Four Letters to the Editor: Tree Preservation Law,  for and against

February 26, 2010
by Erik Nicolaysen, Roberta Galant, June Farnham and Rhonda Hurwitz

Tree Preservation Law, a law in search of a problem
by Erik Nicolaysen

If one looks at the pictures from the early 1900’s, New Castle was a farm community with mostly open fields. As one looks around today you can see the second growth that covers the entire town.  Without any ordinance the residents did all this on their own. 

When the tree ordnance was passed I viewed it as a law in search of a problem and still do. We had a few people such as contractors who clear cut, but this could have been handled by a simple law restricting the number of trees to be cut each year. Even in those cases, within a few years the new owners had planted new growth. 

Adding new language to the ordinance is a waste of town time and resources and is really not going to change anything the residents have not done on their own and will continue to do.

In support of the revisions to the Tree Preservation Ordinance
by Roberta Galant

I have seen the new tree ordinances and I think that they are terrific!!  They are comprehensive and smart. It is clear that much thought and hard work has gone into this new law, it covers so many existing problems. If we had had these laws on the books back in 2005, my neighborhood would still have its woods and in the summer months the beautiful trees, now gone, would still be thriving, providing complete privacy to my family’s treasured back porch and yard, and my home would have been protected. 

I am very grateful to Dr. Flank’s committee and to the board for supporting and encouraging their mission. I also wish to commend Jerry Faiella for his continued diligence and diplomacy in this and many other matters. The town is indeed fortunate to have him as its administrator.

Roberta Galant

Tree preservation law useless and an infringement on personal property rights
by June Farnham

There is no clear issue that the proposed New Castle Tree Preservation Law amendments seek to address.  Without a direct cause for concern, such as the removal of natural screening between properties or a specific environmental deterioration, a law increasing multiple restrictions serves little purpose and infringes on individual property rights.

The existing Tree Protection Law is more restrictive than tree regulations in neighboring Bedford, Yorktown, Ossining and Briarcliff Manor. The proposed revisions add restrictions creating an unwieldy 12-page law.

The current proposal by the town board would require a $50 permit and approval for the removal of a 4-inch diameter tree in a 25 foot-wide buffer zone on all property lines around a house (for 2 acre zones). A 4-inch diameter woody plant would be defined as a tree. In Bedford a woody plant isn’t a tree until it is 6 inches in diameter and doesn’t require a tree removal permit until it is at least 8 inches in diameter in some instances and 18 inches in others.

The current New Castle law requires a permit on an 8-inch diameter tree and a buffer area of 15 feet (in 2 acre zones).  The increase of the buffer zone size from 15 feet to 25 feet on all property lines means that 33% of a two-acre lot would be in a buffer zone with the current proposal by the Town Board, which is a significant proportion of one’s property to be under new restrictions.

The proposed Tree Preservation Law is an overregulation of our property rights needlessly creating restrictions with little purpose. My own preference is to reduce the existing Tree Preservation Ordinance rather than increase it. Implicit in this regulation is the fear that homeowners may clear cut their properties and create a shortage of trees in New Castle.  Given the desire of homeowners to cut the occasional, unsightly or diseased tree and the large quantity of local public and private forested acres, this law is likely to create community annoyance rather than save some misguided natural standard.

Tree Preservation Ordinance is reasonable and benefits the community
by Rhonda Hurwitz

I am writing to support the proposed tree preservation law, which offers many benefits to our community.

When I moved to Chappaqua, I moved into a neighborhood where great care was taken by the original developer to leave much of the original old growth trees intact, making for a beautiful wooded setting. Over time, many homeowners have taken down trees at their discretion to make room for lawns, pools or other features.  Some understood their responsibility to replant new trees to prevent erosion and maintain privacy and aesthetics; sadly, many others did not, and the result of this mindless removal of trees is a neighborhood whose original look and feel has been eroded. I am sure that my experience in Chappaqua is not unique.

I am supporting this new ordinance because I believe that it is completely reasonable and greatly benefits our community. I see no downside for the homeowner, just a reasonable standard for tree preservation. I especially appreciate section 121-5, which appropriately takes into account the impact of tree removal on neighboring properties, and requires notification to adjacent property owners. The reason I strongly favor this particular section is based on personal experience. Over the past few years, my privacy has been severely compromised by the continuous tree removal of an adjacent property owner.  Under the current ordinance, I have no means of knowing about impending tree removal; each time, I become aware of tree removal by the buzzing of power saws, in which case it is too late, the damage is done without any opportunity for me to express my concerns.

In short, this new ordinance simply requires Chappaqua homeowners and developers to be mindful of the impact of their actions with respect to tree preservation, on our community, the environment and their neighbors, and act as responsible stewards.  This is long overdue, and I am expressing my support.