In a northern New Jersey suburb, a dispute has emerged over the fate of a towering London plane tree estimated to be 271 years old, halting plans for residential development and sparking a broader conversation about community values and land use.
The controversy began in May when construction crews arrived to demolish a house on Pierson Road in Maplewood, a township known for its progressive politics and tree-themed identity. Ellen Seidman, a nearby resident, raised concerns about the heavy machinery operating dangerously close to the tree’s roots. Following inspections, officials fenced off the tree and subsequently denied the builder’s requests twice for a permit to remove it for the construction of two homes.
The builder, Tony Nardone, who purchased the property from a college friend and subdivided the land, contends that the township’s refusal amounts to an unexpected and unfair change in land-use regulations. His legal representatives have suggested that they may pursue litigation, describing the case as potentially setting an important legal precedent about development rights.
Opponents of the tree’s removal include a growing number of local activists who view preserving the tree as emblematic of broader environmental and communal concerns. The township’s mayor, Victor De Luca, noted that a recent virtual hearing attracted around 50 residents, far exceeding participation in comparable meetings. Attendees connected their effort to save the tree with national debates over forest conservation, coming shortly after the Trump administration announced plans to permit logging in approximately 45 million acres of previously protected U.S. national forests, including Alaska’s Tongass National Forest.
Residents such as Rona Kwestel and Desetne Styles expressed their commitment to protecting the tree as part of a wider mission to maintain natural spaces amid increasing development pressure. Styles, who relocated to Maplewood to escape rapid commercial expansion in nearby Jersey City, emphasized the significance of local efforts when broader environmental challenges seem overwhelming.
The legal stand-off has also strained relations within the community. The family that sold the property, led by Elizabeth Waeschle Vetter and her siblings, who collectively sold the land for $1.3 million to fund care for a disabled family member, criticize the opposition as largely motivated by “not-in-my-backyard” sentiment rather than factual concerns. Vetter questioned the age estimate of the tree, pointing to neighborhood architectural surveys indicating that homes were first built only in the 1890s on former farmland. However, the arborist Richard Wolowicz, who based his age estimate on the tree’s size and height, remains confident it is several centuries old despite the absence of a core sample test.
If the tree remains protected, the builder’s capacity to develop the site may be limited to a single home due to the tree’s footprint and zoning restrictions. For now, construction has stalled, and the lot shows signs of neglect with overgrown weeds covering the cleared area where a house once stood.
Mayor De Luca reflected on the broader implications of the controversy, suggesting that residents’ engagement with the permit process reflects a desire for transparency and trust in government institutions amid a climate of increasing skepticism. “There was a process here,” he said, “and I think it at least allowed people to believe that things can work as they’re laid out to do.”