in section 13-12” and required that appeals be made to court of common pleas rather than to state park and forest commission; 1969 act replaced state highway commissioner with commissioner of transportation; P.A. 76-436 replaced court of common pleas with superior court and added reference to judicial districts; P.A. 78-280 deleted reference to counties; P.A. 84-146 included a reference to posting of notice on a place other than a signpost; P.A. 85-216 increased the maximum fine from $20 to $90; P.A. 00-106 changed fine for violation of regulations from maximum of $90 “in any one case” to a “reasonable” fine, increased from five to ten the number of days the tree warden must post intent to remove or prune a tree or shrub, and made technical changes; P.A. 16-86 added provisions re removal or pruning of group of shrubs.

View Latest Dockets

1 File
Filed

Feb 19, 2019

Judge

Hon. John M. Newson Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for John M. Newson

Court

Tolland County

County

Tolland County, CT

Practice Area

Criminal

Matter Type

Habeas Corpus

Filed

Jun 17, 2015

Court

Tolland County

County

Tolland County, CT

Practice Area

Criminal

Matter Type

Habeas Corpus

Filed

Aug 27, 2013

Court

Tolland County

County

Tolland County, CT

Practice Area

Criminal

Matter Type

Habeas Corpus

Filed

Nov 02, 2016

Judge

Hon. Vernon D. Oliver Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Vernon D. Oliver

Court

Tolland County

County

Tolland County, CT

Practice Area

Criminal

Matter Type

Habeas Corpus

Filed

Aug 28, 2014

Court

Tolland County

County

Tolland County, CT

Practice Area

Criminal

Matter Type

Habeas Corpus

View More Dockets

View Latest Documents

preview-icon 2 pages

DOCKET NO.: AAN-CV-20-6036933-S : SUPERIOR COURT CITY OF MILFORD : J.D. OF ANSONIA/MILFORD v. : AT MILFORD 19 MELBA, LLC et. al. : JULY 24, 2023 SECTION 23-17 LISTING OF LAW DAYS The Plaintiff hereby indicates, pursuant to Section 23-17 of the Practice Book, that the order in which law days should be assigned to the parties to this action should be as f…

County

New Haven County, CT

Filed Date

Jul 24, 2023

Judge Hon. Arthur A. Hiller Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Arthur A. Hiller
preview-icon 2 pages

GREEN AND GROSS, RC., 1087 BROAD STREET, BRIDGEPORT, CT. 06604, (203) 335-5141, FAX (203) 367-9964, JURIS NO. 405882 NO, FBT-CV-15-6053810-S ) SUPERIOR COURT ) DANABE, LLC ) JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD ) Vv. ) AT BRIDGEPORT ) NEW ENGLAND HOME DEVELOPMENT, ) LLC, MICHAEL C. GROB, EQUITY TRUST ) COMPANY AND CHRISTOPHER CONNELLY f/b/o JOSEPH C, CONNELLY, IRA_) FEBRUARY 25, 2016 SECTION 23-17 LISTING OF LAW DAYS The plaintiff indicates, pursuant to Section 23-17 of the Connecticut Rules…

County

Fairfield County, CT

Filed Date

Feb 25, 2016

preview-icon 2 pages

Docket No. UWY CV 17-6035269 S NEW YORK COMMUNITY BANK : J.D. OF WATERBURY v. : AT WATERBURY HILLSIDE HEIGHTS, LLC et al. : July 13, 2018 PLAINTIFF'S P.B. SECTION 23-19(c) COMPLIANCE Pursuant to S.C.R. Sec. 23-19 (c), the substitute plaintiff RATIONAL REAL ESTATE VI, LLC hereby provides, for purposes of establishing a deficiency judgment against HILLSIDE HEIGHTS LLC, the defendant owner of equity of redemption, a preliminary computation of the debt, the name of the expert on whose opinion…

County

New Haven County, CT

Filed Date

Jul 13, 2018

Judge Hon. Mark H. Taylor Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Mark H. Taylor
preview-icon 3 pages

DOCKET NUMBER: KNL CV 15-6023078 S FLEETWOOD CORP. : SUPERIOR COURT : VS. : J.D. OF NEW LONDON : AT NEW LONDON DANIELSON DYER GROUP, LLC,…

County

New London County, CT

Filed Date

May 28, 2015

Judge Hon. Emmet L. Cosgrove Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Emmet L. Cosgrove
preview-icon 22 pages

DOCKET NO. FST-CV17-6031032-S GERALD METALS LLC and : SUPERIOR COURT GERALD METALS Sàrl, : : Plaintiffs, : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD …

County

Fairfield County, CT

Filed Date

Nov 09, 2022

Judge Hon. Charles T. Lee Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Charles T. Lee
View More Documents

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope