|
Tree Removal
See also New Croton Dam
Rehabilitation project
Utilities Oversight Committee/Con Ed tree cutting
along "right of ways"
12/18/2007
Con Ed has taken down the trees along Granite Springs Road in compliance with
regulations of Public Service Commission (PSC) pursuant to federal
regulations that stem from earlier outage due in part to fallen trees near
power lines. (Trees had to be removed by 12/31/07.) The new regulations
require changes in a 2001 “vegetation plan.”
Con Ed has been meeting with town officials, PSC representatives and members
of the town's new Utilities Committee. They will meet again to work out a
mitigation plan that will address visual impact as well as drainage problems
caused by the removal, slope erosion and replanting of new trees that grow
slower and to a lower height and shrubs. New plantings will vary depending on
the slope.
While SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) would require an
environmental impact statement from anyone in town doing a similar amount of
tree removal, Roker explained that the PSC is
exempt from SEQRA. Bruce Barber, town's environmental officer, stated that
Con Ed has to be a “good neighbor.”
Bianco stated that he thought some trees that were
on town ROW had been removed. Con Ed disagrees. Barber will look into this.
A member of the Utilities Committee said that it wanted Con Ed's plans in
writing (right now they are just verbal indications of what utility says it
will do.) Also, wants the written document before future removal activities
begin. Roker said town board should also be
notified in advance, not just the town's conservation board.
June 3, 2008
During the Courtesy of the Floor portion of the meeting, several members of
the Utilities Oversight Committee read a statement in which they expressed
their frustration at trying to carry out their function without any support
from the supervisor or board. They read a list of 17 memorandums that had
been sent to the board over a period of five months and which had not been
responded to. Adding that the town lagged behind what other
communities have been able to do regarding Con Ed tree cutting along
the transmission lines, the members indicated that they would welcome support
from the board so that they could carry out their mission.
At the conclusion of Courtesy of the Floor, Supervisor Peters referred to
a letter from Ron Gatto, one of the committee's
co-chairmen who did not participate in the statement, indicating that the
town was getting 200 trees replanted and that Bruce Barber, the town's
environmental consultant was working with Con Ed on a mitigation plan.
Councilman Bianco said he understood the
committee's frustration but noted that it was the state that was making Con
Ed cut down the trees. He expressed disappointment that the planting season
was over and nothing had been planted and said that perhaps the town should
be more forceful in resolving the issue with Con Ed.
June 24, 2008 work session
Seven members of the Utilities Oversight Committee met with the board in what
was often a contentious discussion over the committee's role and what, if
anything, the town could or should be doing to stop Con Ed from any more
clear cutting along the utility lines as well as mitigating the damage it has
already done in some areas.
Councilman Campisi and committee co-chair Ron Gatto noted that Con Ed was not breaking any laws in what
it had done and was simply complying with PSC directives. Mr. Campisi also pointed out that while the committee might
not be happy with the recent Con Ed plantings along Granite Springs Rd (see below), the utility had agreed to the mitigation measures even
though it didn't have to.
In response, Patricia Podolak, the other committee
co-chair pointed out that utility companies, such as
Orange and Rockland, have interpreted the PSC
directives differently and that Con Ed has been more aggressive than it had
to be in its clear cutting program. She also advised the board that contrary
to general perception, Senator Schumer's office had advised her that the Con
Ed clear cutting program did not come under the jurisdiction of FERC, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, as the line was only intrastate, not
interstate.
Everyone agreed that Con Ed had not followed the proper provisions of the
SEQRA law when it filed a short form EAF (Environmental Assessment Form)
prior to beginning the clear cutting program.
Acknowledging the committee's frustration, board members asked the committee
what it thought the town could do. (It was made clear that the committee
cannot, on its own, contact Con Ed.) In response to Councilman Metz's
question to the committee whether there was a need for any town legislation
that could address the situation, Ms. Podolak
talked about Rockland County where, she said, local and county officials
“went to bat” for their constituents in dealing with Orange and
Rockland.
Ms. Podolak also urged the board to hire a
utilities safety consultant who was experienced in dealing with the issue of
vegetation management along power lines. She reminded the board that she had
sent members a proposal from a consultant who had done similar work in New Jersey but that
the board had ignored the email. (When Ms. Podolak
noted that Councilman Campisi had blocked her
emails on his computer, the councilman responded that he did so because he
found her emails to be nothing more than complaints against Con Ed.)
Summarizing the many comments, Councilman Martorano
identified three things that the town could do:
1) gather information about how other Westchester
communities are dealing with Con Ed with a possible goal of working together.
2) have the board consider a proposal to hire a
safety consultant. Ms. Podolak will resubmit the
information she had sent earlier and the board will invite the person to make
a presentation.
3) arrange for a meeting with the relevant state
officials. Councilman Metz suggested that the board should keep this issue on
a “short leash” and if necessary have a special work session
dedicated exclusively to this issue.
Committee members also expressed concern over the number and
“health” of the shrubs that Con Ed has recently planted along Granite Springs Rd
to replace the trees it cut down. Supervisor Peters said he would inspect the
trees and identify the number that had been planted, have died and/or are
diseased. He said he would also direct Highway Superintendent DiBartolo to water the shrubs.
Concern was also expressed about doing something to mitigate the flooding
problem along Springhurst St that has
resulted from clear cutting in the area. At the suggestion of Councilman Martorano, Ms. Podolak will
draft a letter to Con Ed for the town to send out.
The meeting ended on a mixed note. Councilman Bianco
said he thought what something had been accomplished. Ms. Podolak
said she didn't think she had gotten an answer to her very first question:
what does the board want the Utilities Oversight Committee to do.
February 10, 2009, work session
Several members of the Utilities Oversight Committee met with the board to
review the status of several of its unanswered requests and recommendations.
The discussion took on more immediacy as it was noted that Con Ed was in the
process of cutting down trees along Underhill Ave. The utility had notified the highway
superintendent about its plans, but the highway superintendent did not notify
Supervisor Peters who knew nothing until someone brought the cutting to his
attention. (For a related discussion the same evening on tree removal, scroll
down to "Tree Removal Ordinance." )
Councilman Martorano stated that while he supported
the creation of the UOC, he never asked to serve on it as the board's liaison
and that in fact he had protested the liaison designation. Supervisor Peters,
the other town board liaison explained that the UOC meets the same night as
the Recreation Commission to which he is also a liaison which was why he
hadn't attended UOC meetings.
Committee chairman Dr. Patricia Podolak reminded
the board that it had not acted on the recommendations included in the
committee's December, 2007 memo. She added that most of the committee's 20
additional memos had not been acted on. She said her committee should be
working on all utility issues, not just Con Ed tree cutting. She said that
Con Ed thinks the town is weak and vulnerable and that as a result they think
they can do whatever they want.
Citing the examples of Rockland County, Clarkstown, and
the Town of Greenburgh,
Dr. Podolak said that it was possible to get Con Ed
to modify its tree cutting plan and to agree to a mitigation plan. Supervisor
Peters said that Con Ed did replace cut trees along Granite Springs Rd, but
Dr. Podolak pointed out that the trees were an
inferior species and also that many had died and would have to be replaced.
Councilman Metz asked Dr. Podolak if the committee
has submitted a modified plan for Con Ed's work and she replied that she had
requested to see the plan but that it had not been made available to her. She
added that if the board delegated the responsibility for reviewing the plan
to the committee, it would do so. He also said that he would direct the town
attorney to contact the Greenburgh attorney to
learn more about how that town's law that required Con Ed to get a town
permit before cutting down trees and undertake mitigation measures.
The board also decided to invite a utilities specialist to a work session for
a fuller discussion. The committee had suggested this several months ago but
the board never picked up on the recommendation. The specialist would not be
charging for his time.
In reference to the Underhill
Ave situation, Councilman Bianco
said that Mr. Buckley would check with the PSC on Wednesday and request a
“stop work order.”
Along Route
118
12/18/2007
These were taken down to comply with DOT requirements that governed the location
of the new sidewalks. (See “Sidewalks” summary.) Planning for the
sidewalks has been in works for about 8 years. Town received $265,000 in CDBG
(Community Development Block Grant) money for the project. Tedeger explained that new trees will be planted, using different species that should provide
better screening.
New Woodlands (Legacy) Ballfields
(See also Legacy Ballfields)
12/18/2007
In January, approximately 5,000-6,000 trees will be removed on 14 acres to
prepare land for the new fields. This includes a mix of small and large
trees. Work will be done by an outside company.
1/8/2008 work session
DiBartolo told board that county people need a wetlands permit and asked that fee be waived. Board had
no problem with this.
Bianco was concerned about the amount of trees to
be cut. DiBartolo said that they didn't count trees
under 6”. Both Roker and Robinson said that
the same was typically done for other planning projects in town.
DiBartolo had planned for one company to take down
all the trees at one time. Now, he's told that he can only work on 3 acres at
a time; and it doesn't pay for that company to keep coming back. He didn't
say how/who was going to take the trees down now.
He's waiting for DEP/DEC permits; he said they're being very strict.
He praised county officials several times for the quality of the plan, how
they're going about the project, and their future landscaping plan. Says
county is doing a “phenomenal” job. He also said he will be
putting in a larger water main to bring water to 2 hydrants which can also
serve the area condos.
Bianco asked about what mitigation will be done on
trees. He said that as part of wetlands permit, the town could look at the
tree issue. Martorano wanted to know if existing
gravel parking lot could be converted to trees once new lot is built. DiBartolo again praised landscaping plan.
February 19, 2008
DiBartolo said that town employees will cut down
the trees and that he will contact outside companies regarding the sale of
the cut trees that have value.
July 15, 2008
During Courtesy of the Floor, Gil Kaufman, noting the value of cut lumber,
asked what will happen to the trees that will be cut down to construct the
fields. In response, Councilman Campisi said that
only about 1,500 trees would be cut down while Councilman Bianco
said that he didn't know the exact number but that the tree removal had been
discussed at the public hearing when the fields were first discussed.
Downing Park parking lot addition
12/18/2007
DiBartolo needs an excavation permit to remove the
tree stumps. He says that 60% of trees (maybe about 75 trees) are dead (due
to ash disease), either lying on ground or still standing. He wanted to know
if he could remove dead trees before he got a permit. He said Bruce Barber
has looked at the trees and confirmed that they're dead. Robinson confirmed
that if tree was dead, it could be removed without a permit.
DiBartolo said the additional parking was needed
for Rte 202 ballfields for safety reasons as people
now park on Rte 202 and cross the road. He wasn't doing this for parking for
the high school.
Martorano and Bianco were
concerned that they didn't know when the lot was discussed at the previous
board meeting the extent of the tree removal until reading about it in the
newspaper. Martorano didn't remember discussion
about cutting trees. DiBartolo said that when at
previous meeting they were talking about tree cutting at legacy ballfields, he mentioned to board that he would also be
cutting trees for this parking lot. Bianco said that
in hindsight, the board should have discussed the project before proceeding
with it. DiBartolo said that things could have been
done differently. Martorano wanted to know if
Conservation Board had seen the plan. It hadn't. Roker
said she would send it to them. He said the issue should be looked at from
both safety and environmental issue. At times, the discussion between DiBartolo and Martorano got
heated.
February 19, 2008
During the public hearing on the excavation permit for the lot, DiBartolo said he would work with the soon-to-be-created
Tree Advisory Board to plant new trees on the site using the $10,000 county
grant.
He also explained that the cut trees on the site had been made available to
town residents.
See also Parking
Issues
July 15, 2008
During Courtesy of the Floor, Gil Kaufman, noting the value of cut lumber,
asked again what had happened to the trees that had been cut down for the Downing Park parking lot. In response Director
of Labor Operations DiBartolo said that the trees
cut down for the parking lot had been offered to town residents.
Proposed Tree Removal Local Law
February 12, 2008, work session
The Planning Department submitted a draft local law governing tree removal.
The original Draft
Ordinance (dated 10/24/2008) was referred out to various town committees
for review.
Supervisor Peters discussed creating a volunteer Tree Preservation Committee.
Planning Board, March 10, 2008 work session
Referral from the Town Board
Contact: Tara Lupoli, Deputy Town Attorney
The current proposed law was drafted by the deputy town attorney, using the
Somers tree ordinance as a model. It is an outgrowth of a town board decision
two years ago.
Ron Buehl, one of the two members soon to be
appointed to a newly created Tree Commission explained that he was gathering
additional ordinances from other municipaliaies and
would be meeting on Wednesday, March 12th with Mr. Tegeder and Mr. Barber to review all the model ordinances
and come up with a draft that would be best for Yorktown.
He indicated that he would like to see some "specifications"
written into the law, possibly dealing with issues such as size of trees.
Mr. Giordano raised the issue of how the law would be enforced and whether
the onus for compliance, including getting a permit, would be on the
homeowner. There was a brief discussion of the need to license tree surgeons
so that they could be educated about the law and held responsible for
complying with it.
Mr. Flynn noted that he hadn't seen any protection for trees in utility or
traffic areas in the draft.
Board members were encouraged to email their comments on the proposed draft
to Mr. Tegeder.
Mr. Buehl said that while the new law can't be too
restrictive, or "toothy, something was needed. He also highlighted the
need for public education on the subject. He hoped that he would have a
revised draft available in about two months.
March 18, 2008
During the Courtesy of the Floor segment of the meeting Gil Kaufman citing
the rising price for sawdust, wondered what was happening to the trees that
were being cut down in town.
April 8, 2008 Work Session
Bill Kellner, chairman of the Tree Commission said
that he had some names to submit for membership on the Tree Conservation
Advisory Commission. (The Commission was created in 2005, but members were
never selected.) The Commission will have five members, plus five alternate
members.
Although Mr. Kellner had some potential members in
the audience ready to speak to the board, the board decided that it had to
advertise the openings first, requesting people to submit resumes before the
board interviewed potential candidates. As explained by Councilman Campisi, "This is what we do with all other
boards."
There was a brief discussion of a future tree removal ordinance. Councilman
Metz said that the draft ordinance that had been proposed earlier was too
lengthy. Councilman Bianco said that he wanted any
ordinance to be responsive to the needs of small property owners who might
have only a few trees on their property, as distinguished from ordinances in
other towns with large lot zoning.
Mr. Kellner indicated that he is gathering sample
ordinances from other towns and hopes to have a new draft available for the
board's review in approximately 30 days.
October 28, 2008, work session
Five members of the Tree Conservation Advisory Commission presented the
board with a draft of a revised Tree Preservation Ordinance which, they said,
would help preserve the quality of life in Yorktown
and prevent environmental degradation. It sends a message, they said, that
trees are important, and the requirement to get a permit before cutting trees
forces people to think first before possibly acting precipitously.
The ordinance was put together after reviewing similar types of ordinance in
other communities. The group views the proposed new law was being workable
and not a burden on homeowners. A permit would be required to cut down trees;
the number of trees that would trigger the need for a permit varies based on
the size of the lot. There are also special provisions for dead trees and
specimen trees. The ordinance would also regulate the removal of trees near
the property's lot line.
As the board had only just received the ordinance and had not had a chance to
review it, most of the questions centered about how the law dealt with dead
trees. Councilman Martorano wanted to know who
would confirm that a tree was dead, who would issue a permit for its removal
and who would pay to have it removed.
Joe Hughes, the town's Code Enforcement Officer, explained that under the
current law, when he receives a complaint about a dead tree on an adjoining
property that represents a potential danger, he requires the complainant to
get a letter from a tree company with an arborist stating that the tree is
dead and in imminent danger of falling. He also suggests that the complainant
take a picture of the tree and send it by registered mail to the homeowner.
It would then be up to the homeowner to have the tree cut down. Only trees
that are in wetlands or wetland buffers are currently regulated by the town.
At its November 18th meeting, the board will refer the draft ordinance out to
other town committees and boards for review and comment. For a copy of the
original draft law Click Here.
For a copy of the revised law, as of 3/3/2009, Click here.
November 24,
2008, planning board work session
This was a referral from the town board on the proposed tree preservation
ordinance. Comments are due back to the town board by December 26th. Mr.
Klaus advised other board members to submit any comments they had to him
prior to the board's December 8th meeting. In response to a comment by the
board's attorney Karen Wagner about the ordinance's omission of a list of
specific trees, , Lorraine DeSisto
explained that the advisory board that had drafted the ordinance specifically
did not want to include such a list.
January 13, 2009 work session
The board reviewed the draft Tree Preservation Law with members of the Tree
Conservation Advisory Committee. Also present was Assistant Planner Lorraine DeSisto.
(See Octobert 28, 2008 meeting summary for a link
to the draft text.)
Councilman Metz initially expressed
concern that the law regulating the removal of trees might be overly burdensome
to homeowners and wanted to make sure that the draft law was designed to
achieve its purpose. He asked for clarification on what would happen if he
had to remove three trees in order to build a deck while the law only said he
could remove two. Bill Kellner, chairman of the
committee responded that the homeowner would have to get a permit, which in
all likelihood would be granted. He said that in other communities that
already had similar ordinances (Yorktown
being the last community in the area not to have one), the permits were
typically granted. No determination has been made so far as to what the cost
of the permit would be. He acknowledged that the permit procedure would
involve more paperwork.
By the end of the meeting, Mr. Metz said that he felt that the law was not
onerous and he thanked the committee for doing a “really good
job.”
Board members questioned the provisions dealing with the right of property
owners to remove dead trees on their property without getting a permit. At
issue was the type of proof a homeowner would need to show that the tree was
indeed dead. While the law states that a photo would be needed, board members
indicated that photos could be fraudulent and be a picture of any tree.
Committee members indicated that the goal of the law was not the homeowner
cutting down one or two trees but rather the people who cut down a large
number of trees and to “catch the bad guys doing bad stuff.”
Right now, committee member Ron Buehl said, there
is no law that says tree cutting can't be done.
Walt Daniels, speaking for the Conservation Advisory Board and the Open Space
Committee said that in general both groups supported the proposed law. He
wanted clarification that permit requests would be referred to the CAB (the
answer from the Tree Committee was “yes) and also whether tree removal
activities at Teatown would require a permit. A
member of the Tree Committee explained that Teatown
would fall under the “forest or agricultural activity” exemption
and would therefore not have to get a permit.
Councilman Martorano wanted to know how the law
would affect tree cutting for proposed developments. The committee responded
that in the case of new developments the planning board would issue the
required tree removal permit. Her also said he would
like to see some mitigation measures that would require anyone cutting down
trees to have to plant an equal number of trees someplace else.
Board members asked if the permitting requirements in the law would apply to
the town and the committee's response was, Yes.
Councilman Bianco noted that the town's Utility Oversight Committee
(UOC)had submitted comments about the draft law but
committee members were unable to attend the meeting. A member of the Tree
Committee said that he had received the comments, which included the
recommendation that utility companies be added to the list of property owners
that would need a permit to remove trees. He added, however, that that change
should be left up to the board.
There was a brief discussion over whether to discuss the proposed law at a
follow up work session that would give the UOC an opportunity to present its
comments, or, go right to a public hearing. The board decided to set the
public hearing for February and will advertise it at the next board meeting.
It was felt that the UOC could present its comments at the public hearing.
Once the law is passed, the committee envisions sending out an information
kit explaining the law to realtors and school children and posting it online
on the town's web site. It was also suggested that information be included in
the spring Parks & Recreation Department brochures.
February 10,
2009, work session
The board continued its review of the ordinance with several members of the
Tree Preservation Committee. Board members raised several questions about
specific sections of the proposed ordinance. An overriding concern was
whether the proposed regulations would impose an excessive burden on
homeowners and whether some provisions were practical and/or workable.
There was some discussion over the confusion over the difference between a
“tree” and a “specimen tree” as the regulations treat the two different types of trees differently.
(Trees are defined as a woody perennial having a diameter of 8” or
greater; a specimen tree has a minimum diameter of 18”.) Councilman Campisi asked how homeowners were supposed to be able to
identify “specimen trees.” In response, the committee's chairman,
Bill Kellner, said that his group would be
launching an educational campaign to familiarize residents with the
provisions of the law.
Councilmen Martorano and Campisi
were concerned over the provisions permitting the removal of dead trees
without permits and the difficulty of determining what was
a dead tree. Councilmen Martorano noted that
this was a stumbling point several years ago when the board considered
adopting a tree preservation ordinance. He also wanted to know who would
certify that a tree was dead.
Committee member Ron Buehl acknowledged that some
residents will consider the law a burden but that something had to be done to
prevent trees from being cut down without any town oversight. He emphasized
that the law is not prohibiting the removal of trees; just requiring property
owners to get a permit to take them down. He also said that the town would
have to see how the law works in practice, and that if necessary, make some
changes.
After some discussion, the board decided to amend a provision that would have
required all applications for a permit to be referred to the Tree
Preservation Committee for review. Instead, the language will say that the
approving authority (town engineer, or one of the
town's boards) “may” refer the application. At issue was whether
the volunteer committee would be able to review applications in a timely
manner.
Still undecided was the cost for obtaining a permit. One committee member, an
arborist who works in many other Westchester
towns, said he has seen fees range from $10-$70.
Councilman Bianco said that language needed to be
added to the law making it clear that the town was also subject to the
provisions. He called the town the “biggest violator” when it
came to cutting down trees.
Dr. Patrica Podolak,
chairman of the town's Utilities Oversight Committee which has been
monitoring Con Ed's tree cutting practices along the transmission lines,
suggested that the section that exempted utility companies from the need to
get a permit either be eliminated or revised. Her comments led to a lengthier
discussion of the town's legal right to regulate Con Ed's tree cutting
activities and conflicting interpretations of Article 7. Town Attorney John
Buckley said that based on his contact with the PSC, Con Ed was within its
rights and that the town could not regulate its activities. Dr. Podolak disagreed and told the board that in her capacity
as a private citizen she had gotten stop work orders issued against Con Ed's
tree cutting. (For a more detailed discussion of this issue see Utilities Oversight
Committee
The board anticipates holding a public hearing on the proposed law on March
3rd.
March 3, 2009: Public Hearing
Approximately a dozen residents spoke during the hearing, both for and
against the proposed law. The hearing was adjourned to give the board time to
review the comments, plus a new draft of the law. No date was set for a
continuation of the hearing.
(For a copy of the revised law, as of 3/3/2009, click here.)
In support of the law
Several members of the Tree Advisory Board that drafted the law commented
that the law was long overdue, that it preserved the rights of property
owners and that it would not be onerous for homeowners. One member of the
Board who is a certified arborist stated that he has had a positive
experience working with a similar law in Somers (the Yorktown
law was modeled, in part, on the Somers law). He said that the law doesn't
say you can't take down a tree; it just means you have to get a permit to
take one down. In response to a question from Councilman Bianco
as to what it might cost a homeowner to have an arborist look at a tree, he
said he would not charge anything, but that some arborists might charge for
their time which could be $65 an hour.
Other speakers pointed out that under the law's provisions, homeowners would
not need a permit to remove dead or hazardous trees.
Paul Moskowitz stated that the Hunterbrook
Homeowners Association had met to discuss the law and that they were in favor
of it. Patty Peckham said that the law was a
thoughtful and reasonable solution and that she did not consider the law to
be a burden.
In opposition to the law
While supporting the goal of controlling clear cutting of trees, several
homeowners expressed concern that the law was too restrictive, that it would
be costly for the homeowner to comply with, and that the permit process would
impose an unnecessary burden on them. Several speakers pointed out that the
law did not identify the fees that would be charged for the permit, and one
speaker noted the possible excessive cost of appealing a denial of a permit
he had to file an Article 78 petition.
A resident who owns a tree company said that his experience with tree removal
laws in Mt. Kisco and
Croton resulted in so much red tape that trees weren't cut down. He added,
however, that the Somers law worked fairly smoothly. He advised the board to
look at the proposed law from the standpoint of the small homeowner.
Serafina Mastro asked how
the town would enforce the new law, and what it would cost to enforce it. She
also said that the permit requirements would negatively impact on small
business owners. She suggested that if the town wanted to proceed with a tree
removal ordinance, that it adopt a simpler law and possibly not impose a fee
for a permit.
Other comments
John Schroeder, a member of the Yorktown Land Trust, asked the board to
send a copy of the proposed law to the Westchester Watershed Agricultural
Council for review and comment. He noted that the Council has been very
active in developing forestry management plans for the watershed and added
that there was grant money available for forest management. He pointed out
that the town can't just buy land and do nothing
about it; an unmanaged site, he explained, could be a breeding ground for
invasive species that could harm other trees and vegetation.
The board agreed that it would send a copy to the Council for its comments.
Susan Siegel (the person writing this summary) called attention to the fact
that the original draft law, dated 10/24/08, that people had been commenting
on had been replaced with a newer version that had only been made available
as of today. The newer version includes changes that were made as a result of
discussions between the board and the Tree Advisory Board at two work
sessions.
She also asked for clarification as to how the tree law would work with at
least three other town laws that regulated tree removal: the wetlands law,
the erosion and sediment control law and a law regulating activities in
conservation easements. She pointed out that some of these laws conflicted
with the tree conservation law. In response, the board said that the tree law
would be amended to reflect the fact that the more restrictive law would take
precedence in the event that two laws governed the same issue.
Following the public comments, Councilman Bianco
summarized comments, both for and against the proposed law, including
comments from the town engineer, that had been
submitted by mail or email.
March 24, 2009, work session
The board reviewed concerns that Acting Town Engineer Sharon Robinson had
with the proposed tree ordinance with the board and three members of the Tree
Advisory Committee. Under the proposed law, the engineer would be the town
employee responsible for enforcing the law.
Ms. Robinson called attention to several sections of the proposed law which
she felt would be difficult to enforce including:
a. defining property categories based on their square footage. She said that
the town's records weren't that precise and suggested as an alternative that
the law use zoning categories such as ½ acre, one acre, etc. The
committee had no problem with this change. She also said the town didn't have
sufficient information about roads to properly determine footage from the
center line of a road to a tree.
b. she questioned the requirements that certain work
be done by a certified arborist, noting that there was no one on staff who
had this certification, including the current sewer inspector and
environmental inspector. She asked who, for example, would determine what was
a specimen tree or how the size of a tree was to be measured.. One of the committee members who is
a certified arborist explained the certification process. He added that in
his experience, other towns have workable tree ordinances even though they
don't have an in-house certified arborist. Ms. Robinson said that without the
proper qualifications, neither she or her staff
could adequately supervise the work of contractors (as required in the law)
and that this could create an insurance liability issue for the town. The
committee agreed to modify some of the language rgarding
insurance requirements.
c. timing requirements. She felt that some were
unrealistic, especially if an emergency request to cut down a tree was sent
to the town after 5pm on a Friday. Also, the timing for the release of escrow
money was not workable.
d. she felt that the definition of “normal
maintenance” needed more clarification.
At the suggestion of Councilman Bianco, Town
Attorney John Buckley will “clean up” some of the enforcement
language before the board reopens the adjourned public hearing, probably on
April 7th. Cognizant of the confusion at the earlier hearing when
the public did not have the most up-to-date version of the law, a point
brought up by resident Ray Arnold, Town Clerk Alice Roker
advised the committee members to get their comments and changes to Mr.
Buckley as she coordinates with him and not volunteer committees. She said
that the fact that there had been changes in the proposed law did not require
her to re-advertise the public hearing. The changes will, however, be
highlighted when the hearing resumes.
Bill Kellner, chairman of the committee pointed out
that the new version includes a section that says that the intent of the law
shall apply to removal of trees on town property which should put the town on
notice that the law applies also to them. Highway Superintendent Eric DiBartolo said in response that once the law went into
effect he would apply for an annual permit, similar to the annual wetlands
permit for maintenance work that he requests.
Mr. Kellner also raised the issue of the law's
requirement that utility companies be required to submit a vegetation
management plan to the town. Councilman Campisi
said that only the PSC can require this and that if Yorktown
makes them give it go us, they'll just laugh. Councilman Metz said he saw no
harm in including the requirement in the law as a way to put pressure on Con
Ed. Ms. Roker said that the Yorktown
portion of Con Ed's plan will be given to the town in April. Dr. Patricia Podolak, chairman of the Utilities Oversight Committee,
asked that when the town receives the plan, a copy be given to the committee.
She also reminded the board that Article 7 (the law Councilman Campisi was referring to) only applied to transmission
lines and not distribution lines.
April 7, 2009
Public hearing, continued
Town Attorney John Buckley gave the members of the Tree Advisory Committee a
copy of four changes to the March 3rd draft that incorporated
items that had been discussed at an earlier work session.
However, as other issues discussed at the work session had not been
translated into legislative language, after hearing some comments from the
public and the committee, the hearing was adjourned so that more revisions
could be reviewed at the April 28th work session.
The basic part of the law that would allow homeowners to remove a certain
number of trees on their property each year based on the size their property
but would require them to get a permit to remove trees in excess of that
number remains unchanged. (The law currently uses square footage to set
limits on the number of trees that can be removed but there was general
agreement that this should be changed to the zone.)
Unresolved issues include how the permit procedure would be administered and
the fact that the town does not have a qualified person on staff to make
technical judgments about trees. Also at issue is when and whether the town
or the homeowner might be required to hire an arborist. One homeowner said
that more information was needed on what it would cost the town to implement
and enforce the law.
Speaking for the committee, Ron Buehl said that the
town had to do something quickly and that it could always modify the law
later based on experience. Committee member Bill Kellner
also noted that the two arborists on the committee would be available to
assist the town engineer who would be responsible for approving most permit
requests.
In response to Mr. Kellner's comment that most
permit applications would not require a site visit, Councilman Campisi asked, “Then why should a permit be
needed?” Mr. Kellner's response was that the
application process would make it clear why the property owner wanted to cut
down the trees.
Mark Drexel stated that while he supports the intention of the law, he felt
that portions of the law were unclear and also intrusive. He likened the
permit requirement to a tax. (Although there was no discussion as to what the
permit would cost, Mr. Kelllner suggested in
passing that it most likely would be in the $35 range.) Mr. Drexel also
suggested that if the town wanted to avoid clear cutting, then it should
start with that and rethink the process.
Paul Moskowitz and another resident both spoke in
favor of the law and the importance of trees to prevent erosion and control
runoff as well as for the privacy they offer homeowners on small lots.
Susan Siegel (the person writing this summary) suggested that the language
dealing with tree removal on town owned property could be strengthened and
suggested that the law might want to differentiate between the removal of
dangerous trees which could come under an annual maintenance type permit and
permits for special projects such as the Downing Park parking lot.
April 29, 2009, work session
Town Clerk Alice Roker gave the board an update on the progress of the
changes to the proposed Tree Removal Law. She said, "we're getting
close," adding that the group (she did not identify who had participated
in the discussions) had had a couple of meetings at town hall and had
resolved the town engineer's concern. She said more had to be done to explain
to the public what they could or could not do under the law. In response to a
question from Councilman Campisi, she said that no
decision had been reached on a fee. Councilman Metz said the discussions
would continue at a future work session.
June 23, 2009,
work session
Town Clerk Alice Roker said
that she had gotten an angry letter from the town engineer, apparently
related to changes to the draft law that the latter had requested in April
but which had not been made yet. Ms. Roker said
that the engineer's concerns would be worked out. She added that the
comptroller also had an issue with certain time limits associated with the
permit procedure that needed “tweaking.”
In response to Councilman Nick Bianco's question
whether the law could be made easier, Bill Kellner,
chairman of the committee showed the board a draft of a flyer that would be
used to explain the law to residents. Mr. Bianco
then added that no one would read it and the law had to be made easier,
especially dealing with emergency situations. Mr. Kellner
said that a homeowner could take action without any prior notification in an
emergency situation.
On the suggestion of Councilman Metz, the board decided to move forward with
the proposed law (after some additional changes were made to the language)
but that the law sunset after six months. In that way, he said, the town
would be forced to re-evaluate the law and do whatever tweaking was necessary
based on real life experience. Mr. Kellner had no
problem with the sunset provision.
One of the provisions currently in the draft that will be removed is the
requirement governing trees that are within 30 feet of the centerline of a
road. It was also agreed that during the six month trial period the town
would waive permit fees but that the penalty provisions for violating the law
would be enforced.
November 24, 2009, work session
Tree Ordinance
The board
reviewed a revised October, 2009 draft that includes comments from acting
town engineer Sharon Robinson. Most of her comments dealt with how the
ordinance would be enforced. She questioned several definitions such as what
constituted “20% of the tree canopy.” While one of the
professional arborists on the tree committee explained that professionals
understood what this meant, Ms. Robinson said that her office did not have a
professional arborist on staff and that she only had one additional staff
member.
Councilman
James Martorano said he supported the goal of
stopping massive tree cutting and suggested that “simpler is
better” when it came to an ordinance.
Councilman
Matt Metz suggested that the ordinance include a sunset provision so the town
could see how it worked for 9 months and then make any necessary changes.
Councilman Bianco disagreed with the sunset
provision.
There was a discussion of what constituted a specimen
tree and under what
circumstances specimen trees could be cut, even if it was the only tree on
the lot. It was noted that if
there was only one tree on a lot, regardless of lot size, cutting down that
tree would be considered “clear cutting.”
A member of
the tree committee suggested that most likely 99% of the permits would be
granted which led to a discussion of why bother with a permit if they will
always be approved. The answer given was that the permit process would force
the property to think twice before cutting down trees. When Ms. Robinson and
town attorney John Buckley asked what the criteria should be to deny a
permit, the committee members were not able to provide any guidance.
The board decided not to take action on the ordinance
and pass the incomplete legislation on to the incoming board.
Town Clerk Alice Roker advised the board that as there have been
significant changes in the legislation since the first public hearing, a new
hearing would be required if and when the new board proceeded with the draft
legislation.
|