Millwood Matters

March 5, 2010
February minutes approved:

* Second Amsterdam Field
* Hearing on Tree Law Amendment
* Real Property Tax Issues

+ Plus ... Letter from June Farnham on proposed changes to Tree Preservation Law

Excerpts from MINUTES OF MILLWOOD TASK FORCE MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2010
by June Farnham
[With Editor’s Notes referring to NCNOW articles written since the meeting]

AMSTERDAM FIELDS

Chair Dianne Kleinmann introduced the subject of a second ball field planned by the Town Board at the Amsterdam property.  There was a discussion about the history of the site. The property was bought in 1997 for $1 million when IBM planned to build four houses on the site. A number of different uses were considered and rejected as unworkable on the site once the Town purchased it. Traffic was also discussed with Town Supervisor Gerrard stating that traffic would not increase since only one field is scheduled for use at a time. 

Sara Brewster expressed her disappointment that a second ball field is planned on the Amsterdam property.  She indicated that the neighbors only agreed to one field and passive recreation.  She strongly encouraged the Town Board to find fields near where they are needed most (Chappaqua) and to encourage the Chappaqua School Board to maintain their fields for the use of students in their school district.  Rather than locating fields for primarily Chappaqua School District students in the West End (Ossining School District), fields closer to students’ homes would better serve residents in the community.

The Task Force has long supported only one ball field.  Town Supervisor Gerrard related that two fields were reviewed in the DEIS and she initially resisted two fields, but the need for fields in the Town is great and the Reader’s Digest property is a potential candidate for only one field. 

  {See below for June Farnham's letter to task force members on this subject.}

Chair Dianne Kleinmann distributed a Town memorandum outlining proposed amendments to the Tree Preservation regulations.  (The handout described the proposed amendments which included increasing the depth of all the regulated landscape buffer setback zones (for example in 2 acre zone the buffer would increase to 25 feet from 15 feet), a permit would be required to remove any tree in the buffer zone over 4 inches in diameter (down from 8 inches). Permits would be required for removal of any tree over 8 inches in diameter outside the buffer zone.  The current allowance to remove 2 trees within the 2 acre zone without a permit would be removed from the regulations.  A section would be added on tree replacement necessary for tree removal.  Penalties for offenses would be increased substantially.)

A discussion ensued to gain clarity on the scope of the changes.  Several Task Force members expressed concern that the regulations were excessive.  Ms. Makowska proposed that large acreage properties should be exempted.  Ms. Gerard indicated that the Town Board would likely have a public hearing on the tree preservation amendments in March. [Editor’s Note: the tree preservation law hearing has been continued through to next Tuesday, March 9.  Click to see NCNOW’s coverage of the law and letters to the editor by clicking.]  Also see June Farnham’s letter to MTF members on this subject, below.

The contractor needs to provide a new stone sample as the first was rejected.  Mr Faiella indicated that the contractor may wait until the spring to start.

Town Administrator Jerry Faiella related that Mr. Santamara is willing to give the Town a licensing agreement to locate a public notice sign at the corner of the A and P property.  Town engineering staff will draw a site plan for the sign.

Chair Board of Fire Commissioners Hala Makowska stated that the architects for the proposed firehouse in Millwood have given three siting alternatives: two back-in and one drive-through. A preliminary budget for the project is being prepared.  A revised DEIS is nearing completion. [Editor’s Note: In NCNOW, see open letter from the fire commissioners on thier plan to purchase the Cortez property on Millwood Road.]

The owner anticipates starting construction in March with construction of new gas station to take approximately five months.

Town Supervisor Barbara Gerrard indicated to the MTF that Thomas Fry’s initial report on the efficacy of revaluation in New Castle is expected by the end of February. The new Westchester County administration has not clarified if they plan to proceed with a countywide revaluation.  Ms. Gerrard said that in 2009 communities throughout Westchester refunded $77 million in certiorari claims, a sum considerably higher than the $40 million cost to do a revaluation. 

Town Assessor John McGrory is anticipated to be available to meet with residents before the tax settlement date probably by mid March according to Jerry Faiella.  The Equalization Rate for the Town in 2010 is 17.2.  A Residential Assessment Ratio has not been issued yet.

Dear fellow Task Force members,

The recently proposed Tree Preservation Law has me thinking.  Some residents think laws related to property are only intended for those people building new homes - no matter what the regulation states.  I can see this point as the regulations can bear a price in time and money and abiding by a regulation limits the actions an owner wants to take. This disregard for regulations has led me to the view we should work towards only creating laws that residents will comply with.  If a law is such that it is likely to generate apathy and property right restriction, we should at least speak up when the law is under review.  Regarding tree preservation in the town, rules regarding the removal of trees for new construction seem prudent.

After a home is built, it is my view the homeowner should have some discretion on managing their trees.  For lots under one acre, owners of these lots should direct the Town Board on the level of regulation they want. These smaller lots, by definition, means “living with your neighbor” in a more confined space will be more impactful.  On lots over one acre, a homeowner should have some discretion and be able to cut down two trees per year per acre and any dead trees on their entire property without consulting the Town.  The proposed law would require a permit for tree removal in a 25’ buffer zone around the entire property (comprising 33% of 2 acre site).  The approval process would be burdensome and there is no guarantee the approval itself would not be hostage to some “politics” that bear little resemblance to being an understanding environmentalist or a good neighbor.  We should be able to determine for ourselves if a tree is dead and not schedule a meeting with the Environmental Coordinator or hire a tree company with an arborist on the payroll.

I think the proponents of this bill believe they have the “common good” in mind and are using the issue to establish their “cutting edge” environmental bona fides over an issue that I do not believe needs such attention.

Regards,

June

Copyright 2012 NewCastleNOW.org