65°
LEWISBORO, N.Y. – Lewisboro officials are revising the town’s tree ordinance, which they have deemed antiquated, in hopes of curtailing overly exuberant clear cutting on the part of property owners.
The Lewisboro Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) expressed concerned about the issue in a recent letter to the town board.
“The CAC has observed situations where Lewisboro’s environment has been affected by extensive tree cutting,” the letter said. “People have cut trees on and off their property without suitable review or restriction.”
Supervisor Peter Parsons said the town’s tree ordinance is very old and weak and in dire need of revising. It was written in 1976 and hasn’t been changed since. He said the new law would be modeled heavily after the Town of Bedford's ordinance.
The CAC has constructed a proposed revision of the law that it believes is more in line with current environmental standards and concerns.
The first draft of the revised ordinance allows for cutting trees that endanger homes and offices, roads and utilities. It also allows for property owners to remove up to three trees per acre owned on an annual basis.
“The proposal balances the rights of landowners with the important ecological needs of tree preservation,” the CAC said.
The proposed revised ordinance would require permits for homeowners to remove trees that are in wetlands or wetland buffers, located on a slope exceeding a grade of 25 degrees due to erosion issues, for cutting more than three trees per acre in any given year, or cutting a tree greater than 18 inches diameter at breast height.
Violation of the proposed revised ordinance would call for up to $400 in fines, up to six months in prison, the replacement of removed trees, or a combination of those penalties.
Parson said the town board was in agreement that clear cutting needs to be regulated and a revision of the ordinance is in order. He lauded the CAC for its research on the matter.
There’s still much more work to be done before any revision of the ordinance comes to fruition, Parsons said.
“The CAC will work with the town lawyers and then do any rewrites that are needed,” he said. “Then they will go to the town planning board for input and then the county planning board for approval.”
After that, the town will hold a public hearing on the matter to receive input from residents.
“We could actually have several public hearings,” Parsons said. “This is not a slam bang issue. It’s more complex than changing the speed limit on Chapel Road.”
Part of the CAC’s proposed revision calls for the creation of a tree officer, who would be charged with administrating the new law. Parson said those responsibilities would be given to an existing town employee and would not call for any extra taxpayer money.
Comments (3)
With this new law homeowners get an unreasonable intrusion on property rights and bigger government with more costs and no scientific benefit--just a greater danger to their families.
During this past year's storms, Lewisboro, North Salem, Pound Ridge and Ridgefield were among the hardest hit towns. All four have similar laws affecting trees which generally allow homeowners control over their own properties. These ordinances are limited to regulating older trees of a certain width, clear cutting and tree slashing. Many towns are even exploring adding laws that monitor dangerous trees and are actually encourage more cutting.
While extending Lewisboro's controls on "clear-cutting" to areas outside the wetlands buffer and regulating along steep slopes, property lines and in historic districts makes sense, the proposed new ordinance goes way too far and is actually more restrictive outside the buffer than the existing "tough" wetlands law was in an actual wetland. No surprise, since this law is brought to us by many of the same people who brought us our revised wetlands law which is the worst in the State and has been the subject of much litigation.
The town is expending significant funds to hire an outsider to map our storm water outflows, something the CAC could have coordinated with volunteers. Instead, this group is off on this tangent to trample property rights.
A more in-depth comment on the dangers of this proposed ordinance can be found on Facebook at "Sons and Daughters of Lewisboro."
Truth, this will be a test for our new town administration. It might make sense to extend our clear cutting rules beyond just wetlands. And yes, the issue came up most recently with the farm on Todd Road. But the CAC proposal, which limits homeowners to cutting three trees a year of any size is outrageous. This sounds like another cumbersome and expensive government overreach.
Cutting trees costs money. It is something that homeowners do not undertake lightly. How is it that when neighboring towns like New Canaan are adopting laws to identify and remove dangerous and diseased trees, even on private property, Lewisboro is going the other way? In Ridgefield, the town works with homeowners on a voluntary basis to identify and work to preserve "historic" trees.
How do you prove that you planted a tree yourself? How do you decide when a tree is dangerous, and why should a stranger make that decision rather than a homeowner?
How soon before we need to be told which weeds are invasive and may be picked and which may not? Why not just let a self-important group of ill-informed neighbors make every decision about how you care for and maintain the beauty, value and safety of your own home?
Based on his comments during the campaign, I have every hope that supervisor Parsons will wade through this minefield and put some reason into the CAC's proposal.
As usual Janet Anderson in her typical over the top zeal has made a non issue into a catastrophe. Lewisboro might need to update it's tree cutting laws but does not need another bureaucratic intrusion into the lives of private property owners. I can only think of one instance recently that clear cutting of trees occurred. A Kosher goat farm on Todd Rd. clear cut more trees than what was permitted by the planning board in an obvious attempt to increase the value of their property. Substantial fines could have been levied or the building permit could have been revoked. I do not think anything like that happened. There is a certain segment of people in this country who feel that by enacting more restrictive laws will force law breakers to stop committing a crime when if the existing laws are enforced the same result will occur.