71°
LEWISBORO, N.Y. – A proposed revised tree ordinance may be dead in the water after a majority of the Lewisboro Town Board expressed disdain for the revisions at a meeting this week.
Do you think Lewisboro should revise its tree ordinance?
-
Yes, the CAC's plan is what is needed
0% -
Yes, but the current plan needs to be toned down
0% -
No, such laws are intrusive and we have more important issues to deal with
100%
Members of the Conservation Advisory Council came to the meeting with a plan to give a formal presentation on proposed revisions to the ordinance, which were first proposed in February http://lewisboro.dailyvoice.com/news/lewisboro-looks-revise-tree-cutting-ordinance, but the report never got off the ground as board members expressed their doubts and concerns before it got started.
“The current law doesn't address things like [cutting trees on] steep slopes,” said Janet Andersen, council chair explaining why she felt a revision was necessary. “We hear from people all the time who are upset [about tree-cutting in town]. A group called the Environmental Leaders Learning Alliance did a review and noted that Lewisboro is the only town in northern Westchester that has no real tree protection.”
The revision that seemed to draw the most ire from the board was a permit requirement for homeowners who wish to remove more than three trees per acre per year that are more than 8 inches in diameter. Any single tree greater than 18 inches in diameter also would require a permit in order to take it down.
“This is over-the-top legislation,” Deputy Supervisor Peter DeLucia said. “I am really hard pressed to restrict [tree removal] unless they are historical in nature or it involves clear cutting.”
The problem, board members said, was how to define “clear cutting.” Some suggested using a sliding scale, based on the number of acres on the property, noting that “one acre shouldn't have the same requirements as ten acres.”
“If you all agree that clear cutting is not acceptable that gives us some direction [in helping to rewrite the ordinance],” Andersen said.
However, clear cutting wasn't the only issue.
DeLucia said the law was “unenforceable” and the town couldn't afford the resources to properly police tree cutting. While noting that in recent years the town dealt with two notable tree-cutting incidents that resulted in successful criminal prosecutions, DeLucia said he wondered if it was a real problem in Lewisboro.
“Do we really have a lot of complaints?” he asked. “We've had two big cases, but beyond that we haven’t had anyone come here and say people are cutting down too many trees. In fact, with all the power outages we've been having, we are hearing that we need to take down more.”
Supervisor Peter Parsons said he wasn’t sure what will happen to the proposed ordinance amendment. He suggested residents should call board members and express their opinions.
“If we get a whole bunch of calls saying we don’t want one, we probably won’t go near it again,” he said. “But I don’t think this will move forward unless we can find a middle ground.”
Comments (3)
Ms. Anderson, who recently had a dangerous tree fall in front of her house, should know better. Her comment that Lewisboro's current ordinance is more lenient than those of neighboring towns is ill-informed and illustrates the danger of relying on "citizen-scientists" to draft laws that have a significant impact on homeowners. By interjecting the town in a homeowner's decision to cut down a potentially dangerous tree a major liability risk will be created for taxpayers. And a "we know clear-cutting when we see it" sliding legal standard is an invitation to costly litigation.
In fact, with the exception of Bedford, our wetlands ordinance contains one of the toughest clear-cutting prohibitions in the state. Ridgefield and New Canaan regulate trees on town property only.
Most Lewisboro trees are "weeds" that grew unchecked on what are abandoned farm fields. They compete with the roots of more desirable specimen and old-growth trees which leads to the inordinate amount of storm damage we suffer. They undermine healthy lawns and ruin fields that would otherwise be suitable or organic farming. The unintended consequences of this proposal would be to exacerbate our storm water runoff problems.
In its ordinance the CAC actually refers to itself as one of the bodies of "experts" to be consulted in applying the law -as if volunteerism confers expertise.
Reviewing the regulation of clearcutting, particularly in new subdivisions, may be worth exploring. Let's hope the CAC will do more than bring back the same proposal for a third time.
Something as small as a tree ordinance should make all Americans reflect on what makes our country special. As an American citizen I am permitted to do or say anything not prohibited by law. That right I am born with and the government grants me no rights. In other countries it is just the opposite. The government holds all rights and grants it's citizens the permission to say or do what the government allows. Maybe our Supervisor with all good intentions and from the United Kingdom does not know this. To enact a law to prevent something that might occur in the future and but has not occurred in the past goes against what is to be an American. I applaud Deputy Supervisor Peter DeLucia and Councilman Frank Kelly for standing up for an individual's property rights and for all Americans who believe in personal liberty.
It is disappointing to see Supervisor Parsons cave into political pressure and bring back the identical proposal in the dead of summer without even conferring with planning, building or zoning experts.