Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023_11_15 Town Board Minutes � 479� Town of Mamaroneck o Town Board Minutes . Wednesday, November 15, 2023, Courtroom, Second Floor of rn n Town Center 5:00 PM • FOUNDED 1661 PRESENT: Jaine Elkind Eney, Town Supervisor Abby Katz, Councilwoman Sabrina Fiddelman, Councilwoman Jeffery L. King, Councilman Robin Nichinsky, Councilwoman ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Allison May, Town Clerk Meredith S. Robson, Town Administrator William Maker Jr., Town Attorney Tracy Yogman, Town Comptroller CALL TO ORDER 5:00 PM THE TOWN BOARD WORK SESSION The Work Session of the Town Board was called to order by Town Supervisor Elkind Eney. Moved by Councilwoman Katz, seconded by Councilwoman Fiddelman, the Work Session unanimously opened at 5:00 p.m. WORK SESSION ITEMS 1. OUT OF ORDER: Into Advice of Counsel Moved by Councilwoman Fiddelman, seconded by Councilwoman Katz, the Town Board entered into advice of counsel. Carried Moved by Councilwoman Katz, seconded by Councilwoman Fiddelman, the Town Board unanimously agreed to resume the Work Session. Carried 2. OUT OF ORDER: Request for Executive Session Moved by Councilwoman Nichinsky, seconded by Councilwoman Katz, the Town Board entered into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation involving a capital project, as well as the employment history of a particular individual. Councilman King joined the meeting at 5:30pm. Carried Town Board November 15, 2023 Moved by Councilwoman Fiddelman, seconded by Councilman King, the Town Board unanimously agreed to resume the Work Session. Carried 3. 2024 Proposed Town Board Meeting Dates Supervisor Elkind Eney tabled this item for a future meeting. 4. Updates Councilman King updated the Board on the Recreation Committee meeting last night, where Matt Angst presented an idea to increase recreational skating. Figure skating time would remain from 8 to 9:30 AM on Sunday mornings, but the new plan would allow figure skating coaches to bring in new skaters. In addition, other students might notice more coaches, potentially drawing them into our program. Attorney Maker suggested students sign release forms, and Administrator Robson noted that the insurance is covered by the coaches. There would be no impact on hockey time. Additionally, the Hommocks Middle School's PTA President and Vice President inquired about using the fields behind Hommocks during winter recess, instead of being closed from November through March. Councilman King highlighted the potential costs of reseeding and restarting the field. Recreation Superintendent Jill Fisher consulted with a landscaper, who recommended allowing field access only one or two days per week. Ms. Fisher pointed out that communities from Maryland to Massachusetts close their fields during winter months. Supervisor Elkind Eney suggested offering the fields for use, if possible. Lastly, Councilman King inquired about organizing a ski trip. The Recreation Superintendent Jill Fisher mentioned that while they had organized ski trips in the past, they approached them with caution. The Recreation Superintendent proposed the Town consider February Saturday for a trip to Catamount or a nearby location. The Recreation Department will look into this possibility. 5. Additions to Regular Meeting Agenda 8:00 PM TOWN BOARD REGULAR MEETING The Town Board meeting convened in the Courtroom Located on the second floor at the Town Center. The Public was to view the meeting on cable access television (Optimum 76/ Fios 35) or on LMCMedia.org CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Town Board was called to order by Town Supervisor Elkind Eney at 8:03 p.m. The Town Supervisor noted that the Town Board met for a Work Session beginning at 5:00 p.m. this evening, which was open to the public. SUPERVISOR'S REPORT Welcome to the November 15, 2023, meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck. The Town Board met today for a Work Session in Conference Room A, starting at 5:00pm, which is open to the Public. First, I want to congratulate Sharon Torres on her election as Mayor of the Village of Mamaroneck and Dana Post and Bridget Brennan on their re-election as Trustees of the Town Board November 15, 2023 Village of Larchmont. I also want to congratulate Catherine Parker on her re-election as our County Legislator. We look forward to working with all of you for the benefit of all of our residents. Next, I want to congratulate the MHS Girls' Varsity Field Hockey Team on winning the NYS Class A Field Hockey Championship! Girl Power! You do us proud! There will be no Sanitation Pick-Up on Thursday November 23, in observance of Thanksgiving. There will be regular pickup on Friday, November 24, but the yard will close at noon. The County Mobile Shredder will be at the Maxwell Avenue Sanitation Facility on Saturday, November 25 from 10am until 1pm for residents of the Unincorporated Town of Mamaroneck and the Village of Larchmont. On November 5, I attended the Daffodil Project in the Village of Larchmont. The Daffodil Project is an international project to plant 1 .5 million daffodils in memory of the 1 .5 million children who were killed in the holocaust. A mixture of students, clergy and elected officials participated. On November 5, I also attended "Rooting for Trees" a lecture given by Dr. Andrew Reinman, Assistant Professor at CUNY Advanced Science Research Center. I referred to it in my remarks in connection with the tree law. November 9, I attended Mamaroneck Chamber of Commerce meeting at which Michael Murphy was sworn in as the new president. We wish him much success in this new role. I want to thank Dorothy Palomares, the outgoing president, under whose tenure the Chamber grew exponentially. November 11, I attended, with Sabrina and Abby, the VFW Post 90 Veteran's Day Ceremony in the Village of Mamaroneck. It is always important to remember our veterans. They gave their time (time away from their families, friends and their lives) to serve our country, risking their lives to preserve and defend our way of life. November 14, I attended a Sanitation Commission meeting at which we discussed the budget and other operational I want to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving filled with Food, Family and Football. PUBLIC HEARING(S) The following Notice of Public Hearing is entered into the record as follows: PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE LEGAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Section 130 of the Town Law of the State of New York, a Public Hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 15, 2023, at 8:00 PM or as soon thereafter as is possible, to consider the "Town of Mamaroneck Tree Law", at the Town Center, 740 W. Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck, New York. Purpose: The Town Board finds and declares that the preservation of trees, as defined herein, within the Town is necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the Town because trees provide shade, impede soil erosion, aid water absorption and retention, inhibit excess runoff and flooding, enhance air quality, offer a natural barrier to noise, provide a natural habitat for wildlife, provide screening, enhance property values and add to the aesthetic quality of the community. However, the Town Board also recognizes that property owners have the right to develop, use and enjoy their properties and that sometimes trees must be removed in order for property owners to be able to achieve full enjoyment of their property. Town Board November 15, 2023 This law strikes a balance between the rights of property owners and the maintenance of trees within the Town. You may also view the meeting on local municipal access television (Cablevision 75, 76, 77 or Verizon 34, 35, 36) or on LMC Media's website, https://lmcmedia.org/. The full text of this document can be viewed on the Town's website, https://www.townofmamaroneckny.org/calendar.aspx, or by calling the Town Clerk's Office at 914-381-7870, for a mailed copy. BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK Published: November 10, 2023 1. Town of Mamaroneck Tree Law Moved by Councilman King, seconded by Councilwoman Fiddelman, the Public Hearing was unanimously opened. Carried Town Supervisor Elkind Eney said tonight we have a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the Town of Mamaroneck Tree Law. As you can see, this law has had many iterations in which the Town Board considered comments made by members of the public. Two comments were raised at last night's Sustainability Collaborative meeting that are being addressed, if and when the new law is adopted: First, the diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) of the trees to be removed will be included in the permit application. The other thing people were concerned about were the tree companies. The Town is going to reach out to the tree companies for which we have contact information and will notify them of the new law. We also are going to post it on the building and conservation pages of our website. So, there will be notification. I think we do that for most laws of this nature. So first, I'm going to ask our Town Attorney Bill Maker to more fully describe the proposed law. Attorney Maker explained, the proposed law as those of you know who have been monitoring the various changes, is a law that allows people to remove trees as of right. But with some limitations, for example, no more than seven trees can be removed from a lot of 20,000 square feet or greater during any 12-month period. Only five trees can be removed from a lot that is between 7,500 and 20,000 square feet during a 12-month period, and only three trees can be removed from a lot having less than 7,500 square feet during a 12-month period. Mr. Maker continued; the law allows for the removal of trees in excess of these numbers in certain situations. For example, if the tree is hazardous, or if it's dead, or if an arborist certifies that the tree is likely to die because of some other permitted, filling or cutting in the vicinity of the tree. But one of the provisions was that in addition a tree could be removed if it substantially interfered with the permitted use of that property. The Town Board has now said that that can only happen if in the opinion of the approving authority, which will be either the Planning Board or the Environmental Planner, the authority determines that the tree substantially interferes. In other words, an owner just cannot come in and say, well, this particular tree interferes with what I would like to do on my property. And so, I would like to get a permit to move that tree even though I have already removed the seven or five or three, whatever my maximum should be. Now it says that the approving authority can say oh, no, that doesn't substantially interfere with what you want to do, instead of building in that direction, build in this direction, and then you can save that particular tree. So that's a change. Attorney Maker then added, there are also provisions in the law that talk about being allowed to remove additional trees, if there is an emergency situation. For example, a tree is about to fall on somebody's house. Again, it allows people to come in and remove the tree even without a tree removal permit, but they have to supply the Town Board November 15, 2023 Environmental Planner with proof of why it was an emergency so that the Town can keep track of what's going on. Also, if a tree happens to literally fall down without any human action, there is no permit required and no prohibition on people getting tree removal permits for other trees on their property. Yet another change in the law is that there is now a provision dealing with trees with a diameter at breast height of 36 inches or more. They would not be allowed to be removed unless hazardous or dead, or again if in the opinion of the approving authority the tree substantially interferes with permitted use. That approving authority in many, many situations, once again will be the Planning Board because there would be a residential site plan approval process going on. And again, with that plan the Planning Board, as part of its overall discretion, can say no. The Planning Board could say we know this law allows you to remove trees as of right, but this is an extra special tree because of its size. We're not going to let you remove this particular tree. It doesn't really substantially interfere with what you want either; or perhaps there is another way that you can handle the situation. Mr. Maker continued, as far as tree replacements are concerned, one of the features of the law that has changed with time, but I think it's still the same as the last time it was before the Board, is that the replacement of trees is done not on a one-to-one ratio, but on a much greater ratio. So, for every tree between six and 12 inches of diameter at breast height, there have to be two trees planted to replace it. If a tree is greater in size than 12 inches, but less than 18, there are three replacement trees required for each one of those removed. And if it's more than 18 inches in diameter, there is still a hiatus period. So, if you get yourself a tree removal permit it covers a period of time that is going to be at least a year as long, depending upon when you've planted replacement trees, when you cannot get another tree removal permit for your property. This is to prevent people from coming in year after year after year, because of what they could move through in the initial 12-month period. So, I'll wait till that 12- month period is over. And at month 13, I'll ask to take down three more trees. Now it doesn't work that way. You have to take some time off. And it's hoped that by doing that people will be realistic. There are exceptions to that hiatus period. Exceptions would be if there's a hazardous tree or a dead tree, then that person should be allowed to remove that. Even if it's within that one-year hiatus period. Mr. Maker continued his description of the new law stating that another new feature of the law talks about what happens if a replacement tree does not survive for a year. Under the law, Mr. Maker explained, replacement trees are supposed to survive for at least one year. So that the Environmental Planner would come back to a property and say, okay, you planted this tree one year ago, it's fine, it's healthy. Here's a final letter of completion that your process is over for now. Now, if the tree does not survive for one year, the Environmental Planner comes in and says, you should replace the tree that failed with another tree. Or it's conceivable that the property cannot accommodate a brand-new tree because of rocky soil, or whatever else situation there might be. Then the Environmental Planner can say okay, I understand that you can't plant a tree again, but now you have to pay into the tree planting fund for the tree that did not or could not survive. Mr. Maker added, now if you go to plant the replacement tree, then the Environmental Planner comes back the following year. And then the new tree is also dead. At that point, the decision switches. It is no longer the Environmental Planner who determines what the next steps are. It is the owner of the property who could now say, all right, I still plan on the tree because I think I have figured out a solution now or I will pay into the tree planting fund. Most of the other parts of the law are just highly detailed but those are the primary principles of this brand-new law, if it's passed. Thank you very much Bill, Supervisor Elkind Eney stated, then asked, does anyone from the Board have any comments? Councilwoman Nichinsky responded, saying I'm going to speak to a couple of issues. Councilwoman Nichinsky continued, as Bill explained, this new law is a tree replacement law, not a tree protection law. That said, this law contains several improvements over the old law. It will apply to the entire community, as opposed to the old law, which only applied to 20% of the community. Town Board November 15, 2023 This means 80% of the community had no regulation whatsoever. It will also mandate replanting and permits for regulated trees of 6 DBH or more. For the first time, we will be able to keep records of the trees that are being removed. Councilwoman Nichinsky continued, the Board has responded to the comments from the community and the concerns that experts have stated about the proposed law. Some of the ways in which there has been movement since the initial proposed law are: 1. The Board has decreased the number of trees that can be removed in a given year. This was one of the things that was on the petition that was sent around and was something that was desired. 2. The Board increased the number of trees that must be planted in order to replace trees that are taken down. This was a recommendation by one of the tree experts. 3. The Board added a provision addressing mature trees of 36 DBH or more that, in the past, have been able to be removed with impunity by 80% of the community. 4. The Board requires a certified arborist, also recommended by the tree expert, to make certain decisions. 5. This law requires Town officers to alert the Board when there are certain Town Tree removal plans before the trees are actually cut down, so the Board can weigh in if it has concerns about that. The tree expert recommendation was that the Town should also be subject to the laws in some way, so something was included to address that. 6. There were various changes in the proposed law based upon recommendations from the Planning Board. In addition, because we want to address the concerns of everyone, the people who want to protect the trees and those who would like less restrictive laws, we decided to address the concerns of people who want less restrictive laws by adding flexibility for emergency situations. Councilwoman Nichinsky explained, this was one of the things that troubled the people who wrote us about that. We also put a 30-day cap on permit decisions. So, if you file your permit, stating what you're taking down and what you're going to replace it with, within 30 days, there will be deemed consent to that if you don't actually hear back. This gives flexibility to our actions and determines what should be our top priorities in terms of what to look at. Councilwoman Nichinskly continued stating, I just wanted to point out the ways in which the Board has worked together to reach consensus. Of course, we understand that it may not be exactly and completely what everybody would like to see, but the Board has worked together and considered and changed things based upon the comments received from the community. Supervisor Elkind Eney thanked Councilmember Nichinsky for preparing her material and then asked if anyone else on the Board had comments. Supervisor Elkind Eney emphasized to the audience the importance of signing in on the sheet with Mark Romero, the Assistant to the Town Administrator, and reminded attendees that anyone from the public wishing to speak should wait to be called upon. Attendees were asked to limit their comments to three minutes due to the size of the crowd, with priority given to those who had not spoken in prior meetings. Supervisor Elkind Eney highlighted the long-term effort put into the proposed law and stressed the significance of trees in the community. Supervisor Elkind Eney then urged speakers to focus on specific aspects of the proposed law they agree or disagree with, rather than general comments about the importance of trees. Additionally, Supervisor Elkind Eney noted that agreeing with previous speakers could simply be indicated without Town Board November 15, 2023 repeating their comments, and remarks made at previous meetings need not be reiterated as they are part of the public record. Lastly, Supervisor Elkind Eney invited anyone who had not yet spoken to come forward. Cordelia Derhammer-Hill approached the podium first. Hi, she said, I'm Cordelia Derhammer Hill and I live at 20 Stoneyside Drive. I apologize because I'm not actually sure if this has been completely addressed or not discussed at all because I haven't seen it anywhere. But I'm curious If anything has been talked about, in terms of protecting root systems of existing trees, because you can leave a tree standing while completely killing its root system by digging in the wrong places, or developing, and functionally killing a tree. Town Attorney Maker replied, yes, we do have something in the law about it. There is a provision in the wetlands permit law, the erosion control law for that purpose. However, the members of the Town Board have asked me, together with the Environmental Planner, to make it more expansive, to cover more situations, and to try to make it sort of the best management practices in the Building Department. Specifically, one of the things that's been noted, which Councilmember King happened to bring to my attention, is that sometimes when people do construction in a stockpile, the materials that are part of the construction, the sheetrock, the piping, and all that stuff, and they place them right down at the base of a tree, compressing the roots. So, we have to have the best practice solution, which says, no, you can't do that, you have got to put it in place that it is not going to damage the tree. There are already laws that affect that, and I have been asked to expand upon it. I will work with the Environmental Planner on that shortly. Cordelia Derhammer-Hill added, and just to follow up on that, I hope that since there are certain size trees that seem to be getting a higher level of protection, that as you're looking at that you will also look at their root systems as deserving of a stronger level. Attorney Maker responded that critical root zone will be addressed. Judy Caputo, 664 Forest Avenue, spoke next. Ms. Caputo explained she volunteers with the Sustainability Collaborative. But tonight, she explained that she was speaking as a resident. My husband and I are here as concerned citizens. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak. And I want to thank you for all the work you're doing on a new tree law. I think it's a great start, I just think there are other things that can be changed or could be improved. The irony is not lost on me that we're talking about this tree law when today, the Town never looked better. The trees are absolutely gorgeous. And I just think we're all so fortunate to be able to live in such a beautiful community. And my concerns are really just in an effort to try to keep it as beautiful as it is. One of the things that I feel that a law should enforce, but it also should educate. And I think the purpose of the law, when it says it wants to preserve the trees, is a wonderful statement. But I think that some of the details of the law are almost educating the constituents on how to tear down the trees and not preserve the trees. I have two sections that I'm most concerned about. The first one is section 207-4 which lists the activities permitted as of right. And in that section, you use absolute numbers of trees on properties. And my suggestion would be to use a percentage of trees because as an example, if you have a 7500 square foot piece of property, you may only have three trees, and you're allowed to take three trees down. So, in essence, you could take down all the trees because it's not in context as to how many total trees there are. And my husband and I have had trees fall on our cars. We have had trees falling across the street. And we've always replanted them. But if you're not required to do that, and you're not induced to do that it might potentially denude a property. And that can change the whole complexion of a neighborhood. You can have one house that has no trees, it really affects the neighborhood. The second section is 207-6 -- that permit application process approving authority. I think it was Robin, you mentioned it in your comments. My concern is, if it's a new process, this department is going to be handling it's going to be having more paperwork, and there could be a ton of backlog that accrues because of that. And because you're only Town Board November 15, 2023 giving 30 days, you in essence can be giving carte blanche to people to just tear trees down on a technicality. And that concerns me a little bit. I know we have done work on our house and 30 days, you know, goes by quickly. And I'm not sure the backlog won't create a situation where people are allowed to cut down more trees than would be allowed if the permit process was given a longer time period for review. Ms. Caputo said, I thank you for your efforts. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Jenny Geer, a resident of the unincorporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck, spoke next. Ms. Geer said, Robin, I appreciate your explanations. I would like to point out that, although you characterize the law as a tree replacement law, the purpose as stated in the draft law says that tree preservation is necessary for the health of the community. That is the first sentence of the law. So, it's quite misleading, because, as I'm going to describe, it is not a tree preservation law as you acknowledge. Primarily, I'm here tonight to report on the results of the petition to save our trees, which was started just 11 days ago as a grassroots effort by a coalition of citizens concerned about tree preservation in the Town. As of tonight, the petition has been signed by close to 400 Town residents, two-thirds of whom live in the unincorporated area, and more signatures are coming in. I hope you've had a chance to look at the names that I submitted earlier. You will recognize many of them. They are not just your constituents; they are your neighbors. Quite a few are leaders in the community, including two former School Board presidents. What are these 400 people, your constituents, asking you to do? Just two things. First, do not take a vote on this law tonight because it is not ready. It is full of flaws and will not preserve our disappearing tree canopy, even though that is its stated goal. Second, take a pause and make changes now to get this law right before you vote. Listen to the experts, including your own Sustainability Collaborative, and follow the model of stronger legislation, like the tree code in Greenburgh, which was recently endorsed by Westchester County. The petition includes eight recommendations for specific changes to the law. I won't go into them to save time, but they have been submitted to you and are in the public record. Some are easy, and some are a little more complicated, but they are all essential for preserving our tree canopy. As you yourselves have said, you spent a long time on this law. So, I'd like to ask, what's another couple of months? What's the rush? As written, the law will not go into effect for some properties for another 15 months. Why not get it right the first time? Ms. Geer continued, if the Board does vote "yes" tonight, what message should we, as constituents, take away? Basically, you are telling us that all the talk about how you are here to listen is really just lip service. If you do vote "yes", I hope you'll be prepared to get a few questions from your constituents. Here are some that we have been hearing in our conversations about the petition: 1. Did the Board actively seek out experts and meet with other municipal leaders to learn about best practices before drafting this law? Who were they? 2. Why did the Board sideline the Sustainability Collaborative, which is supposed to serve you in an advisory capacity in this process? 3. Why did the Board do zero community outreach about this law before releasing the first draft? And why has there been zero outreach since? 4. Why so little transparency? 5. Why did the Board issue the legally required announcement of this public hearing on a Friday night? 6. Similarly, why did the Supervisor's newsletter released on October 31 fail to even mention the tree law despite holding two packed hearings? Ms. Geer continued, and that's just for starters. Again, what's the rush? In closing, please do the right thing and fix this law so it actually preserves trees. Otherwise, the 400 people who signed the petition and the rest of your constituents will deserve some answers. Thank you. Town Board November 15, 2023 Robert Novich, a resident of the town of Mamaroneck, spoke next. He stated, I've lived in this Town with my family for 40 years, and I feel quite fortunate to live here. It's a lovely community. Over the years, I have run a lot of marathons and have traversed most of the streets here. What stands out in my mind is the trees; especially this time of year, the foliage is beautiful. When I was about ten years old, we had a summer home. There were some extra pieces of wood, so I decided to build a clubhouse. I needed some additional wood, so I cut down a few trees. I was pretty good with a hatchet and saw, even at that age. I thought I had done a great job and had a beautiful structure with a peaked roof. When I told my father and grandfather about it, I expected them to compliment me on the work. But no, what I got from them was total disapproval. They didn't like the idea that I had cut down any trees. My father had a sixth-grade education, and my grandfather, a Jewish immigrant from Europe, had no formal education. But they knew enough to teach me that cutting down trees was destructive. Fast forward to tonight, Mr. Novich continued, we are trying to come up with a tree code. As Jenny explained, the current code you are presenting is inadequate. It does not prevent the removal of or actually preserve our beautiful trees. If you took a course on tree codes at a university, and you turned in this document, the professor would probably give you an F+. That would be generous. The Board shouldn't pass this law. They should pause and, as Jenny advised, go back, do some remedial work, meet with the tree committee, arborists, canopy specialists, and the Planning Board, and hammer out the code together. Emphasize 'together.' I think if you do that, you will meet the needs of this community. This tree code just doesn't cut it. Lastly, I brought along a book that most people here have probably read to their children or grandchildren — The Lorax. It's over 50 years old, and the concept of tree preservation it presents is not new. I hope you do the right thing, Mr. Novich urged. Thank you. Monica Trujillo, 18 Winthrop Avenue, spoke next. Ms. Trujillo stated, I'm a resident and I am a biologist. And I think this law requires a lot more work not only because trees are important, but we need to see the need for the trees in the context of climate change. It's not enough to think for today. We need to think ahead. And we are facing the challenges of extreme weather. And that needs to be considered. And I think that this is an opportunity to look at the experts. There are so many experts, why we don't spend the time. I'm sure that some of them will even do it for free. And then we will have the opportunity of being a model because we are not going to be looking at today, we are going to be looking at the future. Like it or not, but it is true. We are facing a severe challenge from climate change. And we do know that trees play an extremely important role. And yes, it seems so important what we do on our own property. But if we are able to look a little bit longer, a little bit further ahead where what we do on our own property, it's going to affect everybody. And so, yes, it can be your property. But do you really have the right to do what you want to do? I don't think so. Thank you. Maura Ettinger spoke next. I live in Larchmont, she said, and I do not usually speak at events like this. This is not typical for me, so I'm a little nervous. Please forgive me. I moved up to Larchmont about two and a half years ago, and I have two daughters. I live on Brookside Drive. Yesterday, while walking my dog around the brook and enjoying the beautiful trees, I noticed four big tree stumps with sawdust around them. I thought, 'Why were these trees cut down?' I spend a lot of time down at the brook, appreciating nature. It's one of the beautiful things about living here. Seeing those stumps made me want to get involved, so I reached out to Jenny. While I might not know all the ins and outs and politics, I believe these trees provide tremendous beauty and protection. We know they support the environment and the ecosystem. Earlier tonight, I was at a gathering and mentioned attending this meeting. Many parents expressed surprise and concern about Memorial Park and the trees that were cut down. One mom even told me she had cut down five trees on her property, not realizing she shouldn't have done that. I feel like if there were more visibility and awareness, more parents and community members would be here tonight, voicing their concerns. I implore you to listen to those who understand this issue and consider preserving this 'Tree City' for our children and future generations. Thank you, Ms. Ettinger concluded. Town Board November 15, 2023 Karen Khor addressed the Board next, thank you, Town Supervisor and Town Board members. We really appreciate you taking the time to listen and for this additional opportunity to speak, she said. My name is Karen Khor, and I'm here as the Co-Chair of the Mamaroneck Sustainability Collaborative. I would like to highlight a few points from the joint letter submitted earlier today by myself, my fellow Co-Chair Mark Kramer, and Town environmental leader Arlene Novich. We recognize that you have held multiple work sessions and public hearings, and we truly appreciate your efforts. This revision to our tree law is highly consequential, as many have pointed out. It's particularly significant given the global climate crisis, something you have acknowledged by adopting the Climate Emergency Declaration in November 2021. Unfortunately, despite your best intentions, the latest revisions do not meaningfully protect our trees and tree canopy. I appreciate that Robin clearly stated this is a replacement tree law. But we need a law that also protects our trees, not just replaces them. We need to address the climate emergency we're currently facing. Replacement isn't enough; it's inadequate for addressing the climate crisis. Before you vote on the revised law, I urge you to consult with the Sustainability Collaborative—your designated environmental advisor—to address remaining gaps and issues. A dialogue with relevant representatives is critical for building trust and enabling us to work together on the many climate actions the Town has directed us to undertake collectively. This cooperation has been lacking so far, but it's not too late. Secondly, please reinstate existing requirements and establish clear criteria that would enable the town and private property owners to effectively manage our trees, prevent clear-cutting, and avoid the unnecessary removal of mature trees, including those less than 36 inches DBH. Many oak trees under 36 inches DBH are over 100 years old and play vital roles. Finally, let's remember that we are living in a decade deemed the most consequential for acting against climate change. Our Town proudly advertises its commitment to protecting the environment, with signs stating "Town of Mamaroneck: Protecting Our Environment" prominently displayed on lampposts along major roads like Boston Post Road. Let's not pass this revised law as it currently stands when it's still not ready. Given our Town's laudable commitment to environmental protection, and the stakes involved, we must do our best for current and future generations. We can and must do better. Thank you, Ms. Khor concluded. Robert Herbst addressed the Board next. Mr. Herbst stated, Madam Supervisor, members of the Board, Madam Administrator, my name is Robert Herbst. Excuse me, I get choked up about this. I have lived in the Town of Mamaroneck since 1965. I have lived in my current house on North Chatsworth Avenue for 31 years. When we first moved in, if it was raining, and it was the summer and leaves were out, you could walk the whole block and not get wet. Now the only place where there's trees are in front of my house. The loss of the canopy is real. Now we've come to you with hundreds of comments. People have given you facts, logic, science. We've had at least three hearings with dozens of people speaking. We've come to you with even more facts, logic and science. We've come to you with outrage. We've come as people willing to submit to greater regulation for the common good. We've come to you with appeals to your conscience. And we've come to you with appeals to morality. And again, it is for the common good, not just for us, but for our children and grandchildren. I respectfully submit that if this bill, which is totally inadequate, is passed, this Board will have acted arbitrarily, capriciously and irrationally. You will be subject to legal challenges. I would like you to consider that, Mr. Herbst stated before saying thank you. Allen Reiter rose and approached the podium next. He lives on Forest Avenue in the Town, and said, I appreciate that this is the third time I am addressing this Board. Thank you for permitting me to do so. There is an irony in this hearing which I suspect has not occurred to you. At the very first hearing, the Board noted Catherine Parker's great work in procuring the Town $300,000 in funding for the Town to study its storm sewer system. What we are likely to learn from that study is that our system is Town Board November 15, 2023 overwhelmed due to once-in-a-century storms occurring every other year. It will cost millions to upgrade, and it won't be easy to do so. At the second hearing, our Town comptroller urged the Board to maintain the Town's infrastructure because replacement is far more expensive than maintenance. I raise these points because trees are part of our Town's infrastructure. It is widely known—and undisputed—that trees absorb enormous amounts of water and reduce stormwater runoff. This is crucial considering the strain on our storm sewers. These once-in-a-century storms are becoming routine, resulting in homes on Brookside and Murray Avenue being inundated. One of my friends, after living on Murray Avenue for 20 years, is moving because they can no longer take it. While trees alone are not a solution, they are a part of it. We need as many mature trees as we can get to preserve what we have and to limit the runoff from storm surges. Yet, this Board seems prepared to permit the cutting down of mature trees, as clearly stated by Counsel. Planting trees that will mature in 20 years is laudable, but it won't help us in the near term. In the meantime, flooding will worsen because of the mature trees being cut down under this law. More homes will be damaged, and this code will exacerbate that. There's a belief among some on this Board that you can do whatever you want with your property. However, I urge a different viewpoint: we are stewards of our property. While we may own it for a time, we should consider the long-term community benefit of mature trees. Cutting down a 100-year-old oak tree isn't just a personal decision—it increases cooling costs for neighbors and contributes to flooding. Our tree canopy has been declining every year, and this law, as drafted, will further that decline. As you heard from Jenny, around 400 people have signed the petition asking the Board to reconsider the direction it has taken with this law. There is no silent majority opposed to regulation. We've obtained significant support in a short time, urging a different direction. The Board has made improvements, but these changes are marginal. The core premise of this code—to prioritize replacement over protection—is something you should reconsider. Thank you, Mr. Ryder concluded. Marianne Hardart addressed the Board next. I also grew up here, she said, and I'm currently living in my childhood home. My mother wanted to leave this house feet first, and that's exactly how she did. Part of the reason she felt so strongly about staying here was her love for the trees. My concern isn't just about the lack of trees, but what replaces them—the buildings. While this law isn't directly about buildings, to me, it indirectly affects them. In my neighborhood, I've seen not just the canopy being cleared, I've seen houses three or four times the size of the original ones being built, filling up the land. For instance, near me on Colonial there is a whole plot that's been completely demolished. I don't know if all the trees are gone, but that land will soon be filled with a big building. It seems that the only reason someone wants to take down so many trees is to put up a building. While there are rules, people find ways around them. We all know that. I've mentioned this in my letter as well. I personally know many architects, and everyone who comes into my house looks at my yard and says, "Oh, you could build another house there." But that's exactly why I live there—I don't want another house on my property. Anyone who sees land here of a certain size is eager to build on it if they're a builder, architect, or contractor, and I understand that. However, you are in a position to help preserve not just the trees but our land as well. Thank you. Arlene Novich rose and addressed the Board next. I live in the Town of Mamaroneck, and you're probably tired of seeing me, she said. I'm at all your work sessions and meetings, but I won't go into the details I brought up last time. I must say that this is not a proper code. The Board needs to pause and go back to the drawing board to do it right. This code is ineffective and doesn't aim to reduce tree cutting. We attend the work sessions and see the time spent deliberating over the number of trees to cut— whether it's three trees, seven trees, six trees, or 100 trees. It doesn't matter how many trees you cut because, according to your code, within two to three years, every property in the Town could be clear cut. That needs to change. It's clear you're not looking down the road to see the long-term impact. It doesn't seem balanced to me, and I know balance was stressed. Not everyone on the Board agrees with this code, yet the minority view isn't being considered. Town Board November 15, 2023 You've never met with the Sustainability Collaborative and the tree team to discuss the code, gather information, and bounce ideas. According to the climate emergency declaration you signed, you're required to work with the collaborative. You haven't discussed this with our neighbor, the Village of Mamaroneck, which has a stronger, more effective code and was willing to share their experience. You're not being responsive to the vast majority of the Town's residents, and that's concerning. I strongly suggest you put this code on hold and stop rushing it through. Although it has been taking a long time, it still feels like you're rushing. The Sustainability Collaborative was set up to advise the Board, yet you're not taking advantage of it. The tree team was established three years ago, spending a year working on the code with some of the brightest and most committed residents in this Town, but they have not been consulted. I commend all the people I've worked with; they are truly amazing. We've collaborated with many experts, and you didn't speak to one until we brought in Andy Ryman. It's backwards to ask him questions only after presenting the code. We'd like to ask if the tree team, as a subgroup of the Sustainability Collaborative, can sit down and discuss the sticking points with you. These points do not preserve trees and allow for the elimination of effectively all regulated trees in just a few years. If you're willing, we are here and have offered our services. We're not experts, but we've spent a lot of time examining this issue. Your children and your grandchildren will thank you for doing the right thing when it comes to our trees. Otherwise, they will blame you—and rightly so. Thank you, Ms. Novich said. Andrea Hirsch introduced herself next, stating I'm a resident of the Town of Mamaroneck. It's notable that Mr. Maker and Ms. Nichinsky, while describing the changes in this version of the code verses the last one, left out the most significant point. Although they slightly reduced the number of trees that can be cut as of right, the waiting period to obtain another permit to cut the same number has changed and been reduced dramatically. See Attachment A. Under the current version of the code, you can cut down 3-5-7 trees twice within the same two-year period, whereas previously, it was only 3-7-9. What's even more alarming is that you can cut six trees on the smallest lots in two years instead of three, ten trees on medium-sized lots, and fourteen trees on the largest lots in the same period. This constitutes a 100% increase for the smallest lots and roughly a 50% increase for the other lot sizes. As Arlene mentioned, in the third year, you can cut 9- 15-21 trees. Anyone inclined can clear-cut their property within this framework. Ms. Eney, she said, "I see you shaking your head, but please point out where I'm wrong. The code now allows a 12-month waiting period. Once you cut down a tree and plant another, you get a certificate. After 12 months, you can apply for another permit. Ms. Hirsch continued, stating that Mr. Maker did not highlight this change, but he altered the wording from obtaining an unconditional certificate of compliance. Previously, it meant waiting for the first anniversary of the newly planted tree to be a year old. Now, you get an immediate certificate one year from the time a tree is planted, not one year from it being a year old and surviving for that year. This is the change in the code, and it is hard to believe it was accidental. In the fine print, the number of trees that can be cut down in any two years has actually increased. Please tell me where I'm wrong. I'd like to understand this better. Thank you, Ms. Hirsch said. Mr. Maker responded, saying I think she's incorrect because the concept is, you plant a replacement tree and then you have to wait a year. You get a certificate of completion, then you have to wait another year before you can apply for another tree permit. That's the intent of the law. So that's actually a two-year process, possibly longer, because you may get to remove the tree in month one, but not replace it until month five, in which case now, it's an extra five months that you do not, or cannot, get a permit. Ms. Hirsch replied to Attorney Maker, you changed it from an unconditional certificate of completion to a preliminary certificate of completion, which is what you get upon Town Board November 15, 2023 planting. Then, you are required to wait one year from planting. Then you get the certificate and then you can get another permit. Before, you had to wait one year from the time that your tree was one year old. And within one year, Supervisor Elkind Eney added. We started with 14. I mean, we put the number in half to see you know, the original draft that Bill sent us was 14. Ms. Hirsch then asked if it was actually for eight and ten. Supervisor Elkind Eney responded no, the first draft of the tree law that we had was 14. The Supervisor added, I do not remember the other numbers now, but I remember the top was 14. Ms. Hirsch stated, so we never saw that draft. But we did the draft including eight and ten. Well, whether you did, or not, we never saw one with 14. But in any event, what you are saying is that you are supposedly listening to your constituents and making changes in response to their complaints. Meanwhile, you have actually significantly increased the number of trees that can be cut down as of right during any two-year period. And this leaves aside the provision that says if the tree interferes with the permitted use of your property. In that case, you can cut down that tree at any time as well. Supervisor Elkind Eney responded, but that is subject to approval. Why don't you finish your comments. Do you have anything else to say, the Supervisor asked. "I do, thank you", stated Ms. Hirsch. Ms. Hirsh continued; this is a slide from Andy Ryman's presentation. Community trees make up 75% of our canopy. See Attachment B. These trees, found in our yards and on our streets, are crucial, and we're losing them at the most rapid rate. This slide is critical from Andy Ryman's presentation. Without trees, our greenhouse gas emissions form this straight line. With trees, they form this jagged line, reflecting seasonal changes—showing the vital role trees play in sequestering carbon. See Attachment C. Our current law is illegal because the New York State Climate Act mandates public entities to reduce carbon emissions. Permissive tree cutting counters this directive by increasing greenhouse gas emissions instead of reducing them. The Municipal Home Rule Law states that any local law inconsistent with state law is illegal. This law is illegal on several fronts. Please reconsider, Ms. Hirsch implored and make a law that protects trees instead of destroying them. Jake Levitt, at 8 stonewall Lane, addressed the Board next. Mr. Levitt said, the purpose of a tree code is to protect mature trees. This is still entirely too permissive. I would characterize this law as an antitrust law. It's a step backwards on many levels from the existing weak law. The specifics of why have been submitted to you. You didn't have discourse with your constituents to come up with something reasonable. There were three one-way public hearings, and that doesn't qualify as discourse. But it looks like you're going to pass this law now. This is a big issue. I think you realize it's a big issue. You're harming our interests. You're harming the interests of your constituents and of the community. And you're going to get voted out. Thank you. John Vox, a Town resident, spoke next. Mr. Vox said, I want to ask, since this law affects everyone in Town, how many people here are in favor of a stronger tree code? Okay, so most people. Now, I ask how many back-and-forth tree law work sessions you guys on the Board have done with the public behind me? You don't have to answer, it's probably none. I think work sessions with constituents and experts are useless. This new law goes too far. There should be no code, and I'm thankful to the Town Board November 15, 2023 Board for having the bravery to stand up to the people in this room and say, "No, we don't want a transparent process. Trees are a nuisance, and this tree removal law is a gift to us." I personally agree. Mr. Vox continued, thank you, he said, for making this happen as efficiently and behind closed doors as possible. Personal property rights are more important than all this community-minded climate change tree nonsense everyone's talking about. I live on a 10,000 square foot lot that had 14 big trees. I cut 12 big oaks in the front last year for a better view of the illegal jaywalkers. This year, I cut down 6 maples on the sides because I love the sunlight in my bathroom upstairs. They were really big, annoying trees. You should have seen them, but luckily you can't anymore. Next year, thanks to this new code, I'm going to cut down the 6 huge dogwoods in the back to put up a deck and swing set for myself. I don't have kids, but I love the idea. That'll bring it to all 24 trees that are gone. Some might call it ugly or an eyesore, but I call it a beautiful clear-cut plot—except for the annoying Town-owned saplings in the front. Yes, my neighbors sued me about their basement flooding for the first time in 40 years and needing a $10,000 French drain. And they've complained about sky-high air conditioner bills all summer without the shade. But that's not my problem, aside from the attorney's fees. The trees are down, and I get my swing set and sunlight. I already won. With Town-owned property exempt from this law and no more pesky townsfolk oversight, imagine the awesome things you can do. You could turn Memorial Park into a really cool three-hole golf course. You would need to cut down half the trees. No one could appeal. You could knock down the remaining four trees at the playground and not even have to say it was an accident this time. You could install more of the bright green and blue plastic equipment. No more worrying about or wasting money on replanting trees to replace the lost ones. Those eight Memorial Park trees that haven't been replaced almost a year later could be gleaming statues of you guys. You could put little placards at the base that say, "Tree City USA." Nothing is stopping you if you pass this law. I even volunteer to be on the citizen committee to help—wait, citizen input doesn't matter here. But you know what I mean. In summary, like you, I believe trees are a nuisance and democracy and transparency are overrated. This law finally vindicates people like us. Since it's tough being in the silent majority, I've informed the press about our feelings to spread the word and gain support. Thank you for pushing this through. Down with trees and up with outrageous, nonsensical thinking, Mr. Vox concluded! Mark Kramer approached the podium next. He introduced himself saying, my name is Mark Kramer, and I'm speaking as resident Mark Kramer, not as a member and Co- Chair of the Town's Sustainability Collaborative. I've been told that my email today, although submitted before 4 pm, didn't get here until afterward, so I only have one copy. I'll be very brief and point out some things that haven't been addressed tonight but need clarification or correction. See Attachment D. The most important issue, in my opinion, is the definition of the word "clearing." In the regulated definition section 207-2, clearing is defined as the removal of more than seven regulated trees from any lot within a 12-month period. This means on a 7,500 square foot lot with three large trees, whether 24 inches or 30 inches in diameter, they can be clear-cut if the Environmental Planner says you have a reason. By the same token, on a 20,000 square foot property, if there are only seven regulated trees, they can also be clear-cut. Mr. Kramer continued, I commend you for dividing the properties into small, medium, and large, but you need to redefine the clear-cutting definition to match the size of the lot. You could say something like, if 20 percent of the trees are removed on a lot, which leaves 80 percent of the canopy, then anything more is clear-cutting. You also need to define which types of trees can be removed. Town Board November 15, 2023 I've added in my notes that the regulatory definition of six-inch DBH as a requirement is not sufficient because after one or two years, any replacement, now regulated, could be counted in the 80 percent remaining, thus allowing larger trees to be cut down. The approving authority definition is pretty good, but it should be easier for the public to understand. For example, it says an application that requests the removal of more than seven regulated trees, which is defined as clearing. Including this definition makes it easier for people to understand what's going on rather than having them ask questions about the number of trees. We've heard suggestions in the past about public education and outreach. There are roughly 30 to 40 tree companies; I'm not sure of the exact number, but it doesn't come close to the number of residents. Informing tree companies about the regulations and fining them rather than residents, will ensure they do not cut down trees without a permit. If I decide to cut a tree and my neighbor knows I didn't have a permit and wasn't notified, they may decide to cut down a tree too. The only reason people get reported is because residents enforce the regulations. When someone cuts a tree on a weekend or at five o'clock in the evening, there are no tree patrols. Enforcement falls to the neighborhood residents. In addition, Mr. Kramer said some things must be corrected for the code to make sense. For example, in section 207-17, it cites 207-15(C), but there is no Section C. Inconsistent use of symbols and words misspelled are also issues. These are just some of the things I've noticed. Please deliberate on the next steps for implementing a tree law that preserves and grows the tree canopy. It's paramount because, as the Town recognizes, trees reduce flooding, keep our community cooler, lower utility bills, provide shade, screen breaks, fall foliage, sanctuaries for birds, cleanse the air, and should be treated as community infrastructure. Thank you. Supervisor Elkind Eney asked Mr. Kramer if he was done and then if anyone else wanted to speak. As there was no one else, the Town Supervisor said, I just wanted to say that I did attend the presentation by Professor Andrew Ryman on November 5th, and he gave a lengthy discourse about the benefits of trees in the community. I heard it all. But at the end, he discussed local laws, and I did take down his comments. He said that the good tree laws require permits, talk about the right tree to be replaced in the right location, and incentivized planting which this law does. In reality, it is not realistic not to cut down any trees at all. And the idea is to move toward perfection but not necessarily start with it. He views this ordinance as a starting point. An ordinance that requires tree planting is better than no ordinance at all. So, I'll just leave you with that because I did listen to him. See Attachment E, for letters to the Town Board regarding this tree law. Jenny Geer again addressed the Board, stating, if you look at the comments that he submitted originally with his recommendations, Mr. Ryman recommended the size of a mature tree that should be designated for preservation should be well under 36 inches. And in fact, in Pleasantville, where Mr. Ryman is working on a new law, the large, mature trees that they are going to designate for preservation start at 18 inches and larger. So, you're not actually following his recommendation, Ms. Geer pointed out. The Town Supervisor responded, saying that when I talked to him on the phone, he gave me a range of 24 to 36 inches. Then, the Town Supervisor asked the Board for a motion to close the public hearing. Moved by Councilman King, seconded by Councilwoman Katz, the Public Hearing was unanimously closed. Carried Town Board November 15, 2023 2. Designation of Town Board as Lead Agency and Adoption of Findings Pursuant to SEQRA Attorney Maker explained that the Board had in front of it an environmental assessment form related to this particular law. This form needs to be slightly modified, he said, because it was prepared before the purpose clause had been changed. In the paragraph in Part One, entitled "A brief description of the proposed action," the Board should only consider the very first sentence. The following sentences, starting with "this new law of strikes", should be deemed omitted. Similarly, on page six of the law, the environmental assessment form was not updated to reflect the change in the purpose clause. There are phrases in there that say, "and that sometimes trees must be removed in order for property owners to be able to achieve full enjoyment of their property," and these should also be stricken as they no longer align with the purpose of the law. Nonetheless, the Board, being the legislative body that will decide whether to enact this law, the Town Attorney Maker stated, should make this determination pursuant to SEQR. The first step would be to, based on this environmental assessment form, resolve that the Board be the lead agency for the review of the amendment of the tree law under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Therefore, the first action for the Board would be to address this SEQR issue. Moved by Councilwoman Katz, seconded by Councilman King, it was RESOLVED that the Town Board hereby adopts the Environmental Assessment Form and declares itself to be Lead Agency pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA) in connection with the amendment to Chapter 207 of the Code of the Town of Mamaroneck entitled "Trees". Carried Attorney Maker added, I'm sorry, I forgot one other part of that motion is to declare that this is an unlisted action with respect to the SEQR regulations. Attorney Maker asked the Board to please amend the ordinance to say now that in the resolution not only that you are declaring yourself lead agency for the review on the SEQR but that you have also determined this to be an unlisted action. Supervisor Elkind Eney asked the Board; do I have a motion? Karen Khor rose and asked the Board; can anybody speak up about this? Ms. Khor continued, stating I would like to challenge that it is being considered a negative declaration. I think it qualifies as a conditional negative declaration, because in fact, there are adverse environmental impacts from this Town law as has been discussed. And, Ms. Khor continued on stating, just as an advisor, an environmental advisor to the Town Board, I am concerned, and I would really urge you to reconsider. I think this really falls under the condition negative declaration, because under the condition negative declaration, you can, you know, recognize that there are potential and adverse environmental impacts. And you show that you have to mitigate. And we as we've all discussed, there are negative environmental impacts from clearing, from the current proposed tree law because effectively they'll allow us clearing tree from lots so that there will be barren lots where stormwater discharge will happen. Supervisor Elkind Eney responded, but Karen, it's up to our council. Ms. Khor stated again, this does not really qualify as a negative declaration, but at the very least is a conditional negative declaration, which requires you to consider mitigation activities and to have comments from the public. Town Board November 15, 2023 Supervisor Elkind Eney replied, as proposed, I believe it is appropriate to issue a negative declaration. Moved by Councilwoman Katz, seconded by Councilman King, it was RESOLVED that the Tree Law will not have a significant environmental impact within the meaning of the State Environmental Quality Review Act for the reasons expressed in the Negative Declaration, so as to make it an unlisted action. Carried 3. Consideration of the Adoption of the Amendment to the Tree Law Attorney Maker explained, now it is time for the Board to make a determination. If, in fact, the Board determines that this law will not have a significant environmental impact within the meaning of the State Environmental Quality Review Act by issuing a negative declaration. A draft of which is before the Board. It is supported by the reasons listed in that particular negative declaration, much of which has already been recited tonight. For example, the existing law only applies to lots of 20,000 square feet or more. The proposed law will eventually cover every lot in the Town of Mamaroneck. The law requires replacement of trees or payment into a tree fund. The money for that tree fund would be used to either plant trees, trees on Town-owned property, or to nurture the existing trees on Town-owned property by watering them, mulching them and so forth. Again, the number of replacements is not on a one-to-one ratio but is a two-to-one ratio if the tree being removed is between six and 12 inches in diameter, three-to-one if the tree being removed is between 12 and 18 inches, and four-to-one if the tree being removed is over 18 inches. In addition, as we said before, trees that have a diameter of 36 inches or more have additional limitations as to whether those trees can be removed. Again, there will be a limitation on the number of trees that can be removed in a given 12-month period, based on the size of the lot. The Town Attorney added, "I won't go over those numbers again. And there are periods of time when a tree permit cannot be issued because a previous one had been issued. For those reasons, the Town Board determines that this law, if passed, will not have a significant environmental impact within the meaning of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The Board should move to accept this negative declaration as prepared." Moved by Councilwoman Katz, seconded by Councilman King, it was RESOLVED, that the following Local law was approved: Local Law No. 10 — 2023 This local law shall be known as the "Town of Mamaroneck Tree Law". BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck Section 1 — Purpose: The Town Board finds and declares that the preservation of trees, as defined herein, within the Town is necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the Town because trees provide shade, impede soil erosion, aid water absorption and retention, inhibit excess runoff and flooding, enhance air quality, offer a natural barrier to noise, provide a natural habitat for wildlife, provide screening, enhance property values and add to the aesthetic quality of the community. However, the Town Board also recognizes that property owners have the right to develop, use and enjoy their properties. This law strikes a balance between the rights of property owners and the maintenance of trees within the Town. Town Board November 15, 2023 Section 2 —Amendment of a current section of the Mamaroneck Code: Chapter 207 of the Code of the Town of Mamaroneck hereby is repealed and the following substituted in its place: Chapter 207 Trees § 207-1 Legislative Intent § 207-2 Definitions. § 207-3 Regulated activities; permit required. § 207-4 Activities permitted by right § 207-5 Activities absolutely prohibited § 207-6 Permit application process; approving authority § 207-7 Tree replacement § 207-8 Period that must elapse before an additional permit can be issued § 207-9 Tree Planting Fund § 207-10 Issuance of permit with conditions § 207-11 Issuance of permit § 207-12 Suspension or revocation of permit § 207-13 Term § 207-14 Compliance with applicable provisions required § 207-15 Appeals § 207-16 Action upon completion of work § 207-17 Penalties for offenses § 207-18 Phase-in of this chapter § 207-1 Legislative Intent. The Town Board finds and declares that the preservation of trees, as defined herein, within the Town is necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the Town because trees provide shade, impede soil erosion, aid water absorption and retention, inhibit excess runoff and flooding, enhance air quality, offer a natural barrier to noise, provide a natural habitat for wildlife, provide screening, enhance property values and add to the aesthetic quality of the community. However, the Town Board also recognizes that property owners have the right to develop, use and enjoy their properties. This law strikes a balance between the rights of property owners and the maintenance of trees within the Town. § 207-2 Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: APPLICANT A person requesting a tree removal permit. APPLICATION A request to remove trees made pursuant to this chapter. APPROVING AUTHORITY For an application to remove 7 or fewer regulated trees, the Town Environmental Planner shall be the approving authority. Town Board November 15, 2023 For an application that requests a clearing or is part of either an application for site plan approval, residential site plan approval, subdivision approval, a special use permit and/or a wetlands and watercourses permit issued pursuant to Chapter 114 of the Town Code, the Planning Board shall be the approving authority. ARBORIST An individual who has demonstrated knowledge and competency as evidenced by a current International Society of Arboriculture arborist certification. CALIPER The diameter of a tree trunk six inches above the ground. CLEARING Removal of more than 7 regulated trees from any lot within any twelve-month period. CRITICAL ROOT ZONE The circular area surrounding a tree that must be protected from compaction, fill or trenching to attempt to ensure the survival of the tree. That area is determined by multiplying the diameter of the tree at breast height (DBH) by 18 and is measured from the center of the tree's trunk measured from the outside of the tree trunk. For example, a tree with a DBH of 12 inches has a critical root zone with a radius of 216 inches, measured from the center of the tree to the circumference of the circle that is the critical root zone. DEAD TREE A tree with a DBH of six inches or more that the Town arborist demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Environmental Planner, is dead or has been damaged so that it cannot be salvaged or is in an advanced state of decline (where an insufficient amount of live tissue, green leaves, limbs or branches exist to sustain life). DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (DBH) The diameter of a tree four and a half feet above ground level on the uphill side. DBH shall be recorded in inches. ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER The Town's Environmental Planner or another person designated by the Town Board to act in that capacity. EXCESSIVE PRUNING Removal of more than 25% of the crown of a tree within any twelve-month period. HAZARDOUS TREE A tree with a DBH of six inches or more that the Town arborist demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Environmental Planner, poses a threat to the safety of the owner of the property or members of that person's family or their real or personal property or to the safety of members of the public or their real or personal property. INJURY Damage to a tree foreseeably leading to the tree's death or permanent damage to the Town Board November 15, 2023 health of the tree, including a wound resulting from any activity, including but not limited to excessive pruning, cutting, trenching, excavating, altering the grade, paving or compaction, bruising, scarring, tearing or breaking roots, bark, trunk, branches or foliage or application of herbicide or poisoning. INVASIVE SPECIES Plants listed as prohibited or regulated by the New York State Part 575 list of Prohibited and Regulated Invasive Species contained in 6CRR-NY.V.C.575 or any regulation that replaces it. PERSON Any individual person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, limited liability company, organization or legal entity of any kind other than public agencies, municipal corporations and utility companies. PLANNING BOARD The Planning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck. PLANTING PLAN A plan that identifies areas where existing trees are to be preserved and where proposed replacement trees and other plants are to be located as well as areas of vegetation to remain after the proposed project is completed. REGULATED TREE A tree with a DBH of six inches or more, a dead tree or a hazardous tree. A replacement tree also shall be considered a regulated tree regardless of its DBH. REMOVAL Removal of a tree, includes not only the complete cutting down of a regulated tree but also cutting so that only the trunk, trunk fragments or a stump remain. REPLACEMENT TREE A tree that is required to be planted pursuant to this chapter. STRUCTURAL DEFECT Any naturally occurring or secondary condition such as cavities, poor branch attachment, cracks, or decayed wood in the trunk, crown, or roots of a tree that may contribute to structural failure. TOWN ARBORIST An arborist employed or contracted by the Town. TOWN BOARD The Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck, New York. TREE PLANTING FUND A fund to receive the payment of fees in situations where tree replacement requirements, in whole or in part, cannot be met on-site. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT A permit issued pursuant to this chapter. § 207-3. Regulated activities; permit required. Town Board November 15, 2023 A person shall be allowed to remove a regulated tree within the unincorporated area of the Town only if a tree removal permit for the removal of such tree shall have been issued. § 207-4. Activities permitted by right. The following activities are permitted by right: A. Removal of any tree that is not a regulated tree provided the tree is located on property owned by the person removing it or is being removed with the consent of the property owner. B. Routine care and maintenance. Pruning of less than 25% of the crown of a regulated tree during any twelve-month period is considered routine care and maintenance. C. Provided a tree removal permit is obtained in advance: 1 . Up to 7 regulated trees can be removed from any lot having an area of 20,000 square feet or more during any twelve-month period. 2. Up to 5 regulated trees can be removed from any lot having an area greater than 7,500 square feet but less than 20,000 square feet during any twelve- month period. 3. Up to 3 regulated trees can be removed from any lot having an area of 7,500 square feet or less during any twelve-month period. 4. Notwithstanding the foregoing limitation on the number of regulated trees that can be removed during any twelve-month period, a person also may remove any regulated tree that (i) in the opinion of the approving authority, substantially interferes with a permitted use of the property, or (ii) is a hazardous tree, or (iii)the Town arborist certifies to the satisfaction of the Environmental Planner that due to an approved cut or fill of land elsewhere on the property where the tree is located, it is reasonable to expect that the tree will become hazardous or die or (iv) is a dead tree. The Environmental Planner can dispense with a report from the Town arborist if the Environmental Planner can determine that a tree is either hazardous or dead without the need for a report. In making judgments pursuant to § 207-4 C., the approving authority shall act reasonably. D. 1. A tree removal permit is not required to remove a regulated tree for the protection of the owner of the property or members of that person's family or their real or personal property or for the protection of members of the public or their real or personal property when removal is necessitated due to an actual or ongoing emergency, defined as a serious situation or occurrence that happens Town Board November 15, 2023 unexpectedly and demands immediate action; however, the property owner shall notify the Environmental Planner of the removal and provide evidence as to why such tree was removed within 15 days after removal. 2. A property owner who causes a regulated tree to be removed due to an actual or ongoing emergency shall comply with the rules for replacing trees provided in § 207-7 and be subject to the fines imposed and the consequences that result from failing to comply with this law provided in § 207-17. E. A property owner will not be required to obtain a tree removal permit or to plant replacement trees if a tree on the property owner's property falls without human action. § 207-5. Activities absolutely prohibited. A. Except in situations where § 207-4 D. is applicable, it shall be unlawful for any person to remove a regulated tree without obtaining a tree removal permit in advance. B. It shall be unlawful for any person, other than the Town, to remove a tree within a public right-of-way or on Town-owned property without the Town's permission. No department, agency, commission, authority or employee of the Town or any firm or individual retained by the Town shall remove five or more regulated trees located within an area of 2,500 square feet, or less without first notifying the Town Board of its intention to do so. C. It shall be unlawful for any person to cause such injury to a tree so that it is likely that the tree will become a dead tree or a hazardous tree. D. It shall be unlawful for any person to remove a tree with a DBH of thirty-six inches or more unless it is determined by the Environmental Planner to be a hazardous tree or a dead tree or unless it (i) in the opinion of the approving authority, substantially interferes with a permitted use of the property, or iii)the Town arborist certifies to the satisfaction of the Environmental Planner that due to an approved cut or fill of land elsewhere on the property where the tree is located, it is reasonable to expect that the tree will become hazardous or die. The Environmental Planner can dispense with a report from the Town arborist if the Environmental Planner can determine that a tree is either hazardous or dead without the need for a report. In making judgments pursuant to § 207-5 D., the Environmental Planner shall act reasonably. § 207-6. Permit application process; approving authority. A. Any person seeking to conduct any activity listed in § 207-3 shall file an application for a tree removal permit with the approving authority. 1 . Applications to the Environmental Planner The Application shall include the following information: Town Board November 15, 2023 a. The name, postal and email addresses and telephone number of the property owner and the applicant, if the applicant is not the property owner, b. The street address of the property where the removal is sought, c. A statement from the property owner authorizing an applicant to make the application for a tree removal permit, d. A general description of the proposed removal, e. A planting plan based on the tree replacement requirements in § 207-7. The planting plan shall include the location of all proposed replacement trees, a list of all proposed replacement trees that identifies the species (by common or botanical name), size and quantity. The approving authority may waive the requirement to plant replacement trees, in whole or in part, if it determines that, because of site constraints, it is impracticable or impossible to replace certain trees, or where the approving authority determines that, because of relevant site planning considerations, tree replacement is not warranted. The approving authority shall require payment of a fee to the Tree Planting Fund to satisfy the unmet portion of tree replacement requirements computed in accordance with §207-9A., e. The name, postal and email addresses and the telephone number of the applicant's contractor, g. Any other information that the Environmental Planner deems is reasonably necessary in order to evaluate the application, and h. The fee required for a Tree Removal Permit. If work is commenced prior to the permit being issued, the applicant shall be liable for the fine prescribed by § 207-17 A. An application for a tree removal permit submitted to the Environmental Planner shall be approved, approved with conditions (§ 207-10), denied (for example, an application made during the period prohibited by [§ 207-8]) or returned to the applicant with a request for further information within 30 days of the receipt of a complete application. If the Environmental Planner requests additional information, the application shall not be considered complete until the Environmental Planner receives such additional information. An application shall not be considered complete until the applicant obtains all other permits (except a building permit) that must be obtained in order to perform the project that requires the removal of trees. If the tree removal permit is denied, the applicant will be notified in writing by the Environmental Planner of the reasons for the denial. If the Environmental Planner does not act upon an application for a tree removal permit within 30 days after the application is complete, the application shall be deemed granted and a tree removal permit shall issue. 2. Applications to Planning Board The application shall include: a. The items listed in § 207-6 A (1) (a through f); however, the applicant will not need to reproduce separately the items that it shall have filed in connection with an application for site plan approval, residential site plan approval, subdivision approval, a special use permit and/or a wetlands and watercourses permit issued pursuant to Chapter 114 of the Town Code and the required planting plan may be incorporated into the landscaping plan required by the Planning Board in connection with the above listed applications, b. Any other information that the Planning Board deems is reasonably necessary in order to evaluate the application, and c. The fee required for a tree removal permit. If work is commenced prior to the Tree Removal Permit being issued, the applicant shall be liable for the fine prescribed by § 207-17A. Town Board November 15, 2023 An application for a tree removal permit submitted to the Planning Board may be returned to the applicant with a request for further information. If the Planning Board requests additional information, the application shall not be considered complete until the Planning Board receives such additional information. An application shall not be considered by the Planning Board until it is complete. If the tree removal permit is denied, the applicant will be notified in writing by the Environmental Planner of the reasons for the denial. This law shall not limit the number of regulated trees that the Planning Board can allow to be removed for the development of a vacant lot. A lot whose principal use has been removed during the previous twenty-four months shall not be considered a vacant lot. Nothing in this law shall prevent the Planning Board from authorizing the removal of more trees than this law otherwise would allow if in the opinion of the Planning Board, it is appropriate to do so. B. Any site for which an application has been submitted shall be subject to inspection upon notice to the property owner and/or the applicant at any reasonable time, including weekends, by the approving authority or its designated representatives. By making an application for a tree removal permit, the property owner shall be deemed to have given its consent to such inspection. C. All items submitted in connection with an application for a tree removal permit, including the application itself, shall be maintained in the office of the Building Department. D. The Building Department shall maintain a record of the lots for which tree removal permits are issued by either the Environmental Planner or the Planning Board, the date of each permit and the number of regulated trees approved for removal by each permit. § 207-7. Tree replacement. A. Tree replacement shall occur on-site, except where the approving authority determines that, because of site constraints, it is impractical or impossible to do so, or where the approving authority determines that replacement trees would unduly prevent the use or enjoyment of the property or where the approving authority determines that, because of relevant site planning considerations, it is not warranted. If the approving authority determines that less than all of the required number of replacement trees can be planted on-site, the approving authority shall require the payment of a fee to the Tree Planting Fund to satisfy the unmet portion of tree replacement. B. The number of replacement trees shall be determined as follows: Two replacement trees for each removed regulated tree having a DBH between 6 inches and 12 inches. Three replacement trees for each removed regulated tree having a DBH greater than 12 inches but less than 18 inches. Four replacement trees for each removed regulated tree having a DBH of more than 18 inches. Town Board November 15, 2023 C. Replacement trees must have a caliper of at least two and one-half inches and must be a species selected from the list of approved species maintained by the Environmental Planner which may be updated from time to time. Except where the approving authority determines that it is impractical to do so, at least 50% of replacement trees shall be trees that grow to a height of at least 40 feet when mature. D. When 10 or more replacement trees are required, no single tree genus can account for more than one-third of total number of replacement trees. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized by the Environmental Planner, when specific conditions warrant such a change. E. Replacement trees shall be ecologically compatible with the site and neighboring properties. Invasive species shall not be allowed under any circumstances. Standards for transplanting of trees and shrubs shall follow the guidelines found in the International Society of Arboriculture publication "Tree and Shrub Planting Manual." § 207-8. Period that must elapse before an additional permit can be issued. 1 . There shall be a period of time when a tree removal permit for the same property cannot be issued. A tree removal permit shall not be issued for any property for which a tree removal permit was issued prior to the first anniversary of the preliminary letter of completion for the work done pursuant to such permit (see § 207-16), or in the case of a permit which does not require the planting of replacement trees, prior to the first anniversary of the deposit into the Tree Planting Fund that a property owner is required to make pursuant to § 207-9. The prohibition upon the issuance of a tree removal permit shall apply even if title to the property is transferred. 2. A tree removal permit may be issued within the time period where issuance of such permit would be prohibited by paragraph 1 of section 207-8, if the prior tree removal permit had been issued for the removal of a hazardous tree or a dead tree. 3. A property owner may apply for a tree removal permit during the period when this section prohibits the issuance of such permit if during that period a tree on that property becomes a hazardous tree or a deed tree. A property owner who causes a hazardous tree or a dead tree to be removed shall comply with the rules for replacing trees provided in § 207-7 and be subject to the fines imposed and the consequences that result from failing to comply with this law provided in § 207-17. 4. If a replacement tree does not survive for one year after the Environmental Planner issues a preliminary letter of completion, the Environmental Planner shall determine whether the property owner must plant the requisite number of trees to replace the replacement trees that died or may pay an amount into the Tree Planting Fund that equals the number of replacement trees that did not survive multiplied by $300.00 or a combination of both. Upon the issuance of a preliminary letter of completion after these new trees are planted or the payment into the Tree Planting Fund, the property owner shall be allowed to apply for a tree removal permit. If a tree planted to replace a replacement tree that did not survive for one year after the Environmental Planner had issued a preliminary letter of completion itself dies within one year of the issuance of a preliminary letter of completion for Town Board November 15, 2023 its planting, the property owner may either plant the requisite number of trees to replace the replacement trees that died or may pay an amount into the Tree Planting Fund that equals the number of replacement trees that did not survive multiplied by $300.00 or a combination of both. § 207-9. Tree Planting Fund. A. When a property owner is required to make a payment to the Tree Planting Fund, the amount of such payment shall equal the product of the multiplication of the number of required replacement trees that will not be planted on-site by $300.00_ B. The Tree Planting Fund shall be the fund that receives (i) payments from property owners who cannot satisfy tree replacement requirements because the approving authority determines that due to site constraints some or all of the required number of replacement trees cannot be planted on-site and (ii) the payment of any fine imposed by this chapter. In addition, any person may donate to the Tree Planting Fund. C. (1) Amounts on deposit in the Tree Planting Fund shall be used for the sole purpose of planting and maintaining Town owned trees, shrubs, and other permanent plant materials and other applicable landscaping projects on Town-owned property. (2) Proposed landscaping may include trees, shrubs, and other permanent plant materials. Planting and maintenance shall include purchase, transportation, mulching, watering, fertilizing, trimming, fencing and associated labor. The Tree Planting Fund may be used to fund other associated project tasks including the purchasing equipment to be used for watering plantings, the purchase and/or installation of irrigation systems to support plantings, design, tree inventory, construction of tree pits, and soil amendments that enhance and promote long-term sustainability of plantings. (3) If feasible, the amounts on deposit in the Tree Planting Fund first should be applied to projects located close to lots where tree removal has occurred. § 207-10. Issuance of permit with conditions. Any tree removal permit may contain such conditions as the approving authority deems necessary to ensure compliance with the legislative intent of this chapter. Examples of conditions that may be imposed upon a tree removal permit include but are not limited to, the alteration of the planting plan submitted by the applicant so that replacement trees are planted on-site in locations other than the locations shown on such plan or the imposition of the requirement to deposit money into the Tree Planting Fund instead of planting replacement trees on-site. § 207-11. Issuance of permit. No tree removal permit shall be issued until the applicant, or the property owner pays (i) the fees required for making the application and (ii) the amount required to be paid to the Tree Planting Fund to satisfy the unmet portion of the tree replacement requirements. Town Board November 15, 2023 § 207-12. Suspension or revocation of permit. A. (1) The Building Inspector, an Assistant Building Inspector, the Engineer, any Code Enforcement Officer, the Director of Building Code Enforcement and Land Use Administration, or the Environmental Planner may issue a stop-work order for violations of this chapter. Persons receiving a stop-work order shall be required to halt all land development activities, except those activities that correct the violations that led to the stop-work order or remove a hazardous condition. The stop-work order shall be in effect until the Town confirms that the violation has been satisfactorily corrected. Failure to address a stop-work order in a timely manner may result in civil or monetary penalties in accordance with the enforcement measures authorized in this chapter. (2) The Building Inspector, an Assistant Building Inspector, the Engineer, the Director of Building Code Enforcement and Land Use Administration, or the Environmental Planner may suspend or revoke a tree removal permit if the applicant has not complied with any of the material terms of such tree removal permit, has exceeded the authority granted in the permit, or has failed to undertake the project in the manner set forth in the Application. Such suspension or revocation shall be accompanied by a stop-work order. B. A stop-work order and/or suspension or revocation of a tree removal permit shall be delivered personally to the applicant or the property owner or sent by certified mail, addressed to the applicant at the address shown on the tree removal permit and sent by certified mail to the property owner at the address of the property for which such permit was issued. Immediately upon the receipt of a stop-work order if personally delivered or on the third day following the mailing of such order, all work being undertaken pursuant to the tree removal permit shall cease. § 207-13. Term. A tree removal permit shall be valid for two years from the date of its issuance unless a different term is otherwise specified by the approving authority. Tree removal permits may be renewed by the approving authority if a request for such renewal is submitted before the expiration of the original tree removal permit or a renewed permit. Standards for issuance of renewals shall be the same as the standards for issuing tree removal permits. § 207-14. Compliance with applicable provisions required. No tree removal permit shall eliminate the obligation of the applicant and the property owner to comply in all respects with the applicable provisions of any other federal, state or local law or regulation, including but not limited to the securing of any other required permit or approval. § 207-15. Appeals. A. If an application is denied or issued with conditions by the Environmental Planner, the property owner may appeal such determination to the Planning Board. (1) The appeal must be made within 30 days after the Environmental Planner shall have mailed the determination to the property owner. The appeal must be in writing and Town Board November 15, 2023 must set forth the errors that the property owner asserts were made by the Environmental Planner. (2) In prosecuting the appeal, the property owner shall comply with the notification requirements of Chapter 144 of the Town Code except that the properties to which mailing notice of the appeal shall be the properties that are within one hundred linear feet from each of the lot lines and corners of the subject property. (3) The Planning Board shall review the appeal at the earliest regularly scheduled meeting that allows the property owner to comply with the notification requirements of Chapter 144 of the Town Code and shall, based upon the standards contained herein and the facts of the matter, either (i) deny the appeal, or (ii) grant the appeal and direct the Environmental Planner either to issue a tree removal permit or strike one or more of the conditions attached to the permit that the Environmental Planner issued. The Planning Board shall file its determination with the Town Clerk within 5 business days after it is rendered. (4) A tree removal permit shall be stayed pending determination of the appeal. B. A property owner may bring a proceeding to review a determination by the Planning Board in the manner provided by Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. Such proceeding must be commenced within 30 days after the filing the Planning Board's determination in the office of the Town Clerk. § 207-16. Action upon completion of work. A. Within 30 days after completion of the removal of all trees for which a tree removal permit shall have been issued and the planting of all replacement trees, the applicant shall notify the Environmental Planner of such completion. B. Within 30 days of such notification, the Environmental Planner shall conduct an inspection to determine whether there has been compliance with all the terms of the tree removal permit. If the Environmental Planner determines that there has been compliance and/or the required funds have been deposited into the Tree Planting Fund, the Environmental Planner shall issue a preliminary letter of completion. If all of the replacement trees survive for one year after the Environmental Planner issues a preliminary letter of completion, the Environmental Planner shall issue a final letter of completion. If any of the replacement trees do not survive for one year after the Environmental Planner issues a preliminary letter of completion, the property owner shall replace the replacement trees that did not survive with a like number of replacement trees and the notification and letter of completion process stated above shall pertain to such replacement trees. C. If the Environmental Planner determines that there has not been compliance with all the terms of the tree removal permit or that not all replacement trees have been planted Town Board November 15, 2023 and/or the funds required to have been deposited into the Tree Planting Fund have not been deposited, the Environmental Planner shall so notify the applicant and the property owner. The notification shall include a list of items to be corrected. If the violations listed by the Environmental Planner are not corrected within 30 days of the notification, the applicant and the property owner shall be liable for the fine prescribed in § 207-17B. § 207-17. Penalties for offenses. A. Any person who removes a regulated tree without complying with this chapter shall be guilty of a violation within the meaning of NY Penal Law§ 10.00 (3)and upon conviction, shall be punished by the imposition of a fine of $300.00 per tree for the removal of trees having a DBH between 6 inches and 12 inches, $600.00 per tree for the removal of trees having a DBH greater than 12 inches but not greater than 18 inches and $900.00 per tree for the removal of trees having a DBH larger than 18 inches. In addition, any person who removes a regulated tree without complying with this chapter shall be required to plant the number of replacement trees and/or make the payment to the Tree Fund that the property owner would have been required to plant or pay if such person had obtained a tree removal permit. B. Any person who does not comply with a notification given by the Environmental Planner pursuant to § 207-15 C. shall be guilty of a violation within the meaning of NY Penal Law § 10.00 (3) and upon conviction, shall be punished by the imposition of a fine of $500.00 plus a fine of$300.00 for each replacement tree that the property owner failed to plant plus double the amount of the funds that the property owner was required to deposit into the Tree Planting Fund. C. Each violation of a provision of this chapter shall be a separate and distinct offense. In addition, any offender may be ordered by the court to replant trees that were improperly removed, insofar as that is possible. The court shall specify a reasonable time for completion of such restoration, the sufficiency of which shall be determined by the Environmental Planner. The fines remitted to the Town shall be deposited into the Tree Planting Fund. D. In addition of being liable for the fines contained in § 207-17A., any person who removes a regulated tree without having first received a tree removal permit or who does not comply with a notification given by the Environmental Planner pursuant to § 207-16C. shall be precluded from applying for a tree removal permit for the removal of trees from the property for which the tree removal period had been issued for the 12- month period commencing with the month that such removal or non-compliance with a notification given by the Environmental Planner pursuant to § 207-16C. is discovered by the Town. E. In addition to the penalties set forth above in § 207-17, the Building Inspector shall not issue a building permit, temporary certificate of occupancy or certificate of occupancy for any property on which a violation of this chapter occurred until such violation is cured. Town Board November 15, 2023 F. For the purpose of this section, the property owner also shall be liable for the fines and subject to the penalties imposed by this section due to the actions of any person who violates §§ 207-17 A., B., C. or D. § 207-18. Phase-in of this chapter. This chapter shall apply to lots having an area of 7,501 square feet or more on the ninetieth day after this local law is filed with the Secretary of State. This chapter shall apply to lots having an area of 7,500 square feet or less, on the first anniversary of the date when this chapter became effective with respect to lots having an area of 7,501 square feet or more. Section 3 — Severability: Should any provision of this Local Law be declared invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration of unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect any other provisions of this Local Law, which may be implemented without the invalid or unconstitutional provisions. Section 4 — Effective Date: This Local Law shall become effective on the ninetieth day after this law is filed with the Secretary of State. Carried Councilwoman Nichinsky stated, I just want to say that the writing of this law has been a long, difficult process. I personally have struggled with how to address the concerns of the community, and I know the other members of the Board have struggled as well. As I said before, this new law reflects a consensus of the Board, a back and forth, and months of difficult negotiations that those of you who have attended our work sessions have seen firsthand. The Board has listened to the comments, read the literature, and are aware of the issues. And they have made changes. I hear it is not enough for the people in this room, but the Board has made changes. And this is the legislative process in action. At the end of the day, I believe that this new law is better than what we have right now. And I appreciate the process of our Board, working together to make compromises that have improved the initial law that was proposed. Today, we have a law that only applies to 20% of our community. When this becomes law, it will apply to the entire community. And as Dr. Ryman has said, Councilwoman Nichinsky concluded, it is a start. Councilmember King said, I would like to say a couple things here. I've been listening at these public hearings, with the same people coming out for the last three public hearings. And I appreciate everyone coming out and appreciate the input that you have given everyone here on the Board. And sometimes I do take exception when the Board is accused of not listening or not working in good faith for the residents. You know, we have been accused of legal action. We have been threatened of being put out of office. We have had our names put on fliers. And I take offense to that, because it's no one here that takes his position lightly. We try to serve all the residents good, bad, or otherwise. You might disagree. You might agree. But it has been a very acrimonious development in our community. I myself have been in this community for over 50 years. My family and I live in the house I grew up in. I've been in this community, and not once have I seen the actions which I've witnessed through these public hearings. So, I am ashamed of our residents. I applaud you for voicing your differences. And you should never stop voicing your differences, but I take exception to the fact that you do believe that for some reason, we have a hidden agenda. That's never been the case. And yes, the numbers do not speak because the people are not here themselves to voice their concerns in terms of the other side, but be assured that at every meeting, be at the tree law, be at the rock removal law, be at a crossing Town Board November 15, 2023 guard, be the parking which might affect some people here, whatever it might be, this Board wholeheartedly looks at both sides of the equation. Thank you. RESIDENT COMMENTS Supervisor Elkind Eney asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Town Board. John Vox rose and asked why Town-owned trees are excluded from the recently enacted Tree Law? In the Village of Larchmont, Mr. Vox said, they recently passed a gas-powered leaf blower law that everyone has to follow including the Village. I'm just curious why Town- owned land is completely excluded from this bill? Attorney Maker responded, that there is a notification requirement to the Board for Town- owned trees, rather than a notification requirement to the residents. But I think the rationale, Attorney Maker added, is there are so many trees that the Town owns, on Town-owned property, that you can't just limit and say, okay, in 2024 the Town can only remove nine trees. It's just not practical. This was three trees that had to be removed. There are trees in the park that have to be trimmed and possibly removed. That's the logic for not including the Town trees. Mr. Vox responded, no one was informed about what happened in Memorial Park. And I'll just say now, there was illegal stuff that happened there. You didn't inform anybody about taking down 87 trees in 2023. If it is required with five trees to notify the public. You didn't notify anybody. The Town Clerk interjected, stating I am sorry, Mr. Vox, but I need to correct you. In 2021, the Town took down 17 trees Town-wide, and in 2022, we took down 26 trees on Town-owned property. So far this year, in 2023, we have taken down 45 trees on Town- owned property. Councilwoman Katz added, for the record I don't think we did anything illegal in Memorial Park. Michael Gottfried rose to speak next. Mr. Gottfried congratulated Town Supervisor Elkind Eney, Councilmember Jeffery King and Councilmember Anant Nambiar on their recent elections. Mr. Gottfried thanked Councilwoman Katz for being incredible in her tenure and for taking the time to support some of the students he mentors in the OCRA program. Next, Mr. Gottfried stated that he was in attendance at the meeting to address some questions he had about the sanitation allocation percentage in the tentative budget which had been published on November 14. Mr. Gottfried mentioned that in previous years, the tonnages used for allocation were included in the budget for review. Mr. Gottfried referred to a memo from 2021 stating there had been errors in the calculation for 30 years. Mr. Gottfried expressed confusion over the current allocation based on the enabling law and requested to see the numbers used for the 47% allocation. Mr. Gottfried emphasized the need to review the statute with legal counsel present, citing specific provisions of the law that outline the requirements for calculating and reporting the tonnage annually by December 10. Mr. Gottfried's main question was why the tonnage percentage formula had been locked in when the law mandates an annual calculation based on the previous year's data. See Attachment F. Additionally, Mr. Gottfried questioned the allocation when the numbers were not yet complete and suggested that the law includes all materials such as recyclables and organic waste. Mr. Gottfried noticed a $146,000 reduction in the garbage fund in the preliminary budget compared to the tentative budget. Mr. Gottfried wondered how conclusions were drawn when the books had not yet closed. Mr. Gottfried pointed out that the law requires the data to be from November 30 of the previous year, and adjustments for commingled routes and New Rochelle tonnages needed to be accounted for. Despite explanations that the numbers used were from 2022, Mr. Gottfried insisted that the numbers should be reviewed as of November 30, according to the law. Mr. Gottfried suggested that the budget should not be adopted on Monday and proposed that the tentative budget be presented to the Village board before adoption to allow residents to ask questions. Town Board November 15, 2023 Lastly, Mr. Gottfried submitted an item for the record on behalf of Brian Lobel. See Attachment G. Ms. Herbst, residing at 76 North Chatsworth Avenue, rose to address the Board next. Ms. Herbst's first concern was about the budget allocation for tree beautification. Ms. Herbst noted that in the prior year, $16,000 was allocated for tree beautification, but only $4,000 was actually spent. For the upcoming year, the budget is set at $15,000, which appears as a significant increase compared to the previous year's actual spending. Ms. Herbst questioned why the money was not spent as planned in the prior year and why the new budget is not higher than the previous year's allocation. In response, Comptroller Yogman explained that the upcoming budget includes $60,000 for tree maintenance and watering to ensure the trees' survival. The Board acknowledged that planting trees without proper maintenance would be ineffective. The Board plans to plant more trees and mentioned having received an offer for the potential gift of 100 trees. The Board also emphasized the need to address the watering and maintenance of trees to ensure their longevity. Ms. Herbst's second concern was about Memorial Park. Ms. Herbst and her husband visit Memorial Park regularly and were disappointed by the loss of trees due to a contractor's error. Ms. Herbst inquired whether the contractor would be held responsible for the damage and if they would contribute to replanting efforts. The Board clarified that the contractor followed the directions provided and was not at fault for the issue. The Board then acknowledged the need for more shade in the park and mentioned exploring options for planting trees or installing shade structures. The Board emphasized the importance of community input and are open to suggestions for improving the park. Ms. Andrea Hirsch rose to address the Board next, expressing her concerns about the acrimony resulting from the tree law and referencing Councilmember King's question about how the Town ended up in this situation. Ms. Hirsch pointed to the Town of Pleasantville, where community members and experts are working together to construct a tree law before presenting it to the Board. Ms. Hirsch mentioned a book published by New York State that advises involving community members, lawmakers, the Town Attorney, the Town Clerk, consultants, and experts in developing local laws. This collaborative approach is said to lead to successful lawmaking. Ms. Hirsch criticized the Town Board for excluding the community from the process of developing the tree law. Ms. Hirsch argued that the Board did not follow the recommended path and refused to listen to the information from the experts. The community, passionate about trees, felt barred from having any input in the law's development. Ms. Hirsch held the Board responsible for the resulting acrimony and emphasized that the situation did not represent democracy in action. Ms. Hirsch added that this process should be used for all laws. Including the public at the start, not at the end, is crucial. While it's fantastic that there have been three public hearings, they occurred after the law was already published. Starting at the beginning is key to developing a successful law with buy-in from all those involved. Supervisor Elkind Eney, interjected, Andrea, I want to address that right now. First of all, the Town Attorney said this is the process we follow when we create any law. We have public hearings, and we listen. We've had more public hearings on this law than any other. I totally respect and understand that you're not happy with the outcome. Again, this is a start; it isn't the only time we're going to address this, but it is a start. Right now, 100% of the trees in the Town will be covered. I understand it isn't the law you wanted, and I understand that you can be angry and unhappy about that. However, I think there's a difference between being angry and not being civil. Sometimes, I think it wasn't civil, and there is a difference. We certainly look at this as a starting point. Town Board November 15, 2023 This is the process, added Supervisor Elkind Eney. We've followed every law. That doesn't mean the process can't change in the future, but we did follow the process. I think we've had more public hearings and more public input than ever. There are people who are mad at me now because they think this law is too restrictive. You are an incredible organizer, and I respect that too. Going forward, we may do something different. I think all of us have learned from this experience. Andy said, and I was told not to say this, but he said it: if we lose civility, we lose a lot more than a tree. We all have to think about expressing our opinions civilly. A little bit of civility was lost in this situation, and that is unfortunate. We can amend the law, but civility is important. Maybe this is the lesson we all need. Ms. Geer added that Supervisor Elkind Eney needed to address another point. Ms. Geer wanted to hear what she should tell the 400 people who signed the petition asking the Board not to vote at this point, but to revise the law further. Ms. Geer emphasized her belief in civic engagement and felt that she would have to go back and tell the petitioners that their efforts didn't work. The fact that the Board took the vote immediately following the comments suggested to her that when the Board says they are listening, they are not truly hearing the words. It seemed that the Town Board planned to vote regardless of what their residents said. Ms. Geer mentioned that she was not at one of the prior hearings and now has 400 people wanting to know why the vote happened and expressed her lack of understanding. Supervisor Elkind Eney further responded, so I can address that too. First of all, again, this was a start; it doesn't mean that this is the end of the road. That's first. Second, and we discussed this, every time, we always vote on a law after the end of a public hearing. We did get comments, and many of them were the same comments. But at some point, we have to close the public hearing and vote. Supervisor Elkind Eney stated, we pass a law at the end of a public hearing. Jenny Geer asked why we had to do this tonight. Whether thirty people came or thirty more, laws are amended. If you say it is a start and will not go into effect for 15 months, when will we revise the law? We see how it works, and we will make changes. Ms. Geer then objected to the invocation about the "imaginary people", asking, "Where are they?" Councilwoman Fiddelman responded that there are people that called or wrote. Councilwoman Katz added, we can't keep a public hearing open indefinitely. The Town Board always votes after the public hearing. Jenny Geer suggested that the Town Board should have waited. Ms. Geer thought that the Town Board owed the public some time to educate them about this law that was just passed. Additionally, Ms. Geer mentioned that the Town Board needs to sell the idea that preserving trees is important. Supervisor Elkind Eney said the law limits the number of trees that you can cut down. The Supervisor reminded the audience and Ms. Geer that Andy Reinman was here and she spoken with him on several occasions. Karen Greenwald, who lives in the Town and is on the Tree Committee, spoke next. Ms. Greenwald stated that it was required that the Sustainability Collaborative be involved in this process. Ms. Greenwald suggested that, going forward, the Town Board should consider that. Ms. Greenwald also added that the Town needs to educate tree-trimming and removal companies, as well as real estate lawyers and salespeople, by sending them information so that they understand what they need to do. Ms. Greenwald emphasized the need to broaden the outreach. Supervisor Elkind Eney concluded by stating that she would ensure that landscapers would be notified via outreach, and that she would handle sharing the information with real estate lawyers and agents as well. BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS Town Board November 15, 2023 1. Call to Order Commissioner Elkind Eney called the Meeting to order, then on motion of Commissioner Katz, and seconded by Commissioner Fiddelman, the Board of Fire Commissioners was unanimously declared open. Present were the following Members of the Commission: Commissioner: Jaine Elkind Eney Commissioner: Abby Katz Commissioner: Sabrina Fiddelman Commissioner: Jeffery L. King Commissioner: Robin Nichinsky 2. Fire Alarms Commissioner King read the Fire Report for the Month of October 2023, as follows: ALARM TYPE NUMBER Generals 46 Minors 26 Stills 1 Out of Town (Mutual Aid) 1 EMS 54 Drills 3 TOTAL 131 Total number of personnel responding: 819 Total time working: 52 hours and 30 minutes. See Attachment H. Carried 3. Fire Claims Moved by Commissioner King, seconded by Commissioner Fiddelman, it was RESOLVED that the Board of Fire Commissioners hereby approves the attached list of fire claims in the amount of$7,987. Carried 4. Authorization - Fire Department Capital Budget Amendment Moved by Commissioner Katz, seconded by Commissioner Fiddelman, it was RESOLVED that the Town Board hereby authorizes the Comptroller to make the necessary budget amendments, as presented. Carried 5. Appointment of Michael Houghtaling to Fire Lieutenant Moved by Commissioner Fiddelman, seconded by Commissioner Nichinsky, it was RESOLVED to appoint Michael Houghtaling to the position of Fire Lieutenant effective December 1,2023, at an annual salary of$118,857. Carried 6. Other Fire Department Business Town Board November 15, 2023 There being no further business to come before the Fire Commission, on motion of Commissioner Katz, Seconded by Commissioner Fiddelman, the Commission unanimously adjourned and the Town Board reconvened. Carried AFFAIRS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK 1. Set Public Hearing - 2024 Preliminary Town Budget Moved by Councilwoman Fiddelman, seconded by Councilman King, it was RESOLVED that the Town Board does hereby set the date for a Public Hearing on the Town of Mamaroneck 2024 Preliminary Budget for December 6, 2023. Carried REPORTS OF MINUTES 1. Report of Minutes of September 20, 2023 Moved by Councilwoman Katz, seconded by Councilwoman Fiddelman, it was RESOLVED that the Town Board approved the Minutes of September 20, 2023. Carried REPORTS OF THE COUNCIL Councilwoman Katz • Reminisced about voting as a child, remembering going to vote with her parents and being the one to pull the lever • Missed the recent Larchmont Library meeting in order to attend a budget meeting with the Town Board. • Enjoyed attending the Veteran's Day event and noted there was a veteran in attendance that was 100 years old. It was great to see all of the veterans at the event and to be able to honor them. Councilwoman Fiddelman • Congratulated her fellow council members on winning their elections. • Attended the Veterans Day celebration at Mamaroneck High School, which was also wonderful. There were quite a few veterans in attendance. One gentleman described the difficulties he had in reintegrating into society when he returned home. He began writing short stories as part of a therapeutic process. He read a moving and powerful story to the assembled audience. • The next Larchmont-Mamaroneck Summit meeting will be on December 12th. It will be held in person at Westchester Jewish Center and George Latimer will speak about the County budget. • Wished a Happy Thanksgiving to everybody. Hoped everyone overeats and has a wonderful time with friends and family. Councilman King • I attended the Recreation Committee's monthly meeting last night. During the meeting PTA officials from the Hommocks Middle School presented requesting the use of the Town-owned fields behind the Hommocks during lunch time. Residents may not realize this, but those fields are closed to public use from mid-November to the beginning of April. This is typical of public land and parks throughout the East Coast, from Massachusetts down to Maryland. During the winter months, the grass is in its dormant stage, and although it may seem like there's no harm since the ground is Town Board November 15, 2023 frozen, it's actually the opposite. The Recreation Committee is considering allowing usage on a limited basis during the winter months. • Lastly, I want to thank my son and his friends who came home and said they voted for me. Even though they're only 11 or 12 years old, their support means a lot. Councilwoman Nichinsky • Thanked the residents who volunteered and supported us during our re-election, not just during our campaign, but by also allowing us to put out lawn signs and encouraging other people to vote. Even running unopposed, as we witnessed this evening, both sides of the equation matter. The more involvement we have, whether in support or opposition, can only enhance our position as a community. So, I thank everyone for coming out to vote last week. TOWN CLERK'S REPORT The Town Clerk Allison May congratulated the Mamaroneck High School Women's Field Hockey team for winning States. Clerk May thanked everyone that voted for her and said how honored she is to serve a four-year-term as the Town Clerk. TOWN ATTORNEY'S REPORT Town Attorney William Maker Jr. wished everyone a very happy Thanksgiving, noting that it is his favorite holiday as there are no gifts and the holiday is not attributed to any religion or due to any particular person. Was hopeful that everyone would reflect upon the good things that have happened to them. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Councilwoman Fiddelman, seconded by Councilman King, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Carried REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING - December 6, 2023 Submitted by Allison May, Town Clerk Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment A A Number of trees that can be cut in any two years Lots of 7,500 Lots of 7,500 to Lots of 20,000 sq. ft. or less 20,000 sq. ft. sq. ft. or more Last version (3, 7, and 9 3 7 9 trees; two-year waiting period) New version (3, 5, and 7 trees, so with now- 6 (2x3) 10 (2x5) 14 (2x7) one-year waiting period, twice those numbers) Increase 100% 43% 56% Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment B (..D What's Happening Locally? :A 2,200 Acres of 146 Acres Lost Tree Canopy Cover ^'75% "community" Trees Nearly all from "community" trees V' ° II' " tir A tal?' - ' i ) ,r, fir., .',4' .' i f i . Canopy Cover Change ,/ Canopy Cover (°/o) 2011-2021 (%) ma High: 100 mar High : 100 � 1 2 km - Low:0 a I z km Low:-100 i Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment C 0 ,_ SNOW TASKBAR id DISpIAY SETTINGS y 7j3 END SLIDE 5.:. Global Perspectives:Ecosystems&Carbon Sequestration Global Perspectives: Ecosystems & Carbon Sequestration e Monthly Carbon Dioxide Concentration �s' ,/ 410 Rate of Increase if entirely driven . ;' f��f I _ 1 bf 400 mo ;' �fv 390 _; . Ecosystem Processes �y04 380 • J 370 % �v�f°- 360 : e Yr0Jiii 350 gII 340 330 �yVY� - 320 ''"'r Scripps 0 anographis Institute 310 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 al :J 0 Slide 5of15 01 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment D November 15, 2023 Re: Revised Proposed Tree Law for the November 15, 2023 Public Hearing Dear Supervisor Jaine Elkind Eney and Town of Mamaroneck Board Members Abby Katz, Jeffery King, Sabrina Fiddelman, & Robin Nichinsky: Town Clerk Allie May The Town Board proposed treating different size residential properties differently in some respects. That is all fine and good with the goal of preserving "regulated" trees on all properties. However, the proposed Tree Law is basically flawed since the definition of clearing in § 207-2 below is applied equally to all sized residential properties: "CLEARING :Removal of more than 7 regulated trees from any lot within any twelve-month period." The number of regulated trees on smaller properties 7,500 square feet and less, is often less than 7 and sometimes only 1, 2, or 3 regulated trees. Therefore, on all properties, but especially on the smaller residential properties, the proposed Tree Law does not prohibit clearing of all regulated trees as long as there are less than eight regulated trees being removed. I recommend that the definition of clearing be revised by residential lot size because the code could allow clearing of any size residential property that removes seven of less regulated trees which leaves no regulated trees remaining on the residential property. No other permit would be required by the resident if only trees are being removed. Therefore, I recommend that the Tree Law prohibit the removal of more than 20% of the healthy regulated trees greater than 6" DBH in a five (5) year period, which would leave 80% of the regulated trees on any size property. Again the goal of the Tree Law should be to preserve the existing canopy, insure that the code protects the community from indiscriminate clearing, mitigates flooding and preserves the cooling effect in the spring, summer and autumn that trees provide to neighboring properties and the community. The 6" DBH requirement is added because after 1 or 2 years any replacement trees which are now"regulated" could be used as the 80% remaining, and the property owner could choose to remove those larger,taller, mature regulated trees that were not able to be removed "by right"the first time. §207-2 "APPROVING AUTHORITY For an application to remove 7 or fewer regulated trees, the Town Environmental Planner shall be the approving authority". For an application that requests removal of more than 7 regulated trees (a clearing) or is part of either an application for site plan approval, residential site plan approval, subdivision approval, a special use permit and/or a wetlands and watercourses permit issued pursuant to Chapter 114 of the Town Code, the Planning Board shall be the approving authority." Make it easy for the public to understand and incorporate the definition of a clearing directly in the paragraph above because people will ask, what about greater than 7 trees? Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment D (Cont'd) §207-17. Penalties for offenses. A. Any person who removes a regulated tree without complying with this chapter shall be guilty of a violation within the meaning of NY Penal Law§ 10.00(3)and upon conviction, shall be punished by the imposition of a fine of $300.00 per tree for the removal of trees having a DBH between 6 inches and 12 inches, $600.00 per tree for the removal of trees having a DBH greater than 12 inches but not greater than 18 inches and $900.00 per tree for the removal of trees having a DBH larger than 18 inches. The proposed fines and penalties in the Tree Law for not obtaining a tree permit or violating the terms of the permit with respect to the number of regulated trees approved for removal versus the number actually removed does not presently act as a deterrent to abuse and continued clearing of properties. As we know, tree companies or contractors remove "regulated" size trees that this proposed Tree Law addresses. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to have the tree companies and contractors ask to see a tree removal permit prior to commencing work. If not, then said company/contractor would be subject to fines which would act as a deterrent for the future. I propose that the Town can easily inform and put on notice the number of tree companies and contractors by certified mail, and or statement on the tree permit application and permit, that if they proceed without a permit or remove more trees than permitted with 6" or greater DBH, they will be subject to a fine equal to 5 times the invoice/bill/payment by resident of all services provided/charged to the resident. If the tree removal costs the resident, $2,000, then the fine would be $10,000. I assure you they will ask to see the permit as currently, the resident, who may not be informed/educated bears the fines. The problems currently in the Town are residents with 20,000 square feet or larger properties do not know they need a permit and tree companies advertise that they are in the neighborhood and can "clear cut" and remove any unwanted trees. Informing the residents in the entire Town and making sure that new residents who move in are informed, is a larger, time consuming and possibly more expensive task. If all residents are not informed, then the Town has not lessened the chances that clearing will occur on properties. Also, if a permit is approved to take down three regulated trees on a property less than 7,500 square feet, and then your contractor removes an additional three regulated trees at the same time, all with the 6" DBH, then your penalty is $900 = 3 x$300 for something you could not legally get a permit for and would have had to wait at least an additional 12 months to apply. If the three additional trees were 30" DBH, the fine would be $2,700 or 3 x $900. This makes no sense. These fines do not act as a deterrent and are counterproductive to preserving regulated trees in our neighborhoods and in the community. Yes, the replacement trees also need to be purchased and planted. A developer is not going to think twice about violating the tree law because there is no deterrent or fine in the proposed tree law that would make them think twice; it's just the cost of doing business. The $900 or$2,700 penalty to remove three additional trees, for a total of six on a property less than 7,500 square feet, represents a minuscule percentage of the sale price of the new or rebuilt residence in the Town. Enforcement of the proposed Tree Law for removal without any permit now rests with the residents to call in to the Town after or during the removal process. The current proposed Tree Law has no notification process prior to an appeal. Again another reason for the Town to hold the tree removal contractors/companies responsible for asking to see a permit before any work proceeds. They should be liable for paying all fines, tree replacement fees or tree fund fees required times 5 or the Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment D (Cont'd) actual cost of the total tree work, including pruning, and tree replacements and plantings, etc.) on the property times 5 charged to the resident (of course cash would disguise the cost), whichever is higher. These much higher fines/penalties would make the tree contractors/companies ask first, and act as a strong deterrent for removal of regulated trees without a permit or a permit that covers the trees to be removed on future work on other properties in the Town. The Town regardless of the final Tree Law has stated at work sessions that the Town should undertake an education outreach to all properties and/or property owners, renters, leasers, etc., in the Town. The excuse, I did not know I needed a permit, is eliminated if we hold the tree contractors/companies responsible for asking to see the permit,just like the building contractors. It is interesting to note that the words "preserve" or"preservation" appear only twice in the law, but the words "remove", "removed" and "removal" appear over two dozen times. 207-1 Legislative Intent "This law strikes a balance between the rights of property owners and the maintenance of trees within the Town." As Bill Maker, Esq. proclaimed at the hearing, "This is a tree replacement law."And should be a tree preservation law to seek to preserve the canopy and the character and environment of the neighborhoods throughout the Town of Mamaroneck. It does not treat Town property and private property the same. It is interesting to note that the words"preserve" or"preservation" appear only twice in the law, but the words "remove", "removed" and "removal" appear over two dozen times. 207-2 Definitions APPLICATION "A request to remove regulated tree(s)made pursuant to this chapter." Even a single regulated tree requires a permit and the plural implies, you do not need an application to remove a single tree. Therefore, either use parentheses or change the wording to: one or more"regulated"trees "APPROVING AUTHORITY For an application to remove 7 or fewer regulated tree the Town Envi •nrr}ental Planner shall be the approving authority. J For an application that requests removal of more than 7 - dated trees (a clearing) or is part of either an application for site plan approval, residential site plan app .val, subdivision approval, a special use •.ermit and/or a wetlands and watercourses permit issued pursuant t• Chapter 114 . a . = , "•:e, the Planning Board shall be the approving authority." Make it easy for the public to understand d incorporate the definition • a clearing directly in the paragraph as above because people will ask, what lout greater than 7 trees? Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment D (Cont'd) "EXCESSIVE PRUNING Removal of more than 25%of the crown of a tree within any twelve-month period." This is probably impossible to judge and/or enforce. Replace with prohibiting tree topping. Suggested language: The cutting back of the vertical stem (leader) and upper primary limbs (scaffold branches) of a tree, commonly called tree topping is strictly prohibited unless directly under utility wires. 207-5 B. "It shall be unlawful for any person, other than the Town, to remove a tree within a public right- of-way or on Town-owned property without the Town's permission. No department, agency, commission, authority or employee of the Town or any firm or individual retained by the Town shall remove five or more regulated trees located within an area of 2,500 square feet, or less without first notifying the Town Board of its intention to do so." This maybe 50 feet by 50 feet (2,500 square feet) and to have 5 or more 6" DBH trees (Why not also include fewer large mature trees that provide a canopy the covers the entire 2500 square feet) — e.g., One 38-inch diameter oak tree across the street has a canopy radius of 25 feet, area if circular of 1,963 square feet, but is inscribed in a square 50 feet by 50 feet and no other trees can be adjacent. Thus the town is permitted to cut down, instead of preserve 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 regulated trees with DBH greater than 6 and one tree of greater than 36" DBH. This does not preserve the tree canopy and the Town does not need to replant. And yet 207-5 D. "It shall be unlawful for any person to remove a tree with a DBH of thirty-six inches or more unless it is determined by the Environmental Planner to be a hazardous tree or a dead tree or unless it (i) in the opinion of the approving authority, substantially interferes with a permitted use of the property, or" But 207-5 B (above) allows the Town to take down 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 such trees. Do as I say, not as I, the Town, does" 207-5 B needs to be changed. 207-6 A 1 g and 2c "c. The fee required for a tree removal permit. If work is commenced prior to the Tree Removal Permit being issued, the applicant shall be liable for the fine— prescribed by §207-17A." The word "proscribed" I think should be replaced by"prescribed" because: prescribe means to instruct or dictate a rule for others to follow. E.g.,A doctor prescribes medicine for treatment. Proscribe, although it sounds similar, means to forbid something. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment D (Cont'd) 207-8 Use the section symbol and replace the word "deed" with "dead" Period that most viapse before an additional permit can be issued. I 'There shall be a period of time when a tree removal permit for the same property cannot be issued. A tree comma)permit shall not be issued for any propene for which a tree removal permit was issued prior to the first anniversary of the preliminary letter of rompletfon for the wink clone pursuant to such permit lice c 2P7-to,or in the ease of u permit which does not requite the planting of replacement trees,prior to the first anniversan of the depoiit into the Tree Planting Fund that a property owner is rrs1wosl to make pursuant to 3207-9.The prohibition upon the issuance of a tree removal permit shall apply even if title to the property is transferred. 2. A tree removal permit may he issued within the time period where issuance of such permit would be prohibited by paragraph l of am 207-8.if the prior tree removal permit had been issued for the removal of a hazardous tree or a dead tree. 3. A property owner may apply for a tree removal permit during the period when this section prohibits the issuance of such permit if during that period a tree on that property becomes a hazardous tree or a apisiltre. A property owner who causes a hazardous tree 207-9 C 2 "(2) Proposed landscaping may include trees, shrubs, and other permanent plant materials. Planting and maintenance shall include purchase, transportation, mulching, watering, fertilizing, trimming, fencing and associated labor. The Tree Planting Fund may be used to fund other associated project tasks including the purchasing equipment to be used for watering plantings, the purchase and/or installation of irrigation systems to support plantings, design, tree inventory, construction of tree pits, and soil amendments that enhance and promote long-term sustainability of plantings.' Associated labor should be dropped as the time may be also incorporated in other jobs, such as inspections of trees on private properties—where does one draw the line (only the actual time planting?Or driving around town and then planting a tree. Will the labor to review permits be included? The hearings and appeals? 207-12B "A stop-work order and/or suspension or revocation of a tree removal permit shall be delivered personally to the applicant or the property owner or sent by certified mail, addressed to the applicant at the address shown on the tree removal permit and sent by certified mail to the property owner at the address of the property for which such permit was issued. Immediately upon the receipt of a stop-work order if personally delivered or on the third business day following the mailing of such order, all work being undertaken pursuant to the tree removal..." Suggest inserting "business" as weekends and holidays, e.g., this week Friday town holiday, Saturday Federal Holiday and Sunday—bingo—you violated! Or excluding federal holidays and weekends? "207-15 A Appeals (2) In prosecuting the appeal, the property owner shall comply with the notification requirements of Chapter 144 of the Town Code except that the properties to which mailing notice of the appeal shall be the properties that are one hundred linear feet from each of the lot lines and corners of the subject property." If the permit application had been approved, neighbors would not have been informed. As part of the permit application, neighbors should be notified of the proposed tree removals and the 100 ft. distance including all adjacent properties, regardless of distance or direction, including those across the street. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment D (Cont'd) • § 207-17. Penalties for offenses. Any person who does not comply with a notification given by the Environmental Planner pursuant to§ 207-15 C. shall be guilty of a violation within the meaning of NY Penal Law§ 10.00 (3) and upon conviction, shall be punished by the imposition of a fine of$500.00 plus a fine of$300.00 for each replacement tree that the property owner failed to plant plus double the amount of the funds that the property owner was required to deposit into the Tree Planting Fund. C. There is no Section 207-15 C. Therefore, either add Section 207-15 C or correct the cite. The above are just some of the sections that need to be reviewed and internal inconsistencies corrected before the law is passed. Why have to amend this law, when this Board can take the time and correct the obvious typos, errors and eliminate inconsistencies in the proposed Tree Law. Please deliberate on the next steps to be taken in implementing a Tree Law that preserves and grows the tree canopy. This is paramount because as the Town recognizes that trees reduce flooding, keep our community cooler than it would be without trees, reduce utility bills, provide shade, screening, wind breaks, awesome fall foliage colors, a sanctuary for birds and cleanse the air we breathe, etc. and should be treat as the Communities' infrastructure. Respectfully yours, Mark Kramer, Town of Mamaroneck Resident Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 2:52 PM To: May,Allison Subject: FW: Proposed Tree Law Public Hearing From:Brian Lobel Eagagagallok Sent:Wednesday,October 18, 2023 10:09 PM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject: Proposed Tree Law Public Hearing NYC Parks Department plants over 13,100+trees so far in 2023 https://link.zixcentral.com/u/89b44600/pMrjd5Ru7hGVc w9sebghWu=hops%3A%2F%2Fwww.amny.com%2Fenvironment%2Fnyc- pa rks-p l a n ts-13100-t rees-202 3%2 F%23: Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android Links contained in this email have been replaced by ZixProtect Link Protection. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warnin•. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Flip through today's papers Things to Do v Borooc r-= v Casinos v Contact Os Games Dirgizat Editiocv_ Environment NYC Parks Department plants over 13,100+ trees so far in 2023 RELATED NEWS:-ZIP IT!judge gives Tromp gag order after ser. . X am By Emily Day( Posted on June 13,20: PIO r I' 7. . Photo via Getty Image! JUDGE GIVES TRUMP GAG ORDER AMR SERIES Of RANTS OOT5IOE MANHATIAN COURTROOM V E Sign up for our amNV cnnrtc crnail Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) THINGS TO DO IN NYC The New York City Parks ro s,_ rb e vFni Department is doing its part to protect the Big 4 •; s *' Apple's urban forest. . As of June 3,the Parks • "/Lary Department has planted 13,154 trees across the .44 city in the fiscal year of 2023, marking the 1,omorrowr, 10 am highest tree-planting total in the past six fiscal Fall-O-Ween years and marks two New York Botanical Garden consecutive fiscal years of tree-planting growth '`. across the five boroughs. •- '•'� . ;,., .:•„a • The department aims to �; : ''1•y `: plant a total of 14,900 — _ 4 %', jr- trees by June 3o. • RELATED NEWS:-ZIP Ill Jud... Oct. 26, all day REI.ATE)NEWS:-ZIP IT':Judge gives Trump gag order after ser... X "Since day one of tenure as Parks Commissioner, I] made it our missi continue our wor] protecting and ex the city's urban fc N., and today we are Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) NYC Parks °, A Commissioner Sue tf �� `�`k `�� ,- Donoghue. "Thanks to — - the ongoing support from • the Adams ri -? t{ Administration, our treer,11 a j — sr{ ,� � planting program,which 11 strategically targets heat- Nov. 4, am vulnerable neighborhoods,is the Family First Saturdays: Library Tour and Storytime at the Morgan most robust it has been •The Morgan Library& Museum in six years, and we will continue to focus our efforts on greening the Ji city and planting trees ` • where they're needed / most.,, The Parks Department is expanding on its Nov.4, 2 pm commitment to recruiting and A Year With Frog And Toad onboarding new 111 Empire outlets contractors,especially minority and women- i /,-I ED NEWS:-ZIP IT!Judge gives Trump gag order after ser,.. >C owned business enterprises. Since the Parks Departs has brought in se, minority and won owned contractor have helped incre pool of bidders fo planting contract: plant more trees n a I 4-Ho n4, rinnrlNr Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) ADVERTISING 1 Gig Fiber Internet $65 Imo. wfAWAo Pay C.P.p.il.ss&IL Yn.e ce....wun moo WOW., JOBS IN NEW YORK inow _+ Add your job N MDG Design&Construction LLC Section 3 Work Opportunity Additionally,the Parks W At Your Side Home Care Services Department has Home Health Aides continued to focus its MDG Design&Construction LLC tree plantings in areas of Job Outreach Opportunity the city that are heat- vulnerable View ail jobs.. neighborhoods. Guided by the Heat Vulnt FL.ATED NEWS:-ZIP it"i Judge gives Trump gag urder after ser . X Index(HVI),mor 5,7oo of the new plantings in FY2.3 planted in HVI neighborhoods. S HVI neighborhoo include: • Bronx: Williamsbrioge, L.I ladl Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Soundview, Morris Park, Norwood • Brooklyn: East Flatbush, Bushwick, Crown Heights, Flatlands, Sunset Park, Canarsie, Cypress Hills, Fort Greene, Stuyvesant Heights • Manhattan: Central Harlem, East Harlem, Lower East Side, Hamilton Heights, Manhattanville • Queens: Hunters Point, Sunnyside, Long Island City, Elmhurst, Laurelton, fr South Ozone Park, St. Albans, Flushing, I r' me Pros Woodside Fins4 E F:": The Parks Department expects to plant trees in RELATED NEWS:-ZIP IT!Judge gives trump gag order after ser... :� every viable place HVI-4 and HVI-5 neighborhoods b} thanks to $136 m funding allocated mayor's office for program. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) "This is a great step forward for expanding the urban tree canopy and advancing climate justice in communities with high heat vulnerability,"said Victoria Cerullo,Acting Executive Director, Mayor's Office of Climate &Environmental Justice. "These trees will improve air quality,improve our city's parks and open RELATED NEWS:-ZIP IT!Jvdge gives Trump gag order alter ser. . X spaces, and cool neighborhoods vulnerable to the of extreme heat." The Parks Depart continues to activ for more than 804 mapped trees,wh spread across Nei City streets and parks, Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Related Articles =' 'What's old is new City plans to chop again': NYC Parks trees for Ft. Greene celebrates the re- Park redesign, de- design of Waterside clines to say how Pier many Two New York City ,. Op-Ed Parks are • parks to become ; _,N critical infrastruc- free of pesticides - .,- ture— NYC's next with help from na- mayor needs to tional yogurt brand treat them that way RH A T t(7 NEWS:-ZfP IT!judge glues Trump gag order after ser... X t�t THINGS TO: IN NYC I'U L.I C.ALENDAl Mara truth araunu Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) V . Aa fII �i a r• , h. } le ' .. i I / 1' ram,` S i t jilt Bronx Times QNe Letter: IPAs can bring cultural City Council approves legislation to competency to MetroPlus tackle bus congestion on public streets of downtown Flushing _.- Brooklyn Paper Gay City News East New York apartment fire Clnceted env Inve r-lachoc with injures 12, with 2 i ATED NEWS:-ZIP IT:JL gE 8,ie ru ll;p._ ,lac-,. c e condition: Fl Contact Us Neiworkirry Fve c am!;Y v Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) eggworsomme. May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday,October 24, 2023 2:54 PM To: May,Allison Subject: FW: Planting a Tree From: Ralph Sent:Wednesday,October 18,2023 5:07 PM To:Aitchison, Elizabeth<EAitchison@TownofMamaroneckNY.orgs Cc:May,Allison<amay@townofmamaroneckny.org>;Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Re:Planting a Tree Since the cost to a resident is$350 to have the Town plant a tree,why is the cost to a resident who doesn't plant a replacement tree not at least$350? On Wed,Oct 18,2023 at 4:55 PM Aitchison,Elizabeth<EAitchison@townofmamaroneckny.org>wrote: The cost for a resident is$350 for a tree. Elizabeth Aitchison Environmental Planner Town of Mamaroneck 740 W.Boston Post Road Mamaroneck, NY 10543 14-381-7845 eaitchison@townofmamaroneckny.org Sign up for Town alerts! hops://www.townofmamaronecknv.ora/579/Alerts-Notifications i Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) From:Ralph<111111.1.11 , Sent:Sunday,October 15,2023 11:08 PM To:Aitchison, Elizabeth<EAitchison@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Planting a Tree If a person wants a tree planted by the Town on Town property in front of their house,and you approve the location, how much does that person have to contribute to the Town to get that done when you get around to planting trees again? Thanks. Links contained in this email have been replaced by ZixProtect Link Protection. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warnin to 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Ralph < Sent: Wednesday,October 18, 2023 5:02 PM To: Aitchison, Elizabeth Cc: Polcari, Richard Subject: Re:Tree law I certainly don't want to encourage the unnecessary removal of any tree, but the proposed law permits you to attach conditions to a tree permit,so all you need do is make the tree permit conditioned upon the prior issuance by the Town of a building permit for the project,and all other required permits,whereupon the traditional order in which things are done,with the building permit last,can remain unchanged. What needs to be changed is the wording used in the proposed tree law, plus innumerable other things about it. On Wed,Oct 18,2023 at 4:48 PM Aitchison, Elizabeth<EAitchisonC.atownofmamaronecknv.org>wrote: The tree permit should be held until the building permit is granted—why remove trees if the project is rejected or modified? Elizabeth Aitchison Environmental Planner Town of Mamaroneck 740 W. Boston Post Road Mamaroneck, NY 10543 914-381-7845 eaitchison@townofmamaronecknv.org Sign up for Town alerts! https://www.townofmamaronecknv.ora/579/Alerts-Notifications From: Ralph 1111111111111.016. Sent:Wednesday,October 18, 2023 9:14 AM To:Polcari, Richard <RPolcari@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> 1 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Cc:Aitchison, Elizabeth<EAitchison@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject: Re: Tree law Rich, Thanks for your quick response. What you wrote makes sense to me, and is my understanding of how it's been done forever, but the proposed new tree law, in the middle of page 7, says that, in order to apply to the Environmental Planner (Liz) for a tree removal permit, the applicant has to submit a complete application (which makes sense), and that "An application shall not be considered complete until the applicant obtains all other permits that must be obtained in order to perform the project that requires the removal of trees." That means that the building permit (and all other applicable permits-- plumbing, etc.?--must be obtained by the applicant before the application can be "considered complete", meaning before Liz can issue a tree removal permit which, as I see things, as to at least the building permit, has the order backwards. I have raised this issue with Jaine, and will do so again, but you might want to do the same, hopefully before tonight's public hearing on the proposed law, so that Jaine has a chance to fix this "chicken and egg" situation (such as by deleting that sentence, which applies only to applications to Liz, and does not apply to applications for tree removal permits submitted to the Planning Board). Thanks. Ralph 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) On Wed,Oct 18,2023 at 8:34 AM Polcari, Richard<RPolcari@townofmamaronecknv.org>wrote: That's an interesting question. I have always been from the school that all sub permits and approvals need to be issued prior the BP being issued. Richard B. Polcari Building Inspector Town of Mamaroneck 740 W.Boston Post Road Mamaroneck, New York 10543 (914)381-7830 rpolcari@townofmamaroneckny.org 6O� ys w� �p Z n 4.LA:H0+LL1 Sign up for Town alerts! https://www.townofmamaronecknv.org/579/Alerts-Notifications From: Ralph Sent:Tuesday,October 17,2023 6:12 M To: Polcari, Richard<RPolcari@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Cc:Aitchison, Elizabeth<EAitchison@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject: Re:Tree law Thanks, Rich. Liz is on vacation this week, and the front office was unable to answer my question. My question is: If the proposed tree law is passed, and an applicant wants to remove a Regulated Tree because it's the the way of his 3 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) project, which is to expand his house or build a deck right where the tree is, will you issue a building permit for his project before a tree removal permit has been granted (presumably by Liz) allowing the removal of that tree, or does he first have to get the tree removal permit? I assume it's tree removal permit first, building permit second, but I want to be sure. This may come up at tomorrow evening's hearing. Many thanks again. Ralph On Tue,Oct 17, 2023 at 4:11 PM Polcari, Richard<RPolcari cPtownofmamaroneckny.org>wrote: Ralph, Sorry I could not take your call regarding the revised tree law. If the front office was not able to answer any of your questions satisfactorily let me know if either Liz or I can assist. Richard B. Polcari Building Inspector Town of Mamaroneck 740 W. Boston Post Road Mamaroneck, New York 10543 (914)381-7830 rpolcari@townofmamaronecknv.org 4 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) - Sign up for Town alerts! https://www.townofmamaroneckny.orq/579/Alerts-Notifications Ralph M. Engel Ralph M. Engel Links contained in this email have been replaced by ZixProtect Link Protection. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warnin.. 5 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Elizabeth Poyet Sent: Wednesday,October 18, 2023 4:15 PM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind Cc: May,Allison Subject: Please revise the proposed town tree code Dear Jaine, I appreciate the fact that the town is trying to make a tree code but the document needs to go further.The Sustainability collaborative enumerated at least five points about the current proposal showing need for revision,and I agree with all five.And there are other points as well. I grew up in Edgemont and we came often to Mamaroneck to sail,dine,and shop.The tree cover in the town is much less than it was when I was in high school. And yet we need trees more than ever. Floods happen more often,and the roots of large trees prevent erosion and help absorption of water.The temperatures are rising and trees keep temperatures down,as has been proven scientifically. The insects that pollinate our flowers and our food are being decimated because they have no food. Bird populations are decimated as the insects that provide their food disappear,and the trees that provide them with seeds and insects for food,and branches and trunks for shelter,are cut down. Beautiful green leafy streets must continue to be an asset of our communities or they will lose value, both in terms of property value and in terms of the quality of life. New families moving in may not understand the importance of trees if they come from a city that had fewer of them.This is why it is so important for the Town to provide leadership in educating people on the importance of substantial tree cover for many reasons, including why they must endeavor to keep trees on their property when possible and understand why they may be asked to plant trees when removing trees, and limit trees removed over time. This is the meaning of true leadership.We hope that we can continue to look to the Town to provide this in the form of a Tree Code that will protect our trees and our community,and provide enjoyment,comfort and quality of life for all. With kind regards and thanks for all you do, Elizabeth Poyet Sent from my iPhone Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday, October 24,2023 2:50 PM To: May,Allison Subject: FW:last night's meeting From: Frank Buddingh'< Sent:Thursday,October 19,2023 11:46 AM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:last night's meeting Good morning Mrs. Elkind Eney Thank you for allowing me to speak last night. I was aware that there were potentially more people wanting to speak on the proposed tree laws. I was ever so surprised that the gentleman before me took to the floor for some 15/20 minutes,despite your announcement to keep submissions within the time limit. There is a lot to say about setting up treelaws,and indeed a submission can quickly spin out into a lecture,but my main objective was to keep with allocated timelines. A compelling argument to comprise all trees[irrespective of size and or ownership] under tree law protection is because of the fragile nature of our soil formation and trees are the predominant plant to prevent erosion. Planting trees is also challenging,and I agree with the previous speaker that smaller trees are more successful than larger size trees. At any rate,if you or your team wish to discuss particular tree technical issues more extensively, please feel free to contact me. I am willing to make myself available,free of charge, in the interest of a successful outcome of this tree law revision. Yours sincerely, Frank C Buddingh' 1968-2023 Fifty-five Years Dedicated Service to Irees Frank C Buddingh'MSc.FRIH Buddinghtree Consultancy LLC "Balancing the Needs of Trees and People" ment a iagnostics web:www.buddinohtree.com Office "One is ise o cu ovate t e re ears fru in our soul" Henry David Thoreau, 1817-1862 "Our environment cries out for a more conducive political climate" Frank C Buddingh' 1 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Links contained in this email have been replaced by ZixProtect Link Protection. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning. to`e, 'fit,. " ► Ma 4 1; 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday,October 24, 2023 2:46 PM To: May,Allison Subject: FW: fbn vga Imo r:, "TAM lwL From: Frank Buddingh' '� a' MOM Friday,October 20,2023 11:0 AM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject: Good morning Mrs.Elkind Eney, I am writing to you with some further thoughts on the change of the Tree Laws: I like to stress,once more,that all trees,irrespective of size,are bound by a tree protection law.I don't say this lightly, but in this case, I argue for such protection because of the vulnerability of the topographical land formation.We live on the rocks,and in various places,soil depth and,thus,available rooting space is only 6 to 12 inches!You can imagine that every root system put out by any given tree makes a crucial contribution to the stability of trees. We have lost way more trees than we gain because we allow urban development to take place,ignoring the sensitive and unique topsoil formation. I have seen many samples in the district where trees near the edges of rockface cuttings have been'cooked'during prolonged periods of drought. (Excessive)Removing trees due to house expansion,or allowing demolition of existing houses in lieu of larger constructions,has a major impact on the overall surface water householding,contributing to increased flooding. And, indeed,we are living in times where global climate change is evermore impacting us locally.We have allowed unfettered urban construction and seem to think that issues such as desertification and excessive flooding happen elsewhere but not here. The hens are coming home to roost.Something I mentioned in my presentation in 2007,when there was a televised local workshop on tree management organized by the Women's League of Voters. Tree ordinances,and thus placing restrictions on tree removal of privately owned trees,has never been a popular concept,certainly in this country,but we have only one environment we live in and,as it happens,trees are the most effective land preservation mitigatory. More often than not,trees are experienced as a nuisance and or a cost factor. I have for many years argued that trees,and at the very least those owned by the local authority,need to be valued as an asset and featured as a financial asset. So far they only feature as a cost factor. The minute they are placed on the asset balance, it is also acceptable to maintain that asset and annually increase the budget accordingly for tree management. It also steers away from reactive tree management to proactive tree management. Every year we don't consider trees as a 'stakeholder'in managing our landscape;we expose ourselves to evermore vulnerability as climate events become more extreme. With kind regards, Frank Buddingh' 1 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) 1968. -2023 Fifty-five Years Dedicated Service to Trees Frank C Buddingh'MSc.FRIH Buddinghtree Consultancy LLC "Balancing the Needs at Trees and People° T an ement and Diagnostics web.www.bu dinghtree.com Office omegis '!! TTs wise o cultiva e e ears ruit in ours * 1 Henry David Thoreau, 1B17-1862 "Our environment cries out for a more conducive political climate" Frank C Buddingh" Links contained in this email have been replaced by ZixProtect Link Protection. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warnin 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 2:39 PM To: May,Allison Subject: FW: Proposed Tree Law Public Hearing Attachments: 064.pdf From: Brian Lobel faraillillaraarph Sent:Saturday,October 21, 2023 9:24 PM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Proposed Tree Law Public Hearing Attached: Heritage Trees Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android Links contained in this email have been replaced by ZixProtect Link Protection. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warnin•. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) The National For More Information Register of Big Trees For additional sources of information about heri- tage trees,please visit arborday.org/bulletins and click on No.64. The nonprofit organization,American Forests,has long been a champion for champion trees.In 1976,it published the milestone Famous and Historic hep Trees Charles Tree City USA Bulletin ORDER FORM Randall and Henry Clapper to help commemorate our nation's bicentennial.Even earlier,in 1940,it began keeping Name an official record of the country's largest trees.Today,nearly Organization 900 species and varieties are in The National Register of Big Address Trees and most states and many communities have followed this model with official records of the largest trees in their City State Zip state or city. Phone To be eligible for the register,a tree must be native or 1 Issue naturalized,i.e.introduced and now established,reproduc- Bulletins Related to Our Heritage Trees $3.00 ea. ing and spreading naturally.Norway maple would be a good 2. When a Storm Strikes 2. $ example.Hybrids and minor varieties are not included. 6. How to Hire anArborist 6. 7. How to Save Trees During Construction 7. Anyone can find and nominate a big tree.If it is larger 8. Don't Top Trees! 8. than the current champion,it takes its place.Due to 9. Writing a Municipal Tree Ordinance 9. mortality or lack of nominations,there is usually a list of 12.What City Foresters Do 12. trees currently without champions.Determining the 14. How to Kill a Tree 14. `biggest'is based on total points in the following formula: 15. How to Recognize/Prevent Hazard Trees 15. 18. Tree City USA Growth Award 18. 20. A Systematic Approach to Building with Trees 20. Trunk circumference 1/4 average 22. Tree City USA:Foundation for Better Mgt. 22. (in inches)measured + Height(in feet) + crown spread = Total points 27. How to Manage Community Natural Areas 27. at 4 It feet above (in feet) 28. Placing a Value on Trees 28. the ground. 31. Tree Protection Ordinances 31. 33. How to Interpret Trees 33. 35. Protect Trees During Underground Work 35. f 37. Plant Health Care 37. 4." 4 38. The Way Trees Work 38. 4...-..,d { • w v 43. Selling Tree Programs 43. • /-• '� • '- uss.' j 49. Trees and the Law 49. xyi, 60. Learning Opportunities in Urban Forestry 60. 62. Help Fight Invasive Trees 62. t r < �- . - Tree City USA Annual Report lr ill\i ''ii Annual FriendTOe TOTALS: ee City USA $ • : ri; d 11 t .- Membership $15.00 $ y ," ._,, 1' i r' y" , Tree City USA Bulletin 3-Ring Binder $5.00 $ • % • k:' Complete Bulletin Set,in binders $99.00 $ s TOTAL PAYMENT:--.........................-.... $ �` 5 ka ""4. 'r Order Tree City USA Bulletins online at arborday org or ': t+'" '$ f send this form and mail with your payment to: t ao, f i x 1 Arbor Day Foundation, t 1 '. +,'"'5 211 N.12th St.,Lincoln,NE 68508 r `' �- 888-448-7887 .ri�( lir. '`- ti. (Make checks payable to Arbor Day Foundation) // `ti " , `{j ', 1599 064 7 I .. .4!.. r x ( i 1 '441 It r • ' • , • qT 50079701 c` r*;tea: r Tree City USA Bulletin Cl 2012 Arbor Day Foundation.John E. ti e r 4# de ss designer publisher;James R.Fazio,editor;Karina Helm,graphic CFo desi er.Technical reviewer for this issue:Dr.Michael Kuhns, t - a r "1 Extension Forestry Specialist,Utah State University. 8 13 Published for the Friends of Tree City USA by " Arbor Day Foundation® 100 Arbor Avenue•Nebraska City,NE 68410 The"General Sherman"is the National Champion of giant sequoias located in Tulare County,California. arborday.org t: SOY IN_ Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) The Live Oak Society Adopt Your Own Heritage Tree In 1934,Dr.Edwin Stephens,president of what is now the Is there a special tree on your property?Perhaps University of Louisiana in Lafayette,had a novel idea.To it was planted by a departed parent,or was a favor- promote the culture,distribution,preservation and apprecia- ite place to play in your youth.Why not adopt it as tion of the South's iconic live oak trees,he founded the Live your own heritage tree.See that it receives good care Oak Society.But this group is made up only of trees!To be to preserve its health.Consider adding a small sign nominated,the or plaque.By all means,record its story as part of tree must have a your family history. circumference of L" A good way to help save heritage trees of commu- 8 feet or greater. , • f' ► nity-wide importance is to call them to the attention The largest one of your city officials and the media.If your city or is president.Only # state has a listing of heritage trees,request that it be one human is per- 'r-, added. mitted in the Live 1 Tree boards that create heritage tree programs or Oak Society,ac- !;';:., publicity can qualify for points toward the Tree City cording to the by- -" . •�� USA Growth Award. laws.That person Ore' is the chairman and is responsible 4_a '� r r `w't h AW a n d for registering �� !r I u l O v Y and recording the " Live Oak Society members.There ' are currently over 'vil' - 1 7,000 members in Dr.Edwin Lewis Stephens with wife, 14 states.Long Alice,in 1936.His good idea is carried TREE CITY USA` live the Live Oak on today by the Louisiana Garden Club Society! Federation. e i /.F #$ Y r 3 if v 1 t ..,a 4.. 5 t s { . ' ...�. Tq� -r l ,,.+r W ts• Tr,- k�: : ' ,•- N i i *. . ., --N,...- . 41 a' Historic Candler Oak " i! a< Wir.F iigiL• j.�t 'R%, "p .4 K' ►�t• was added to the Y +, � au • '' + " -•,' .Historic Tree Register 47 , �' s° ' in 2001.Its 107-foot ry,.r " .. • •Q 1 r i iii �. ilr..� i, spread sheltered r i r _ wounded Confederate + a ,, soldiers and today is 'S ':- r under the watchful a i • _ .. h }\ - r�. care of the Savannah ' ` 2 d -- Tree Foundation. TREE CITY USA BULLETIN No.64•Arbor Day Founda[,on• Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Setting a Good Example Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -Margaret Mead One Man's Story —And a Tree Saved Rod Covey was shocked when he received a one-page they did.The removal order was rescinded and a symbolic notice that a large cucumbertree magnolia was to be re- representation of the tree now adorns the Auburn Knolls moved"within the next few days."Rod lived about 75 yards logo.Advertisements feature the harmony of luxury condo- from the old tree in a corner of the 34-acre Auburn Knolls miniums and the trees that surround them,a place'Where development in North Canton,Ohio.He soon learned that you make a statement without saying a single word.'It condominium association officials were nervous because two is because of people like Rod Covey who do speak up that limbs broke off during a storm.They claimed the limbs were many of our wooded neighborhoods and our nation's heri- "mushy"and promised to leave the stump"as a memorial" tage trees still exist. to the deceased giant. That was in September,2000.Today,more than a decade Rod Covey provides later,hundreds of visitors have come to admire the old information about giant that has more than 400 birthdays under its bark.In North Canton's addition,more than 2 million people have heard about the '_ cucumbertree magnolia tree recognized in the coverage. through mass mediaIt is (Magnolia acuminate) , National Register of Big Trees as the largest of its species 1 "r that he saved from in the entire world.And with every additional year that ;, premature destruction. the tree survives,visitors and media audiences learn not i The ancient tree is 79 only about the tree's impressive statistics,but also about feet tall with a diameter the benefits of trees in general and why they deserve to be of nearly 8 feet. It was protected. xa alive as a sapling when None of this would be possible had it not been for the r the Pilgrams landed at quick and forceful action of Rod Covey.At a meeting of the J '�sy��l;, Plymouth Rock. condominium association,Rod pleaded for the tree to be y' spared.To make his point that the fallen limbs were not "mushy,"he brought one to the meeting and pounded it on the podium.No mush issued from the solid wood!"Some- times a little theatrics work,"he later told a reporter.And p ! Savannah's Candler Oak —A Witness to History Savannah,Georgia,has a long history of protecting its evolved into a medical college.During the Civil War,the special trees.It all began with the city's founder,General site was captured by General Sherman and a barricade was James Oglethorpe,in 1733.This good gentleman from Eng- constructed around the tree to confine wounded Confeder- land was a humanitarian who sought a better life for the ate prisoners.In 1930,the Warren A.Candler Hospital was downtrodden in his homeland.When he came to America, constructed and operated for the next 50 years.By 1982,the he laid out a street pattern in the new colony that made old tree was showing the effects of stress and neglect.It was Savannah one of the first planned cities in the new land. that year that the Savannah Tree Foundation came forward There were 120 residents at that time and the struggles to make saving this oak its first preservation project. of settlement in the wilderness must have been intense. In 1982,the land was in private ownership but the devel- Nonetheless,the town trustees set aside a 10-acre central open generously donated a 6,804 sq.ft.conservation ease- square and open spaces in each quarter of the new city.But ment around the tree now known as the Candler Oak.That they went even further.It is said that they carefully left old was the first step toward saving it from the path of develop- trees in their midst and started a nursery to provide trees ment.Next came rehabilitation.Asphalt was removed from for the future.And they had a motto:"Not for themselves, the root zone and a comprehensive schedule of maintenance but for others." was developed by tree experts.Included were soil tests,wa- The city's Candler Oak is evidence that the founding tering,mulching and fertilizing.With care and monitoring spirit lives on in Savannah.This live oak(Quercus virgin- by the Savannah Tree Foundation,the tree rebounded and iana)is not the largest of its species,but it is part of local continues to charm tourists and provide eco-benefits to the history.It was already a large tree in 1791 when the land residents of Savannah. around it was dedicated for use as a seaman's hospital. The Savannah Poor House was also built there and this 6.TRU CM USA scuznN No.a•Arbor Day Foundation Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Protective Ordinances As with any provision in a tree ordinance,one that ad- considered by tree boards and city officials in municipalities dresses heritage trees must be written to be compatible with of all sizes.Below are examples from two of the more restric- the needs and the public will of the community.Nonetheless, tive ordinances. the identification and protection of heritage trees should be Definition/Designation Protection Menlo Park,California Any person who owns,controls,has custody or possession of any real property • ...historical significance, within the city shall use reasonable efforts to maintain and preserve all heri- special character or commu- tage trees located thereon in a state of good health...Any person who conducts pity benefit...designated by any grading,excavation,demolition or construction activity...shall do so in such city council. a manner as to not threaten the health or viability or cause the removal of any • Native oaks 10"dbh or more. heritage tree.Any work performed within an area ten(10)times the diameter of • Other trees 15"dbh or more. the tree...shall require submittal of a tree protection plan for review and approval by the director of community development...prior to issuance of any permit for grading or construction.The tree protection plan shall be prepared by a certified Portland,Oregon arborist and shall address issues related to protective fencing and protective tech- • The City Forester must an- niques to minimize impacts associated with grading,excavation,demolition and nually prepare a list of trees construction.The director of community development or his or her designee may that'because of their age, impose conditions... size,type,historical associa- tion or horticultural value" are of special importance to the city. • Upon recommendation of No tree on private property can be designated without the consent of the property the Urban Forestry Corn- owner.This consent binds all successors,heirs,and assigns.The ordinance further mission,the City Council states that it is unlawful for any person,without a prior written permit from the may designate a tree as a Forester,to remove,destroy,cut,prune,break or injure any Heritage Tree.No Heritage Tree provided the Heritage Tree can be removed without the consent of the Urban Forestry Commis- tree's health,aerial space, sion and the Portland City Council. and open ground area for the root system have been certified as sufficient. Safety First e � � 4 A difference between a traditional forester and an arbor- y` le } } ist is that a forester prescribes harvest cuts at an economi- . " , r :. .,P., L cally optimal period in the life of a stand of trees.The job of i�y,,1� an arborist is to extend serviceable life of individual trees a' ' Mek' t'„b- • �. as long as possible.This means that arborists and others ,, �. 4 ,y x� ' . ' who care for mature and over-mature heritage trees have an s'•` A. .. yy +i ;fe added duty to protect people and property from falling limbs on. p • Y. ,,-,-=1c- or failure of the entire tree.It is often a delicate balancing act a . y of trying to preserve aged trees while at the same time safe- ; .: guarding the public.In addition to regular risk monitoring x mi and pruning and other proper maintenance of the tree itself, MOW*, _ _ �`err _ some common practices to achieve public safety include: ._ - ""'•' ;i. f t • Fencing • Landscape design that keeps walkways and Heritage trees are precious,but so are people and their vehicles away from the tree property.Supports beneath aged branches or leaning heritage • Landscaping with hedges or plants that trees may sometimes be needed,but should be used in discourage foot traffic combination with fencing or other methods to keep people • Warning signs(ideally in combination with from climbing on or going under the tree. another technique) TREE ctrr USA auu.erw No.64•Arbor Day Foundation• 5 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) ProtectingHeritageour `Leave it alone'is not the approach that will save heritage trees.Instead,it is important to identify them,document the reasons they are special,and then provide protective care. Maintenance Needs The first step in maintenance of a mature tree is to have it prescribe treatment that is either corrective or preventative. inspected by a qualified,certified arborist.He/she can then Some of the common problems and treatments include: Soil Compaction Preventative action includes fencing and/or organic mulch.Correcting com- pacted soil is more difficult but is possible with aeration or'vertical mulching' (holes drilled at intervals and filled with gravel). Dead Branches Broken stubs are like'candy sticks'for wood-decaying fungi.These need to be pruned off using proper cutting techniques to facilitate sealing that enables the tree to compartmentalize the wound and prevent the inward spread of decay organisms.Similarly,unbroken dead branches should be removed with pruning saws. Special Pruning Needs Expert help should be enlisted if pruning is needed for line clearance or if the tree is in conflict with nearby buildings,walks,etc. Sometimes understory shrubs or grass need to be controlled in order to reduce Competition competition for soil moisture and nutrients.In some cases,shade-tolerant trees may be thriving and may eventually overtake and out-compete the heritage tree.Removal must be done carefully to avoid chemical or mechanical damage to roots of the tree being saved. Insect and Disease Pests Expert inspection is needed to determine when and if control action is necessary, ,, Lightning protection is expensive but warranted in the case of special trees. Lightning Installation is a job for arborists who have training and experience in this procedure.Periodic inspection and adjustment of installed devices is also necessary. An arborist works in the top ''`,,► \ 'M• �'4 °`��+ A. '�` of Santa Barbara,California's . 130-foot Torrey pine.After¢ t•� r :. '•' ''��` `' ` �y large branch failure,deadwood +q . was removed and large thinning - ,, , av w... , .- ;1("a' cuts were made to reduce branch ` r } weight.This local heritage tree ° � � � ` e ; was planted in 1888 in what 0 !.';; - a ,i ? ,,.y is said to have been a contest ' .,` % S ' R x,+ •r:. ; to see who could grow the most '- yr- .es . l ' '`. '''.. }• fr unusual plants.The pine has r%`it-2, fit .:d+� r!t certainly won,now the tallest .� '` „` 7 " ,€ of its species anywhere in the + ��. world.Torrey pine is a rare '* ';... ° - f` species,native only to a small "+` ij rat portion of California. %; `� '` T • .tt 4 1h f ' • xy 4•TAKE CITY USA BULLETIN No.44•Arbor Day Foundation Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) GainingSupportPublic Regardless of the reason for being identified as a heritage tree,its survival in the community is dependent on public understanding and support. Identifying Special Trees Explanations Can Defuse Trouble Some heritage trees are well known.Others are yet to be No tree lives forever and eventually it may become so found or named.In some communities,the street and/or park unsafe that there is no alternative to removal.And while tree inventory is a way to earmark the largest or most unusu- this may be obvious to tree people,the thought of removing a al trees.Another method is to sponsor a contest in which resi- heritage tree is often a red flag to the general public.Rather dents can nominate a tree and explain why it should be listed than simply placing a red X on the trunk or making an an- as a heritage tree.Except in extreme cases,heritage trees on nouncement about a tree's impending removal,it is far better private property require voluntary recognition of the tree. to provide an explanation of why it must go,what might be This usually implies the owner does not mind people visiting done to make good use of its wood,and-when possible-how or observing it from the street.Sometimes it means granting and when the tree will be replaced. the tree board permission to help with treatments to preserve x the trees health or even granting a conservation easement t to legally protect the tree and the space around it.Methods r,, vary,but identification is the first step toward protection- .'il '' * Hisiotical Preservation in Frogre>s and the more citizen involvement in this process,the greater '' '''" Mrs T."�""ws..'••�` •' e the chance for long-term support for protection. `, . 0 l' z,z s,;vl, " ° u° nom ''.g�A •'Is } r• r,,°:' a-v ' ro mean Informing the Public , y,7, F.,y a IWO.01 , j ,.LIT l Trees deserving heritage recognition need to be made V+ 4-- ` known to local residents and visitors.It is akin to the biblical a "'V 1, _ ttli teaching of not hiding ones candle under a bushel.The resultf. '• L4 u3 " i is not only enjoyment and education,but the power of public opinion can be a strong deterrent to a trees destruction.Bro- j .a? P chures and printed maps are the most common way to share _ ' / information about local heritage trees,but the electronic age �` 111:' _`• t: has provided some new approaches. '-o 1 d 1 The Coeur d'Alene(Idaho)Urban Campus arborist David Rauk knew there would be an 7 100?'„ "a Forestry Committee and Parks outcry when it became known that several historic trees 1�1c,- tiLP1- -�--y Department,with support from the were to be removed.In an exemplary move from the \ v \ - , Washington Water Power Company standpoint of public relations,David made a weatherproof .� and the U.S.Forest Service, sign and placed it in the lawn near the trees.The sign O."--; produced a handsome booklet and acknowledged the trees'historic importance,explained that r\ i? , location map.Following a general their dangerous condition made removal necessary,and � `x t map and introduction,each heritage promised that regeneration from the stumps would be used _ tree has a page devoted to it.This to`rejuvenate the historic trees.Not a word of protest was n ; Ewa-� ' includes a more detailed location expressed by students or faculty! P•r. map,a picture of the species'leaf - '3, -`--;.:" ' and information about the tree.The t name of the person who nominated _ it is also shown. `0 Heritage Trees c Technology now makes it faster to • Search for heritage trees and see them on (.1.-u update heritage tree information a map. c and make it available in formats • Tap a pin to see the name and view details 1 the current generation finds for that particular tree. w e%D ' convenient.These include websites • Take and upload a photo of a heritage tree s t and even apps for mobile devices. you are visiting. For example,more than 281 • View photos of the tree taken by other tree rr ' heritage trees have been identified enthusiasts. yoshieo cherry p in Portland,Oregon.Using a free • Email a friend about the tree. r app developed by Portland resident • Read more about the species at Wikipedia, * • `" . Matt Blair,it is possible to: without leaving the app. }BU CM ea BULBn=Na a•Arbor Day Foundation• 3 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) What is a Heritage Tree? The nature of heritage trees varies widely.Great size is easy to recognize and appreciate. Historical events associated with a tree also qualify it as a heritage tree.Less recognized features may be something like the northern-most palm tree on the Pacific coast,or a tree with genes that somehow enabled it to escape an introduced pest that claimed others of its species. It may be simply a blaze that marked an ancient trail or as subtle as Montana's medicine tree that serves as a sacred shrine to Native A ,,m eer�ricans. OW ,� Y. a (.,!...„:,..,,,.,.-„, -,, ,,,..,.....„..,..,,,,.:-,A. ., , ..-,,,,„,.„.„...„...„---...,,,.-.... . , 7 —4 ; ,-4 474 , Ak.,a,,otl. ,.....„ '. , & ,1 a�,o. i ..` S of L 4 h ` rl, F< I -t t " �"' ; �,' i�ig !',may7 J.a, is Icy 4' rx :'.€. •"rye h�'- 9 - �..• irin`p k, �, y4;;>. AM' •• ! , a t I , , s p o • F w r ,, Y .. , , This special tree that grows in San Saba,Texas,was once Eight Texans lie in a common grave next to the tree where featured in Ripley's`Believe it or Not.'Named the Jumbo they were hung by the Confederate cavalry during the Civil Hollis,it once produced the largest pecans in the world.In 1919 War.The Hangman's Tree stands as a living symbol of this Jumbo Hollis produced 1,015 pounds of them!Grafts from the unpleasant page in America's history. tree were budded to other pecan trees throughout the South. +r� 3 C , + ,a. , ' Trees of k .• y. . .:` unusual size - - L ... • . r are not only i-&lt an inspiration I :, but may m ' '^ ". - contain ,: c .: " 4-. . .: 1, r�, ' genes that 1 ,, o F '''. i 31 contributed to e ..• .. % F their longevity. - ' 'r � • ! Cuttings are' • I sometimes { , or "� t'-•:' made to a ' provide ° K r k 'ti 01., • progeny for 74 •FS; 2 k 111 , research or 0 • o commercial _ _ l '"� _-- cultivation. —_ Y = - : '` "'k This recently 1 r, f p ! r�I �'���' "" - _ , discovered ~ cottonwood Oklahoma City's Survivor Tree witnessed the tragic events of ;'r'' near Lindy, April 19, 1995 when a bomb killed 168 innocent people in the -'• Nebraska, Alfred P.Murrah Federal Building.In the days that followed, ,', may qualify alert citizens saved the tree from removal and arborists as a state • 'v champion for nursed it back to health.The tree stands as symbol of human rz° -;� P resilience and an inscription reads:"The spirit of this city a L. its species. and this nation will not be defeated;our deeply rooted faith • ¢ ,,_ }b,....`.. +•+.' _. sustains us." '! ` ' 2•TREE CITY USA BULLETIN No.64•Arbor Day Foundation Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) ,,, ,ro,.. Saving Our I Heritage Trees TREE CI USA `Extinction is forever!'The disappearance of plant and animal BULLS IN species from the face of the Earth is an alarming situation.So is the disappearance of special trees right in our own communities. 64 When heritage trees succumb to storms or old age,that is one thing.When they are destroyed by neglect,development or other human causes,it is quite another.Saving our heritage trees is No. a job for tree boards everywhere,but it is also a job for every Dr.James R.Fazio,Editor • $3.00 individual who reveres the past and cares about the future. The English poet William Blake observed, �# •.4"'^c `f 47x A "The tree which moves some to tears of joy is , x '`` .,,Ar in the eye of others only a green thing which K. t 41 r, 1. 'S' `' : 'e ,4 stands in the way"The truth of this statement is a�= w¢' .. �' .`,• '' r�y ?., especially tragic when it comes to heritage trees. F" r 4 ' . v,; s_: Heritage trees are those that are important s b 4, because of their great size,notable longevity, 4_,. .." '` • unusual form,location at the extreme of their ` natural growing range,or association with history Some,like those at Mount Vernon planted by n.' George Washington are of national importance. Others have local significance and these are found n b w d+ . in virtually every community. {' What happens to these trees is often a sad f '' story and one that is all too common.For example, i •, • there was an old Bartlett pear tree growing on rr ;-``s:+ems- .,.Y " d • r the campus of a state university.It was the last ttid` "K 0,- ,., "',`. a remnant of what had been a farm before expansion .1 of the campus.Bartlett pears are known for their l' a -fi, a` • ' long life and this one was still in fair condition.It '-• provided shade,species diversity,a little wildlife habitat and luscious pears enjoyed by the students. One day the campus planners decided that its e.'t little spot along the street would make a good _ - pull-off bus stop.Despite some objections and az• i `; p opportunities to place the bus stop elsewhere,the .'\ • r " .�„`w� _ ,rt ,_ 4 tree was cut down.With it went a link with the h 1t[` / �'` 1� a a tS 'w past and opportunities for interpreting history to M {r the current generation of students.By contrast, • ,, •• si' `.a I. we are heartened by stories like the cucumbertree i " o- magnolia saved essentially by the actions of a w '.{ g1, a • ` single individual as reported on page 6. Saving heritage trees extends a link across ' ` ''{ .A• generations.It helps develop values for things beyond the material,values almost of a spiritual The lwes of heritage trees are often prolonged because concerned nature.It also reminds us,as expressed by individuals,civic groups and tree boards appreciate what they have to Arbor Day Founder J.Sterling Morton,"Each offer in the way of inspiration,education and scientific value.Here Rod generation takes the earth as trustees."Passing Covey of North Canton,Ohio,speaks to a group called The Wanderers along a community's special trees is part of that that came to visit this champion cucumbertree magnolia. responsibility as temporary stewards. Published by ®Arbor Day Foundation" 100 Arbor Avenue•Nebraska City,NE 68410 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 2:37 PM To: May,Allison Subject: FW:Tuesday's Tree Law Discussion From: Ralph1111111111.110.6 Sent:Sunday,October 22,2023 11:32 AM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Tuesday's Tree Law Discussion Jaine, Please put on your lawyer hat in addition to your supervisor hat. These, to me, are the most important items that require you to deal with them, on Tuesday, before enacting the new tree law: 1. If you look at these matters as you, a lawyer, will see them, I think you will agree that the language in the first paragraph at the top of page 6 substantially, if not totally, negates the limits imposed by Section 207-5C. 2. I suggest that Section 207-8 be expanded to also include the removal of one or more Regulated Trees without a permit, and that it should preclude applications to the Planning Board for a significant period of time if one or more Regulated Trees are removed, permit or no permit. see a repeat of the sort of thing developers in Larchmont Village learned to do; in this case, it would be Town developers first going to Liz to remove 9 or fewer trees, doing what she approves (she has little or no choice under the proposed law but to approve), and then applying for site plan approval, residential site plan removal, subdivision approval or a wetlands and watercourses permit, thereby eliminating the Planning Board's ability to deal with trees that were (but no longer are) on the site 1 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) as part of its review of the landscaping plan that is a required part of all those applications. 3. I think that it should not be less expensive to contribute $300 per non- replaced tree to the tree fund than to pay the actual cost of planting the required replacement tree and guaranteeing its survival for a year (a minimum of $600, per Tony's Nursery), and that th e dwiftwitkiiiikid be sufficient to cover the Town's real cost of planting a tree in lieu of a replacement tree, which cost, per Liz A., is well over $300. 4. I think you already decided to modify the language as to when the Planning Board is to act in the event of an appeal, but what is the point of requiring notice to neighbors if the Planning Board is not to hold a public hearing about the subject of that notice? Whereas I do not agree with some speakers who claimed that neighbors should necessarily have a say as to tree removal on someone else's property, what's the point of giving them notice and then denying them the opportunity to have a say? As you will recall from your time as liaison to the Planning Board, the time when members of the audience have their say is at a public hearing, so, no public hearing, no say, so why give them notice? Lastly, as to this, what legal basis does the Planning Board have for refusing to issue the requested permit, except as part of the site plan, residential site plan, wetlands and watercourses and/or subdivision approval process? I am assuming that the Tree Law is not meant to remove the Planning Board's authority as to items that are part of those approval processes-- am I correct? As to Section 207-17, is it the intention of the Town Board to actually charge these fines to, and assess other penalties against, "any person who removes a regulated tree", "any person who does not comply with a notification" and "any offender", in each case without making it clear 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) against whom this is addressed? The Tree Law, except in Section 207- 17E, is not clear as to whether most of these penalties are addressed against the landowner or against the tree surgeon; I think that that needs to be clarified. Also, is it really the intention of the Town Board that Section 207-17D provide that "any person who removes a regulated tree without having first received a tree removal permit...shall be precluded from applying for a tree removal permit for removal of trees from the property...for a 12-month period", thereby permitting the landowner, since the landowner did not remove the tree, to simply hire a different tree surgeon to remove more trees, since neither the landowner nor the new tree surgeon is precluded by Section 207-17D from removing more trees from the property? In 207-17C, how is it possibly possible to "replant trees that were improperly removed insofar as that is possible"? [Emphasis added.] Unless the tree was very recently dug up, rather than cut down, which, unless it is to be replanted, which is rare, as the members of theTown Board know, it is not possible to replant it. Similarly, in 207-17E, how is it possible to "cure" a violation if the violation was the removal of one or more Regulated Trees? Furthermore, accidents happen (at my coop, last year, a tree surgeon was hired to cut down two good-sized trees that clearly were sick, but cut down the wrong two trees, and then came back and cut down the correct two trees [no extra charge!]--under 207-17E, my coop, not the tree surgeon, would be precluded from getting a building permit, or a CofO, forever, because there is absolutely no way to "cure" that violation, despite the fact that it was a really stupid mistake). Lastly as to this, most members of the "silent majority" you mentioned, most of whom pay no attention to anything local (they didn't even care enough to answer the Comp. Plan surveys, as Abby pointed out), not to mention substantially all new Town residents, will not even know that there is a Town law that regulates tree 3 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) removal, so that, in particular, 207-17E, which allows the Building Inspector no discretion to waive or even to modify that penalty, is draconian. Please really do consider all of these points while you work to at least partially fix the proposed tree law on Tuesday. Many thanks. Ralph Ralph M.Engel 4 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison " " ` r From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday,October 24, 2023 2:36 PM To: May,Allison Subject: FW:Tree Removal Original Messa e From: Sent:Sunday,October 22,20 M To: Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Tree Removal >Dear Supervisor Eney and Board, >Again,I want to thank you for extending the comment period and giving people a second opportunity to speak. >I was riveted by Andy Reineman,and could see that board members were also. I hope that any future discussions you have include him as well as the Sustainability Committee. >While I spoke, I wanted to submit in writing my thoughts and concerns. >It is troubling that there is not a certified arborist specified to assess trees,only the Town Environmental Planner.A certified arborist,not a tree removal service,or anyone who benefits in anyway from decisions made,would be of great value in this whole process.An arborist can evaluate the noteworthiness of the tree to the character of the community, the necessity of its removal and the effect of said removal on ecological systems,they also will distinguish an overgrown lot that might need clearing from a lot that has significant"heritage"trees. I think this would put homeowners who are concerned about being overly restricted at ease. >Another concern of mine is the lack of protection for existing trees during construction projects. I have been to town planning meetings when contractors have ignored their own proposals,and taken down many more trees than they had specified and been approved for. Furthermore,trees that are not significantly protected during construction frequently are damaged during that process and die within a couple of years. >I also think that the fines for disregarding the code need to be significant enough to have meaning. >As someone who grew up in the city,one of the things I so appreciate about living here is the trees.And while the proposed code,as well as the existing code,are deeply concerning to me,I have found that sitting in the meetings and thinking about these issues has made me look up more than I usually do. I cannot recommend enough that each of you take a walk and actually look up at the magnificent canopy we have.We are stewards of this land,not owners of trees. They were here before any of us drew our first breath,and hopefully will be here long after afterward.No one is thinking along the lines of Joni Mitchell's song, but it is resonating with me that"we don't know what we've got till it's gone." >Again,thank you,for listening to your constituents,and reconsideration of this code that has huge and long lasting consequences. Regards, Beatrice Weinberger 1 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison om: Ralph ellINIMMEIlamail ,.ant: Tuesday, October 31,2023 1:24 PM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind Cc: May,Allison; Meredith Robson; Nichinsky, Robin; Fiddelman, Sabrina Subject The Newest Draft of the Proposed Tree Law Attachments: Problems with the Tree Law 10-31-23.pdf Jaine and Alli, My (relatively) brief comments are attached. Please enter them into the record, and please circulate them to all appropriate Town Board members and staff members. I really do not understand why the drafts of this law are not carefully checked before they are made public. I fear what the Town adopted as its Wireless Communications Law without showing it to anyone, !specially since, unless there were major changes from the prior draft, the Planning Board is charged with trying to comply with it, and the prior draft had innumerable problems. I am hoping that the public hearing on the tree law set for Wednesday will be further adjourned, until a new, newly-revised draft is circulated. If it is adjourned, I would greatly appreciate being so advised ASAP. Thank you for your interest in the tree situation, but let's do it correctly, not hurriedly and hap-hazzardly as it is now being done. Thank you. Ralph Ralph M. Engel 1111..11.11111 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Problems with the Revised, Proposed Tree Law - 10/31/23 1. In Section 207-2, as to the definition of a Hazardous Tree: Every tree, dead or alive, can pose "a threat to the safety of the owner of the property or members of that person's family or their real or personal property or the safety of members of the public or their real or personal property." The language that provided for the unlimited right to remove trees has simply been moved from the top of page 6 of the prior draft to this definition. First, it is unnecessarily wordy. I suggest that all of that wording be replaced by "poses a threat to the safety of any person or property." That says the same thing, but more succinctly. Second, I suggest that the Town Arborist (I had no idea that the Town had a Town Arborist) be required to certify that the applicable tree "presently poses, or is expected to pose, a threat to the safety of any person or property in excess of the threat posed by substantially any tree." 2. In many cases, Town properties are owned by more than one "person", such as, without limitation, those owned by spouses, so that defining "Person" as: "Any individual person" excludes the owners of many Town properties from the restraints contained in the proposed law. Thus, I suggest that including the word "individual" before "person" is both unnecessary and counterproductive, and, potentially, exempts property owned by more than one person from the proposed tree law. Furthermore, due to modern estate and privacy planning, such as to "avoid probate", properties may well be owned by one or more 11 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) trusts. I thus suggest that the word "trust" be added to the definition of "Person" if the Town Board ("TB") wants the new tree law also to cover properties owned by trusts. 3. In Section 207-4C (i), the limitation on the number of trees that may be removed annually is increased by "...any regulated tree that...substantially interferes with a permitted use of the property...." The draft law does not specify who makes that determination, nor does it limit any Town landowner from simply stating that a tree, or trees, "substantially interfere with [his/her] permitted use of the property". Every tree in the applicable lot's "building envelope" certainly can substantially interfere with a Town Code-permitted use of the property. Moving that language from page 6 of the prior draft to this section accomplished nothing. As previously noted, if a landowner wants to sunbathe on a portion of his/her land that is too shady, this language permits him/her to remove the tree or trees that make it too shady. If he/she wants to put a swing set or a kiddy pool there, or plant flowers or vegetables that need a lot of sun there, he/she can remove the tree or trees that provide shade to that area, and do so in addition to the limited number of trees permitted by Section 207-4C. If he/she wants to put in a pool, or add a tennis court, or do anything else that is a "permitted use of the property (even if it is only a permitted use because he/she secured a variance from the ZBA), he/she can freely do so. This has the effect of eliminating every one of the tree removal limitations in the proposed new tree law, prior draft or current draft. 2I Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) 4. In one of the unnumbered paragraphs later on in Section 207-4C, I suggest that, in the second line, the words "can determine" be replaced with "determines". The Environmental Planner ("EP") "can determine" anything—she should at least be required to make that determination. 5. In the next unnumbered paragraph, the language requiring the EP to "act reasonably" is not only unnecessary, since every government official is required to act reasonably, but waives a red flag at anyone whose request is denied to commence an Article 78 proceeding claiming that, since there are no standards, the EP acted arbitrarily, or, if the request is approved, any neighbor or other interested party could do the same. Since the TB has not include standards for approving or disapproving almost any action relating to the tree law, why is the TB actively including language that encourages people to sue the Town, the EP or the Planning Board (all three of which are defended by counsel paid for by the Town)? 6. Section 207-4D, in its last (as usual, unnumbered) paragraph, again includes the unnecessarily wordy language that overrules any limitation on tree removal, but, to attempt to deal with emergency situations, states that, in certain situations, the tree removal can occur first, followed by the EP being informed of the reason why the regulated tree was removed. Yet the very next paragraph of the proposed tree law, Section 207-5A, states that "It shall be unlawful for any person to remove any regulated tree without obtaining a tree removal permit in advance". [Emphasis added.] 31Page Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) So, which of the two adjacent, but contradictory, provisions applies? Beyond that, since no advance approval is required, if a tree is removed due to a claimed emergency situation, what if the EP determines that "the reason that such tree was removed" does not qualify for the exception in 207-4D. Then what? 7. Section 207-5B states that none of the specified types of people or organizations "shall remove five or more regulated trees located in an area of 2,500 square feet, or less, without first notifying the Town Board of its intention to do so." It was apparently added to try to appease those who said that Town- owned trees should also be included in the new tree law. It, however, says absolutely nothing about what happens if the TB is not so notified, nor about that happens if the TB objects, since the removed trees have already been removed. Except in an emergency situation, what good does it do to notify the TB after the fact? Furthermore, any such person or organization can cut an unlimited number of regulated trees, so long as they are not in groups of five or more located within 2,500 square feet of one another, without having to tell the TB anything, much less obtain its permission. How are the square feet to be calculated? Whatever this paragraph was intended to accomplish, in my view, it didn't. 8. Section 207-5D sets special rules for trees that have a DBH of 36 inches or more. As my wife drove the length of the Merrit Parkway yesterday, and enough of the Hutchinson River Parkway to reach Weaver Street, while sitting next to her I noticed innumerable trees, especially in the median, with a DBH of less 4j Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) than 36 inches, that already were, or already were on their way to becoming, what we'd call "Heirloom Trees", but the proposed tree law does nothing to protect future Heirloom Trees (36 or more inches in diameter) in the Town, only already existing ones (however long they live), the result of which is that, over time, we will have fewer new Heritage Trees to enjoy, and from which to benefit, environmentally and otherwise. The 36-inch standard is much too high. Furthermore, that section deals with hazardous trees and with dead trees twice [see the introductory language and, also, subparagraphs (ii) and (iv)], which makes little sense to me, and, once again, provides an exception for any tree that "substantially interferes with a permitted use of the property" which, as set forth above as to Section 207-4C(i), means almost any tree can be cut, without any of the limitations contained in the revised tree law being triggered. 9. At the end of Section 207-5, in another unnumbered paragraph, the EP is again required to "act reasonably." This totally unnecessary wording has the same results as set forth above in paragraph 5 above. 10. The addition of the words "except a building permit" in the seventh line of the (again) unnumbered paragraph at the end of Section 207-6A is an improvement. So is the language at the end of Section 207-62a. 5I Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) 11. The language contained in the last unnumbered paragraph in Section 207-A significantly limits the ability of the Planning Board to carry out its functions. Whereas, as in the prior draft, a lot on which its primary use was removed should not be treated as if it were an undeveloped lot (at least not unless its primary use was removed many years before), in most cases an application that comes before the Planning Board is for a new house that is (almost always) both larger than, and configured differently than, the house (or other improvement) that formerly was on that lot. To properly site that house, to provide space for cultecs to collect rain water and keep it from flowing off the site, to safely site driveways and walkways, to permit newly-required screening to be able to survive and grow, etc. may well involve the removal of more trees than the proposed new tree law permits and, unless the TB wants to have the Planning Board rely on the "substantially interferes with a permitted use of the property", I suggest that the Planning Board not be constrained by, and be excepted from, the maximum number of trees than can be removed on a lot of a particular size. Requiring the Planning Board to abide by the limits on the number of trees that may be removed may well hinder the future expansion of the Town's housing stock, commercial space and multi-family housing and, thus, also prevent increases in its tax base. 12. The requirement that at least some replacement trees must be able to "grow to a height of at least 40 feet or more" is far too low to permit our Town to have a nice crop of Heritage Trees in the future, substantially all of which are well over 40 feet tall. 40 61 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) feet is a mere 5 feet above the permitted height of a one-family house in every Town one-family R zone, and will do little if anything to improve the Town's tree canopy, nor to stop the Town from continuing to look more and more like Long Island when it comes to trees. 13. As stated previously, $300 is far below the cost of purchasing and planting a replacement tree with a caliper of at least 2 %z inches and a survival guarantee of a year. The TB has clear evidence of that fact (query what it costs the Town to purchase and plant such a tree, and the Town can buy the tree wholesale?). Why does the Town continue to leave the payment for not planting an on-site replacement tee at less than 50% of the cost of the landowner planning that tree on-site? 14. In Section 207-12B, why is notice to be sent "to the property owner at the address of the property for which the permit was issued"? For buildings under construction, a notice sent to the address of the property will potentially never reach the property owner who, typically, isn't living there. The paragraph also contains nothing whatsoever about to whom that notice goes if there is no tree removal permit—it only covers if there is one. Lastly, if a stop work order is "personally delivered", why does it not take effect for three days? 15. In Section 207-15A(3), how is the Planning Board is to act "based upon the standards contained herein" when no standards are "contained herein"? Again, whatever decision the Planning Board makes can readily be attacked as being arbitrary, since there are no standards despite this subsection stating that there are. 7I Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) 16. Why is Section 207-15 included at all? Why actively invite an aggrieved property owner to "bring a proceeding to review a determination by the Planning Board in the manner provided by Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules"? 17. The new, unnumbered last paragraph of Section 207-17A is a good idea. Thank you for your interest is getting the tree law right, but let's get it right before it is presented by the TB for a public hearing again. Doing it the way it is being done does little to cast thee TB in a good light. Ralph Engel si Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) DeMuro, Laura From: May, Allison Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:19 AM To: DeMuro, Laura Subject: FW:An example of why a tree law needs to apply to the Town and why oversight is vital. For public record. Please see below. Alli Allison May,CMC Town Clerk,Town of Mamaroneck 740 W. Boston Post Road Mamaroneck, NY 10543 914-381-7870 Frequently Asked Voting Questions: • Am I a registered Vote and where is my Poll Site? • Voting by Mail: Absentee Ballots • When is Early Voting at the Town Center begins October 28th(Please note,there is no early voting on Monday,November 6th,the day before the General Election.) • What's on the ballot?View Sample Ballot(available after October 6,2023) **The Town Clerk's Office is open daily from 8:30 a.m.—4:30 p.m. Marriage Licenses are done by appointment,please give us a call at 914-381-7870 to schedule yours. For permits,other licenses and FOILs,we encourage you to visit our website for the fastest response.*** From:Arlene Novick Sent:Monday,October 30,2023 11:04 PM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org>; Katz,Abby<AKatz@townofmamaroneckny.org>; Nichinsky, Robin<RNichinsky@TownofMamaroneckNY.org>; King,Jeffery<JKing@townofmamaroneckny.org>; Fiddelman,Sabrina<SFiddelman@townofmamaroneckny.org> Cc: May,Allison<amay@townofmamaroneckny.org> Subject:An example of why a tree law needs to apply to the Town and why oversight is vital. For public record. Dear Supervisor Eney and Board Members, The following is an email I wrote almost 20 years ago, before I ever knew anything about a? \ tree laws. I am sending this as an example of why a tree law must apply to the Town properties as well as residents' private properties. It is also an example of why there must be strict oversight or there is no point in having a law. This letter could have been written today! July, 2004 To: Valerie O'Keeffe, Town Supervisor Dear Ms. O'Keeffe, Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) I am concerned about the procedure for the removal of trees by the Town of Mamaroneck on town property along the roadways. This town is noted for its beautiful trees and tree-lined streets, an 'mportant factor in making this such a desirable place to live. When there is a complaint lodged by a esident regarding a tree, the Town is responding by cutting down the tree without notifying the residents whose property is adjacent to that tree. Although this is within the Town's legal right, there should be notification for several reasons. First, there may be an alternative to cutting down the tree entirely, which has not been explored. There should be an opportunity for the tree's neighbors to address the death sentence. Another reason is that when a tree is removed in the spring or early summer, there is the strong possibility that there is wildlife in the tree, particularly birds nesting. There is also the possibility that there are plants growing at the base of the tree which may be destroyed in the process. The homeowner may be aware of any flora or fauna in or adjacent to the tree and can alert the Town or make provisions. In addition, homeowners should be notified for safety reasons, both for personal safety and for the safety of items on their property. Recently there has been what appears to be an excessive amount of tree removal and trimming on residential streets in response to complaints by individuals, some of whom may not even live in the immediate area. It is commendable that the town is responsive to its residents, and it is understandable that with all the publicity of the recent deaths from falling trees, the town is concerned about liability. But most trees that fall are basically healthy with a full leafy canopy. If a tree poses a -eal danger, it should be trimmed or removed, but a tree that is not perfectly vertical does not warrant rutting, and neither does a maple tree with a root system growing normally close to the surface. I have been told that decisions about tree removal are made by the tree removal crew. The highway supervisor does not necessarily personally inspect each tree before it is cut, and the Conservation Department is involved in the planting and not the removal of tr1MM0 • We're all aware of the benefits of our trees. Old growth trees form a canopy which shades our streets and our homes, keeping our homes cooler in summer, thereby reducing energy consumption. They prevent erosion and flooding and subsequent pollution of the Sound. They provide the habitat for wildlife which we all enjoy. Replacing old growth trees with young ones sets us all back. When it comes to nature, our definition of perfect may not be so. If we want plastic palm trees, we can head to Las Vegas. It's too late for the lovely maple tree that shaded my driveway for more than the twenty years I have lived here. I was shocked to open my front door one morning several weeks ago to find a man in a cherry picker sawing through most of the tree. In a very short time the whole tree was gone. You have been very responsive to the environmental needs of this community for a long time. Thank you for looking into this matter. I would be happy to discuss it with you if that would be helpful. Sincerely yours, Arlene Novich Town of Mamaroneck 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison rom: Robert Novich 4111111111.11111111.1.. Monday,October 30, 2023 8:11 PM To: May,Allison; Eney,Jaine Elkind Subject: Tree Code Dear Supervisor Jane Elkind Eney and Town of Mamaroneck Board Members Abby Katz, Jeffery King, Sabrina Fiddelman and Robin Nichinsky, I have lived in the town of Mamaroneck for 40 years. I love the community. Over the years I trained for many marathons by jogging throughout our community. What I appreciated most were the beautiful trees. When I was 10, we had a small summer home and there I built a clubhouse with some leftover wood but needed additional wood so I cut down several young trees. I thought I was resourceful, and when I told my father and grandfather about what I had done expecting some positive recognition, what I received was quite the opposite. They strongly disapproved of cutting down trees and chastised me for it. The area was heavily wooded and I thought the few trees wouldn't have been noticed but it didn't matter.The lesson I learned was that it was wrong to cut down trees and that trees were sacred. My father and grandfather had barely a 6th grade education, they were immigrants from Europe, they were not farmers yet they knew the value of trees. Needless to say I never cut down another tree. The new tree code is not a tree code .Despite your one year effort, it barely deserves an F+/D-. It enables anyone to cut down anything after they get a permit. This is not acceptable and is pointless.. The board is not competent in this area and needs to go back to do their due diligence, utilize nowledgeable consultants, meet with the tree committee and hammer out a real proposal that serves .,ie needs of our community. Sincerely, Robert K Novich Town of Mamaroneck Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Problems with the Revised, Proposed Tree Law - 10/31/23 1. In Section 207-2, as to the definition of a Hazardous Tree: Every tree, dead or alive, can pose "a threat to the safety of the owner of the property or members of that person's family or their real or personal property or the safety of members of the public or their real or personal property." The language that provided for the unlimited right to remove trees has simply been moved from the top of page 6 of the prior draft to this definition. First, it is unnecessarily wordy. I suggest that all of that wording be replaced by "poses a threat to the safety of any person or property." That says the same thing, but more succinctly. Second, I suggest that the Town Arborist (I had no idea that the Town had a Town Arborist) be required to certify that the applicable tree "presently poses, or is expected to pose, a threat to the safety of any person or property in excess of the threat posed by substantially any tree." 2. In many cases, Town properties are owned by more than one "person", such as, without limitation, those owned by spouses, so that defining "Person" as: "Any individual person" excludes the owners of many Town properties from the restraints contained in the proposed law. Thus, I suggest that including the word "individual" before "person" is both unnecessary and counterproductive, and, potentially, exempts property owned by more than one person from the proposed tree law. Furthermore, due to modern estate and privacy planning, such as to "avoid probate", properties may well be owned by one or more it Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) trusts. I thus suggest that the word "trust" be added to the definition of "Person" if the Town Board ("TB") wants the new tree law also to cover properties owned by trusts. 3. In Section 207-4C (i), the limitation on the number of trees that may be removed annually is increased by "...any regulated tree that...substantially interferes with a permitted use of the property...." The draft law does not specify who makes that determination, nor does it limit any Town landowner from simply stating that a tree, or trees, "substantially interfere with [his/her] permitted use of the property". Every tree in the applicable lot's "building envelope" certainly can substantially interfere with a Town Code-permitted use of the property. Moving that language from page 6 of the prior draft to this section accomplished nothing. As previously noted, if a landowner wants to sunbathe on a portion of his/her land that is too shady, this language permits him/her to remove the tree or trees that make it too shady. If he/she wants to put a swing set or a kiddy pool there, or plant flowers or vegetables that need a lot of sun there, he/she can remove the tree or trees that provide shade to that area, and do so in addition to the limited number of trees permitted by Section 207-4C. If he/she wants to put in a pool, or add a tennis court, or do anything else that is a "permitted use of the property (even if it is only a permitted use because he/she secured a variance from the ZBA), he/she can freely do so. This has the effect of eliminating every one of the tree removal limitations in the proposed new tree law, prior draft or current draft. 2IF> F Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) 4. In one of the unnumbered paragraphs later on in Section 207-4C, I suggest that, in the second line, the words "can determine" be replaced with "determines". The Environmental Planner ("EP") "can determine" anything—she should at least be required to make that determination. 5. In the next unnumbered paragraph, the language requiring the EP to "act reasonably" is not only unnecessary, since every government official is required to act reasonably, but waives a red flag at anyone whose request is denied to commence an Article 78 proceeding claiming that, since there are no standards, the EP acted arbitrarily, or, if the request is approved, any neighbor or other interested party could do the same. Since the TB has not include standards for approving or disapproving almost any action relating to the tree law, why is the TB actively including language that encourages people to sue the Town, the EP or the Planning Board (all three of which are defended by counsel paid for by the Town)? 6. Section 207-4D, in its last (as usual, unnumbered) paragraph, again includes the unnecessarily wordy language that overrules any limitation on tree removal, but, to attempt to deal with emergency situations, states that, in certain situations, the tree removal can occur first, followed by the EP being informed of the reason why the regulated tree was removed. Yet the very next paragraph of the proposed tree law, Section 207-5A, states that "It shall be unlawful for any person to remove any regulated tree without obtaining a tree removal permit in advance". [Emphasis added.] 31 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) So, which of the two adjacent, but contradictory, provisions applies? Beyond that, since no advance approval is required, if a tree is removed due to a claimed emergency situation, what if the EP determines that "the reason that such tree was removed" does not qualify for the exception in 207-4D. Then what? 7. Section 207-5B states that none of the specified types of people or organizations "shall remove five or more regulated trees located in an area of 2,500 square feet, or less, without first notifying the Town Board of its intention to do so." It was apparently added to try to appease those who said that Town- owned trees should also be included in the new tree law. It, however, says absolutely nothing about what happens if the TB is not so notified, nor about that happens if the TB objects, since the removed trees have already been removed. Except in an emergency situation, what good does it do to notify the TB after the fact? Furthermore, any such person or organization can cut an unlimited number of regulated trees, so long as they are not in groups of five or more located within 2,500 square feet of one another, without having to tell the TB anything, much less obtain its permission. How are the square feet to be calculated? Whatever this paragraph was intended to accomplish, in my view, it didn't. 8. Section 207-5D sets special rules for trees that have a DBH of 36 inches or more. As my wife drove the length of the Merrit Parkway yesterday, and enough of the Hutchinson River Parkway to reach Weaver Street, while sitting next to her I noticed innumerable trees, especially in the median, with a DBH of less Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) than 36 inches, that already were, or already were on their way to becoming, what we'd call "Heirloom Trees", but the proposed tree law does nothing to protect future Heirloom Trees (36 or more inches in diameter) in the Town, only already existing ones (however long they live), the result of which is that, over time, we will have fewer new Heritage Trees to enjoy, and from which to benefit, environmentally and otherwise. The 36-inch standard is much too high. Furthermore, that section deals with hazardous trees and with dead trees twice [see the introductory language and, also, subparagraphs (ii) and (iv)], which makes little sense to me, and, once again, provides an exception for any tree that "substantially interferes with a permitted use of the property" which, as set forth above as to Section 207-4C(i), means almost any tree can be cut, without any of the limitations contained in the revised tree law being triggered. 9. At the end of Section 207-5, in another unnumbered paragraph, the EP is again required to "act reasonably." This totally unnecessary wording has the same results as set forth above in paragraph 5 above. 10. The addition of the words "except a building permit" in the seventh line of the (again) unnumbered paragraph at the end of Section 207-6A is an improvement. So is the language at the end of Section 207-62a. 5I Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) 11. The language contained in the last unnumbered paragraph in Section 207-A significantly limits the ability of the Planning Board to carry out its functions. Whereas, as in the prior draft, a lot on which its primary use was removed should not be treated as if it were an undeveloped lot (at least not unless its primary use was removed many years before), in most cases an application that comes before the Planning Board is for a new house that is (almost always) both larger than, and configured differently than, the house (or other improvement) that formerly was on that lot. To properly site that house, to provide space for cultecs to collect rain water and keep it from flowing off the site, to safely site driveways and walkways, to permit newly-required screening to be able to survive and grow, etc. may well involve the removal of more trees than the proposed new tree law permits and, unless the TB wants to have the Planning Board rely on the "substantially interferes with a permitted use of the property", I suggest that the Planning Board not be constrained by, and be excepted from, the maximum number of trees than can be removed on a lot of a particular size. Requiring the Planning Board to abide by the limits on the number of trees that may be removed may well hinder the future expansion of the Town's housing stock, commercial space and multi-family housing and, thus, also prevent increases in its tax base. 12. The requirement that at least some replacement trees must be able to "grow to a height of at least 40 feet or more" is far too low to permit our Town to have a nice crop of Heritage Trees in the future, substantially all of which are well over 40 feet tall. 40 6i Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) feet is a mere 5 feet above the permitted height of a one-family house in every Town one-family R zone, and will do little if anything to improve the Town's tree canopy, nor to stop the Town from continuing to look more and more like Long Island when it comes to trees. 13. As stated previously, $300 is far below the cost of purchasing and planting a replacement tree with a caliper of at least 2 %z inches and a survival guarantee of a year. The TB has clear evidence of that fact (query what it costs the Town to purchase and plant such a tree, and the Town can buy the tree wholesale?). Why does the Town continue to leave the payment for not planting an on-site replacement tee at less than 50% of the cost of the landowner planning that tree on-site? 14. In Section 207-12B, why is notice to be sent "to the property owner at the address of the property for which the permit was issued"? For buildings under construction, a notice sent to the address of the property will potentially never reach the property owner who, typically, isn't living there. The paragraph also contains nothing whatsoever about to whom that notice goes if there is no tree removal permit—it only covers if there is one. Lastly, if a stop work order is "personally delivered", why does it not take effect for three days? 15. In Section 207-15A(3), how is the Planning Board is to act "based upon the standards contained herein" when no standards are "contained herein"? Again, whatever decision the Planning Board makes can readily be attacked as being arbitrary, since there are no standards despite this subsection stating that there are. 71 ' Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) 16. Why is Section 207-15 included at all? Why actively invite an aggrieved property owner to "bring a proceeding to review a determination by the Planning Board in the manner provided by Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules"? 17. The new, unnumbered last paragraph of Section 207-17A is a good idea. Thank you for your interest is getting the tree law right, but let's get it right before it is presented by the TB for a public hearing again. Doing it the way it is being done does little to cast thee TB in a good light. Ralph Engel 81 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) DeMuro, Laura From: May,Allison Sent: Thursday, November 9,2023 1:30 PM To: DeMuro, Laura Subject: FW:Tree law concerns from a local real estate agent Many more to come... Thanks, Alli Allison May,CMC Town Clerk,Town of Mamaroneck 740 W. Boston Post Road Mamaroneck,NY 10543 914-381-7870 Frequently Asked Voting Questions: • Am I a registered Vote and where is my Poll Site? • Voting by Mail: Absentee Ballots • When Is Early Voting at the Town Center begins October 28th(Please note,there is no early voting on Monday,November 6th,the day before the General Election.) • What's on the ballot?View Sample Ballot(available after October 6,2023) **The Town Clerk's Office is open daily from 8:30 a.m.—4:30 p.m. Marriage Licenses are done by appointment,please give us a call at 914-381-7870 to schedule yours. For permits,other licenses and FOILS,we encourage you to visit our website for the fastest response.*** From:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Sent:Thursday,November 09,2023 11:17 AM To:May,Allison<amay@townofmamaroneckny.org> Subject:FW:Tree law concerns from a local real estate agent From:Dorian,Jennifer Sent:Thursday,November 09,2023 10:15 AM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Tree law concerns from a local real estate agent ;L Dear Town Supervisor Eney, ' I am writing to you as both a resident of the Town of Mamaroneck and as a local real estate agent.I am very concerned about the proposed tree law. The current draft needs further revisions to make sure that it meets the stated goal of preserving our tree canopy.These revisions should include the recommendations and guidance of tree experts,the Sustainability Collaborative and Planning Board and model strong tree laws in other Westchester municipalities,such as those in Greenburgh and Scarsdale. 1 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) November 7, 2023 Supervisor Jaine Elkind Eney Town of Mamaroneck Board members Sabrina Fiddelman,Abby Katz, Jeffrey King,and Robin Nichinsky Town of Mamaroneck Attorney William Maker Jr. Town Clerk Allison May Dear Supervisor Eney, Board members, Mr. Maker, and Ms. May: We believe that the revised tree code violates and/or is inconsistent with the New York Climate Leadership&Community Protection Act(the Climate Act),with the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA),and with Article I,Section 19,of the New York State Constitution (the Environmental Rights amendment), and therefore that it violates Section 10 of the New York State Municipal Home Rule Law. We believe that adoption of the revised code will contribute to and speed the loss of our tree canopy and thus contribute to increased erosion,flooding,warming, poorer air quality, and other adverse environmental effects;that,in promulgating the revised code,the Town Supervisor,Town Board, and Town attorney showed insufficient concern for its environmental impact;that,in allowing the removal of trees without any reason being given and in eliminating the requirement that the Environmental Planner consider the environment of the area and otherwise minimize tree removal,the code failed to incorporate environmental criteria, as required; and that, in eliminating other provisions,including ones aimed at protecting existing trees and ensuring adequate training of the decision-making authority,the Town failed to weigh the environmental impact as well. We further believe that the revised tree code violates the Town's own adoption of the Emergency Climate Declaration, its creation of the Town of Mamaroneck Sustainability Collaborative,and its specific resolution that the Collaborative"propose a Green Infrastructure Program,which will include community-wide efforts to reverse declines in the Town's existing tree canopy."The Collaborative has stated that the revised code fails to reverse the decline in our canopy and, in fact,furthers the decline. Sincerely, s/ C. Luke Brussel Andrea Hirsch Allen G. Reiter Attorneys and residents of the Town of Mamaroneck Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) As, I'm sure you are aware,flooding concerns are on the top of every home buyer's minds.When I see a property that is surrounded by trees, I educate my clients on their importance. I remind them that mature trees can soak up 40,000 gallons of ground water per year.That's water that will never have the opportunity to enter their home! Not to mention, the higher cost of cooling and heating that comes along with the removal of trees. Of course there are times when a tree must come down,because it is threatening to fall on the home,or a power line,but often there are preventative measures that can be taken,such as proper pruning.And if a tree does indeed need removal it can and should be replaced in some fashion. I understand that people do not like to be told what they can and cannot do on their own properties, but that does not stop the town from requiring permits and regulations. And the Town bases those decisions on expert advice. For example,electricians and plumbers are required to meet certain standards.We as home owners can not decide what we want just because we own the home that is being worked upon.If a fire breaks out at someones home,it affects neighbors and the entire community,not just the home owner. If water flows from someone's home improperly,the same is true! There is no difference when it It comes to the removal of trees.Proper oversight is necessary and vital to our tree canopy.I heard at a recent meeting that our local tree canopy has declined by 7%in only 10 years.Yet there is nothing stopping people from indiscriminately cutting down healthy mature trees. Based on the expert advice that has been gathered relating to this issue,the tree code should include the following recommendations: *protecting mature trees with a diameter of 24"or more *decreasing the total number of trees that may be cut down in any year *establishing clear criteria for decision making for homeowners considering the removal and for Environmental Planner considering permit applications,including potential adverse impacts on environment and community as well as alternatives to tree removal *increasing required survival time for replacement trees *requiring neighbor notification *increasing the amount required for a tree replacement fund contribution *increasing fines for non-compliance *retaining the current restrictions on tree-cutting by the Town. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. Best, Jennifer Dorian jennifer dorian Associate Real Estate Broker 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Reminder'email is not secure or confidential.Houlihan Lawrence will never request that you send funds or nonpublic personal information,such as credit card or debit card numbers or bank account and!or routing numbers,by email,Pt you receive an email message concerning any transaction involving Houlihan Lawrence, and the email requests that you send funds or provide nonpublic personal information,do not respond to the email and immediately contact Houlihan Lawrence. To notify Houlihan Lawrence of suspected email fraud,contact fraudaiert@houlihanlawrence.com or call 914-273-4357. Links contained in this email have been replaced by ZixProtect Link Protection. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warnin•. 3 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) DeMuro. Laura From: May,Allison Sent: Thursday, November 9,2023 1:31 PM To: DeMuro, Laura Subject: FW: Proposed Tree Removal Law Alli Allison May,CMC Town Clerk,Town of Mamaroneck 740 W. Boston Post Road Mamaroneck,NY 10543 914-381-7870 Frequently Asked Voting Questions: • Am I a registered Vote and where is my Poll Site? • Voting by Mail: Absentee Ballots • When is Early Voting at the Town Center begins October 28th(Please note,there is no early voting on Monday,November 6th,the day before the General Election.) • What's on the ballot?View Sample Ballot(available after October 6,2023) **The Town Clerk's Office is open daily from 8:30 a.m.—4:30 p.m. Marriage Licenses are done by appointment,please give us a call at 914-381-7870 to schedule yours. For permits,other licenses and FO/Ls,we encourage you to visit our website for the fastest response.*** From:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Sent:Thursday,November 09,2023 11:19 AM To:May,Allison<amay@townofmamaroneckny.org> Subject:FW:Proposed Tree Removal Law From:Joan Rose Sent:Thursday,November 09,2023 9:40 AM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Cc:Nichinsky,Robin<RNichinsky@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Proposed Tree Removal Law s P Dear Town Supervisor Eney, I am very disturbed that the Town Council is considering adopting a law regarding tree removal that falls short of what experts recommend and my fellow residents have been asking for. I live at 17 York Road,off Fenimore and Durham Roads.Several years ago our neighborhood fought hard to stop the removal of an entire forest for the development of 3 houses.We lost. It was a major change to the topography,took down a wealth of mature trees,destroyed the wildlife refuge that it was,removed truckloads of dirt(just for the road into the development)and replaced all of it with non pervious surfaces. No amount of flood mitigation could replace everything that was lost. My neighbors and I didn't object to a few more houses,we objected to the cost to the Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) environment for those homes-an entire forest had to be razed. But the developer got his way. And I fear that more of this will happen if we don't have strong enough tree removal laws. It dismays me once again that the Town seems to be oblivious both to the residents and to protecting our tree canopy. Please reconsider your approach to this matter, listen to the experts,the Town Sustainability Collaborative and the Town Planning Board. Thank you. Joan Rosen Joan Rosen 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) DeMuro, Laura From: May,Allison Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 1:32 PM To: DeMuro, Laura Subject: FW:Petition to Town Board: Revise Tree Law to Save Our Trees Is there a petition that has been submitted?I haven't seen it yet... Alli Allison May,CMC Town Clerk,Town of Mamaroneck 740 W.Boston Post Road Mamaroneck,NY 10543 914-381-7870 Frequently Asked Voting Questions: •Am I a registered Vote and where is my Poll Site? •Voting by Mail: Absentee Ballots •When is Early Voting at the Town Center begins October 28th(Please note,there is no early voting on Monday, November 6th,the day before the General Election.) •What's on the ballot?View Sample Ballot(available after October 6,2023) **The Town Clerk's Office is open daily from 8:30 a.m.—4:30 p.m. Marriage Licenses are done by appointment,please give us a call at 914-381-7870 to schedule yours. For permits,other licenses and FOILs,we encourage you to visit our website for the fastest response.*** Original Message From:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Sent:Thursday,November 09,2023 12:03 PM To:May,Allison<amay@townofmamaroneckny.org> Subject:FW:Petition to Town Board:Revise Tree Law to Save Our Trees Original Message From:Jacob Levitt Sent: Monday,November 06,2023 11:23 AM To: Cc:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Petition to Town Board:Revise Tree Law to Save Our Trees To the Town Board: I am signing this petition because we must make every effort to consider trees as part of Mamaroneck's green infrastructure. Every single tree being considered for removal should be given careful consideration with an eye towards preventing its removal. -Jacob Levitt,MD 1 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) I have read the petition to the board and the specific recommendations and wish to add my signature: (All entries are required.) Name: Jacob Levitt,MD Address: E-mail: Date: 11/6/23 I am over 18: yes(49 years old) I live in(please specify unincorporated Town of Mamaroneck,Village of Larchmont or Village of Mamaroneck): TOM Thank you for signing! Now please write a brief e-mail with your personal comments on why you're signing the petition to the Board at supervisor@townofmamaroneckny.org. 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) DeMuro, Laura From: May,Allison Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 1:36 PM To: DeMuro, Laura Subject: FW:Trees in our Town Alli Allison May,CMC Town Clerk,Town of Mamaroneck 740 W.Boston Post Road Mamaroneck,NY 10543 914-381-7870 Frequently Asked Voting Questions: • Am 1 a registered Vote and where is my Poll Site? • Voting by Mail: Absentee Ballots • When is Early Voting at the Town Center begins October 28th(Please note,there is no early voting on Monday,November 6th,the day before the General Election.) • What's on the ballot?View Sample Ballot(available after October 6,2023) **The Town Clerk's Office Is open daily from 8:30 a.m.—4:30 p.m. Marriage Licenses are done by appointment,please give us a call at 914-381-7870 to schedule yours. For permits,other licenses and FOILs,we encourage you to visit our website for the fastest response.*** From:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Sent:Thursday, November 09,2023 12:13 PM To:May,Allison<amay@townofmamaroneckny.org> Subject:FW:Trees in our Town From:Elaine Kellogg Sent:Wednesday,November 01,2023 1:21 PM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Trees in our Town p I would like to add my voice in support of legislation that will save our neighborhood trees. Home owners should be strongly encouraged to maintain and care for their existing trees, not be able to remove them at whim. Mature trees provide a benefit for ALL of us, not just for the individuals who may own the land where the trunks enter the ground. The loss of shade,wildlife habitat and beauty is a loss to all of us. Young trees need years and years to truly "replace"existing ones. And that assumes that the new plantings actually survive the intervening years. Please protect the precious resources that belong to our WHOLE community. Thank you, 1 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Elaine Kellogg Former member of Larchmont Parks and Trees Committee 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) DeMuro, Laura From: May,Allison Sent: Thursday, November 9,2023 1:37 PM To: DeMuro, Laura Subject: FW:Comments on Proposed Tree Ordinance Attachments: LarchmontMamaroneck_Oct2023_OnePanelCCDiff[3].pdf Alli Allison May,CMC Town Clerk,Town of Mamaroneck 740 W.Boston Post Road Mamaroneck,NY 10543 914-381-7870 Frequently Asked Voting Questions: • Am I a registered Vote and where is my Poll Site? • Voting by Mail: Absentee Ballots • When is Early Voting at the Town Center begins October 28`^(Please note,there is no early voting on Monday,November 6th,the day before the General Election.) • What's on the ballot?View Sample Ballot(available after October 6,2023) **The Town Clerk's Office is open daily from 8:30 a.m.—4:30 p.m. Marriage Licenses are done by appointment,please give us a call at 914-381-7870 to schedule yours. For permits,other licenses and FOILs,we encourage you to visit our website for the fastest response.*** From:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Sent:Thursday,November 09,2023 12:10 PM To:May,Allison<amay@townofmamaroneckny.org> Subject:FW:Comments on Proposed Tree Ordinance From:Andrew Reinmann.11111111.1.1 Sent:Thursday, November 02,2023 11:17 AM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Re:Comments on Proposed Tree Ordinance Hi Jaine, Hope you are doing well.Because I keep getting peppered with questions, I just updated our calculations for "`"' • changes in canopy cover in Mamaroneck through 2021.Attached is a preliminary map, but please don't distribute.Areas in red are declines in canopy cover and areas in green are increases.The Town has lost about 8%of its 2011 canopy cover and nearly all of this decline has occurred outside of forested areas(i.e.,trees in yards and along streets).In light of this,you might consider more stringent requirements for tree removal.I should have mentioned this when we chatted,but I would also develop a plan for periodic(every 5 years or so)tree inventories of the town.There are a variety of ways to do this that range from community engagement approaches(from our conversation it seems like this is not realistic)to using freely available web tools to hiring a consultant like Davey Trees.This is really the only way to assess the efficacy of any tree ordinance. i Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) As always,happy to chat more. Thanks, -Andy Andrew Reinmann,PhD Assistant Professor, Environmental Sciences Initiative Advanced Science Research Center,Graduate Center,CUNY Hunter Colle a De artment of Geography phone: web:asre.cuny.edu From: "Eney,Jaine Elkind"<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Date:Saturday,October 21, 2023 at 1:43 PM To:Andrew Reinmann Subject: Re:Comments on Proposed Tree Ordinance 10:00 is perfect Get Outlook for iOS From:Andrew Reinmann Sent:Friday,October 20, 2023 4:03:39 PM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Re:Comments on Proposed Tree Ordinance Great!Anytime before 11 should work fine. 10? Thanks, -Andy Andrew Reinmann,PhD Assistant Professor,Environmental Sciences Initiative Advanced Science Research Center,Graduate Center,CUNY Hunter College I Department of Geography phone:1111111111111111 web:asrc.cuny.edu ' pry Y From: "Eney,Jaine Elkind"<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Date: Friday, October 20, 2023 at 2:11 PM 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) To:Andrew Reinmann<4.0111.111.1011111./ Subject: Re:Comments on Proposed Tree Ordinance Monday would be perfect! What time works for you? Jaine Get Outlook for IOS From:Andrew Reinmann 1111 Sent:Friday,October 20,2023 2:08 PM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Re:Comments on Proposed Tree Ordinance Hi Jaine, Thanks for the kind note. I am a bit slammed through 5 today.If chatting Monday is too late,I can try to give you a call a little after 5 today if that works. Thanks, -Andy Andrew Reinmann,PhD Assistant Professor,Environmental Sciences Initiative Advanced Science Research Center,Graduate Center,CUNY ent of Geography phoneneniiIiMI web:asrc.cunv.edu From: "Eney,Jaine El kind"<SupervisorPTownofMamaroneckNY.org> Date:Friday, October 20,2023 at 1:00 PM To:Andrew Reinmann Subject:RE:Comments on Proposed Tree Ordinance *This email originates from a sender outside of CUNY.Verify the sender before replying or clicking on links and attachments.* Dear Andrew: I was very impressed by your comments this past Wednesday at the public hearing about our proposed tree law. It would appreciate it if I could speak briefly with you about it.If you are willing,please call me at your earliest convenience atarraillyar Thank you,and I look forward to hearing from you. Jaine 3 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Jaine Elkind Eney Supervisor Town of Mamaroneck 740 West Boston Post Road Mamaroneck,NY 10543 (914)381-7805 supervisor@ townofmamaronecknv.org Click here to sign up for Town Alerts&Notifications! From:Andrew Reinmann Sent:Tuesday,October 17,2023 4:36 PM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org>;May,Allison<amav@townofmamaroneckny.org> Subject:Comments on Proposed Tree Ordinance Hello Mamaroneck Town Supervisor Eney and Town Clerk May, Last week I submitted a comment on the proposed tree ordinance that I would like to retract.I was asked to provide my opinion as a scientist conducting research on urban tree canopy cover as well as spatial and temporal patterns in canopy cover across Westchester County.Unfortunately, I had limited time to read the proposed ordinance before commenting so I reviewed it to see if it had the main components I see as being essential for reducing rates of canopy cover decline. Over the past week I have taken the time to read the proposed ordinance in detail and while the overarching structure of the proposed ordinance is fair,the details fall short of the requirements for an effective tree ordinance.My apologies for submitting a comment without having the time to thoroughly read the proposed ordinance.I respectfully request that you retract my previous comment and replace it with this one as my intent is simply to help the Town improve this ordinance that many have worked hard to develop. As it is written,I do not think one could reasonably expect this ordinance to effectively meet its intention of meaningfully curbing rates of canopy decline. Mamaroneck is now close to the 40%canopy cover threshold that has been suggested as the minimum benchmark for realizing the benefits of tree canopy cover.Canopy cover in Mamaroneck,like everywhere in Westchester,is declining.By contrast,canopy cover in New York City is increasing in response to the growing appreciation for the important cultural,equity,quality of life,sustainability,climate resiliency, and economic benefits of trees.This has come at a very high economic cost,and it is important to consider that it is much less costly to preserve existing canopy cover than to try and replace it after it is gone.There are good data to suggest that declining canopy cover makes our communities hotter and increases utility bills because of rising cooling demands.The canopy cover in our communities is an important community resource and how someone manages the trees on their property necessarily impacts the finances and the quality of life of their neighbors.With these attributes of tree canopy cover in mind, I plan to attend the Town meeting tomorrow evening to offer some brief comments on how to improve the efficacy of the ordinance so that it is in line with what scientific data support.I also summarize these points below. • It is great that the ordinance limits the number of trees that can be removed in any 12-month period BUT the limit is far too high and it might be unreasonable to expect this high limit to be supportive of objectives to reduce declines in canopy cover. It would make more sense to limit removals to^5 trees per year for lots>7,500 square feet and-3 trees per year for lots<7,500 square feet. • It is great to require replacements for trees removed or have replacement fees be put into a tree planting fund. However, I would strongly suggest changing the requirements for replacement trees. It would more effective to require that one new tree be planted for every 6" DBH of the tree being removed. For example, an 18"tree would need to be replaced by 3 trees,a 24"tree replaced by 4 trees,etc.We come to this number based on it taking-10-15 years for a 2.5"diameter tree growing under good conditions to attain a diameter of-6". Note,this will still result in some canopy cover loss because it can take decades for a new tree to achieve the canopy size of a large tree it replaces,and 4 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) this should be viewed as a minimum replacement rate.This is on par with what other municipalities propose(e.g.,the ordinance we are developing for Pleasantville). • I would suggest the Town rely on a certified arborist not employed by the town to determine if a tree is a hazard tree. Similarly,a certified arborist should also be commissioned to assess health of replanted trees for at least two years following planting. If a planted tree dies,the town should consider planting a new one. • There is no mention of"heritage trees" in this ordinance.While the exact definition of a heritage tree can vary by municipality, it is generally used to define trees that are exceptional and/or rare in the municipality because of their size,age, cultural significance, and/or species(e.g.,a rare species).These trees are commonly defined by their large size(e.g., >24"or 36" DBH)and have additional restrictions on their removal that are typically limited to designation as a heritage hazard tree. Heritage trees are important to consider because it can take well over 100 years for a newly planted tree to provide the same aesthetic,cultural,and cooling benefits of the heritage tree being replaced. • It seems that the current version of the ordinance exempts the Town from its own ordinance.The reason for this is unclear and would be a mistake both from the perspective of reducing canopy loss and for increasing community buy-in (e.g., "why can't I cut down this tree on my property but the Town can cut down a similar tree on their property?") • Lastly,for new development on previously undeveloped land, I would suggest limiting canopy cover loss to no more than 20%of what was on the parcel (i.e., leave 80%behind). Thank you, Andrew Reinmann,PhD Assistant Professor, Environmental Sciences Initiative Advanced Science Research Center,Graduate Center,CUNY Hunter College I Department of Geography phone:-11111 web:https://link.zixcentral.com/u/de40f6f6/GDal5ixt7hGdWwzzhnsoMg?u=https%3A%2F%2Fasrc.gc.cunv.edu%2Frein mann-lab%2F Andrew Reinmann,PhD Assistant Professor, Environmental Sciences Initiative Advanced Science Research Center,Graduate Center,CUNY Hunter College I Department of Geography =M. phone: web:https://link.zixcentral.com/u/de40f6f6/GDalSixt7hGdWwzzhnsoMg?u=https%3A%2F%2Fasrc.gc.cunv.edu%2Frein mann-lab%2F Links contained in this email have been replaced by ZixProtect Link Protection. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be anal zed for known threats. If a known threat is s Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Canopy Cover, Difference 2021 N to 2011, NLCD A r s CanCov2021 -CanCov2011(%) !f High:100 Low:-100 0 1 2 km I � I Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) DeMuro, Laura From: May, Allison Sent: Thursday, November 9,2023 1:37 PM To: DeMuro, Laura Subject: FW:Very concerned about revised tree law Alli Allison May,CMC Town Clerk,Town of Mamaroneck 740 W. Boston Post Road Mamaroneck,NY 10543 914-381-7870 Frequently Asked Voting Questions: • Am I a registered Vote and where is my Poll Site? • Voting by Mail: Absentee Ballots • When Is Early Voting at the Town Center begins October 28`"(Please note,there is no early voting on Monday,November 6th,the day before the General Election.) • What's on the ballot?View Sample Ballot(available after October 6,2023) **The Town Clerk's Office is open daily from 8:30 a.m.—4:30 p.m. Marriage Licenses are done by appointment,please give us a call at 914-381-7870 to schedule yours. For permits,other licenses and FOILs,we encourage you to visit our website for the fastest response.*** From:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Sent:Thursday,November 09,2023 12:15 PM To:May,Allison<amay@townofmamaroneckny.org> Subject:FW:Very concerned about revised tree law From:Alina Tugend Sent:Wednesday,November 01,2023 9:28 AM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Very concerned about revised tree law ei$ z. Dear Supervisor and Town Board members, , • The revised tree law is not strong enough to preserve our tree canopy.As you know,tree canopies are a crucial resource that benefits everyone. I'm not clear why the Board is not listening to such experts and instead,seems to be listening largely to one organized group with a specific agenda-local relators.This is in contrast to other communities such as Greenburgh,which have passed tree laws that are stronger than the current draft. Please really listen to tree experts such as tree experts like CUNY Professor Andrew Reinmann and Frank Buddingh, and TOM groups including the Sustainability Collaborative and Planning Board. It i Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) seems like the Board is thinking very short term rather than long-term about what will benefit the town for generations to come. Thank you, Mina Tugend Village of Mamaroneck 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) DeMuro, Laura From: May,Allison Sent: Thursday,November 9,2023 1:38 PM To: DeMuro, Laura Subject FW: EAF Alli Allison May,CMC Town Clerk,Town of Mamaroneck 740 W. Boston Post Road Mamaroneck,NY 10543 914-381-7870 Frequently Asked Voting Questions: • Am I a registered Vote and where is my Poll Site? • Voting by Mail: Absentee Ballots • When is Early Voting at the Town Center begins October 28th(Please note,there is no early voting on Monday,November 6th,the day before the General Election.) • What's on the ballot?View Sample Ballot(available after October 6,2023) **The Town Clerk's Office is open daily from 8:30 a.m.—4:30 p.m. Marriage Licenses are done by appointment,please give us a call at 914-381-7870 to schedule yours. For permits,other licenses and FOILs,we encourage you to visit our website for the fastest response.*** From:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Sent:Thursday,November 09, 2023 12:16 PM To: May,Allison<amay@townofmamaroneckny.org> Subject:FW:EAF From:Ralph Sent:Tuesday,Octo er 3 , . To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org>;William Maker,Jr.,Esq.<wmaker@mfd-law.com>; Maker Jr.,William<WMakerlr@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:EAF The statement in the proposed Short Environmental Assessment Form,that the proposed new law requires the replacement of removed trees,is inaccurate,since the tree fund can be used for purposes other than planting trees,including infrastructure improvements and even counting trees. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) DeMuro, Laura From: May,Allison Sent: Thursday, November 9,2023 1:40 PM To: DeMuro, Laura Subject: FW: Proposed Tree Code Attachments: Rooting for Trees 11523 with embeded link.pdf Alli Allison May,CMC Town Clerk,Town of Mamaroneck 740 W.Boston Post Road Mamaroneck,NY 10543 914-381-7870 Frequently Asked Voting Questions: • Am I a registered Vote and where is my Poll Site? • Voting by Mail: Absentee Ballots • When is Early Voting at the Town Center begins October 28`h(Please note,there is no early voting on Monday,November 6th,the day before the General Election.) • What's on the ballot?View Sample Ballot(available after October 6,2023) **The Town Clerk's Office is open daily from 8:30 a.m.—4:30 p.m. Marriage Licenses are done by appointment,please give us a call at 914-381-7870 to schedule yours. For permits,other licenses and FOILs,we encourage you to visit our website for the fastest response.*** From: Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Sent:Thursday,November 09,2023 12:22 PM To:May,Allison<amay@townofmamaroneckny.org> Subject:FW:Proposed Tree Code From:Sasha Nahr Sent:Tuesday,October 31,2023 2:15 PM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Suoervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org>;Katz,Abby<AKatz@townofmamaroneckny.org>; Fiddelman,Sabrina<SFiddelman@townofmamaroneckny.org>;King,Jeffery <JKing@townofmamaroneckny.org>;Nichinsky,Robin<RNichinsky@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Proposed Tree Code Dear Town of Mamaroneck Supervisor Eney and Board Members, As a Village of Larchmont resident and former chairperson of the Larchmont Environmental Committee, I am writing with concern about the proposed revision of the Town of Mamaroneck Tree Code. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) I attended the public hearing on Wednesday, October 18th, and I offer my full support of all who spoke in favor of a much stronger tree protection code than is currently being considered by the Board. I particularly echo the comments by Andy Reinmann and others who pointed out that Westchester's tree canopy is diminishing, including in Mamaroneck; that trees are an integral part of community infrastructure and the services they provide—from flood mitigation to cooling —have a financial value that is not usually accounted for; and that removing trees often results in communities needing to spend more money on engineered instructure (such as drainage culverts)when preserving those trees would have been cheaper and more effective. Protecting large mature trees, increasing tree replacement fees, reducing the maximum number of trees that may be taken down in a given year, and creating positive incentives for people to plant trees are changes that should be included in the proposed code. Additionally, I want to highlight one more change of particular importance: the tree code must apply to town properties, not just residential properties. There cannot be a double standard here. We have seen the success in the Village of Larchmont vis-a-vis the leaf blower code. Village property is not exempt from the gas-powered leaf blower ban, and as such residents and landscapers know we are all working together for the betterment of our community and our earth. Hypocrisy breeds anger. Further, I was dismayed to learn that there was a lack of consultation and dialogue between the Town Board and the Sustainability Collaborative (the Town's designated advisory committee on environmental/sustainability matters!) regarding the proposed tree law. It is clear the Town Board has NOT incorporated the Collaborative's proposed revisions to the tree law in a meaningful and substantive manner, nor provided any rationale/justification for not following the advice of their own environmental advisory board. This makes me highly uneasy about whether this will be the same type of relationship that can be expected if the Village of Larchmont were to agree to the Expanded District option that the Town of Mamaroneck is proposing to replace the Larchmont-Mamaroneck Joint Garbage Disposal Commission. In the Expanded District option, the Village of Larchmont will lose veto and decision- making power over sanitation policies and services and would participate only in an advisory committee on sanitation policies and services. How can the Town Board be trusted to actively listen and engage in constructive dialogue and consensus building with an advisory board on sanitation issues if you fully disregard an already long-standing advisory partner such as the Sustainability Collaborative? Finally, I invite you all to attend the "Rooting for Trees"event presented by the Houses of Worship Green Sustainable Sundays Series and hosted by Larchmont Avenue Church on Sunday, November 5th at 4 PM. The planning for this event has been in the works for many months, but could not be more timely. Please see the attached flyer for full information. You can register for the event HERE. I hope you will consider these amends to the tree law and hope to see you "Rooting for Trees" on Sunday. Sincerely, Sasha Nahr Member, Larchmont Environmental Committee; Village of Larchmont Climate Smart Community Task Force; Larchmont Avenue Church Eco Task Force; HOW Green! 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Thursday, November 09,2023 12:19 PM To: May,Allison Subject: FW: Proposed Town Tree Law Comments From:Marshall Cohen< > Sent:Tuesday,October 31,2023 6:50 PM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org>;Abakatz@townofmamaroneckny.org;King,Jeffery <JKing@townofmamaroneckny.org>;sfiddleman@townofmamaroneckny.org; Nichinsky, Robin <RNichinsky@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Proposed Town Tree Law Comments Dear Town Supervisor and the Board, As a more than 30 year resident of the Town of Mamaroneck, and a business owner who has had an office in the Town of Mamaroneck for almost 40 years, I am very concerned about the New Tree Law. In the wake of another catastrophic flood event, it is essential that we make sure that any change to our laws protects the many benefits—including flood-mitigation—that are provided by the existing trees in our community. Just a few weeks ago,we saw yet another flood in our neighborhood.There was no way for a car to get in nor out of our neighborhood for hours.This was not a big deal storm.Just heavy rain.Thank goodness there was not a medical emergency. The proposed rule is way too lenient.Trees help mitigate flooding.This rule allows people to cut down trees without ample demonstration of an essential rationale for taking down the trees.And the remedy of planting three little trees is a joke. Further, enforcement must be stepped up.A single homeowner should not be able to cut down a tree just because they"want to"that impacts on others.We live in a community. Its what makes this place special for all. We've already lost an entire small forest in our neighborhood --which we fought against but lost(in spite of a researched and expensive study of our neighborhood done by experts)that revealed the potential harmful consequences of the choice to cut down these trees so the Town could receive more revenue.This inappropriate and quick"approval" by the Town was a disastrous decision and we in our neighborhood are already paying the consequences. Environmental experts say that we must maintain a 40%canopy to sustain a healthy environment(some say even more). Our canopy has declined significantly in recent years and the new code does nothing to arrest this decline. Has the Town's Sustainability Collaborative, asked by the Town Board to advise them, had time to meet with the Board? I have heard this meeting has not yet taken place. Have you spent time with people who are Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) experts on this?Apparently not as many experts spoke at the meeting I attended and the Board looked like they were all in shock. I was at the first public meeting on this and it clearly demonstrated that you are all rushing to sign a new law into effect--yes we do need a new law--when taking your time, learning about this, hearing from experts and studying the facts is necessary. The meetings on this topic were also announced with very short notice for such an important decision that impacts all of us. I also think and would like to request unlimited public hearings,with he instituted. Lets take as much time as needed to understand what we are doing,with a new law.This is essential. I feel you need community feedback and also expert opinions on the consequences of your proposed law. Thank you for your attention and consideration. I look forward to an update on this important matter. Best, Marshall Cohen Founder, Mars ciates Home address: Business address: 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Drawn Inward Sent: Thursday, November 09,2023 12:19 PM To: May,Allison Subject: FYI article. see attached. Attachments: The surprising way that millions of new trees could transform America- Nat Geo -10-09-2023.pdf Atli- D.I. 1 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/tree-plantinq-american-cities-health- environment-benefits t1 4.; Ikk4 /411 ••• Workers plant a tree in Los Angeles,California where a stark divide exists between affluent neighborhoods with tree- lined streets and low-income neighborhoods where tree cover is scarce. PHOTOGRAPH BY ELLIOT ROSS, NAT GEO IMAGE COLLECTION • ENVIRONMENT The surprising way that millions of new trees could transform America The U.S. is making a billion-dollar investment in planting and maintaining trees across the country to combat extreme heat and expand access to nature. But the benefits go way beyond that. BYJEANNE DORIN MCDOWELL PUBLISHED OCTOBER 9, 2023 • 7 MIN READ When community groups planted 125 trees in two low-income neighborhoods in north central Detroit this past spring, changes were seen almost immediately. Residents began using the newly greened streets as a pedestrian corridor that allowed them to interact more with their neighbors. Trash collectors who routinely picked up garbage reported that littering had almost stopped completely. "To me, it was validation that what we are hoping to accomplish with trees can and will work," says Eric Candela, director of local government relations for American Forests, whose mission for more than ioo years has been to restore and protect the nation's forest ecosystems. In the next few months, Detroit will receive almost $io million to plant more trees, along with many other cities and nonprofit groups in the U.S. that will get varying amounts to affect similar change. As part of the Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden Administration is awarding a billion dollars in grant money to communities Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) throughout the country to plant trees to combat extreme heat and increase access to nature in cities and towns, where more than 84 percent of Americans live. The money, which is the largest investment to date in urban and community forests, will go mostly to disadvantaged communities that grapple with "tree equity"—having enough trees so that everyone can experience their environmental, health, and economic benefits. Adapting to climate change while helping fight it The positive climate impacts of trees are well-documented. Trees, including parks and nature preserves, remove about 45 million tons of climate-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Already, they offset the pollution from about io million cars. On a more local level, the can drastically influence the climate of a single neighborhood. Trees are natural coolants and lower the risk of respiratory and heat-related illnesses such as those seen during this summer's record heat wave. Streets with few trees are typically 10 degrees warmer and exacerbate "urban heat islands" that occur in areas with dense concentrations of pavement, concrete, and other materials that absorb and retain heat. (In Los Angeles, too little access to shade is a legacy of racist policies. Read more.) "Trees are a critical part of the infrastructure of cities and are as important as sidewalks and bridges," says Benita Hussain, tree equity lead for American Forests, which was awarded $5o million in federal funding for tree planting and maintenance. A growing body of research is finding that trees also provide an array of benefits associated with physical and mental health. How trees make us healthier The calming effect of being around trees is familiar to anyone who has sat on a bench under a tree, walked down a tree-lined street, or experienced the respite of shade from a tree on a scorching hot day. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) But research has also found that trees can help people live longer. A 2022 U.S. Forest Service study of 30 years of tree planting in Portland, Oregon by the nonprofit organization Friends of Trees found that one premature death was avoided for every 10o trees planted. Using data from the Oregon Health Authority, researchers found that in neighborhoods where more trees had been planted, death rates (per 100,00o persons) were lower. The association strengthened as trees aged and grew: the reduction in mortality rate associated with trees planted 11-15 years before was double that observed with trees planted in the preceding 1-5 years. This speaks to the potential public health benefits of preserving existing mature trees, which are associated with lower death rates. In a 2020 report on Philadelphia's goal to reach 3o percent tree canopy cover in every neighborhood by 2025, researchers estimated that 403 premature deaths overall, including 244 premature deaths in areas of lower socioeconomic status, could be prevented annually if the city were able to meet its goal. At the time, the tree canopy cover in disadvantaged areas was about 17 percent. Trees make us happier too Numerous studies show that being around trees reduces blood pressure as well as the stress-related hormones cortisol and adrenaline. Research has also found that increasing the number of urban trees is associated with a statistically significant improvement in mental health conditions, especially for people living in disadvantaged areas. A 2015 study monitored participants' heart rates to measure acute stress responses in individuals who walked past vacant lots in Philadelphia before and after they were filled with trees. They found that looking at greener lots decreased heart rate. "Trees calm us down, improve our mood and stress levels, and lower blood pressure," says Michelle Kondo, a U.S. Forest Service social scientist who studies the health benefits of trees. Being in nature helps people bounce back faster from stress, and being around trees helps restore attention. It's a mini-rest period that reduces the body's arousal mechanism and returns it to a more restful state, thereby stabilizing mood. (This is what happens to your brain when you see a bird in nature.) "We spend so much time staring at computer screens, but being in nature allows us to replenish that cognitive reserve," says Peter James, an environmental health Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) expert at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. "Staring at trees, even watching leaves scatter in the wind allows our brains to be ready for the next cognitive task." Similarly, trees can help children with ADHD. Linda Powers Tomasso, an environmental scientist at the T.H. Chan School of Public Health, asserts that this is especially useful in helping children with attentional issues and that trees can help them focus more. Transforming tree-less communities Studies confirm that planting trees fosters a sense of community and civic pride, especially in areas that have been historically underinvested in. "Psychologically, people feel `someone is paying attention to my neighborhood," says Tomasso. 'Some entity cares about my neighborhood. I matter."' The presence of trees in urban areas facilitates outdoor recreation, physical activity, and socializing, which can reduce lonelines. "Being near trees softens people in disposition and makes them more empathetic to others," says Kondo. Trees can even reduce crime and gun violence. A recent University of Pennsylvania study examining gun violence and tree cover in six U.S. cities found that higher neighborhood income was strongly linked to lower firearm violence over a five-year period. A 2018 study on cleaning-and- greening vacant lots in neighborhoods with residents living below the poverty line found a 29 percent reduction in gun violence around lots that were greened with trees compared to vacant lots. The process of planting and maintaining urban trees can also bring jobs to a community and lead to the creation of a local environmental workforce. According to Marcos Trinidad, senior director of forestry for Southern California's Tree People, which received $8 million in federal funding, upcoming tree plantings throughout parts of Southern California will require many workers—for planting new trees, pruning, and removing older trees. In fact, funding comes at a time when millions of trees are being lost to wildfires, drought, urban development, and a lack of good tree care. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) "I'm not a psychologist," adds Trinidad. "But when I'm around trees, and I can walk down a street lined with trees..., it creates this overall feeling of joy." Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) DeMuro, Laura From: May,Allison Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 1:42 PM To: DeMuro, Laura Subject: FW: Pass a strong protective tree code Attachments: tempFileForShare_20231031-150504 jpg FYI, please print with attachment. Thank you, Alli Allison May,CMC Town Clerk,Town of Mamaroneck 740 W. Boston Post Road Mamaroneck,NY 10543 914-381-7870 Frequently Asked Voting Questions: • Am I a registered Vote and where is my Poll Site? • Voting by Mail: Absentee Ballots • When is Early Voting at the Town Center begins October 28th(Please note,there is no early voting on Monday,November 6th,the day before the General Election.) • What's on the ballot?View Sample Ballot(available after October 6,2023) **The Town Clerk's Office is open daily from 8:30 a.m.—4:30 p.m. Marriage Licenses are done by appointment,please give us a call at 914-381-7870 to schedule yours. For permits,other licenses and FOILS,we encourage you to visit our website for the fastest response.*** From:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Sent:Thursday,November 09,2023 12:20 PM To:May,Allison<amay@townofmamaroneckny.org> Subject:FW:Pass a strong protective tree code From:Elaine Wanderer Sent:Tuesday,October 31,2023 3:07 PM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Pass a strong protective tree code � F L a -�. F Dear Supervisor Elkind Eney,Council Members Abby Katz and Jeffrey King, Please pass a strong protective tree code. Thank you very much. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) SOW ( R111'JI Sustciiiiable Suvidcj Series ?reset/as:: ROOTING FOR ._ TREES _. Come learn about the importance of trees for our community and planet! Keynote speaker ANDREW REINMANN Assistant Professor at CUNY Advanced . Science Research Center, will docu- Sunday, Nov. 5th ment how trees play a major role in II combating climate change. Trees 4 - 6 PM contribute critical services to our ecosystem, supplying clean air and water, fertile soil, rich habitat, and high levels of Larchmont Ave. Church biodiversity. Discover the best native trees to plant in our communities, how to care for them, 60 Forest Park Ave. what our municipalities are doing about trees, and Larchmont NY how you can get involved. Opening Remarks by Rev. Dr. Peter Bynum Click here to RSVP (requested, but not required) rert ,. te e _ se a OPPEN E AND T,- � PUBLIC!" ,�efjoh.P & , s+ \ IO ______L)r 'ia 4. Our Community Participants: ,..off"."ip'• .1. kr S fte., rV', ry L 00,.rM , r 4R t ( n t- NOW t ? o„rye`: ' 1 e 4S T.19'0' �4, �4 z�= �4'NTAt G `tent _. HOW GREEN!(Houses of Worship Green)is an interfaith network of congregations based in Larchmont/Mamaroneck, united in a common goal:to empower our community to become good stewards of our earth. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) 4 „ •..� • v y. • a 1 ry F1'''' ' 44) , kr ' IT ' ' , " •,-; , ..41;"' . Ativ TO BrE.,g1.R A r r } o.. • ., , . r~ 1 ill lift ILIEALL.ir .....: Supervisor Elkind Envy ,- '+ `" , r-. ` Town of Mamaroneck -- $ and tiers Abby Katz and Jeffrey wng Council Mem WANT TO CSA FOf Ziff • TOWN* TBETTvita IO*II 1 _ ALLOW C� D EVEBY 4THIS (� + ' ` t TRIM) BFA0O� FOS ANYOB FO ' A-T A-LL byPassing a Tell The Board To Save Our Trees STRONG PROTECTIVE TREE CODE, RG r- _..,.•kinFM ARO���4 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) DeMuro, Laura From: May,Allison Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 2:23 PM To: DeMuro, Laura Subject: FW: Please Adjourn Wednesday's Tree Law Hearing Alli Allison May,CMC Town Clerk,Town of Mamaroneck 740 W. Boston Post Road Mamaroneck,NY 10543 914-381-7870 Frequently Asked Voting Questions: • Am I a registered Vote and where is my Poll Site? • Voting by Mail: Absentee Ballots • When is Early Voting at the Town Center begins October 28th(Please note,there is no early voting on Monday,November 6th,the day before the General Election.) • What's on the ballot?View Sample Ballot(available after October 6,2023) **The Town Clerk's Office is open daily from 8:30 a.m.—4:30 p.m. Marriage Licenses are done by appointment,please give us a call at 914-381-7870 to schedule yours. For permits,other licenses and FOILs,we encourage you to visit our website for the fastest response.*** From:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Sent:Thursday,November 09,2023 12:24 PM To:May,Allison<amay@townofmamaroneckny.org> Subject:FW:Please Adjourn Wednesday's Tree Law Hearing From:Ralph< Sent:Monday,October 30,2023 9:23 PM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org>;Nichinsky,Robin <RNichinsky( TownofMamaroneckNY.org>;Fiddelman,Sabrina<SFiddelman@townofmamaroneckny.org> 6,t L,; Subject:Please Adjourn Wednesday's Tree Law Hearing Jaine,Robin and Sabrina, The new draft,in some areas,is even worse than the old one was,and hiding the loopholes that were at the top of page 6 by spreading them around the new draft accomplished nothing. An example of the really poor drafting is: Section 207-5D,on page 6 of the new draft,provides,in pertinent part,that: "A tree removal permit is not required to remove a regulated tree as a result of an emergency...." That makes sense to me. t Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) The very next paragraph,however,also on page 6,Section 207-6A,provides:"It shall be unlawful for any person to remove a regulated tree without obtaining a tree removal permit IN ADVANCE."[Emphasis added.] So doing what Section 207-5D expressly permits is"unlawful" under Section 207-6A. That makes sense to you? To keep this short i am only sending you one example. Much more is wrong with this draft. Clearly,no lawyer read the revised draft from end to end. The TB has more important things to do at the moment,such as dealing with the Waverly Avenue bridge,than holding a tree law hearing this Wednesday. Why not give all of us a chance to revise the draft in a way that works,and that protects the trees that should be protected,and then hold the public hearing? As is common with most everything,doing things in a rush only leads to mistakes. Please consider. Thanks. Ralph 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) DeMuro, Laura From: May,Allison Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 2:24 PM To: DeMuro, Laura Subject: FW:Tree Law Just a few more.... Alli Allison May,CMC Town Clerk,Town of Mamaroneck 740 W.Boston Post Road Mamaroneck,NY 10543 914-381-7870 Frequently Asked Voting Questions: •Am I a registered Vote and where is my Poll Site? •Voting by Mail: Absentee Ballots •When is Early Voting at the Town Center begins October 28th(Please note,there is no early voting on Monday, November 6th,the day before the General Election.) •What's on the ballot?View Sample Ballot(available after October 6,2023) **The Town Clerk's Office is open daily from 8:30 a.m.—4:30 p.m.Marriage Licenses are done by appointment,please give us a call at 914-381-7870 to schedule yours. For permits,other licenses and FOILs,we encourage you to visit our website for the fastest response.*** Original Message From:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Sent:Thursday,November 09,2023 12:26 PM To:May,Allison<amay@townofmamaroneckny.org> Subject:FW:Tree Law Original Message From:Harriet Barish Sent:Monday,October 30,2023 7:29 PM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Tree Law Dear Supervisor and Town Board Members, I am very concerned that the revised tree law is not strong enough to preserve our tree canopy,which is a vital community resource,especially in regards to flooding and changes in our climate. You have been given the responsibility to protect our community and the present proposal does not do that. It is essential that you take the time to make further revisions to the proposal to reflect the recommendations of CUNY Professor Reinmann,the Sustainability Collaborative,the Planning Board and other experts. Other communities,such as Greenburgh,have passed tree laws that are stronger than this draft. Please follow their example and pass a strong tree law that will protect the tree canopy and therefore our entire community. Thank you, Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) November 7, 2023 Supervisor Jaine Elkind Eney Town of Mamaroneck Board members Sabrina Fiddelman, Abby Katz, Jeffrey King,and Robin Nichinsky Town of Mamaroneck Attorney William Maker Jr. Town Clerk Allison May Dear Supervisor Eney, Board members, Mr. Maker, and Ms. May: We believe that the revised tree code violates and/or is inconsistent with the New York Climate Leadership &Community Protection Act(the Climate Act),with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA),and with Article I,Section 19, of the New York State Constitution (the Environmental Rights amendment),and therefore that it violates Section 10 of the New York State Municipal Home Rule Law. We believe that adoption of the revised code will contribute to and speed the loss of our tree canopy and thus contribute to increased erosion,flooding,warming, poorer air quality,and other adverse environmental effects;that, in promulgating the revised code,the Town Supervisor,Town Board,and Town attorney showed insufficient concern for its environmental impact;that, in allowing the removal of trees without any reason being given and in eliminating the requirement that the Environmental Planner consider the environment of the area and otherwise minimize tree removal,the code failed to incorporate environmental criteria, as required;and that, in eliminating other provisions, including ones aimed at protecting existing trees and ensuring adequate training of the decision-making authority,the Town failed to weigh the environmental impact as well. We further believe that the revised tree code violates the Town's own adoption of the Emergency Climate Declaration, its creation of the Town of Mamaroneck Sustainability Collaborative,and its specific resolution that the Collaborative "propose a Green Infrastructure Program,which will include community-wide efforts to reverse declines in the Town's existing tree canopy."The Collaborative has stated that the revised code fails to reverse the decline in our canopy and, in fact,furthers the decline. Sincerely, s/ C. Luke Brussel Andrea Hirsch Allen G. Reiter Attorneys and residents of the Town of Mamaroneck Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Thursday, November 09,2023 12:29 PM To: May,Allison Subject: FW: Proposed tree law From:Susan Johnston Sent:Monday,October 30,2023 12:28 PM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Proposed tree law Dear Mamaroneck Supervisor and Town Board members: I have been attending,as many residents have,to the debate and discussion about the proposed tree law. It is of course important to have clear guidance for town residents that balances the various competing interests on this issue,and I appreciate the improvements that have been made to the proposed law. The proposal still falls far short of what is needed to protect the important tree canopy in our community. I urge you to take advantage of the excellent recommendations proposed by Professor Reinmann,the Sustainability Collaborative,the Planning Board and the other experts who have provided advice to the town on this issue. As you know,protecting the tree canopy is a concern not only to the Larchmont/Mamaroneck community but to the rest of Westchester,and as I.am sure you also know,other communities,like Greenburgh, have enacted much stronger tree laws than the current proposal. I hope that you will do all you can to ensure that the rules are, in fact,in the best interests of the community as a whole. Susan Johnston Sent from my iPad Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) DeMuro, Laura From: May, Allison Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 2:27 PM To: DeMuro, Laura Subject: FW:Trees Alli Allison May,CMC Town Clerk,Town of Mamaroneck 740 W. Boston Post Road Mamaroneck,NY 10543 914-381-7870 Frequently Asked Voting Questions: • Am I a registered Vote and where is my Poll Site? • Voting by Mail: Absentee Ballots • When Is Early Voting at the Town Center begins October 28th(Please note,there is no early voting on Monday,November 6th,the day before the General Election.) • What's on the ballot?View Sample Ballot(available after October 6,2023) **The Town Clerk's Office is open daily from 8:30 a.m.—4:30 p.m. Marriage Licenses are done by appointment,please give us a call at 914-381-7870 to schedule yours. For permits,other licenses and F011s,we encourage you to visit our website for the fastest response.*** From:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Sent:Thursday,November 09, 2023 12:30 PM To:May,Allison<amay@townofmamaroneckny.org> Subject:FW:Trees From:Ralph<1111111 Sent:Saturday,October 28,2023 4:47 PM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Trees yyL I am in MA w/o a computer,so I haven't had a chance to read the new draft tree law yet,but I have been t told it eliminates the entire paragraph on page 6 that permitted any owner freely to override the annual limits,which is a real improvement.Thank you. Some people are(still)trying to get the TB to allow community input on all removals of Regulated Trees, everywhere. That's overkill(pun intended),and I do not support that. As you know,the Planning Board already welcomes community input at and in connection with its public hearings (including written comments,which anyone can submit as to anything relating to any application that is before the PB). 1 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Susan Johnston Sent from my iPad z Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) I am hoping that the new draft does not override the PB's ability to deal with both tree removal and replacement trees as it already does as to those application that come before it. A major focus of the PB,as you will remember,is on trees, screening,water issues,etc.,and,in the real world,building a new,zoning-compliant(and,for years,always larger) house(within the permitted envelope)often requires the removal of several trees,and limits the places where on-site replacement trees can be planted(I have nothing against requiring Tree Fund contributions if fewer than the required number of replacement trees are planted on-site if the PB determines that the lower number is appropriate). Removing the PB's ability to do so may preclude at least some development in the Town;of course,that might be a goal of the TB. On another topic,I've long thought that the people who run Mamaroneck Village are nuts,and they are again proving that as to the Waverly Avenue bridge,the main beneficiary of the rebuilding of which are residents of that village. 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) DeMuro, Laura From: May,Allison Sent: Thursday,November 9,2023 2:27 PM To: DeMuro, Laura Subject: FW:Tree Law Alli Allison May,CMC Town Clerk,Town of Mamaroneck 740 W.Boston Post Road Mamaroneck,NY 10543 914-381-7870 Frequently Asked Voting Questions: •Am I a registered Vote and where is my Poll Site? •Voting by Mail: Absentee Ballots • When is Early Voting at the Town Center begins October 28th(Please note,there is no early voting on Monday, November 6th,the day before the General Election.)•What's on the ballot?View Sample Ballot(available after October 6,2023) **The Town Clerk's Office is open daily from 8:30 a.m.—4:30 p.m.Marriage Licenses are done by appointment,please give us a call at 914-381-7870 to schedule yours.For permits,other licenses and FOILS,we encourage you to visit our website for the fastest response.*** Original Message From:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Sent:Thursday,November 09,2023 12:31 PM To:May,Allison<amay@townofmamaroneckny.org> Subject:FW:Tree Law Original Message From:Barbara Staffaroni Sent:Saturday,October 28,2023 8:58 AM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Tree Law To the Board I'm writing to communicate that I support strengthening the proposed law include tree preservation not just replacement. I also support the recommendations of the CUNY professor,and the Sustainability Collaborative and Planning Board. Please revise the proposal to reflect the recommendations of Andrew Reinmann and other experts. It is important to get this law right to protect the tree canopy for future generations! Thank you Barbara Staffaroni Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) DeMuro, Laura From: May,Allison Sent Thursday, November 9,2023 4:03 PM To: DeMuro, Laura Subject: FW:Comments on Proposed Tree Ordinance Attachments: Tree_Ordinance_Suggestions for_Mamaroneck_231024.docx Last one for now.Thank you ! Alli Allison May,CMC Town Clerk,Town of Mamaroneck 740 W.Boston Post Road Mamaroneck,NY 10543 914-381-7870 Frequently Asked Voting Questions: • Am I a registered Vote and where is my Poll Site? • Voting by Mail: Absentee Ballots • When is Early Voting at the Town Center begins October 286(Please note,there is no early voting on Monday,November 6th,the day before the General Election.) • What's on the ballot?View Sample Ballot(available after October 6,2023) **The Town Clerk's Office is open daily from 8:30 a.m.—4:30 p.m. Marriage Licenses are done by appointment,please give us a call at 914-381-7870 to schedule yours. For permits,other licenses and FOILS,we encourage you to visit our website for the fastest response.*** From:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Sent:Thursday,November 09,2023 12:35 PM To:May,Allison<amay@townofmamaroneckny.org> Subject:FW:Comments on Proposed Tree Ordinance From:Andrew Reinmann Sent:Tuesday,October 24, 2023 3:58 PM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Re:Comments on Proposed Tree Ordinance L r ; Hello Jaine, It was really nice speaking with you yesterday. I am writing to pass along the text we mentioned and some other pieces that will likely be of use.I have attached a Word doc with some of the draft language from our ordinance. Note,we still might tweak some of the language,but I think what we have could be a reasonable guide. I also included some other bits of text that might be helpful.Everything is pretty much consistent with what we discussed yesterday,but I included some other important details that we did not get into but should be considered. Oh,in Pville it seems that we will define our"specimen"trees as those larger than 18"DBH. Please let me know if you have any questions! i. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Thanks, -Andy Andrew Reinmann, PhD Assistant Professor, Environmental Sciences Initiative Advanced Science Research Center,Graduate Center,CUNY Hunter College I Department of Geography phone: web:asrc.cuny.edu From:"Eney,Jaine Elkind" <Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Date:Saturday,October 21, 2023 at 1:43 PM To:Andrew Reinman Subject: Re:Comments on Proposed Tree Ordinance 10:00 is perfect Get Outlook for iOS From:Andrew Reinmann IMMMIMIM Sent:Friday,October 20,2023 4:03:39 PM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Re:Comments on Proposed Tree Ordinance Great!Anytime before 11 should work fine. 10? Thanks, -Andy Andrew Reinmann,PhD Assistant Professor,Environmental Sciences Initiative Advanced Science Research Center,Graduate Center,CUNY Hunter Colle a De artment of Geography phone: web:asrc.cuny.edu From: "Eney,Jaine Elkind"<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Date: Friday, October 20, 2023 at 2:11 PM To:Andrew Reinmann Subject: Re:Comments on Proposed Tree Ordinance 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Monday would be perfect! What time works for you? Jaine Get Outlook for iOS From:Andrew Reinmann Sent:Friday,October 20,2023 2:08 PM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Re:Comments on Proposed Tree Ordinance Hi Jaine, Thanks for the kind note. I am a bit slammed through 5 today. If chatting Monday is too late,I can try to give you a call a little after 5 today if that works. Thanks, -Andy Andrew Reinmann,PhD Assistant Professor,Environmental Sciences Initiative Advanced Science Research Center,Graduate Center,CUNY Hunter College Department of Geography phone: web:asrc.cuny.edu From:"Eney,Jaine Elkind"<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Date: Friday,October 20, 2023 at 1:00 PM To:Andrew Reinmann Subject: RE:Comments on ropose ree r inance *This email originates from a sender outside of CUNY.Verify the sender before replying or clicking on links and attachments.* Dear Andrew: I was very impressed by your comments this past Wednesday at the public hearing about our proposed tree law. It would appreciate it if I could speak briefly with you about it.If you are willing, please call me at your earliest convenience at Thank you,and I look forward to hearing from you. Jaine Jaine Elkind Eney Supervisor Town of Mamaroneck 3 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) 740 West Boston Post Road Mamaroneck, NY 10543 (914)381-7805 supervisor@townofmamaronecknv.org Click here to sign up for Town Alerts&Notifications! From:Andrew Reinmann< Sent:Tuesday,October 17,2023 4:36 PM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org>;May,Allison<amayfatownofmamaroneckny.org> Subject:Comments on Proposed Tree Ordinance Hello Mamaroneck Town Supervisor Eney and Town Clerk May, Last week I submitted a comment on the proposed tree ordinance that I would like to retract. I was asked to provide my opinion as a scientist conducting research on urban tree canopy cover as well as spatial and temporal patterns in canopy cover across Westchester County.Unfortunately,I had limited time to read the proposed ordinance before commenting so I reviewed it to see if it had the main components I see as being essential for reducing rates of canopy cover decline. Over the past week I have taken the time to read the proposed ordinance in detail and while the overarching structure of the proposed ordinance is fair,the details fall short of the requirements for an effective tree ordinance.My apologies for submitting a comment without having the time to thoroughly read the proposed ordinance.I respectfully request that you retract my previous comment and replace it with this one as my intent is simply to help the Town improve this ordinance that many have worked hard to develop. As it is written,I do not think one could reasonably expect this ordinance to effectively meet its intention of meaningfully curbing rates of canopy decline. Mamaroneck is now close to the 40%canopy cover threshold that has been suggested as the minimum benchmark for realizing the benefits of tree canopy cover.Canopy cover in Mamaroneck,like everywhere in Westchester,is declining. By contrast,canopy cover in New York City is increasing in response to the growing appreciation for the important cultural,equity,quality of life,sustainability,climate resiliency, and economic benefits of trees.This has come at a very high economic cost,and it is important to consider that it is much less costly to preserve existing canopy cover than to try and replace it after it is gone.There are good data to suggest that declining canopy cover makes our communities hotter and increases utility bills because of rising cooling demands.The canopy cover in our communities is an important community resource and how someone manages the trees on their property necessarily impacts the finances and the quality of life of their neighbors.With these attributes of tree canopy cover in mind, I plan to attend the Town meeting tomorrow evening to offer some brief comments on how to improve the efficacy of the ordinance so that it is in line with what scientific data support.I also summarize these points below. • It is great that the ordinance limits the number of trees that can be removed in any 12-month period BUT the limit is far too high and it might be unreasonable to expect this high limit to be supportive of objectives to reduce declines in canopy cover. It would make more sense to limit removals to"5 trees per year for lots>7,500 square feet and "3 trees per year for lots<7,500 square feet. • It is great to require replacements for trees removed or have replacement fees be put into a tree planting fund. However, I would strongly suggest changing the requirements for replacement trees. It would more effective to require that one new tree be planted for every 6" DBH of the tree being removed. For example,an 18"tree would need to be replaced by 3 trees,a 24"tree replaced by 4 trees,etc.We come to this number based on it taking^'10-15 years for a 2.5"diameter tree growing under good conditions to attain a diameter of—6". Note,this will still result in some canopy cover loss because it can take decades for a new tree to achieve the canopy size of a large tree it replaces,and this should be viewed as a minimum replacement rate.This is on par with what other municipalities propose(e.g.,the ordinance we are developing for Pleasantville). 4 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) • I would suggest the Town rely on a certified arborist not employed by the town to determine if a tree is a hazard tree. Similarly,a certified arborist should also be commissioned to assess health of replanted trees for at least two years following planting. If a planted tree dies,the town should consider planting a new one. • There is no mention of"heritage trees"in this ordinance. While the exact definition of a heritage tree can vary by municipality, it is generally used to define trees that are exceptional and/or rare in the municipality because of their size,age,cultural significance,and/or species(e.g., a rare species).These trees are commonly defined by their large size(e.g.,>24"or 36" DBH)and have additional restrictions on their removal that are typically limited to designation as a heritage hazard tree. Heritage trees are important to consider because it can take well over 100 years for a newly planted tree to provide the same aesthetic, cultural, and cooling benefits of the heritage tree being replaced. • It seems that the current version of the ordinance exempts the Town from its own ordinance.The reason for this is unclear and would be a mistake both from the perspective of reducing canopy loss and for increasing community buy-in(e.g., "why can't I cut down this tree on my property but the Town can cut down a similar tree on their property?") • Lastly,for new development on previously undeveloped land, I would suggest limiting canopy cover loss to no more than 20%of what was on the parcel(i.e., leave 80%behind). Thank you, Andrew Reinmann, PhD Assistant Professor, Environmental Sciences Initiative Advanced Science Research Center,Graduate Center,CUNY Hunter College I Department of Geography phone: web:https://link.zixcentral.com/u/de40f6f6/GDal5ixt7hGdWwzzhnsoMg?u=https%3A%2F%2Fasrc.Qc.cuny.edu%2Frein mann-lab%2F Andrew Reinmann,PhD Assistant Professor,Environmental Sciences Initiative Advanced Science Research Center,Graduate Center,CUNY Hunter College I Department of Geography phone: web:https://link.zixcentral.com/u/de40f6f6/GDal5ixt7hGdWwzzhnsoMg?u=https%3A%2F%2Fasrc.gc.cuny.edu%2Frein mann-lab%2F Links contained in this email have been replaced by ZixProtect Link Protection. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warnin•. s Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) The following text includes some draft text(i.e., not finalized)that we have for our ordinance in Pville that might be helpful. While the exact wording can change, I would suggest including guidelines/requirements similar to what we have here. They are all in line with our conversation, but cover some details we did not get into. DEFINITIONS DEAD TREE A tree that is dead or that has been determined by a certified arborist to be damaged beyond salvaging or in an advanced state of decline (where an insufficient amount of live tissue, green leaves, limbs or branches exist to sustain life). TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN 11 suggest requiring this). A plan that identifies areas where existing trees are to be preserved and where proposed replacement trees are to be planted on a property to meet minimum requirements, as well as methods of tree protection to be undertaken on the site and other pertinent information. TEXT REGARDING REMOVAL OF DEAD TREES/TREES OF IMMINENT THREAT: "Activities permitted by right. The following activities are permitted by right without the requirement of a permit: Removal of any dead tree, hazardous tree or other tree that creates an actual or ongoing emergency condition. The Building Inspector, or authorized representative, may request verification and/or photographic documentation,which demonstrates that the tree was dead,hazardous or created an actual or ongoing emergency." I suggest giving the approving authority discretion to grant,deny,or grant with conditions any permit to align with the essence of the tree ordinance. Draft text from Pville:"In making its determination to grant,grant with conditions,or deny a tree removal permit,or to accept or deny a tree replacement plan under this chapter,the factors to be considered by the approving authority shall include,but shall not necessarily be limited to,the following (((DETAILS TBD))):" "With consideration of the above factors,the proposed tree removal may be granted with conditions or denied if: 1. The tree(s)is a specimen tree,as defined in this chapter. 2. The tree removal(s)will have a significant negative effect upon,among other things: a. Erosion potential and drainage patterns in the vicinity. b. Growth of existing adjacent vegetation. c. Property values and aesthetics of nearby properties. d. Solar access of nearby properties and that of the property owner. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) e. The health and function of a regulated wetland or wetland buffer. f. Reduction or impairment of wildlife habitat. 1. The tree(s)to be removed is a species listed on the New York State list of endangered trees or trees of special concern." DETAILS ON OUR DRAFT PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESS "Permit application process. Applications for tree removal permits shall be made in writing to the Village upon the forms provided and shall include payment of all associated fees.The application shall include: A. The name and address of the applicant. B. The address and tax map designation of the property on which the subject tree(s)is located. C. The purpose of the tree removal. D. The method by which it is proposed that the trees be removed. E. The name of the individual or entity that will effectuate the removal. F. A plan depicting and/or describing the trees to be removed. G. A completed tree replacement plan based on the tree replacement requirements in[SECTION], including the following: a. The location of each existing tree proposed for removal and the location of each proposed replacement tree;and b. A list of all replacement trees that identifies the species(by common and botanical name),size and quantity. H. A stormwater pollution prevention plan(SWPPP)consistent with the requirements of Chapter 153(Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control)shall be required for any tree removal permit approval that qualifies as a land development activity as defined in§153-6.The SWPPP shall meet the performance and design criteria and standards in Chapter 153,and the approved tree removal permit shall be consistent with the provisions of the chapter." DETAILS ON TREE REPLACEMENTS Tree replacement. A. All existing trees proposed to be removed are subject to replacement. Tree replacement shall occur on-site,except where the approving authority determines that, because of site constraints,it is impracticable or impossible to do so,or where the approving authority determines that,because of relevant site planning considerations,it is not warranted or the applicant prefers not to replant on their property.The approving authority may consider payment of a fee to the Tree Fund to satisfy the unmet portion of tree replacement,pursuant to the requirements of§ 153-10. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Bond. A. The approving authority may require,prior to the commencement of any work authorized under any tree removal permit pursuant to this chapter,that the applicant post a bond or other security deemed acceptable to the approving authority in such amount and with surety and conditions sufficient to secure compliance with the conditions and limitations set forth in the tree removal permit. A. The planting of fewer than ten(10)replacement trees may require a monitoring plan for at least five years,but no more than ten(10)years.The planting of ten(10)or more trees shall require a monitoring plan for at least three(3)years,and a maintenance bond of 35%of the cost of the plants and labor to install replacement trees for at least five(5)years.The length of monitoring programs shall be determined by the approving authority. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) BH\ HS. BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY Westchester Properties HomeServices 3 October 2020 Paul Schwendener Barbara Gessler Hello Paul&Barbara: I'm writing to provide an update on recent developments at 44 Edgewood Avenue. When I sold the property last year,the buyer planned to renovate the house and eventually move in.She grew up on Edgewood,had a decades-long friendship with the sellers and always admired the house.However,renovation costs were deemed prohibitively high because the house's 130-year-old foundation lacked the structural integrity to support extensive additional weight,so the buyer(who is also a builder)opted to build on the lot instead. The economics of constructing a 4000+square foot house and finding a buyer in the projected $3 million range were,daunting.She thought it more prudent to subdivide the lot and construct two houses.The Town of Mamaroneck Building Department approved such plans following many meetings with the Architectural Review Board and public hearings with members of the community.The buyer sold the lot last month to another builder,so the demolition will likely commence in the near term. tinder the approved plans,both houses will face Judson:there will be two driveways,the L.... existing one and another on Judson near the turn to lidgewood.The construction process / generally takes up to a year,but the timeline may be affected with two houses being built ""1 simultaneously.At this juncture,it's impossible to predict whether any of the trees or mature I foliage around the perimeter of the property can be preserved. JFK famously opined that a high tide lifts all boats. As a neighborhood resident myself,I'm re: crably confident the new properties will have a positive impact on the value of cur homes, if it does come at the cost of adding more students to an already crowded school system. Should anything else crop up about the property I'll notify you.If you have any real-estate related questions I can help}ou with,please feel free to contact me. With best wishes. obert A.Brissette 140 ChaLss.o,th Avenue•Larchinonl.NY 10538•Office:914-834-77 7?•Fax:914-834-0638•hhhsWestthester.rnm ®.1 mcrtrr,d ibr Irae.id5e..tern 01 Bd11S,ANkor,1 LC Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) We ask that maximum care and monitoring be done to ensure the health of these trees during and after the construction at 44 Edgewood Ave. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Paul Schwendener Barbara Gessler Links contained in this email have been replaced by ZixProtect Link Protection. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning. 6 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) From:Paul Schwendener Sent:Tuesday,October 13,2020 1:55 PM To: Building Department<BuildingDepartment@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Cc:Conservation Department<ConservationDept@TownofMamaroneckNY.org>;Catherine Wachs ;Stuart Wachs ;Barbara Seligson,Nancy<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Attn Building Inspector and Planning Board re:44 Edgewood Ave-PROTECTION OF HICKORY TREES To the Building Inspector and Planning Board, I was concerned to read in the attached letter re:44 Edgewood building plans that"at this juncture,it's impossible to predict whether any of the trees or mature foliage around the perimeter of the property can be preserved." The three mature hickory trees(diagram attached)are ESSENTIAL to the attractive appearance of Edgewood Ave.These magnificent trees affect the quality of life and the property values for all homeowners residing on Edgewood Ave.These trees must not be wantonly destroyed simply to allow a developer to cram two houses cheek by jowl inside a property originally intended for one house. When I spoke to a representative of the Building Department by phone in July she indicated that the hickory trees were to be protected.See also my message below. Can you please inform me what steps the ToM is taking to ensure the preservation of these hickory trees? Sincerely, Paul Schwendener From:Paul Schwendener Date:Monday,July 6,20 at : To:<BuildingDept@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Cc:Catherine Wachs ,<conservationdept@townofmamaroneckny.org>,Stuart Wachs ,Bar ara u ject: ttn ui ing nspector and Planning Board re:44 Edgewood Ave Re: permit 44 Edgewood. Public Meeting July 8.Comment to be discussed and entered into the record To the Building Inspector and Planning Board, We understand that three mature hickory trees along Edgewood Ave may be endangered when the lot at 44 Edgewood is subdivided to accommodate two new houses. These majestic hickory trees are essential to the natural and historic character of the neighborhood.They must not be damaged by huge construction equipment trampling or cutting through their roots. The roots of these hickory trees also serve the important function of absorbing water that would otherwise move downhill, possibly causing water damage to the homes across from 44 Edgewood. 5 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Subject: Re:Attn Building Inspector and Planning Board re:44 Edgewood Ave-PROTECTION OF HICKORY TREES Dear Nancy, Thanks to you and the Building Inspector for recognizing the concerns of the neighbors on Edgewood Ave. I am relieved to know that the hickory trees will be preserved.My only further request is that the Building Department ask the developer to protect the roots and root area around the hickory trees from potential damage by heavy construction equipment. Best wishes for a pleasant weekend. Sincerely, Paul From:"Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org"<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Date:Friday,October 16,2020 at 4:34 PM To:Paul Schwendener4111111111111 Building Department <BuildingDepartment@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Cc:Conservation Department<ConservationDe t TownofMamaroneckNY_org>,Catherine Wachs Stuart Wachs ,Barbara Su ject:RE:Attn ui ing Inspector and Planning Boar re:44 E gewood Ave-PROTECTION OF HICKORY TREES Dear Paul: The Building Inspector has informed me that the two lots have gone through an approval process as required by§178 Site Plan Review of Residential Development of the Code of the Town of Mamaroneck.The site plan that has been approved indicates which trees are to be removed and which trees will remain. There are three(3)30"hickory trees indicated on the site plan for 10 Judson Street to remain. The Town's Engineer and Building Inspector can approve minor changes to the approved site plan; however,any major change would be required to go back to the Planning Board for a site plan amendment. At this time I am not aware of any proposed changes to the plans that have been approved by the Planning Board. If changes are proposed,the Town Engineer and Building Inspector will review them for compliance with the Town code and the approved site plan.If the changes are such that the applicant will need a site plan amendment,the project will not move forward without proper review and approval from the Town's Planning Board. Sincerely, Nancy Nancy Seligson Supervisor Town of Mamaroneck 740 West Boston Post Road Mamaroneck,NY 10543 (914)381-7805 supervisor@townofmannaroneckny.org 4 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) N y ' t > ,� 4 i� f I , .„ i �~ .f xs 11 ft i't 'u S 1 t , r � 'a j, ...„116,147 ...1 v`Tr , , pi, • , kiliA ri t , ;b. i -, ' f Ile jV 1 P. ,, ., try,. r if "4� ..a Your concern for the environment is much appreciated by all neighbors. Best wishes for Thanksgiving, Paul From: Paul Schwendener Date: Friday, October 16,2020 at 4:44 PM To: "Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org'<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org>, Building Department<BuildingDepartment@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Cc:Conservation Department<ConservationDept@TownofMamaroneckNY.org>,Catherine Wachs ,Stuart Wachs , Barbara 3 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) st- manage.com%2Ftrack%2Fclick%3Fu%3D3a6d8f6241f9d4e9ed074b1b8%26id%3Da78c7d6d0d%26e%3D14899ffa8b The se recommendations have been carefully prepared,and have wide community support. On a personal note, I want to share with you the considerable effort that several neighbors and I had to go through in 2020 to save several mature hickory trees on Edgewood Ave.A portion of the correspondence is below and attached. No official advance warning of a possible plan to cut down the trees was given,but it seemed obvious that the developer's intention to build two very large houses on a(originally one-house)plot just barely able to contain them would doom all the existing trees.To prevent this,we neighbors sought out info at the Town Office,attended several Town meetings, wrote letters,and very importantly monitored in person what was happening on the property,right up to the day when the tree"pruners"were on the property with their enormous harvesting machines.Our efforts resulted in the attached diagram showing the trees that were saved. Special thanks to Nancy Seligson for her support during this process. The point I want to make by sharing this history is that tax-paying residents should not have to bear the full burden of trying to monitor and preserve the mature trees that make our community healthy and attractive.Our trees need and deserve more active protection from the Town authorities. I respectfully request that you and the Board consider adopting all of the recommendations contained in the link above. Thank you,and best regards, Paul Schwendener 27 Edgewood Ave. Larchmont From: Paul Schwendener Date:Friday, November 20, 2020 at 11:09 AM To:"Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org"<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org>, Building Department<BuildingDepartment@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Cc:Conservation Department<ConservationDept@TownofMamaroneckNY.org>, Catherine Wachs ,Stuart Wachs , Barbara Subject:THANK YOU:44 Edgewood Ave-PROTECTION OF HICKORY TREES Dear Nancy and Building Department, Thank you for taking steps to protect the hickory trees at 44 Edgewood Ave.The property was prepared for demolition/construction this week,and the tree company(Gedney)did a careful job of pruning and preserving the hickory trees,as you can see from these photos: 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Harriet Barish Sent from my iPad Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) DeMuro, Laura From: May,Allison Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 2:26 PM To: DeMuro, Laura Subject: FW:Comment re:revised tree law- please share with Town Board prior to Nov 1 meeting. Attachments: 44 Edgewood letter Oct 2020[1][1].pdf;44 edgewood diagram trees and planting[1] [1]Jpg Alli Allison May,CMC Town Clerk,Town of Mamaroneck 740 W.Boston Post Road Mamaroneck,NY 10543 914-381-7870 Frequently Asked Voting Questions: • Am I a registered Vote and where is my Poll Site? • Voting by Mail: Absentee Ballots • When is Early Voting at the Town Center begins October 28th(Please note,there is no early voting on Monday,November 6th,the day before the General Election.) • What's on the ballot?View Sample Ballot(available after October 6,2023) **The Town Clerk's Office is open daily from 8:30 a.m.—4:30 p.m. Marriage Licenses are done by appointment,please give us a call at 914-381-7870 to schedule yours. For permits,other licenses and FOILs,we encourage you to visit our website for the fastest response.*** From:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Sent:Thursday,November 09,2023 12:28 PM To:May,Allison<amay@townofmamaroneckny.org> Subject:FW:Comment re:revised tree law-please share with Town Board prior to Nov 1 meeting. From:Paul Schwendener Sent:Monday,October 30, 2023 2:54 PM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Cc:Catherine Wachs Barbara t,t Subject: •Comment re: •revised tree law- •please share with •Town Board prior to Nov 1 meeting. " Dear Supervisor Elkind Eney, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the revised tree law draft. In short,the current draft is insufficient to protect the tree canopy,fresh air,and quality of living of our town. I strongly agree with every recommendation listed in this document: https://link.zixcentral.com/u/735c0d76/EouwyFV37hG166gWh3soMg?u=https%3A%2F%2Ffacebook.us4.li 1 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) fi .fi I Art 3. idkisio treir, The Economic Footprint and Quality-of-Life Benefits of Urban Forestry in the United States A Comprehensive Report About the Report Key Findings The study aimed to determine the quality-of-life Urban Forestry's impact on quality-of-life contributions and economic footprint of the urban • Homes with trees in their yard have higher property forestry sector in the United States for the year 2017, values in the United States than those without any which is the most recent year data is available for comprehensive analysis. tree cover. • The annual value of tree cover on private home property The study was conducted by the University of Nebraska- is$31.5 billion nationwide. Lincoln Bureau of Business Research and sponsored by the • Urban trees also create external benefits to society. Arbor Day Foundation and the USDA Forest Service. • Trees'external benefits to society include protection To compile the report,a consistent methodology is used from erosion and stormwater runoff,and health benefits across all states to provide both national results and to people by providing clean air. comparisons among the states.The methodology also relies • Trees provide a$73 billion benefit to society from on administrative data from the U.S.Bureau of Census environmental benefits including carbon sequestration, and the Arbor Day Foundation. reduced air pollution,and reduced stormwater runoff. Phrases to Know • States have varying degrees of quality-of-life impact from urban tree plantings. Urban forestry:The growing,distributing,planting,and • Urban trees had the largest annual impact on quality- maintaining of trees and forests where people live,work, of-life in Texas,Georgia,Florida,North Carolina,and play,and learn. Mississippi. Quality-of-life benefits:The services delivered to • Click here to see the full state-by-state breakdown. individuals who own properties with trees,plus the inescapable contributions those trees make to society. Urban Forestry sector'seconomicfootprint • Economic footprint:Direct spending and employment The urban forestry sector directly contributes$35 billion annually to the U.S.economy. by businesses,city and county governments,utilities, and universities to grow,distribute,plant,and maintain • When factoring in the economic multiplier,the urban trees and forests,plus the circulation of that urban forestry sector has a total economic footprint of spending and employment through the local economy $64 billion. (economic multiplier). • More than 500,000 people are employed as a result of urban forestry activities by private firms and governments. Economic multiplier:This multiplier captures the spillover of direct spending and employment to other businesses, • California,New York,Texas,Florida,and Illinois had e.g.when employees of a landscaping company spend i the most economic activity by the urban forestry sector. their paychecks. USDA Arbor Day Foundation° bt BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH �--- gt: c°ikgr°je�u•.4dmini°aneo° arborday.org 90479s01 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Friday, November 10, 2023 3:55 PM To: May,Allison Subject: FW:Trees on Sunday From:Brian Lobel Sent: Friday, November 10,2023 8:22 AM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Cc: Fiddelman,Sabrina<SFiddelman@townofmamaroneckny.org>; Katz,Abby<AKatz@townofmamaroneckny.org>; King,Jeffery<JKing@townofmamaroneckny.org>; Nichinsky, Robin<RNichinsky@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Trees on Sunday It was good seeing you on Sunday. An interesting presentation on the value of trees to communities. We both heard the professor speak of the importance of incentives but the new proposed law speaks only to punishment. Presuming one can translate it, a private property without trees is unaffected while one with many trees faces extensive regulation and the town itself is unregulated. Time for a short and simple version three with emphasis on town responsibility for that which benefits the community. Best regards, Brian Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android Links contained in this email have been replaced by ZixProtect Link Protection. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warnin•. i Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Jenny Geer 4111111.11111111111.111111 Sent: Monday, November 13,2023 1:18 PM To: May,Allison Subject: Fwd:Community Petition to the Board re Strengthening Tree Law Hi Atli, Thanks for your response about submitting the petition data. Here's the e-mail I sent the board this morning with the text of the petition. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Jenny Jenny Geer Larchmont/Mamaroneck Indivisible Begin forwarded message: From: Jenny Geer 11111111.1111111.111111, Subject: Community Petition to the Board re Strengthening Tree Law Date: November 13, 2023 at 10:58:41 AM EST To: Jaine Elkind Eney supervisor@townofmamaroneckny.orq> To the Town of Mamaroneck Supervisor and Board: As you may be aware, a petition has been circulating in our community that asks the Board to make revisions to the draft tree law to strengthen its protections of our diminishing tree canopy. So far more some 300 residents have signed, most from the unincorporated area. I will be submitting the names and addresses of the signatories in the next day or so, but want the Board to have the opportunity to see the petition and the recommended changes in advance of the Wednesday hearing. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) The full text is below. Please note that the list of recommendations is selective, not comprehensive. Regards, 1io .4%x1" r4 Jenny Geer Resident,Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area SAVE THE TREES Petition to Revise Town of Mamaroneck's Proposed Tree Law to Preserve Our Tree Canopy We, the undersigned residents of the Town of Mamaroneck, urge the Town Board to make further revisions to the draft Tree Law to ensure that it meets the stated Town goal of preserving the tree canopy, following: 1. 1) the guidance of tree experts, Sustainability Collaborative, Planning Board and 2. 2) the model of strong tree laws in other Westchester municipalities such as Greenburgh. These recommendations include: • Protect mature trees with a diameter of 24" or more. • Establish clear criteria for decision-making, for homeowners considering tree removal and for Environmental Planner considering permit applications, including potential adverse impacts on environment and community as well as alternatives to tree removal. • Decrease the maximum number of trees that may be cut down in any year, and require every tree removal be justified based on established criteria. • Require certified arborist to assess health of replanted trees for at least 2 years following planting, and if planted tree dies within that time, homeowner or Town should replant. • Require neighbor notification for mature trees and where neighbors would be adversely impacted. • Make the cost of contributing to the tree replacement fund consistent with the market rate for purchasing and planting a tree. 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) • Increase penalties for offenses so they are higher than tree planting fund fees and are an effective deterrent. • Apply all points above to Town properties as well. 3 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 10:47 AM To: May,Allison Subject: FW: Respect the trees From:Nicole Gassman 411111111.1111111.111 Sent:Saturday, November 11, 2023 9:35 AM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind <Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Cc: Karen Khor Subject:Respect the trees Hello, I have signed the petition as our trees play an important role in our community and provide essential services like cooling, purifying our air, and providing homes for wildlife. Many of them were here before us. Please respect our mature trees! Sincerely, Nicole Gassman Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 10:47 AM To: May,Allison Subject: FW:Trees From:Jan Northrup VIIIIMERmair Sent:Saturday, November 11,2023 10:06 AM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Trees The house behind us cut down every single tree on its property,along with other vegetation.Such a shame! Jan Northrup 1 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 10:49 AM To: May,Allison Subject: FW:Tree removal Original Message From:Andra Fertig Sent:Saturday, November 11,2023 3:51 PM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Tree removal Please do not remove healthy trees. I live on Colonial Avenue and all the trees have been cut down to build farm style McMansions.We need trees to stop flooding and to protect our environment.Thank you.Andra Fertig Sent from my iPhone 1 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday, November 14,2023 10:49 AM To: May,Allison Subject: FW:Tree Law hearing From: Richard CorenthalliraMialliffa Sent:Sunday, November 12, 2023 10:45 AM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Tree Law hearing Dear Ms Eany Flooding has worsened terribly since we moved to Larchmont in 1995. Everything needs to be done to lessen the impact of flooding which has increased from climate change and larger new construction and all the trees that have been cut down. Trees are important to ameliorate flooding. Please do everything you can to support the Tree Law and measures against flooding. Thank you Richard Corentha Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday, November 14,2023 10.50 AM To: May, Allison Subject: FW:Trees! From: Lu Doyle Sent:Sunday, November 12, 2023 10:57 AM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNy.org> Subject:Trees! Jaine,although I live in the Village of Mamaroneck, I still work in Larchmont,where my kids grew up,as you know. I was at the presentation of Andy Reismann's last Sunday,and I knew many of the facts of which he spoke---but the idea that so much water is soaked up by ONE tree really struck me. In our coastal area with underground streams as well as the above ground Mamaroneck River,we all know how flood mitigation measures are sorely needed. Please help save the earth---specifically, please pass a stringent tree code which will provide a model for and influence people in all of the surrounding communities. Lu Doyle 111111111111 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday, November 14,2023 10:51 AM To: May,Allison Subject: FW: Petitioner's note for Supervisor and Town Board Original Message From: Michele Lewisillinfallffillifalp Sent:Sunday, November 12, 2023 4:14 PM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject: Petitioner's note for Supervisor and Town Board Dear Supervisor and Board of Mamaroneck, I signed the Tree Petition in hopes that you will pause the process to have the code written by certified arborists and experts in this field. This means people who understand the importance of our tree population, its ability to side in flooding and shade for carbon reduction.The knowledge of developing the tree canopy will help us address climate change. The Town government must be involved in leading this effort and keeping their actions in compliance.This work can and must be collaborative with the Sustainability Collaborative and the Planning Board. Respectfully Submitted: Michele Lewis AIA Town Resident since1989 1 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 10:53 AM To: May,Allison Subject: FW: Please match Greenburgh's tree law From Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 12:41 AM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Please match Greenburgh's tree law The proposed law is not strong enough to keep homeowners from indiscriminately cutting down trees.The homeowners behind me cut down 6 mature Norway maples last spring,each of which were consuming 40,000 gallons of water annually. Now I have flood problems in my home that I have never had before. Please do better with the tree law than you have done. Lisa Chase Lisa Chase NIMMEIS Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 10:55 AM To: May,Allison Subject: FW: Please strengthen the tree protection language on the proposed law for tree removal From:Adrienne Skinner< Sent:Monday, November 13,2023 9:04 AM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject: Please strengthen the tree protection language on the proposed law for tree removal Hello I am a 37 year resident of the Town of Mamaroneck, and am very concerned about the tree removal allowed in the current proposed law. With all of the tear-downs and rebuilding going on, it is apparent the number of trees(especially the old, most valuable ones) is declining. Can you please add more stringent terms to the proposed law that will prevent tree removal for any reason? I realize there are situations where it should be allowed, but oversight to prevent unnecessary removal is important. The town should have more oversight and control over removal. I've opened a number of building permits over the past 35 years, including one closed only two years ago. I know the criteria for permits has been strengthened for a number of good reasons, including fire protection, heating retention, etc., all for the intent of improving our community and preventing inappropriate choices in building and lot management. Let this please be another one. Trees take so long to reach maturity,when they are most valuable to our community. Keeping our tree canopy in its best possible state,with as many trees in town as possible, helps everyone, particularly with the weather challenges(i.e. flooding and heat increase during summers)that are increasing. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Adrienne Skinner 111.111.11 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday, November 14,2023 11:01 AM To: May, Allison Subject: FW: Draft Tree Law Comments Attachments: Image(32)-pages-deleted.pdf From: Meredith Robson<MRobson@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 9:43 AM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:FW: Draft Tree Law Comments What do you want me to do with this? Meredith S. Robson Town Administrator Town of Mamaroneck 740 West Boston Post Road Mamaroneck, N.Y. 10543-3319 914-381-7810 Skin UD for Town Alerts) From: Frank Gordon 11.11.111111.1 Sent:Sunday, November 12,2023 2:31 PM To:Town Administrator<townadministrator@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Draft Tree Law Comments Ms. Robson, Please see attached comments on the revised draft of the proposed tree law. Thank you. Frank Gordon Harrison resident Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) 0041 y13 Local Law No. —2023 This local law shall be known as the"Town of Mamaroneck Tree Law". BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck Section 1—Purpose: The Town Board finds and declares that the preservation of trees, as defined herein, within the Town is necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the Town because trees provide shade,impede soil erosion,aid water absorption and retention,inhibit excess runoff and flooding,enhance air quality,offer a natural barrier to noise,provide a natural habitat for wildlife, provide screening,enhance property values and add to the aesthetic quality of the community. However,the Town Board also recognizes that property owners have the right to develop,use and enjoy their properties. This law strikes a balance between the rights of property owners and the maintenance of trees within the Town. Section 2—Amendment of a current section of the Mamaroneck Code: Chapter 207 of the Code of the Town of Mamaroneck hereby is repealed and the following substituted in its place: Chapter 207 Trees §207-1 Legislative Intent §207-2 Definitions. §207-3.Regulated activities;permit required. §207-4 Activities permitted by right §207-5 Activities absolutely prohibited §2t17-6 Permit application process;approving authority 207-7 Tree replacement §207-8 Period that must elapse before an additional permit can be issued §207-9 Tree Planting Fund §207-10 Issuance of permit with conditions §207-11 Issuance of permit §207-12 Suspension or revocation of permit §207-13 Term §207-14 Compliance with applicable provisions required §207-15 Appeals §207-16 Action upon completion of work §207-17 Penalties for offenses Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) CRITICAL ROOT ZONE The circular area surrounding a tree that must be protected from compaction,fill or trenching to attempt to ensure the survival of the tree. That area is determined by multiplying the diameter of the tree at breast height(DBH)by 18 and is measured from the center of the tree's trunk measured from the outside of the tree trunk. For example,a tree with a DBH of 12 inches has a critical root zone with a radius of 216 inches,measured from the center of the tree to the circumference of the circle that is the critical root zone. DEAD TREE A tree with a DBH of six inches or more that the Town arborist demonstrates,to the satisfaction of the Environmental Planner, is dead or has been damaged so that it cannot be salvaged or is in an advanced state of decline(where an insufficient amount of live tissue,green leaves,limbs or brandies exist to sustain life). DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT(DBH) The diameter of a tree 4]/2 feet above-ground level on the uphill side.DBH shall be recorded in inches. ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER The Town's Environmental Planner or another person designated by the Town Board to act in that capacity. EXCESSIVE PRUNING Removal of more than 25°4%of the crown of a tree within any twelve-month period. J or- HAZARDOUS TREF A tree with a DBH of six inches or more that the Town arborist demonstr s,to the satisfaction of the Environmental Planner,poses a threat to the safety of of the property L, or members of that person's family or their real or personal property or to the safety of members of the public or their real or personal property. et �a LDS INJURY Oa Damage to a tree foreseeably leading to the tree's death or permanent damage to the health of the tree, including a wound resulting from any activity, including but not limited to excessive pruning, cutting, trenching, excavating, altering the grade, paving or compaction, bruising, scarring, tearing or breaking roots, bark, trunk,branches or foliage or application of herbicide or poisoning. INVASIVE SPECIES 31 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) TREE REMOVAL PERMIT A permit issued pursuant to this chapter. 207-3.Regulated activities;permit required. A person shall be allowed to remove a regulated tree within the unincorporated area of the Town only if a tree removal permit for the removal of such tree shall have been issued. fi 207-4.Activities permitted by right. The following activities arc permitted by right • A. Removal of any tree that is not a regulated tree provided the tree is located on property owned by the person removing it or is being removed with the consent of the property owner. B. Routine care and maintenance.Pruning of less than 25%of the crown of a regulated tree during any twelve-month period is considered routine care and maintenance. C. Provided a tree removal permit is obtained in advance: 1. Up to 7 regulated trees can be removed from any lot having an area of 20,000 square feet or more during any twelve-month period. 2. Up to 5 regulated trees can be removed from any lot having an area greater than 7,500 square feet but less than 20,000 square feet during any twelve-month period. 3. Up to 3 regulated trees can be removed from any lot having an area of 7,500 square feet or less during any twelve-month period. 4. Notwithstanding the foregoing limitation on the number of regulated trees that can be removed during any twelve-month period,a person also may remove any regulated tree that (i) in the opinion of the approving authority, substantially interferes with a permitted use of the property,or (ii)is a hazardous tree,or (iii)the Town arborist certifies to the satisfaction o.f the Environmental Planner that due to an approved cut or fill of land elsewhere on the property where the tree is located, it is reasonable to expect that the tree will becom azardou r or (iv)is a dead tree. Are 5 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) a The Environmental Planner can dispense with a repo from th Town arborist if the Environmental Planner can determine that a tree is either azardou o eadjwithout the need for a report. y, In making judgments pursuant to§207-4 C.,the approving authority ct reasonably. D. 1. A tree removal permit is not required to remove a regulated tree for the protection of of the property or members of that person's family or their real or personal property or for the protection of members of the public or their real or personal property when removal is necessitated due to an actual or ongoing cityrd07emergency, defined as a serious situation or occurrence that happens 4°- unexpectedly and demands immediate action; however,the property owner shall / notify the Environmental Planner of the removal and provide evidence as to why such tree was removed within 15 days after removal. 2. A property owner who causes a regulated tree to be removed due to an actual or ongoing emergency shall comply with the rules for replacing trees provided in§ 207-7 and be subject to the fines imposed and the consequences that result from failing to comply with this law provided in§207-17. E. A property owner will not be required to obtain a tree removal permit or to plant replacement trees if a tree on the property owner's property falls without human action. §207-5.Activities absolutely prohibited. A. Except in situations where§207-4 D.is applicable,it shall be unlawful for any person to remove a regulated tree without obtaining a tree removal permit in advance. B. It shall be unlawful for any person,other than the Town,to remove a tree within a public right- of-way or on Town-owned property without the Town's permission. No department, agency, 0 commission,authority or employee of the Town or any firm or individual retained by the Town shall removeremove&are or more regulated trees located within an area of 2,500 square feet, or less ,.without first notifying the Town Board of its intention to do so. C coi C. It shall be unlawful for any person to cause such injury to a tree so that it is likely that the tree will become a dead tree or a hazardous tree. 6IFt? :c Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) L_ D. It shall be unlawful for any person to remove a tree with a DBH of thirty-six inches or more unless it is determined by the Environmental Planner to be a hazardous tree or a dead tree or unless it (i) in the opinion of the approving authority, substantially interferes with a permitted use of the property,or iii) a Town arborist certifies to the satisfaction of the Environmental Planner that r due to an approved cut or fill of land elsewhere on the property where the tree is located, it is reasonable to expect that the tree will becomerhazardoulfor iE i�.rl Awe � 0. Vet IL The Environmental Planner can dispense with a report from the Town arborist if the Environmental Planner can determine that a tree is eithe, azardou-o dea without the need for a report. In making judgments pursuant to 4 207-5 D.,the Environmental Planne .. act reasonably. 2117-6.Permit application process;approving authority. A. Any person seeking to conduct any activity listed in §207-3 shall file an application for a tree removal permit with the approving authority. 1. Applications to the Environmental Planner The Application shall include the following information: a. The name,postal and email addresses and telephone number of the property owner and the applicant,if the applicant is not the property owner, b. The street address of the property where the removal is sought, c. A statement from the property owner authorizing an applicant to make the application for a tree removal permit, d. A general description of the proposed removal, e. A planting plan based on the tree replacement requirements in§207-7. The planting plan shall include the location of all proposed replacement trees,a list of all proposed replacement trees that identifies the species(by common or botanical name),size and quantity. The approving authority may waive the requirement to plant replacement trees, in whole or in part, if it determines that, because of site constraints, it is impracticable or impossible to replace certain trees,or where the approving authority determines that,because of relevant site planning considerations,tree replacement is not warranted. The approving authority shall require payment of a fee to the Tree Planting Fund to satisfy the unmet portion of tree replacement requirements computed in accordance with§207-9 , 7 I P Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) This law shall not limit the number of regulated trees that the Planning Board can allow to be removed for the development of a vacant lot.A lot whose principal use has been removed during the previous twenty-four months shalt not be considered a vacant lot. Nothing in this law shall prevent the Planning Board from authorizing the removal of more trees than this law otherwise would allow if in the opinion of the Planning Board,it is appropriate to do so. B. Any site for which an application has been submitted shall be subject to inspection upon notice to the property owner and/or the applicant at any reasonable time,including weekends,by the approving authority nr its designated representatives. By making an application for a tree removal permit,the Applicant shall be deemed to have given its consent to such inspection. C All items submitted in connection with an application for a tree removal permit, including the application itself,shall be maintained in the office of the Building Department. The Building Department shall maintain a record of the lots for which tree removal permits are issued by either the Environmental Planner or the Planning Board, the date of each permit and the number of regulated trees approved for removal by each permit. 207-7.Tree replacement. A. Tree replacement shall occur on-site, except where the approving authority determines that, because of site constraints, it is impractical or impossible to do so, or where the approving authority determines that replacement trees would unduly prevent the use or enjoyment of the property or where the approving authority determines that, because of relevant site planning considerations,it is not warranted.>f the approving authority determines that less than all of the required number of replacement trees can be planted on-site, the approving authority shall require the payment of a fee to the Tree Planting Fund to satisfy the unmet portion of tree replacement. B. The number of replacement trees shall be determined as follows: Two replacement trees for each removed regulated tree having a DBH between 6 inches and 12 inche . 9IP g Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) ��','71� Three replacement trees for each removed regulated tree having a DBH greater than 12 inches ,,'-der ut ,-than 18 inches. `' r Pour replacement trees for each removed regulated tree having a DBH of 14 inche .leOlar hr C r Replacement trees must have a caliper of at least two and one-half inches and must be a species selected from the list of approved species maintained by the Environmental Planner which may be updated from time to time. Except where the approving authority determines that it is impractical to do so, at least 50%of replacement trees shall be trees that grow to a height of at least 40 feet when mature. D. When 10 or more replacement trees are required,no single tree genus can account for more than one-third of total number of replacement trees.Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized by the Environmental Planner,when specific conditions warrant such a change. E. Replacement trees shall be ecologically compatible with the site and neighboring properties. Invasive species shall not be allowed under any circumstances. Standards for transplanting of trees and shrubs shall follow the guidelines found in the International Society of Arboriculture publication"Tree and Shrub Planting Manual." 207-8.Period that must elapse before an additional permit can be issued. 1. There shall be a period of time when a tree removal permit for the same property cannot he issued. A tree removal permit shall not be issued for any property for which a tree removal permit was issued prior to the first anniversary of the preliminary letter of completion for the work done pursuant to such permit(see§207-16), or in the case of a permit which does not require the planting of replacement trees, prior to the first anniversary of the deposit into the Tree Planting Fund that a property owner is required to make pursuant to§207-9.The prohibition upon the issuance of a tree removal permit shall apply even if title to the property is transferred. 2. A tree removal permit may be issued within the time period where issuance of such permit would be prohibited by paragraph 1 of section 207-s, if the prior tree removal permit had been issued for the removal of a hazardous tree or a dead tree. 3. A property owner may apply for a tree removal permit during the period when this section prohibits the issuance of such permit if during that period a tree on that property becomes a hazardous tree or a d d tree. A property owner who causes a hazardous tree 10 I €1 0. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) or a dead tree to be removed shall comply with the rules for replacing trees provided in 207-7 and be subject to the fines imposed and the consequences that result from failing to comply with this law provided in§207-17. 4. If a replacement tree does not survive for one year after the Environmental Planner issues a preliminary letter of completion, the Environmental Planner shall determine whether the property owner must plant the requisite number of trees to replace the replacement trees that died or may pay an amount into the Tree Planting Fund that equals the number of replacement trees that did not survive multiplied by$300.00 or a combination of both. Upon the issuance of a preliminary letter of completion after these new trees are planted or the payment into the Tree Planting Fund,the property owner shall be allowed to apply for a tree removal permit. If a tree planted to replace a replacement tree that did not survive for one year after the Environmental Planner had issued a preliminary letter of completion itself dies within one year of the issuance of a preliminary letter of completion for its planting,the property owner may either plant the requisite number of trees to replace the replacement trees that died or may pay an amount into the Tree Planting Fund that equals the number of replacement trees that did not survive multiplied by$300.00 or a combination of both. 6 207-9.Tree Planting Fund. A. When a property owner is required to make a payment to the Tree Planting Fund,the amount of such payment shall equal the product of the multiplication of the number of required replacement trees that will not be planted on-site by$300.00, B. The Tree Planting Fund shall be the fund that receives(i)payments from property owners who cannot satisfy tree replacement requirements because the approving authority determines that due to site constraints some or all of the required number of replacement trees cannot be planted on-site and (ii)the payment of any fine imposed by this chapter. In addition,any person may donate to the free Planting Fund. C. (1)Amounts on deposi in the Tree Planting Fund shall be used for the sole purpose of planting and maintaining To owned trees, shrubs, and other permanent plant materials and other applicable landscaping projects on Town-owned property. (2)Proposed landscaping may include trees, shrubs, and other permanent plant materials. Planting and maintenance shall include purchase,transportation,mulching,watering,fertilizing, trimming, fencing and associated labor. The Tree Planting Fund may be used to fund other associated project tasks including the purchasing equipment to be used for watering plantings, the purchase and/or installation of irrigation systems to support plantings,design,tree inventory, • 11IP: g Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) construction of tree pits,and soil amendments that enhance and promote long-term sustainability of plantings. (3)If feasible,the amounts on deposit in the Tree Planting Fund first should be applied to projects located close to lots where tree removal has occurred. Fl 207-10.Issuance of permit with conditions. Any tree removal permit may contain such conditions as the approving authority deems necessary to ensure compliance with the legislative intent of this chapter.Examples of conditions that may be imposed upon a tree removal permit include but are not limited to,the alteration of the planting plan submitted by the applicant so that replacement trees are planted on-site in locations other than the locations shown on such plan or the imposition of the requirement to deposit money into the Tree Planting Fund instead of planting replacement trees on-site. §207-11.Issuance of permit. No tree removal permit shall be issued until the applicant or the property owner pays(i)the fees required for making the application and(ii)the amount required to be paid to the Tree Planting Fund to satisfy the unmet portion of the tree replacement requirements. §207-12.Suspension or revocation of permit. A. (1)The Building Inspector,an Assistant Building Inspector,the Engineer,any Code Enforcement Officer, the Director of Building Code Enforcement and Land Use Administration, or the Environmental Planner may issue a stop-work order for violations of this chapter. Persons receiving a stop-work order shall be required to halt all land development activities,except those activities that correct the violations that led to the stop-work order or remove a hazardous condition.The stop-work order shall be in effect until the Town confirms that the violation has been satisfactorily corrected.Failure to address a stop-work order in a timely manner may result in civil or monetary penalties in accordance with the enforcement measures authorized in this chapter. (2)The Building Inspector,an Assistant Building inspector,the Engineer,the Director of Building Code Enforcement and Land Use Administration,or the Environmental lanner may suspend or revoke a tree removal permit if the applicant has not complied with any f the material terms of such tree removal permit, has exceeded the authority granted in the ermit, or has failed to undertake the project in the manner set forth in the Application.Such s spension or revocation shall he accompanied by a stop-work order. B. (rei Cite,°L ",� Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) are not corrected within 30 days of the notification,the applicant and the property owner shall be liable for the fine proscribed in§207-17B. §207-17.Penalties for offenses. A._ Any person who removes a regulated tree without complying with this chapter shall be guilty of a violation within the meaning of NY Penal Law § 10.00 (3) and upon conviction, shall be 1 ;J� punished by the imposition of a fine of $300.00 per tree for the removal of trees having a DBH between 6 inches and 12 inches,( $600.00 per tree for the removal of trees having a DBH greater than 12 inches but not greater than 18 inches and $900.00 per tree for the removal of trees having a DBH larger than 18 inches. y� In addition,any person who removes a regulated tree without complying with this chapter all be required to plant the number of replacement trees and/or make the payment to the Tre and that the property owner would have been required to plant or pay if such person had obtained a tree removal permit. B. Any person who does not comply with a notification given by the Environmental Planner pursuant to§207-15 C.shall be guilty of a violation within the meaning of NY Penal Law§10.00 (3) and upon conviction, shall be punished by the impoition of a fine of$ 00.00 plus a fine of $300.00 for each replacement tree that the property owner failed to plant plus double the amount of the funds that the property owner was required to deposit into the Tree Planting Fund. C. Each violation of a provision of this chapter shall be a separate and distinct offense.In addition, any offender may be ordered by the court to replant trees that were improperly removed,insofar as that is possible.The court shall specify a reasonable time for completion of such restoration, the sufficiency of which shall be determined by the Environmental Planner.The fines remitted to the Town shall be deposited into the Tree Planting Fund. a In addition of being liable for the fines contained in §207-17A., any person who removes a regulated tree without having first received a tree removal permit or who does not comply with a notification given by the Environmental Planner pursuant to§207-16C.shall be precluded from applying for a tree removal permit for the removal of trees from the property for which the tree removal period had been issued for the 12-month period commencing with the month that such removal or non-compliance with a notification given by the Environmental Planner pursuant to §207-16C. is discovered by the Town. 15Ii' sg e Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 11:02 AM To: May,Allison Subject: FW: Proposed Tree Canopy Law From:Molly Greer Gurny 4111111 Sent:Monday, November 13,2023 9:57 AM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Proposed Tree Canopy Law Hi Supervisor Elkind, I'm writing to ask that you take more time to get the tree law right,to protect the tree canopy for our entire community. The current draft is insufficient and must not be made into law. Thanks, Molly 1 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday, November 14,2023 11:03 AM To: May,Allison Subject: FW:Tree permit bill From:Pam Joyce1111111111.11.111111.1111111 Sent: Monday, November 13,2023 9:59 AM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Tree permit bill Dear Town of Mamaroneck Supervisor, I have lived in the unincorporated Town of Mamaroneck for over 30 years.One of the reasons I chose to live in Larchmont/Mamaroneck is its beautiful tree canopy.Not only does it provide natural beauty but needed shade during the summer months and yes, it does help mitigate flooding by the trees diverting water. During the past 30 years we have lost power at least 8 times and 6 of those occasions was due to flooding and only 2 to a downed power line because of a tree or branch falling on a power line. I feel that people will begin taking trees down just because they are nervous about a tree falling but if trees are maintained and cared for that should not occur. We need to make informed decisions about our trees and not act out of fear. Best Regards, A concerned tree lover! Pam Joyce 1 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 11:04 AM To: May,Allison Subject: FW:Community Petition to the Board re Strengthening Tree Law From:Jenny Geer Sent:Monday, November 13,2023 10:59 AM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Community Petition to the Board re Strengthening Tree Law To the Town of Mamaroneck Supervisor and Board: As you may be aware,a petition has been circulating in our community that asks the Board to make revisions to the draft tree law to strengthen its protections of our diminishing tree canopy. So far more some 300 residents have signed,most from the unincorporated area. I will be submitting the names and addresses of the signatories in the next day or so,but want the Board to have the opportunity to see the petition and the recommended changes in advance of the Wednesday hearing. The full text is below. Please note that the list of recommendations is selective,not comprehensive. Regards, Jenny Geer Resident,Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area SAVE THE " TREESI Petition to Revise Town of Mamaroneck's Proposed Tree Law to Preserve Our Tree Canopy Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) We, the undersigned residents of the Town of Mamaroneck, urge the Town Board to make further revisions to the draft Tree Law to ensure that it meets the stated Town goal of preserving the tree canopy, following: 1. 1) the guidance of tree experts, Sustainability Collaborative, Planning Board and 2. 2) the model of strong tree laws in other Westchester municipalities such as Greenburgh. These recommendations include: • Protect mature trees with a diameter of 24" or more. • Establish clear criteria for decision-making, for homeownprs.cortsidqripgItreskftmoval and for Environmental Planner considering permit applications, including potential adverse impacts on environment and community as well as alternatives to tree removal. • Decrease the maximum number of trees that may be cut down in any year, and require every tree removal be justified based on established criteria. • Require certified arborist to assess health of replanted trees for at least 2 years following planting, and if planted tree dies within that time, homeowner or Town should replant. • Require neighbor notification for mature trees and where neighbors would be adversely impacted. • Make the cost of contributing to the tree replacement fund consistent with the market rate for purchasing and planting a tree. • Increase penalties for offenses so they are higher than tree planting fund fees and are an effective deterrent. • Apply all points above to Town properties as well. 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Jenny Geer Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2023 1:53 PM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind Cc: May,Allison Subject: Tree Law Petition -Online Responses-Total Signatures 366 a/o today @ 1:30pm Attachments: Mamaroneck Tree Law Petition (Online Responses - 11-11 to 11-15-23) .pdf To the Town of Mamaroneck Supervisor and Board, Here is the second batch of signatures for the tree law petition,which were collected online between 11/7/23 and 11/15/23 at 1:30 pm. There are still signatures coming in—I will provide an updated total at tonight's hearing. In this batch there are 240 signatures: 153 from the Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area,60 from the Village of Larchmont, and 27 from the Village of Mamaroneck. To date we have received a total of 366 signatures: 237 from TOM,87 from VOL,and 42 from VOM. The entries have been screened to eliminate non-residents and underage respondents, and to confirm that addresses match the TownNillage designation. I will be writing my comments separately. For now, please consider that all of these signatories are your constituents,that we have received this number of signatures in just 9 days,and what that implies in terms of your responsibility to listen to their wishes and act accordingly. Once again,the text of the petition, including recommendations for revising the tree law, is copied below. Regards, Jenny Geer Resident,Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Petition to Revise Town of Mamaroneck's Proposed Tree Law to Preserve Our Tree Canopy We, the undersigned residents of the Town of Mamaroneck, urge the Town Board to make further revisions to the draft Tree Law to ensure that it meets the stated Town goal of preserving the tree canopy, following: 1. 1) the guidance of tree experts, Sustainability Collaborative, Planning Board and Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) 2. 2) the model of strong tree laws in other Westchester municipalities such as Greenburgh. These recommendations include: • Protect mature trees with a diameter of 24" or more. • Establish clear criteria for decision-making, for homeowners considering tree removal and for Environmental Planner considering permit applications, including potential adverse impacts on environment and community as well as alternatives to tree removal. • Decrease the maximum number of trees that may be cut down in any year, and require every tree removal be justified based on established criteria. • Require certified arborist to assess health of replanted trees for at least 2 years following planting, and if planted tree dies within that time, homeowner or Town should replant. • Require neighbor notification for mature trees and where neighbors would be adversely impacted. • Make the cost of contributing to the tree replacement fund consistent with the market rate for purchasing and planting a tree. • Increase penalties for offenses so they are higher than tree planting fund fees and are an effective deterrent. • Apply all points above to Town properties as well. 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Mamaroneck Tree Law Petition(In-Person&E-mail Responses-collected 11/4 to 11/11/23) Name(First&Last) Address(Street,City,State,Zip I live in(check one): Therese Balduzzi 38 Lester PI TOM Keith Mackson 38 Lester PI TOM Brenda Bloom 39 Eton Rd TOM Michael Bloom 39 Eton Rd TOM John Carroll 3 Carleon Ave TOM Michele Smith 30 Sherwood Dri TOM Paul Slesinger 54 Maplewood TOM Christine Crowther 1299 Palmer Ave TOM Kevin Crowe 65 W.Brookside TOM Carol Miller 16 N.Chatsworth TOM Monica Casey 50 Eton Rd TOM Adrienne Skinner 10 Leafy Lane TOM Emma Oxton 1023 Old White Plains Rd TOM Glen Oxton 1023 Old White Plains Rd TOM Susan Johnston 1023 Old White Plains Rd TOM Griet Opale Beck 35 N.Chatsworth TOM Mary Beth Joille 211 Rockingstone Ave TOM Elise Houtgraef 58 E.Brookside TOM Eric Perlmutter 64 Carleon Ave TOM Diane Safer 99 Madison Ave TOM Beatrice Weinberger 256 Rockingstone TOM Dan Shearer 34 Echo Lane TOM Meg Dow 26 Poplar Rd TOM Theresa Girardi 88 Edgewood Ave TOM Jason Younger 88 Edgewood Ave TOM Fred Delahunt 9 Maplewood TOM Carole Sears 1 Highridge Rd TOM Shane Kolpon 46 Vine Rd TOM Bruce Simons 144 E.Brookside Dr TOM Sarah Dunn 12 Huguenot Dr TOM Joan Rosen 17 York Rd TOM 1 Mamaroneck Tree Law Petition(In-Person&E-mail Responses-collected 11/4 to 11111123) Name(First&Last) Address(Street,City,State,Zip I live in(check one): Ann LoBue 67 N.Chatsworth TOM Daralynn Gordon 16 N.Chatsworth TOM Samuel Rosenthal 2 Washington Sq TOM Betsy Rosenthal 2 Washington Sq TOM Barbara Mehlman 14 Glen Eagles Drive TOM Anthony Waring 101 Rockland Ave TOM Marshall Cohen 5 Country Club Dr TOM Ellen Brooks 5 Country Club Dr TOM Sandy Shoeneman 21 N.Chatsworth TOM Beth Weimersheimer 8 Jason Lane TOM David Riessen 46 Echo Lane TOM I.Shinkar? 32 Carleon Ave TOM Isabella Shinkar 32 Carleon Ave TOM Brenda Fathers 38 Myrtle Blvd TOM Chris Fathers 38 Myrtle Blvd TOM Leo Otake 649 Forest TOM Rob Maffei 29 Briarcliff Rd TOM Maeve Lamont 96 W.Garden Rd TOM Keiko Watanabe 17 Kenmare Rd TOM Sharon Parente 36 Hillcrest Ave TOM Carol Greenwald 688 Forest Ave TOM Nathalie Voelker 11 Devon Rd TOM Anthony Forma 8 Jason Ln TOM Christel Pugin 134 Rockland Ave TOM Barbara Spiridon 20 Little Farms TOM Sonal Patel-Sheth 77 Harmon Drive TOM Josh Klein 256 Rockingstone TOM June Wallach 2 Nancy Lane TOM Andrea Hirsch 677 Forest Ave TOM Angelika Leissl 4 Larch Lane TOM 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Mamaroneck Tree Law Petition(In-Person&E-mail Responses-collected 11/4 to 11/11123) Name(First&Last) Address(Street,City,State,Zip I live in(check one): Matt Thomas 45 Edgewood TOM Nick Parker 47 Echo Lane TOM Eugenie Sullivan 21 N.Chatsworth TOM Jennifer Dorian 1 Sackett Drive TOM Marc Dorian 1 Sackett Drive TOM Guillermo Bilbao 871 Fenimore Rd TOM Ruth Gyure 707 Forest Ave TOM Patricia Hidalgo 47 Echo Lane TOM Lee Wexler 10 Harmony Dr TOM Melissa Mehler 7 Woody Lane TOM Trisha Petterson 717 Forest Ave TOM Catherine Bennett 1 Garit Lane TOM Nicholas Radcliffe 73 Chester PI TOM Sara Tennyson 53 Echo Lane TOM Mary Ann Cate 12 South Dr TOM Diane Proctor 91 N.Chatsworth TOM Jeff Trachtenberg 28 Edgewood Ave TOM Megan McDonough 17 Orsini Dr TOM Bill Fedorchick 1065 Palmer Ave TOM Jeanne Kameshir 1065 Alden Rd TOM Margaret Bradbury 54 Maplewood TOM Jeremy O'Shea 42 Maplewood TOM Jen Palmiotto 172 Myrtle Blvd TOM Erika Bucci 78 Willow Ave VOL Iris Gunther 39 Oak Ave VOL Jean Still 11 Cherry Ave VOL Pamela Denzer 5 East Ave VOL Joe Gregg 5 East Ave VOL Naomi Lowenthal 1 Soundview Dr. VOL Stuart Green 17 Summit Ave VOL 3 Mamaroneck Tree Law Petition(In-Person&E-mail Responses-collected 1114 to 11/11123) Name(First&Last) Address(Street,City,State,Zip I live in(check one): Nancy Aries 76 Stuyvesant Ave VOL Leslie Long 7 Rockhill Ten- VOL Eve Brody 12 Iselin Terr VOL Todd McDonald 19 Mayhew Ave VOL John Zox 2005 Palmer Ave VOL Leah Odze Epstein 2 Quarry Rd VOL Deena Shenker 72 Pinebrook Dr VOL Cindy Dircks 9 Nassau Rd VOL Patty Towle 8 Cambridge Ct VOL Elena Mass 34 Iselin Terr VOL Katherine Pannell 25.Addison St VOL Camille Coyle 30 Wendt Ave VOL Ingela Shapiro 10 Mayhew Ave VOL Anne Moriarty 6 West Ave#1G VOL Marlene Kolbert 6 Cedar Ave VOL Jane Elkoff 6 Locust Ave VOL Louise Perez 8 Cherry Ave VOL Karen Zimmerman 60 Beach Ave VOL Kaaren Marcato 4 Pine ridge VOL Sophie Peresson 3 Guion Lane VOL David Seiko 1103 Fairway Green VOM Kate Dehais 419 Prospect,Mamk VOM Lilia Remov-Deins 95 W.B P Rd,Mamk VOM Kristen Carpenter 615 Munro Ave,Mamk VOM Sam Roehl 1451 Nelson St,Mamk VOM Beverly Sherrid 625 The Parkway VOM Jen LeClair 228 Prospect VOM Theresa Michna 313 Larchmont Acres VOM Danielle Seltzer 945 Sylvan Lane VOM Sabrina Seltzer 945 Sylvan Lane VOM 4 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Mamaroneck Tree Law Petition(In-Person&E-mail Responses-collected 11/4 to 11/11/23) Name(First&Last) Address(Street,City,State,Zip I live in(check one): Thomas Helfit 490 Bleaker Ave#5B VOM Pei-wei Lin 490 Bleaker Ave#5B VOM Debra Kenyon 340 Clafiin Ave VOM Sarah Pierce Rubio 910 Stuart Ave VOM Kamil Puchnowski 113 Larchmont Acres VOM 5 Mamaroneck Tree Law Petition(Online Responses-11/7-11/15/23) Name(First&Last) Address(Street,City,State,Zip) I live in(check one): Brittany Mancuso Schmid 661 Forest Ave Larchmont NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck Debra Locastro Althea Lane,Larchmont NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck KIM HADEN 84 VALLEY ROAD,LARCHMONT Town of Mamaroneck Jacques Mounier 7 Beechtree drive,Larchmont,NY,10538 Town of Mamaroneck Robert Bartlett 32 West Garden Road Town of Mamaroneck Maura Henninger 52 E.Brookside Drive,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated Jenny Geer 871 Fenimore Rd Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Jacob Levitt 8 Stonewall Ln,Mamaroneck,NY 10543 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Judy Herbst 76 N CHATSWORTH AVE Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Jane 35 N Chatsworth Ave,#2G Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Paul Schwendener 27 Edgewood Ave Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Barbara GESSLER 27 Edgewood Avenue Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Mitch Green 6 Meadow Place Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Amy Fastenberg 18 York Rd,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Sandy Weed 6 Hawthorne Rd Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Dorothy Mouldovan 17 Stonewall Lane Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Marshall Cohen 5 country club.Larchmont ny 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Pam Joyce 25 Mohegan Rd Larchmont,Ny 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Karin weisburgh 2 Boulder Brae Lane Larchmont NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Susan Bonadonna 8 LAFAYETTE RD, Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Aliza Levitt 8 Stoneeall Lane Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Barrie Levitt 8 Stonewall Lane Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Reed Bonadonna 8 LAFAYETTE RD,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Mitchell Weisburgh 2 Boulder Brae Lane,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Courtney Johnson 1 Huguenot Drive Larchmont NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Katherine Devereux 96 Valley Road Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Laura Lavan 52 Byron Lane Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Maureen LeBlanc 10 Overlook Terrace Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Kerry Pasqua 1 Boulder Road Larchmont Ny 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Andrea Hirsch 677 Forest Avenue Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area nicole gassman 2 valley stream rd west,larchmont ny 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area 1 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Mamaroneck Tree Law Petition(Online Responses-11/7-11/15/23) Name(First&Last) Address(Street,City,State,Zip) I live in(check one): Laura Chamberlain Stein 25 Huguenot Drive,Larchmont,NY 10539 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Pam Brandman 4 Acorn Lane,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Nancy Leighton 16 Lafayette Road,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Elizabeth Ward 74 Edgewood Ave, Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Mark Barrett 96 Valley Road,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Jean Young 32 Harrison Dr,Larchmont,NY Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Michele Lewis 11 Hawthorn Road Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Meira Fleisch 19 York Road Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Judy Caputo 664 Forest Ave,Larchmont,NY,10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Roland Caputo 664 Forest Avenue Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Sandra geroux 647 Forest avenue,larchmont,ny 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Perri McKinney 150 Rockingstone Ave,Larchmont NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Elka raved 30 Stoneyside Dr Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Judith H.Darsky 4 Briar Del Circle,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Barrie Levitt 16 Stonewall Lane Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Stephen Hughes 25 Briarcliff Road Larchmont NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Melissa Hughes 25 Braircliff Road Larchmont NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Linnet Tse 30 Dante St,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Marianne Hardart 26 Crescent Rd,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Lynn Maffei 29 Briarcliff Road Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area No Havinga 18 Lafayette road Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Jan Northrup 80 North Chatsworth Ave,Larchmont,10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area S Powell 5 Ridgeway Road 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Andra Fertig 14 colonial avenue larchmont ny 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Richard Corenthal 14 Colonial Avenue Larchmont NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Robert Novich 53 Maple Hill Dr Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Azar Lucchini 7 Winthrop ave Larchmont NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area T.A.McKinney 150 Rockingstone Ave,Larchmont NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Peg Cozzi 21 N. Chatsworth Ave. Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Claudine Hutton 90 West Garden Road Larchmont 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area 2 Mamaroneck Tree Law Petition(Online Responses-11/7-11/15/23) Name(First&Last) Address(Street,City,State,Zip) I live in(check one): Jen Bransfield 10 Maple Hill Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area David Szuchman 3 Country Lane Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Lauren Foley 17 Echo Lane,Larchmont NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Mark Girvin 707 Forest Ave,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Amy Gross 111 Valley Rd,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Cindy Olsen 27 Orchard Road,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Laurie Scovotti 7 Lundy Ln,Larchmont NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Jess Ettinger 6 Homer Ave.Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Ann Wilson 15 South Drive Larchmont NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Andrew Leighton 16 Lafayette Road,Larchmont NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Margaret Corbett 20 York Road,Larchmont NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Maureen Gallagher 105 Myrtle Blvd Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Diane.Blum 75 Carleon Avenue,Larchmont,NY 1053 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Peter Corbett 20 York Rd Larchmont 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Marci Bendel 28 Ellsworth Road,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Karen Bendel 28 Ellsworth Road,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Emily Lambert 45 Briarcliff Rd,Larchmont,NY,10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Rory Ellis 10 Byron Place Unit 220 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Sarah Coady 43 Mohegan Rd,Larchmont,NYT 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Laura Wertkin 1134 Palmer Avenue,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Lisa Kinsman 5 Kenmare Road,Larchmont,NY,10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Jenny Webb 92 Carleon Avenue Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area. Julie Berman 11 Crescent Road Larchmont Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Jenny jaffe 6 woody lane,Larchmont ny 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Justine knight 3 south ridge road Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Howard Kozinn 24 Howell Avenue Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Jeffrey Wells 50 Sheldrake Ave,Larchmont NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Lynne Herbst 73 Howell Ave Larchmont,N.Y.10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Evan Jaffe 6 Woody Lane,Larchmont,NY,10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Maria Allen 93 Echo Lane,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area 3 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Mamaroneck Tree Law Petition(Online Responses-11/7-11/15/23) Name(First 8 Last) Address(Street,City,State,Zip) I live in(check one): Molly Gurny 22 Prince Willow Lane Mamaroneck NY 10543 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Stacey Creem 49 Knollwood Drive Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Ann LoBue 67 N.Chatsworth Ave,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Arthur Katz 18 Orsini Drive,Larchmont,NY 10538-1642 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Jennifer Cukier 98 Murray Avenue Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Michael Salemi 35 Villa Rd Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Polly Kreisman 10 Lafayette Rd Larchmont NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area wendy thiele 2 Hillside Road,Larchmont,New York 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Steve Cohen 752 Forest Avenue,Larchmont,NY,10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Ludovic Collin 17 Barnum Rd Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Nicole Risener 17 Marbourne Drive,Mamaroneck NY 10543 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Jeffrey Greenstein 114 Harmon Drive Larchmont 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area David Birch 67 Edgewood Avenue,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Jackie Gerber 20 Carriage House Lane marnaroneck Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Pablo Castillo 18 Winthrop Ave,Larchmont,NY,10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Monica Trujillo 18 Winthrop Avenue,Larchmont NY10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Denise Conlan 26 Myrtle Blvd Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Sharyn Boswell 25 Myrtle Boulevard Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Gurny,Helen 12 carriage House Lane Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Mary Reynolds 124 Richbell Rd Mamaroneck Ny.10543 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area June Jackson 811 Fenimore Road,Mamaroneck NY 10543 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Harriet Barish 3 Leatherstocking Lane,Mamaroneck,NY 10543 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Jessica Huffman 43 Ellsworth rd,larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Catherine Gigantino 21 n Chatsworth ave Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Wendy Tannenbaum 12 Lafayette Rd. Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Kira Bartlett 32 w Garden rd Larchmont NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Debra Whitman 158 RockingstoneAvenue,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Nancy Pierson 12 country club drive Larchmont ny. 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Katherine sinsabaugh 16 Elkan Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Robert Herbst 76 N CHATSWORTH AVE Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area 4 Mamaroneck Tree Law Petition(Online Responses-11/7-11/15/23) Name(First 8 Last) Address(Street,City,State,Zip) I live in(check one): Linda Gibbs 833 Harmon Drive Mamaroneck NY 10543 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Juliet Konvisser 75 West Garden Road,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Lama Salemi 35 Villa Road,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Meredith Pollack 2 Senate Place,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Jacob Gill 10 South Drive,Larchmont,NY,10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Justin DuPree 139 Valley Stream Rd W Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area June Fox 35 N.Chatsworth Ave,Apt.3X,Larchmont Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Kathleen Clemens B9 Colonial Ave Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Ellen Zimmerman 28 Dante St Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Maureen conlan 26 Myrtle Blvd Larchmont ny 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Allison Gadlin 8 Harrison dr Larchmont ny 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Hannah Pollack 2 Senate Place,Larchmont 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Deb Ezbitski 208 Mulberry Lane,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Emily Irving 14 North Chatsworth Ave,Apt 3C,Larchmont,NY 1 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area John Irving 14 North Chatsworth Ave,Apt 3C,Larchmont,NY Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Elizabeth Barkham 71 West Brookside Drive,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Sarah Lieberman 9 Orchard Road Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Sarah Dunn 12 Huguenot Drive Larchmont NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Rita Blockton 35 N.Chatsworth Ave,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Amy Nathan 5 Edgewood Ave,Larchmont,NY(Town of Mamar Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Stephen Kronenberg 66 Howell Avenue;Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Abbey Kalina Straus 2 Knollwood Dr Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Robert Motzkin 75 Carleon Avenue,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area John N.Feldtmose 1251 Palmer Avenue,Larchmont,NY,10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Alan Murray 116 Carleon Ave Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Nancy White 1251 Palmer Ave Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Chrystie Munves 11 Alden Road,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area David A Katz 1 Knollwood Dr.,Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Inns Meltzer 826 Harmon Drive Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area Linda Perlmutter 64 Carleon Avenue Larchmont 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area 5 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Mamaroneck Tree Law Petition(Online Responses-11/7-11/15/23) Name(First&Last) Address(Street,City,State,Zip) I live in(check one): JOANNA NOBLE 12 Hazel Lane Larchmont,NY 10538 Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area, Dawn Magid 8 Clark Court Larchmont Village of Larchmont Caroline Birenbaum 8 Gerlach Place,Larchmont,NY 10538 Village of Larchmont Robert Rainier 21 Summit Avenue,Larchmont,NY 10538 Village of Larchmont lisa mcdonald 19 mayhew ave larchmont,NY 10538 Village of Larchmont Nedra Gillette 5 Pine Ridge Road, Larchmont,NY.10539 Village of Larchmont Nathan Moros 19 Maple Ave,Larchmont NY Village of Larchmont Lisa Chase 46 Stuyvesant Ave Village of Larchmont Sylvia Lavietes 42 Kilmer Road Larchmont,New York 10538 Village of Larchmont Wendy Gittings 55 Stuyvesant Ave Village of Larchmont Courtney Hewson 51 Flint Avenue,Larchmont,NY Village of Larchmont Andrea Karamitsos 10 Stuyvesant Ave Village of Larchmont Glenna Lee 110 Beach Av larchmont NY 10538 Village of Larchmont Karen Hall 10 Bronson Ave,larchmont,ny 10538 Village of Larchmont Caroline Vance 45 Rockwood Drive,Larchmont,NY 10538 Village of Larchmont Gloria Strauss 48 Stuyvesant Avenue,Larchmont NY 10538 Village of Larchmont Kate Bruce 45 prospect ave,larchmont ny 10538 Village of Larchmont Justine Keams 28 Concord Ave,Larchmont,Ny 10538 Village of Larchmont Lorraine Hickson 19 Locust Avenue,Larchmont,NY 10538 Village of Larchmont Susan Bell 10 Elm Ave Village of Larchmont Chelsea Singer 15 Maple Ave,Larchmont,NY 10538 Village of Larchmont Beth Belisle 48 Mayhew Ave Larchmont,NY 10538 Village of Larchmont Deborah Novick 11 concord avenue larchmont ny 10538 Village of Larchmont Holly Moskow 12 Bayard St,larchmont,NY 10538 Village of Larchmont Sara Hanna 20 hazel lane Larchmont 10538 Village of Larchmont Rebecca Gray 33 Stuyvesant Avenue Village of Larchmont Catharine Fleury 189 Larchmont Ave,10538 Village of Larchmont Adina Andrus 70 Chestnut Ave.Larchmont NY 10538 Village of Larchmont Megan Hartman 16 Pryer lane larchmont ny 10538 Village of Larchmont Michele Gowda 2 Sheppard PI,Larchmont,NY 10538 Village of Larchmont 6 Mamaroneck Tree Law Petition(Online Responses-11/7-11/15/23) Name(First&Last) Address(Street,City,State,Zip) I live in(check one): Jill Breen 35 Chestnut Ave,larchmont,ny 10538 Village of Larchmont Andrea Loigman 44 Stuyvesant Ave Village of Larchmont Seta Breen 35 Chestnut Avenue,Larchmont,NY,10538 Village of Larchmont Katherine Pannell 25 Addison St Village of Larchmont Bonnie Weinbach 17 Pryer Ln.Larchmont,NY 10538 Village of Larchmont Alix Perrachon 32 Pine Ridge Road Village of Larchmont Laurie Mendelsohn 68 Willow Ave,Larchmont NY 10538 Village of Larchmont Kim Pedersen 2 Beverly Place Village of Larchmont Daisy Burckin 80 Stuyvesant Avenue Larchmont NY 10538 Village of Larchmont Nancy Plaut 35 Willow Avenue,Larchmont NY 10538 Village of Larchmont Alanna Murray 9 Harrison Drive Larchmont NY 10538 Village of Larchmont FRANKEL 198 Larchmont Avenue Larchmont NY 10538 Village of Larchmont Michelle Ryan 17 Stuyvesant Ave.Larchmont,NY 10538 Village of Larchmont Wendy McManus 125 Larchmont Avenue Apt 4B Village of Larchmont Lesley Cahill Roy 7 Bayard Street,Larchmont,NY 10538 Village of Larchmont Joanna Hawkes 29 Bennett Avenue,Larchmont,NY,10538 Village of Larchmont Dorothy Rainier 21 Summit Avenue Village of Larchmont Theresa Sim 25 Magnolia Ave,Larchmont NY 10538 Village of Larchmont Janet Thompson 9 pine ridge rd,Larchmont,ny 10538 Village of Larchmont Kristin Andersen 24 Linden Avenue,Larchmont,NY 10538 Village of Larchmont Camille Coyle 30 Wendt Ave Larchmont NY 10538 Village of Larchmont Fiona Farrell 74 Beach Ave Larchmont NY 10538 Village of Larchmont Mary Conway 5 Forest park Ave,Larchmont,NY 10538 Village of Larchmont Tad Tobkes 51 Shore Drive,Larchmont,NY Village of Larchmont Sara Robling 110 Chatsworth Avenue Larchmont,NY 10538 Village of Larchmont Laura Mutton 10 Bayard,Larchmont NY 10538 Village of Larchmont Emma Post 10 Woods Way Larchmont NY 10538 Village of Larchmont Penelope Hall 10 Bronson Ave,Larchmont NY Village of Larchmont Sasha Nahr 106 Beach Ave,Larchmont,NY Village of Larchmont S.Tougher 2005 Palmer Avenue Larchmont,NY 10538 Village of Larchmont 7 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Mamaroneck Tree Law Petition(Online Responses-11/7-11115/23) Name(First 8 Last) Address(Street,City,State,Zip) I live in(check one) Bruce Frankel 198 Larchmont Ave,Larchmont Village of Larchmont Catherine Lepone 1103 Fairway Green Mamaroneck NY 10543 Village of Mamaroneck Sharma Keegan 320 Palmer Terrace. Village of Mamaroneck Alicia Conte 511 Hill St Village of Mamaroneck Olivia Conte 511 Hill Street Village of Mamaroneck Vivian Greenblatt 943 Greacen Point Road Mamaroneck,NY 10543 Village of Mamaroneck Jennifer Lapkovsky 1069 Bayhead Drive Mamaroneck,NY 10543 Village of Mamaroneck Caroline Jaram 245 Mt Pleasant Avenue,Mamaroneck NY 10543 Village of Mamaroneck Therese Mellet 306 Prospect Avenue,Mamaroneck,NY 10543 Village of Mamaroneck Magdalene Schmuck 633 Shore Acres Drive,Mamaroneck NY 10543 Village of Mamaroneck Mary Mellet-Kunst 219 Delancey Avenue Village of Mamaroneck Mandy Sticks 519 Hill st Mamaroneck ny 10543 Village of Mamaroneck Jordana Viuker 214 Delancey Ave,Mamaroneck,NY 10543 Village of Mamaroneck Sean Brennan 214 Delancey Ave,Mamaroneck,NY 10543 Village of Mamaroneck Eric Dehais 419 Prospect Ave Village of Mamaroneck Laura Zimbaldi 410 Toni Ln Mamaroneck NY 10543 Village of Mamaroneck heidi sanger 168 maple avenue,mamaroneck,ny 10543 Village of Mamaroneck Marlene Star 538 Stanley Ave Mamaroneck,NY 10543 Village of Mamaroneck Leslie Brill 320 Palmer Terrace,Apt 2A,Mamaroneck,NY 105,Village of Mamaroneck Carol B.Akin 226 Palmer Ave. Village of Mamaroneck Elizabeth Saenger 702 Hall St.,Mamaroneck,NY 10543 Village of Mamaroneck Joe Robb O'Hagan 919 Sylvan Lane,Mamaroneck,NY,10543 Village of Mamaroneck Michael Gibbs 833 Harmon Drive Village of Mamaroneck Katherine Dehais 419 Prospect Ave Village of Mamaroneck Heather Mitchell 720 Seney Avenue,Mamaroneck,NY 10543 Village of Mamaroneck Kim Larsen 531 Orients Ave Village of Mamaroneck Laura Lord 315 West St Mamaroneck NY 10543 Village of Mamaroneck Gabby Robb O'Hagan 919 Sylvan lane Mamaroneck New York 10543 Village of Mamaroneck 8 May,Allison From: Jenny Geer Sent: Tuesday,November 14,2023 4:04 PM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind Cs: May,Allison Subject: Re:Community Petition to the Board re Strengthening Tree Law-First Batch of Signatures Attachments: Mamaroneck Tree Law Petition(In-Person&E-mail Responses-collected 11_4 to 11_11 _23).pdf To the Town of Mamaroneck Supervisor and Board, Following up on my e-mail from yesterday regarding the community tree taw petition,here is the first batch of signatures,which were collected in person and by e-mail between 11/4/23 and 11/11/23. In this batch there are a total of 126 signatures: 84 from the Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area, 27 from the Village of Larchmont,and 15 from the Village of Mamaroneck. We are also collecting signatures through an online petition—so tar we have 210 signatures,bring the total number to 336. I will send the online signatures separately. My earlier e-mail with the text of the petition,including specific recommendations,is below. Regards, Jenny Geer Resident,Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area On Nov 13,2023,at 10:58 AM,Jenny Geer rote: To the Town of Mamaroneck Supervisor and Board: As you may be aware,a petition has been circulating in our community that asks the Board to make revisions to the draft tree law to strengthen its protections of our diminishing tree canopy. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) So far more some 300 residents have signed, most from the unincorporated area. I will be submitting the names and addresses of the signatories in the next day or so, but want the Board to have the opportunity to see the petition and the recommended changes in advance of the Wednesday hearingro" The full text is below. Please note that the list of recommendations is selective, not comprehensive. Regards, Jenny Geer Resident,Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area <pagel image2867074608.png> Petition to Revise Town of Mamaroneck's Proposed Tree Law to Preserve Our Tree Canopy We, the undersigned residents of the Town of Mamaroneck, urge the Town Board to make further revisions to the draft Tree Law to ensure that it meets the stated Town goal of preserving the tree canopy, following: 1. 1) the guidance of tree experts, Sustainability Collaborative, Planning Board and 2. 2) the model of strong tree laws in other Westchester municipalities such as Greenburgh. These recommendations include: • Protect mature trees with a diameter of 24" or more. • Establish clear criteria for decision-making, for homeowners considering tree removal and for Environmental Planner considering permit applications, including potential adverse impacts on environment and community as well as alternatives to tree removal. • Decrease the maximum number of trees that may be cut down in any year, and require everAtrt'e' erriiyvalte justifiedobased on established criteria. • Require certified arborist to assess health of replanted trees for at least 2 years following planting, and if planted tree dies within that time, homeowner or Town should replant. • Require neighbor notification for mature trees and where neighbors would be adversely impacted. • Make the cost of contributing to the tree replacement fund consistent with the market rate for purchasing and planting a tree. 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) • Increase penalties for offenses so they are higher than tree planting fund fees and are an effective deterrent. • Apply all points above to Town properties as well. 3 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Jenny Geer <111101111111.11111111111111111110 Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 4:04 PM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind Cc: May,Allison Subject: Re:Community Petition to the Board re Strengthening Tree Law- First Batch of Signatures Attachments: Mamaroneck Tree Law Petition (In-Person &E-mail Responses - collected 11_4 to 11_11 _23) .pdf To the Town of Mamaroneck Supervisor and Board, Following up on my e-mail from yesterday regarding the community tree law petition, here is the first batch of signatures,which were collected in person and by e-mail between 11/4/23 and 11/11/23. In this batch there are a total of 126 signatures: 84 from the Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area, 27 from the Village of Larchmont, and 15 from the Village of Mamaroneck. We are also collecting signatures through an online petition—so far we have 210 signatures, bring the total number to 336. I will send the online signatures separately. My earlier e-mail with the text of the petition, including specific recommendations, is below. Regards, Jenny Geer Resident,Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area On Nov 13,2023, at 10:58 AM,Jenny Geer<l >wrote: To the Town of Mamaroneck Supervisor and Board: As you may be aware, a petition has been circulating in our community that asks the Board to make revisions to the draft tree law to strengthen its protections of our diminishing tree canopy. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) So far more some 300 residents have signed,most from the unincorporated area. I will be submitting the names and addresses of the signatories in the next day or so, but want the Board to have the opportunity to see the petition and the recommended changes in advance of the Wednesday hearift. e The full text is below. Please note that the list of recommendations is selective, not comprehensive. Regards, Jenny Geer Resident,Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area <pagel image2867074608.png> Petition to Revise Town of Mamaroneck's Proposed Tree Law to Preserve Our Tree Canopy We, the undersigned residents of the Town of Mamaroneck, urge the Town Board to make further revisions to the draft Tree Law to ensure that it meets the stated Town goal of preserving the tree canopy, following: 1. 1) the guidance of tree experts, Sustainability Collaborative, Planning Board and 2. 2) the model of strong tree laws in other Westchester municipalities such as Greenburgh. These recommendations include: • Protect mature trees with a diameter of 24" or more. • Establish clear criteria for decision-making, for homeowners considering tree removal and for Environmental Planner considering permit applications, including potential adverse impacts on environment and community as well as alternatives to tree removal. • Decrease the maximum number of trees that may be cut down in any year, and require every tree removal be justif$r#based on established criteria. • Require certified arborist to assess health of replanted trees for at least 2 years following planting, and if planted tree dies within that time, homeowner or Town should replant. • Require neighbor notification for mature trees and where neighbors would be adversely impacted. • Make the cost of contributing to the tree replacement fund consistent with the market rate for purchasing and planting a tree. 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) • Increase penalties for offenses so they are higher than tree planting fund fees and are an effective deterrent. • Apply all points above to Town properties as well. 3 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 11:05 AM To: May,Allison Subject: FW: Revise Tree Law to Save Our Trees From:Alanna Malone Sent: Monday, Novem4beill 13,2023 11: 8 AM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject: Revise Tree Law to Save Our Trees To Whom It May Concern; Since we moved here four years ago,we have watched the neighborhood slowly transform as developers buy up older properties,demolish homes,clear cut the property and build huge homes on the footprint.The town needs to do more to protect the trees. I would estimate that about half of the trees in a four block radius of our home have come down over the last few years,many of them on town or village property technically. I urge the Mamaroneck Town Board to make further revisions to the draft Tree Law to ensure that it meets the stated Town goal of preserving the tree canopy,following 1)the guidance of tree experts,the Sustainability Collaborative and the Planning Board 2)the model of strong tree laws in other Westchester municipalities such as Greenburgh. Here is a list of recommended changes that the Board should adopt. Best, Alanna Murray Links contained in this email have been replaced by ZixProtect Link Protection. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warnin Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 11:06 AM To: May,Allison Subject: FW:Tree removal Original Message From:wendy thiele 111111111111111.1111111111111111111. Sent: Monday,November 13,2023 12:18 PM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisort TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Tree removal To Whom It May Concern, I am sending you this note to let you know that both we and many other residents of the town are very concerned with the large numbers of mature and likely healthy trees which have been removed in the last 7 years. It seems absolutely ridiculous that anyone can take down trees on their property without any permits.We wanted to install 2 heat pumps on our property and we filed this with the town which required 2 permits.As one of these units was within 3 feet of the property line( it was 3 X 4 ft) I!!We had to mail out 75 LETTERS to neighbors in my area to notify them about this installation inviting them to attend a town meeting if they objected to its installation!!! Really?! In comparison a neighbor up the street removed at least 7 huge trees,added on a large addition to their house and I NEVER received any notification about these major changes!!The tree loss has now caused flooding on their property.... How and why is this allowed?? I think some changes are needed here.. signed, A 30 year resident Sent from my iPhone Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 11:11 AM To: May,Allison Subject: FW:Proposed Tree Law Original Message Fromft...111111111 Sent: Monday, November 13,2023 5:31 PM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject: Re: Proposed Tree Law Dear Jaine and Town Council, I have reviewed the redraft of the Tree Law and I am dismayed by how unresponsive it is to the concerns I and others have expressed. I find especially objectionable that you have INCREASED the tree diameter of protected trees to 36 inches. I wonder if you really care about protecting any trees at all given how few trees are of such diameter. My only conclusion can be that you really do not care much at all about protecting our wonderful larger trees and are merely proposing a law that says it is fine to cut down the great,great majority of our large trees and replace them with,as one of you said in a working session,"2 1/2 inch twigs that may or may not survive". Beyond my personal views,I also note that Westchester County just this past Friday has urged that municipalities look to Greenburg's law as guidance for new tree ordinances. One example of how far the proposed law is from the Greenburg model is Greenburg's 18 inch standard! I strongly call on the Town Council to take a step back and reconsider what the terms of the new tree law of Mamaroneck Town should be given the comments received by the Council in public hearings and written submissions as well as the huge discrepancy in what terms are being proposed in contrast with the Greenburg model. Respectfully, Guillermo Bilbao >On Oct 17,2023,at 12:29 PM,Guillermo Bilbao<gbilbao1915@gmail.com>wrote: >Dear Jaine, >I appreciate the Town Council finally moving to update an outdated and very flawed tree law that only covers trees on 20%of properties. >I am writing in strong support of the Town Council materially redrafting the proposed Tree Law to give priority to preserving what remains of our tree canopy and adding to it. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) >I am also writing to urge that a moratorium be put in place immediately to ban cutting down or materially prune any currently protected tree for large properties. The moratorium would be in place until the new law go into effect. >1. Preservation of large,established native species trees needs to be the first priority of the new law. >2. Second priority should be planting new trees of such identified species to add to the canopy and diversity by creating incentives for such planting. >I recognize the importance of owners'right to safe enjoyment of their property but any approval to cut or materially prune a protected tree(to be defined based on size depending on the species)should be based on clear guidelines which include: >-health of the tree >-tree canopy existing on the property-existing use of property >-approved zoning board plan-lack of alternatives for the new use >(pool,large patio,additional driveway,etc) >After reviewing the existing law,the proposed law and the draft >submitted by the Sustainability Collaborative,as well as a few neighboring municipalities' laws, I urge you to base a new law on the draft proposed by the Sustainability Collab as well as addressing the other points I mention. >Such a new law would put Mamaroneck Town on the forefront of tree preservation and enhancement as opposed to the inadequate,obsolete place where we are now. >Given the chronic flooding and other climate challenges we face this is the least the Town Council needs to do at this time. >Respectfully submitted, >Guillermo Bilbao dfi peg r w r,14, 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 11:12 AM To: May,Allison Subject: FW:Tree Law Original Message From:Sophie Peresson<4111111.1111 Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 6:31 PM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Tree Law Dear Board, I have signed the petition for protecting our trees,especially as I have seen too many old and beautiful trees been cut this past year. As a mother of 2 kids, I would like to make sure we do all it takes to preserve our ecosystem and make it better as well. We have no planet B and trees are important for the quality of the air,to help during flood and to keep us cool.We need more trees. We count on you to pass a strong tree law,even current one doesn't seem to be enough! Thank you, Sophie 1 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday, November 14,2023 11:16 AM To: May,Allison Subject: FW: Proposed Town of Mamaroneck Tree Law Original Message From:Caroline Birenbaum Sent: Monday, November 13,2023 11:29 PM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject: Proposed Town of Mamaroneck Tree Law November 13,2023 Dear Supervisor Elkind Eney and Board Members, I am surprised and disappointed that the proposed TOM tree law does not mention the climate crisis or highlight the importance of trees for carbon sequestration,flood mitigation,modulating temperature,and supporting wildlife.Nor does it explicitly address the loss of tree canopy in recent years. Trees are a signifant resource of our tri-municipal community.Our emphasis should be on protecting and preserving healthy trees,valuing mature trees,and planting more native,noninvasive species. Please do not accept your current draft tree law.Strengthen protections for healthy trees whether owned privately or by the Town. Sincerely, Caroline Birenbaum Sent from my iPhone Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 11:17 AM To: May,Allison Subject: FW: Laws of Unintended Consequences From:Brian Lobe1411111.1111.1.111110 Sent:Tuesday, November 14,2023 9:53 AM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org>; Fiddelman,Sabrina <SFiddelman@townofmamaroneckny.org>; Katz,Abby<AKatz@townofmamaroneckny.org>; King,Jeffery <JKing@townofmamaroneckny.org>; Nichinsky, Robin<RNichinsky@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject: Laws of Unintended Consequences Food For Thought Unfortunately, the "new" Town of Mamaroneck Tree Law (2023) in years to come will likely become another of the Laws of Unintended Consequences. Wealth for some will deal with the penalties of the law, the unwealthy may ignore potential problem trees, individuals will be disincentivized to plant, while the town itself makes little if any commitment to growing its tree canopy. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android Links contained in this email have been replaced by ZixProtect Link Protection. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warnin•. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 11:19 AM To: May,Allison Subject: FW:Tree law From:Maura Henninger 11111111111.1111111111.111, Sent:Tuesday, November 14,2023 9:58 AM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Tree law Dear Town Supervisor, I live in Larchmont Gardens and today,walking my dog, I noticed that 4 mature trees that line the Brook have been recently cut down.They are away from any structures,in a wooded area —there seems to be no apparent reason for their removal.The canopy is much reduced now and these beautiful trees that provided shade and habitat are no longer. I don't typically get involved in things like this, but the more I become aware of the indiscriminate removal of trees in town,the more it's apparent that these trees are being removed without any critical thought about the impact on the health of the community. I implore you to listen to the views that will be submitted at this evening's hearing and to open your minds to amending the tree code so that we can preserve this vital community resource that provides such an essential set of protections. Now is the moment. Thank you. Sincerely, Maura Henninger 1 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 1120 AM To: May,Allison Subject: FW:Proposed Revised Tree Law e From:Ralph11111.111.1111111.11 Sent:Tuesday,November 14,2023 10:50 AM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Cc: Lisa Hochman,Esq.<lisahochmanlaw@gmail.com>;Nichinsky, Robin<RNichinsky@TownofMamaroneckNY.org>; Odierna,Sue<SOdierna@townofmamaroneckny.org> Subject:Re: Proposed Revised Tree Law Very welcome. Please,especially,note the first comment, which, I am rather sure,is about an actual drafting error. On Tue, Nov 14,2023 at 10:45 AM Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@townofmamaroneckny.org>wrote: Dear Ralph, Thank you for your comments which will be included in the public record. Jaine Jaine Elkind Eney Supervisor Town of Mamaroneck 740 West Boston Post Road Mamaroneck, NY 10543 {914)381-7805 supervisor@townofmamaroneckny.org Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Click here to sign up for Town Alerts&Notifications! From: Ralph Sent: Friday, November 10,2023 6:41 PM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org>; Nichinsky, Robin <RNichinsky@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Cc:Lisa Hochman, Esq.<lisahochmanlaw@gmail.corn> ''' Subject:Proposed Revised Tree Law Jaine, I think that the revised tree law is significantly better than the original one was, especially as it relates to the Planning Board. A few comments: 1. In 207-6A.1.h, in 207-6A.2.c, and in 207-16.C., the word "proscribed" is used, but proscribed means forbidden. I seriously doubt that you meant to forbid the fee. You might want to use language similar to the language at the end of 207-8.3. instead. 2. In 207-6B., since the Applicant, as defined in 207-2, need not be the property owner (e.g. the tree surgeon), the consent to enter the property given by the Applicant may not suffice. I thus suggest that you consider adding something like "and the property owner, if different" after "Applicant" in the last line. 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) 3. In 207-7A., in the penultimate line, I suggest that you consider replacing "a fee" with something like "the fee set forth in 207-9A." 4. Most applications for a tree removal permit may be made by the Applicant, who need not be the owner (see 207-6A.1.c), but the draft provides, in 208-8.3. and 4., that the "property owner" is the person who may apply under those sections. Is that what is intended? 5. In 207-8.4., you might want to consider that a nursery, for a fee, will guarantee a tree it sells for one year, but that that one year runs from the date the tree is planted (typically by the nursery that sold the tree and gave the guarantee). That guarantee thus does not cover the period between one year after the tree is planted and when "the Environmental Planner issues a preliminary letter of completion...." Thus it may well be impossible for a Town resident to purchase a tree with a one year guarantee that runs until the preliminary letter of completion is issued. Is that fair? 6. In 207-15A.2., I suggest that you consider adding the word "within" before "one hundred" in the third line. 7. In 207-15.B., the time to file an Article 78 proceeding runs from "the filing of the Planning Board's determination in the office of the Town Clerk", but nothing in the proposed law requires the Planning Board to file its determination with the Town Clerk, or even to make a written 3 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) determination. The Planning Board normally only approves resolutions. I suggest that you consider adding a requirement that the Planning Board make a written determination of the appeal, and file it with the Town Clerk, to the end of 207-15A.3. 8. In 207-16.A., the notification period is "Within 30 days after the completion of the removal of all trees for which a tree removal permit shall have been issued and the planting of all replacement trees...." Thus, if a person removes fewer than all suchtrees, or doesn't plant all replacement trees (but, instead, the required funds are paid to the Tree Fund), he/she never has to notify the Environmental Planner, and, thus, the Environmental Planner is not required/authorized to do the inspection provided in 207-16.B. Also, as to the preliminary letter, the Environmental Planner is required to do an inspection, but shouldn't there also be a required inspection to confirm whether or not the replacement trees survived for a year and the final letter of completion should be issued--no second inspection is provided in 207- 16.A.? Is that what was intended? 9. I mentioned this last time, but, as to 207-17.E., how is it possible to "cure ' a violation if the violation is the removal of one or more regulated trees without a permit? Shouldn't there be a way to cure it to the satisfaction of the Environmental Planner, or something of that sort? These are my comments as an individual. There will be no Planning Board meeting before the hearing and, thus, there can be no comments from the Planning Board. 4 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Thank you for the many improvements that were made. Ralph Ralph M. Engel EMMElinMia Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2023 2:17 PM To: May,Allison Subject: FW: I speak for the trees! From:Claudine Hutton< > Sent:Tuesday, November 14,2023 1:49 PM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:I speak for the trees! (I'm sure you've gotten a lot of notes that start like this) Anyway,it's true.As a resident of the Town, I can safely say lush tree coverage distinguishes our neighborhoods as among the most beautiful in this area.And,at a time when tree cover is more than vital than ever to cool the street surface(key for road and lawn workers plus families with little kids playing outside),and when tree roots are desperately needed to maintain soil integrity and absorb incredible amounts of rainfall,any measure that would reduce the number of trees is simply nonsensical. I have supported the town tree planting program by purchasing our own tree,and have convinced my neighbors to do the same,so that one day our saplings will stand as tall and grand as the 100-year-old maples on our street.Please please don't allow the reduction of trees in our area.Please do what you can to preserve them. Thanks, Claudine Hutton 1 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: jZox POSTED Sent: Wednesday, November 15,2023 12:36 PM To: May,Allison Subject: 4 articles for the public record relating to tree hearing tonight Attachments: 231105_Reinmann_Larchmont-reduced.pdf;rain_down_the_drain -water displacement vs rentention.pdf;The surprising way that millions of new trees could transform America - Nat Geo-10-09-2023.pdf;TreesAreGood_Benefits of Trees_0321_1.pdf Alli-see attached. thnx! Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Trees, Climate, And Our Communities - _ w . rt .,+.+ .J .. +' - ' '"^ °fir s+�l - �'��+9 •__. "'30% of original global forest cover as been lost ? P: + fi . Andy Reinmann, PhD Environmental Sciences Initiative, CUNY Advanced Science Research Center Dept. of Geography and Environmental Science, Hunter College areinmann@gc.cuny.edu Charismatic Megafauna r lip , i ........._lilit„ ., . ••7/ - ! fi q r { Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Charismatic Megaflora = s "fit E q} o /'� A ' i. : t. "..SSi33ktt ,` q , 1' 1 ,...4 1 If ri i,...\\I .i` ly' ' i i d r r k F5i t �E A K *•J �'?P!. ,i;+a '. � P E 14 Y .. l+yl 1 4 + f .;a y � � �M r E ,y�. it _ •, �" '.�k .+: ' .,.ate Y‘i l ,, - •. - - 4 -. �} 9 J 4, is t I. ,i :' ' -. ). ,- .jam `' '' r'. 73F �i •,' ..,,-1. '" { � / Ecosystem Services of Trees and Forests ,, r •• Habitat/biodiversity • Recreation and aesthetics • \t§ .40 !0• • Dampen noise pollution "`' , 4:) l'' •• Maintain water and air quality 1 ` 'w r • Regulate water flow I. 1 • Climate regulation ,, • Carbon Sequestration •4Thit 444. IttLI ermoregulation r • • "Value" of services = -$18.3B/year Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Global Perspectives: Ecosystems & Carbon Sequestration Monthly Carbon Dioxide Concentration parts per million I I 420 �: Rate of increase if entirely driven .' 410 I by fossil fuel combustion ' 400 • 390 /' / •380 CO2 370 III• ,otosynthesis) 360 ;'� 350 ,%I • 340 II I 330 I II 320 j 310 , , , ,-, . , 1 i 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Global Perspectives: 10.1 Billion Acres of Forest Offset 25-30% of Fossil Fuel Emissions \ d + 4 r • -Tropical rehdeed -SubleOcal hemid he se -Townie manic fond -Boreal coniferous ring -Tropkd taeid fnad -Sabhapkal dry feed -Impede contineahl tuned - &nal hodn maw! -Tropical meet*system - Subteopkal mountain system - Tergrtde mounb10 spits -Semi eern ide sped dropiml&y fared Sadkapkai steppe -lempsrois Mew I.Pak; Tropicd risabload Subeopical Iowa imperil'dens Suchhorn et al.2019. kgkd drill Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Global Perspectives: Tree & Forest Cover are Declining But the Rate Has Slowed Since the 1990s 44.30 44.20 44.10 44A 43.90 a 43.80 ee ......0.1+--.1 43.70 43.60 43.50 43.40 0' E a a a a 0' g o 0 0 0 E a $ 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N CV CV CO C. CV Co, S., CO Cv N CV N YEAR SOURCE:Study prepared by UNEP-WCMC for this publication. *NOTE: 1 hectare(HA)=2.54 Acres U.S. Perspective: 823 Million Acres of Forest Offsets 10-14% of U.S. Fossil Fuel Emissions ...flak'v. .,,, lir '� Ak i Ara rf- 'N� ;Biomass(Mg/ha) � 4 >; 1-10 ' 11-20 21-30 31-40 =41-50 =51-60 IM6140 a ^_r' J 4 ^�I�91-100 ., 101-120 w � E �121-190 Sl = 141-160 161-190 s a 290 MD a l=t81+ �lobo nwa w.1s1W MCI%bmeo n t r1 Projection.contend o 303 we Nontorest Mask ismore.,le «a.. USGCRP,2018:Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report(SOCCR2);Oswalt et a 1.2019.USFS Gee.Tech Rep.WO-97 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) U.S. Perspectives: Forest Cover Starting to Decline Following Decades of Gain 1,050,000 1,000,000 950,000 F 900,000 0 850,000 800,000 Le 750,000 a 700,000 650,000 Year Oswalt et al.2019.USFS Gen.Tech Rep.WO-97 Deforestation Has Also Increased Abundance Of Forest Fragments Influenced By "Edge Effects" —25% of world's temperate forests are influenced by edge effects • Hotter • Drier -411114%„- from forest e 20% <100m of an edge •Windier edge (m) IM0 - 100 • Greater is 100 - 200 °n access to light 300 - 400 70% <1 km of an edge 5 ,, , 00 and nutrients 400 - 500 , 500 - 600 600 - 700 700 - 800 lib 800 - 900 III 900 - 1000 Haddad et al.2015;Smith et al.2018 11111 1 000 + Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Is Our Knowledge Of Carbon Cycling From Intact Forests Transferrable To Fragmented Forests? 'Arne , N r Y Ek /4,4,. • 441 • D Urban Landscapes are Distinct Hotter and Drier — Greater Exposure to Pollution n :a 406 Fragmentation and Urbanization Create Greater Nutrient Series of Costs and Benefits for Forest Availability Growth and the Ecosystem Services Provided by Trees Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Sensitivity of Forest Growth to Heat Stress Increases Near Edges • Edges increase vulnerability of i =' A mean 1990-2014 C sink to climate change - Urban • Synergies btwn fragmentation 5., Edge • • and urbanization exacerbate 7cr, •, forest sensitivity to heat L • 0 0 (o Forest Edge o — co2 0 . . .� L • ° - Interior • C .r 0-10 m • Li 10-20 m f o _ • 20-30 m CO?Forest Interior 10 20 30 40 Reinmann et al-2020,Envi. Res. Let. Days>27°C Thermoregulation: Urban Heat Island Mitigation 33.3 -- - 32.8 32.2 31.7 31.1 30.6 30.0 29.4 Temp oor Rural Commercial Urban Suburban Residential Residential Suburban Downtown Park Residential • Exacerbates intensity of heat waves and associated public health impacts • UHI accounts for 3-8% of electricity demands in U.S. • Exacerbates pollution issues (e.g., photochemical smog) Grimm et al.2008 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Thermoregulation: Urban Heat Island Mitigation Temperatures are driven by the fate of incoming energy -AD!- A 4 •'/ i % Latent • W4,1 Heat Trees move large volumes of water Sensible • from the soil to the atmosphere Heat• Cools the Air • Reduces Runoff di S r • Regulates Stream Flow a Winbourne et al.2020 -_ - Thermoregulation: Urban Heat Island Mitigation Urban Heat Island is driven by changes in the fate of incoming energy OP. /A A Anthropogenic , I , gat el • ■ . Heat v IOf" Q QH . Sensible • . -441,0•"., Heat ...... . ' Stored all. , r Heat el t A •tl/,�rp A,+fl ':L. '+!fit 11 s Dense Urban Area Residential Area Forest patch Winbourne et al.2020 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Thermoregulation by Trees 3. gYet4. " 4r'y 'p6 -- �L.. y, ( 4 .-f 24.4 4 ' w 21.3 4., 104 172 Na- Z ram,iz�i «.. w 14.0 105 • n6" Thermoregulation by Trees j A New York City N A , ,% Skm N. r,f \ Canopy Cover . r; ' I v i. . 2016tili' 10;.::, , ; � / • Canopy Cover(/) �� i [ I0-'a . . l� 0m-zo ` �� 1 iir ':'1 40-50 -50-60 .. 'E ' ▪60-70 ` ' L _70-AO 1 =aa-90 a p Q)i A _so-,00 • 04;12,)'••'1 r 1 # . Or- 0 ;ram Temperature liF a 5 m 15 so ti S arar n Ii,-'t km Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Co-Benefit of Increasing Urban Tree Canopy Cover Thermoregulation and CO2 Emissions Mitigation illr4°. :1 rr Example from Worcester, MA A a '"I` at `*yam= aii Ai' 11 •4,4 a �^.` �,. '1i z +�`"���""" �: F —Cnventry^Rd , I dt r,r , r=f � 4 1 \ , 40 ,•. —Rr,,,t,,, .t — . / '. `V tog. --, op.iii Ar4..1 ./ '#1 } ;� �f o n to re y-Rd— A T I ��µ Co-Benefit of Increasing Urban Tree Canopy Cover Thermoregulation and CO2 Emissions Mitigation 2008 (Before) 2009 (After) • 36.8% cano y cover • 7.5% cano v cover • 7.1 kWh per cooling degre • 9.8 kWh per cooling degree da I - .5 40% increase in energyconsumption for cooling «« ' ' 41:. a, 6 p w w \ , Mrs • r. -- t -+ r iGs' 2 � _ 'il, r -` , •.1 li y " . • .A.✓ J_. , Morzuch 2014.Umass Amherst Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) The Trees in Our Communities Do More Per Tree Than Their Rural Forest Counterparts C - 1.2—(b` Forest Urban — -,_ %.\ • Street Trees , - T _ _ / 4000 o New York City 5 300o But these urban trees are more adversely 1 ^' 2000 impacted by climate stress VI N 1000 I 0 -a- Urban -0- Reference S41 ti 5Pb°3WW.03:"N°' AW°P g N. ,s ,�°�P*45.44 L 'L `L,'e • 0�,01����� :41NcP,��1,b,�ti�,yd�..J'�pn,Ff�1��f y� �°A. '''.t j �rW^Peet�� FIA= Forest Trees s e A A # s ti Z ti O — LCC= Land Cover Change o1 f I 1 I 1 IV' %�G vCC veeso ' viees 0 25 50 75 100 to`' 1f`6 Vls% StV6t DBH cm lFr' Briber et al.2015,PlosOne•Smith et al.2019 P1osOne Westchester County Forest Inventory: Mapping and Ecosystem Services Assessment • Collaborative project involving CUNY, Westchester County Government, non-profit organizations and the NYS DEC Hudson River Estuary Program (Funding Agency) • Objectives 1. Map current and recent changes in land use and land cover 2. Assess the success of community tree planting programs 3. Highlight forest conservation/afforestation priority areas 4. Provide guidance for others to replicate this analysis 5. Do all of this using freely-available datasets! Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) The Mapping Project: Mapping Landcover from —2,000 km Above Earth • / . . /r • ' t74 1 f _~ -� ma's ; . Z National Land Cover Database: 30-m Resolution Optical Remote Sensing Products Celebrating Iti- 204 years of Partnership AR LC M ulti-Resolution Land Characteristics ABOUT DATA- PARTNERS TOOLS PUBLICATIONS CONTACT US Consortium �` lilfP •tr ,✓ r -- tc#•'Y 3,•, " , dvf .• i p t". r,'a"' :ram ' $,.r,..'_ ir �{'• eL _."v ;ir:'. , "' '1�•r "i.''tom ., ,j1-,ram„ Multi-Resolution Land Cover Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium The Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics(MRLC)consortium IS a group of federal agencies who coordinate and generate consistent and relevant land cover information at the national scale for a wide variety of environmental,land management,and modeling applications.The creation of this consortium has resulted in the mapping of the lower 48 United States,Hawaii,Alaska fact Sheets and Puerto Rico into a comprehensive land cover product termed,the National Land Cover Database(NLCD),from decadal Landsat satellite imagery and other supplementary datasets. -.-..—. ....---- eat Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) 3 i C Multi esoloh+years Partnership MRLC Viewer �r� L Multi-Resolulidn Land Characteristics Coneonium All Lend Cover NLCD 2011 CONUS Land Cover Q 0© 0 NLCD 2011 ALASKA Land Cover Q O®®a[J O 0 m NLCD 2011 ALASKA Land Cover 171 • Open Water Perennial Ice Snorer Developed.Open Space LI'--'-- - 'a` Developed.Low Intensity - 4... • Developed.Medium Intense), - - ii • Developed High Inlensily4,' Barren Land lRock/SandJGayl . Unconsolidated Shove ' M Deciduous Forest ' Ir/ mi Evergreen Forest 1'.1 r . `` Mined Forest lig Dwarf Sclub(AK only) 477' a ._., ShruhlScru6 t.r NLCD 2011 CONUS Land Cover O CI 1 r4 \\ � .. 4 Mae Mks ov StM_men_Pe0en.under C&_BY-2.0.o Doelleikelliffu2 oonlribe.:; Westchester County N Land Cover Land Cover Change,2001 to 2019 A o MRLC ,r4. In r1 ki,, Land Cover (as of 2019) �.. • 50.3% Developed (563 km2; 140k ac.) 0illik,L. "' 4, • +29.93 km2 (7,500 ac) since 2001 • 47.7/ Forested (522 km2; 130k ac.) V • -30.12 km2 (7,500 ac) since 2001 - 14i" firy cs.. # k:2, 414 itil! ..11 Land Cover Change ' .O 1111 Became Forasl In I I Became Not Forestiift, _ IC Became Developed r 1 km2 = —250 acres _Forest Thai Became De eoped l Land Cover Type �r a= Remmann et al,2023 0 I 10 km MO Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) N Westchester County La nd Cover A Percent Canopy Corer,2016 �.� � MRLC 'y "+ Land Cover (as of 2019 �: `. • 50.3% Developed (563 km2; 140k ac.) z ' .x • +29.93 km2 (7,500 ac) since 2001 ; :4� Soy ' 4 ,,z • 47.7% Forested (522 km2; 130k ac.) • -30.12 km2 (7,500 ac) since 2001 , , A • 16.3% Impervious Surfaces (182 km2) .. `r� ' k Canopy Cover(%}2 .� +4 • 54.8% Tree Canopy Cover (612.9 km2) , 1 . ° i, ,0 ' $ l I20-20 lb' • -20 km2 (-3.1%) since 2011 1 130-40 Itifir, y, ?` i I40-50 .40 • —1/3 of canopy cover is from trees �50-5 70 1 0 ;, in residential and developed areas! IN8,: p -90-100 •� r i Land Cover Type . t: -werer Reinmann et al.2023 Foreec ° i .m Rates of Development Rates of Deforestation (2001-2019 A (2001-2019 A Rats Of Development(km2tyr) Rare Of Fares!Lose(%) a.soo.0025 Percent Of 2001 Forest Arse 0.025-0.050 Per Year 0.050-0.075 -as-4.0 0.075-0.100 - -d.o--2.5 0.100-0.125 25--zo 4 0.125-0.150 Alil 0.150-0.175 rr1.5--1.0 —0.115-0.200 - 1.0--05 -0.200-0.225 -0.3-00 .. -0.225-0-250 0 5 tO Am 00-0.5 Reinmann et al.2023 0 5 to ae Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) LandCover Westchester County Westchester County Percent Canopy Cover In Percent Developed Imperviousness In Stream Buffer Areas Stream Buffer Areas 2016, MRLC v . 2016,MRLC . OCItt K Stream Buffer � o ° , `? -..' ` .* -,, ,•,,,. , ' h d' t liar �' 4� t� ht, Composition � Af, , h r. C�, .Y VISr •' ,t' *I, y '. ' A • >3,200 km of streams 1, /, � E ,,, . l t:r1:4,4f, 'f.7"4;44' ' Viol. . P...,,,,r; • 452 km' area within 90m ' , 300' of streamstit"' `' ' �' 17 ' ki • 61.4% Canopy Cover CenapyCawr(%) w .li`Nt t 14. �p=Mou.Surfeca,x� i a la 111 r— P.30 J ` r QQ�.p • 9.5% ISA .�n ., ,. tir '4:4ii it:.: nr.-. -w.1� =.roo N N land Cow.Typ. Land Cover Typo 6 6 12'km A 0 6 12 km A Reinmann et al.2023 Close-up View , . ; ; ,, tiy� ,'�%t;6. T 4,. � ' -r vi it Mount Pleasant 'fir liiti:"i' ' IA, * 0 *,' 4k "i:\ 4:;,'';,...... , i to IA. ' J1 i ' : 8km } - iMount Vernon .) 4 0 2 4 , Reinmann et al.2023 km Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Westchester County Ecosystem Services.. Forest Biomass(Mg/ha) A US Forest Service,2008 Carbon Sequestration A -- (210 1. FOREST SERVI,, ,/,. UtiS Forest Inventory and , �, fit: N Analysis (FIA) Program *. rMENT OF AG RICO; + L-I l r l 1 4.)4t* 7 r' + I 22 FIA Plots in Westchester (2,942 in NYS) 411 Carbon storage in Trees (above + belowground): f • Statewide: 87.1 +-0.74 Mg C/ha J • Westchester: 131.9 +-13.2 Mg C/ha Carbon Uptake Across Westchester's Forests* • Est. 130,606 Mg C/year Forest Biomass • Offsets emissions from -104,000 cars each year Mglha e- High:174.9 "`calculated from the LEARN tool( ,,s://icleiusa.org/LEARN )and data from US EPA Low 0 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 •=.7xm Ecosystem Services: Thermal Regulation Remotely sensed measurements of Land . - A y=0.03421x-61.43512 Surface Temperature (LST) e A P=0.059 V • Not the same as air EL3 • E a 10 it temperature, but spatial 0 e patterns follow one • ( W another -§. a _ I • South-to-north gradient, 113 mirroring patterns in m dm ta tree canopy cover m a - m I I I I I • Developed areas are 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 warming faster than Year .o forests Reinmann et al.2023 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Ecosystem Services: Thermal Regulation o - 0 Canopy Cover is the main ° 0 o ° driver a municipality's 1ST °'N — ° ° co 0 Io • Mitigate local effects of gw 0 0 ° 0 0 urban heat island and i m _ • I pp °: climate change U N 0 • O °• Result in large reductions in energy consumption for . - 0 cooling 0 y=-0.3361004x+106.4035226 - rZ=0.945 ° co I I 1 I I I 20 30 40 50 60 70 Reinmann et al.2023 %Canopy Cover Ecosystem Services: Thermal Regulation Cooler, Higher Income • Municipalities with m - <20% forest cover ° 0 . 0 have greatest range F m _ ° 00 0 in canopy cover 8 0 °° ° ° 0 rk 0 • >40% canopy cover W ° ° ° 0 suggested as o co o important threshold N - 0 o • Important Equity Hotter, Issues o _ Lower Income ' 1 r I F 0 20 40 60 80 Reinmann et al.2023 Forest Cover % Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Data Application Vliestchester County Urban Heat Island Developed Areas UHI & Equity • Define UHI as developed areas that r. are warmer than mean forest LST __! , 'q • 4 LST enhancement categories 111,1N, • +0-4°C • +4-8°C UHI Category e. w m�•ay.eMn,{Dx-c.eepyea.er MN an Dom er'ov MIT,20.%Ce999 Cave # 1 • 1 Oo—1 2°C -W W'rnr:GT,<20%Cm.,Cover t ■V 92 u•eyer 9,,,4oxa C91069 Cover 0 Canopy Cover e20°2 Ce�yCavn • +>12°C W M2'wer MIT.2D�0%Cerropy Cover W 412'war MIT.<]0%Crnow Covni W D24 avw flfT,{0'6e canmpy Cewr -W't.aver Y0T,x0avy.Cenepy Cevei � " ' • Subcategories based on canopy cover .t°14T,ve'M .ry. 0%CsneayDawr, 19 a].3,.o„e.,00 ..11.01 b SM. to ba I Southern Westchester County N Data Application: Urban Heat Island & Redlining A HOLC Code:l 1 A GD(Declining and Hazardous} UHI & Equity , 4; ,. — Q1 (Coolest LST) it -d y�,' ■ Q4(Hottest LST) Mg ' , v\ L („, ..„ _ „.......-- ,, / ' I 1 \ / ' 1 < ro, , , ,J, „..., ._ ,. , , ,, i 1 o _ r \ 4 „If?: cli tit Un O o L. SLR. T N 1]li►r {;� • rr et ti p)11. Q : oa _ i U toe � •d �rf y} 4t, ri, , tl ,:;. I • v o A B C D Reinmann et al.2023 HOLC Category 7 'i ]Imp Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Data Application: Identifying FostthLsterRountyes A Priority Conservation Areas ¢' k ' Q ' I i — ili A. ,, Forest Loss Risk ER, / 1_ Pe„edx1 j. ' -1 t. ^�cc•Aak ; l . Medium Alak Y �' g_ 707 �Npn Rlak ,`�� �fy NIP • I . *iv gr Pmtecled Low Rok Medium Risk i-kgh Rek iffifork. 0 5 ,eb Reinmann et al.2023 Data Application: Identifying Westchester County 2019 Non-Forest Vegetated Open Space ,, ' Candidate Reforestation Areas =.t le . .-fi?'ram+ ' 'y,' : ,t. 58,000 acres of non-forested �► f '- o en space \• prib; , g: • .i38% is patches >25 acres ` kf Contiguous Open Sp•c•(ac,) lks'4' .', i 'lb' • Biggest patches are golf courses in ��/ SD_,nn J. r ter J Southern Westchester! �_�• � + ! i 1$17;' r 4 1,... , , Reinmann et al.2023 -- - _ Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) What's Happening Locally? 2,200 Acres of 146 Acres Lost Tree Canopy Cover -75% "community"Trees Nearly all from "community" trees v4 Canopy Cover Change ;/ 2011-2021(%) eass� imp- High: 100 0 1 2km 0 1 2km - Low:0 I mmin Low:-100 I What's Happening Locally? 0 o _ a -7%Decline 8 _ O U 8 _ o Lost Carbon Sink - =Annual Emissions from 50 to 150 cars o X gMamaroneck Town+Mamaroneck Wage+Larchmont - N I f I I I 2012 2014 2018 2018 2020 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Our Trees Do A Lot For Us, But What Are We Doing For Them? • Deforestation from Development is Primary Driver of Forest Decline • Solar farm expansion is increasingly important • Invasive species • Forest pests and pathogens • Invasive plants (e.g., vines) • Deer • Decades of heavy browse have greatly reduced forest regeneration, leaving behind "Zombie" Forests • Mortality of trees in our communities tends to be higher than in rural forests • Natural attrition and cutting down trees without replacement drive canopy cover decline Policies and Planting Programs Can Help Increase Tree Canopy Cover (or slow the loss) � o ml U a • Q r o 1 to T 03 U N t ul I • Wiwiitlloutthhout PProgrogramram o EN, Ordinance-Removal Permit Not Required • Ordinance-Removal Permit Required ri Reinmann et al.2023 Planting Incentive Ordinance Ordinance(Permit) Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) How Do We Reverse Trends and Maximize Benefits Of Trees? 1. Maintain what you have! Plant the Right Tree • Minimize forest loss & tree removal In the Right Place • Improve/maintain tree health ,' Plant Taller Trees Away From Overhead Utility Lines e • Policies & plantingprograms help! . ':,4 ate-- — — —, Tree Pruning ii p1- - t 1 I I + -q L`.t^ 1 I •_ I 2. Species may matter...but tea`' ya, I • Site conditions, management, and health , y. could be even more important, 1 kk ,si,,c ti , , „. ,.-r 1 3. Right tree, right location ! I. i '�" '' ' "i ' 1zon1' . 1 1 i- • Trees of all sizes can have important 'IQprbrr Day wundatian 5t0n1 4 climate (and biodiversity) benefits Tall Trees Such As: Medium Trees Such As: Smell Trees Such As: •Maple •Black gum • Redbud •Oak •Hophornbeam •Flowering dogwood 4. Incentivize tree planting! ! ! •Tulip Tree •Crabapple/hawthorn •Pine •Serviceberry •Spruce •Pawpaw If We Lose Our Civility, We Will Lose A Lot More Than Just Our Trees 7 i ' r r 1 r . 1 1 4 ( ,, ' I' .,r ' . P Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) areinmann@gc.cuny.edu Questions? «AsK not what your :.,-r co u ntree can do for a .,. . 11,4I you, but what you . . can do for yourow 0 co u ntree." , , - 0,E5T 5E"yEE ay ~ .; �i - U4S ti/ I n E"[OFW //�/ A®VANCEC SCIENCE �� Special thanks to Lucy Hutyra,Jonathan Thompson, EARCH CENTER '�" W RES a HUNTER THE GRADUATE DENIER.4MIX SECW Ian Smith,Simon Gruber, Douglas O Price,Clare i E� I'VV"I��51tt MIX F�� lei Kohler, Magdaly Sevilla,Aaron Davitt,Justin Bowers, Pr NEW YORK HudsonRiver "q"� °°'°""'"'TM EstuaryProgram 3���\ i Mass Nancy Sonti, Kayla Warner,and our 2020 Summer ma. g *d i re'l bon High School Interns NEWVCRK oepartrnentof (Jacob Rosewater, Will Serlin, and Anushka Sundar) ""'" c=„ZR„ ` rilliggggEEIIr 'M. W. 1 . 1 .,.--.);:.•'-')... .... ik (nt ju, - ' ., ,.........MI:0 !it* : La] I `,...4444iiii:k., ! . 'i".- ` [ Air r ' � ;'i. al/ .e1 ' } /r 10.40.,- " ...7 . II .0, &,-, /, i .) , , till • 010 ‘'t rl „qt.- -• � .� bed -� , E. - . i Look to Bioretainment • - -trees are. a,soli_itrbn. d* Center for Urban Forest Research - J,,., z Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) How much rain can a tree retain? One tree reduces stormwater runoff by over 4,000 gallons per year.* .$,' Bioretainment The New Technology Trees are the new technology to retain water What is Bioretainment? on site,some permanently,some temporarily, It is the storage of rainfall on . to slow the flow to waterways. leaves, branches and trunk Trees protect water and soil resources.Healthy bark. Following the rainfall event, the water is either trees can reduce the amount of runoff and evaporated directly to the s -` 1 pollutants in creeks,ponds and other receiving atmosphere, absorbed by the More waters in three primary ways; canopy surfaces, or flows community Trees •leaves,branch surfaces,and trunk bark inter- down to the ground surface. = equals = cept and store rainfall,thereby reducing runoff volumes and delaying the onset of lower costs Retainment of water is influenced by three peak flows; f"` stormwater factors:character and magnitude of the min- k' root growth and decomposition increase the control fall event,tree species and their structure,and capacity and rate of soil infiltration by rain- weather.Not every event will produce the fall and reduce overland flow; 7. 11 same results because 1)trees retain more ' • y4 •tree canopies reduce soil erosion by water during a 1-inch rainfall event that lasts` diminishing the impact of raindrops on two days than one that lasts only two hours; 5; barren surfaces. 2)tree structure and leaf and bark surface area Urban Hydrology—The Problem differ by species and each one controls the flow As we build our communities,considerable and storage of rainwater uniquely;and 3)tern- natural landscape is converted to impervious perature,relative humidity,net radiation and isurfaces such as roads,parking lots,driveways wind speed control the length of time rainfall and buildings.Manmade drainage systems, is retained in storage. such as sewers and storm drains,are used to sii> - .,,a accelerate water movement through commu- The Type of Tree is Important 1 The mix of tree species and their size influence nities and into drainages and natural waterways. N,k ! interception.In regions where most precipitation II However,water quality suffers when runoff L di carries contaminants such as oil,metals or occurs in winter,evergreen trees play the most pesticides into streams,wetlands,lakes,and important role in interception.Trees with Trees retain more marine waters. evergreen foliage contribute to greater interception than deciduous trees.Some water during Trees Retain Water On Site— conifers intercept more rainfall than similar a 1-inch rainfall Bioretainment sized deciduous trees.In climates with summer During a rainfall event,precipitation is either precipitation,deciduous trees make a substan- event that lasts intercepted by leaves,branches,and the trunk, tial contribution to rainfall interception. two days than or it falls directly through the tree to the Planting more trees and improving health of ground.Intercepted water is stored temporarily existing trees is an important strategy that will one that lasts only on leaf and bark surfaces.It eventually drips help reduce the volume of stormwater runoff. two hours." from leaf surfaces,flows down stem and trunk surfaces to the ground,or it evaporates. * One large deciduous tree in coastal southern California Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) ti aAp .+t kr 11' '*.d ' ' , fi. 41141 i '.111),, c :' . 'ti f ,, 'i ,A :' Wit'.• +i r �, 1 � °. ?,,"J '. A typical community `•• forest of 10,000 trees •• - 1 ' " will retain approximately 1 Illk 10 million gallons of • rain water per year. K Incorporate Bioretainment into the Storm water Management Process {''- ♦ • e •Select tree species with architectural features that maximize i" --..0"— 41cinterception,such as large leaf surface area and rough - • surfaces that store water. •Plant trees in small groves where possible. ‘'..•r •Plant low-water-use tree species where appropriate and natives . ‘. 44( #'` that,once established,require little supplemental irrigation.In 1 bioretention areas,be sure the species can adapt to standing and fluctuating water levels. •Increase the tree canopy within your community by planting < I _ more large-crowning trees. _= •Match trees to rainfall patterns so that they are in-leaf when precipitation is greatest. •Plant broadleaf evergreens where appropriate,and avoid shading r:. south-facing windows in the winter to maximize solar heat gain. •Improve the maintenance of existing trees. •Plant more trees in appropriate areas such as parkways,boulevards, Why do you take cover parking lots,traffic islands,swales,median strips,and residential ' - under a tree when it rains? "rain gardens."This will aid the retention/detention and infiltration/ filtration processes. Obviously,the leaves shelter you from the Urban Forests Produce More Benefits Through rain...the same way they protect our Water Quality Protection than Flood Control. environment by Although trees reduce runoff,they may not be very effective for flood retaining water and control.Floods usually occur during major storms,well after canopy then allowing it to evaporate storage is exceeded.However,by substantially reducing the amount of and absorb into the ground runoff during less extreme events,urban forests can protect water quality. rather than creating Small storms,for which urban forest interception is greatest,are responsible undesirable runoff. for most annual pollutant loading.Infrequently occurring large storms usually produce the greatest flood damage,and although they may contain significant \___.__.....__.„._.—...----""-- \\\\ pollutant loads,their contribution to the annual average pollutant load is quite small.Also,because of the infrequency of large storms,receiving waters have relatively long periods of recovery between events. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) This summary is based on Dr.Xiao's What is the Value of research published in the Journal of Arboriculture in 1998. Bioreta'nment? Xiao,Q F.;et.al.1998.Rainfall interception by Sacramento's urban forest.J.Arbor.29(4):235-244. To estimate the value of bioretainment,we use stormwater management control costs based on For more information, refer to the minimum requirements for stormwater management following publications: • in a particular region.For example: Chang,G.;J.Parrish;and C.Souer.1990. •In Western Washington,for a 10-acre,single-family The first flush of runoff and its effect on control structure design.Environmental Resource Management residential development on permeable soils it costs Division.Department of Environmental and approximately$0.02779/gal to treat and control flows Conservation Services.City of Austin, stemming from a 24-hour storm. Austin,TX.36 pp. •In Fresno,the average cost for constructing and Claytor,R.A.;and T.R.Schueler.1996. maintaining a typical detention/retention Design of stormwater filtering systems.The Center basin is$121,439/acre.With a 50 percent if for Watershed Protection,Silver Spring,MD. probability of filling 10 times in a 20-year McPherson,E.G.;1998.Structure and sustainability period,the cost of detention/retention is •156 of Sacramento's urban forest.J.Arbor.24(4):174-190. . $0.0077/gallon. e, McPherson,E.G.;et.al.2000.Tree guidelines •In Los Angeles,it costs approximately$0.0183/gal to for coastal Southern California communities.Local ~ Government Commission,Sacramento, treat sanitary waste,and we assume a similar cost for CA.97 p stormwater. McPherson,E.G.;et.al.1999 Benefit-cost anlysis Trees manage stormwater of Modesro's municipal urban forest.J.Arbor.25(5): 235-248. runoff. They help reduce 4, Xiao,Q.F.;et.al.2000.Winter rainfall interception pollution and make by two mature open-grown trees in Davis,California. Hydro].Process.14:763-784. waterways healthy for , Xiao,Q.F.;et.al.2000.A new approach to le and fish• modeling tree rainfall interception.J.of Geophysical people Research.105(D23):29,173-29,188. To calculate benefits,we multiply the management cost by gallons of rainfall intercepted after the first 0.1 inch has fallen for each storm(24-hours without rain)during the The United States Department of Agriculture(USDA) year,depending on the region.Based on sur- prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities face detention calculations,the first 0.1 - on the basis of race,color,national origin,gender, inch of rainfall seldom results in runoff. - religion,age,disability,political beliefs,sexual orientation and marital or family status.(Not all prohibited bases Thus,interception is not a benefit until • apply to all programs.)Persons with disabilities who precipitation exceeds this amount. require alternative means for communication of program information(Braille,large print,audiotape,etc.) Check out our website at should contact USDA's TARGET Center at:(202)720-2000 kip://cufi.uc axis.edn/to see all the other (voice and TDD).To file a complaint of discrimination, write:USDA Director,Office of Civil Rights,Room 326- benefits trees provide. W,Whitten Building,14th and Independent Avenue,SW, Washington,DC 20250-9410,or call:(202)720-5964 NOTE:In looking for solutions to (voice or TDD). stormwater runoff it is important to USDA is an equal opportunity provider consider an integrated approach that uses and employer.August 2003 - other water conservation,water retention,flood man- agement,and pollution control strategies.Community solutions include but are not limited to porous pave- Po'- ment,vegetated swales and filter strips,recharge areas under f i`C —.: WM. parking lots,holding tanks and cisterns under playfields,surface area �J�[t7 holding ponds,turf grass filters,and riparian retention and treatment areas. a-. ._ - . Center for Urban Forest Research 7 Pacific Southwest Research Station, We conduct research that demonstrates new ways in which trees add value to USDA Forest Service 1 Shields Avenue,Suite 1103 your community,converting results into financial terms to assist you in stimulating more Davis,CA 95616-8587 investment in trees. (530)752-7636•Fax(530)752-6634 htipJfcufr.ucdavis.edui Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/tree-planting-american-cities-health- environment-benefits ti. p { I. 4, Workers plant a tree in Los Angeles,California where a stark divide exists between affluent neighborhoods with tree- lined streets and low-income neighborhoods where tree cover is scarce. PHOTOGRAPH BY ELLIOT ROSS, NAT GEO IMAGE COLLECTION • ENVIRONMENT The surprising way that millions of new trees could transform America The U.S. is making a billion-dollar investment in planting and maintaining trees across the country to combat extreme heat and expand access to nature. But the benefits go way beyond that. BYJEANNE DORIN MCDOWELL PUBLISHED OCTOBER 9, 2023 • 7 MIN READ When community groups planted 125 trees in two low-income neighborhoods in north central Detroit this past spring, changes were seen almost immediately. Residents began using the newly greened streets as a pedestrian corridor that allowed them to interact more with their neighbors. Trash collectors who routinely picked up garbage reported that littering had almost stopped completely. "To me, it was validation that what we are hoping to accomplish with trees can and will work," says Eric Candela, director of local government relations for American Forests, whose mission for more than ioo years has been to restore and protect the nation's forest ecosystems. In the next few months, Detroit will receive almost $io million to plant more trees, along with many other cities and nonprofit groups in the U.S. that will get varying amounts to affect similar change. As part of the Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden Administration is awarding a billion dollars in grant money to communities Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) throughout the country to plant trees to combat extreme heat and increase access to nature in cities and towns, where more than 84 percent of Americans live. The money, which is the largest investment to date in urban and community forests, will go mostly to disadvantaged communities that grapple with "tree equity"—having enough trees so that everyone can experience their environmental, health, and economic benefits. Adapting to climate change while helping fight it The positive climate impacts of trees are well-documented. Trees, including parks and nature preserves, remove about 45 million tons of climate-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Already, they offset the pollution from about io million cars. On a more local level, the can drastically influence the climate of a single neighborhood. Trees are natural coolants and lower the risk of respiratory and heat-related illnesses such as those seen during this summer's record heat wave. Streets with few trees are typically 10 degrees warmer and exacerbate "urban heat islands"that occur in areas with dense concentrations of pavement, concrete, and other materials that absorb and retain heat. (In Los Angeles. too little access to shade is a legacy of racist policies. Read more.) "Trees are a critical part of the infrastructure of cities and are as important as sidewalks and bridges," says Benita Hussain, tree equity lead for American Forests, which was awarded $5o million in federal funding for tree planting and maintenance. A growing body of research is finding that trees also provide an array of benefits associated with physical and mental health. How trees make us healthier The calming effect of being around trees is familiar to anyone who has sat on a bench under a tree, walked down a tree-lined street, or experienced the respite of shade from a tree on a scorching hot day. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) But research has also found that trees can help people live longer. A 2022 U.S. Forest Service study of 3o years of tree planting in Portland, Oregon by the nonprofit organization Friends of Trees found that one premature death was avoided for every ioo trees planted. Using data from the Oregon Health Authority, researchers found that in neighborhoods where more trees had been planted, death rates (per 100,00o persons) were lower. The association strengthened as trees aged and grew: the reduction in mortality rate associated with trees planted 11-15 years before was double that observed with trees planted in the preceding 1-5 years. This speaks to the potential public health benefits of preserving existing mature trees, which are associated with lower death rates. In a 2020 report on Philadelphia's goal to reach 3o percent tree canopy cover in every neighborhood by 2025, researchers estimated that 403 premature deaths overall, including 244 premature deaths in areas of lower socioeconomic status, could be prevented annually if the city were able to meet its goal. At the time, the tree canopy cover in disadvantaged areas was about 17 percent. Trees make us happier too Numerous studies show that being around trees reduces blood pressure as well as the stress-related hormones cortisol and adrenaline. Research has also found that increasing the number of urban trees is associated with a statistically significant improvement in mental health conditions, especially for people living in disadvantaged areas. A 2015 study monitored participants'heart rates to measure acute stress responses in individuals who walked past vacant lots in Philadelphia before and after they were filled with trees. They found that looking at greener lots decreased heart rate. "Trees calm us down, improve our mood and stress levels, and lower blood pressure," says Michelle Kondo, a U.S. Forest Service social scientist who studies the health benefits of trees. Being in nature helps people bounce back faster from stress, and being around trees helps restore attention. It's a mini-rest period that reduces the body's arousal mechanism and returns it to a more restful state, thereby stabilizing mood. (This is what happens to your brain when you see a bird in nature.) "We spend so much time staring at computer screens, but being in nature allows us to replenish that cognitive reserve," says Peter James, an environmental health Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) expert at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. "Staring at trees, even watching leaves scatter in the wind allows our brains to be ready for the next cognitive task." Similarly, trees can help children with ADHD. Linda Powers Tomasso, an environmental scientist at the T.H. Chan School of Public Health, asserts that this is especially useful in helping children with attentional issues and that trees can help them focus more. Transforming tree-less communities Studies confirm that planting trees fosters a sense of community and civic pride, especially in areas that have been historically underinvested in. "Psychologically, people feel `someone is paying attention to my neighborhood,"' says Tomasso. 'Some entity cares about my neighborhood. I matter."' The presence of trees in urban areas facilitates outdoor recreation, physical activity, and socializing, which can reduce lonelines. "Being near trees softens people in disposition and makes them more empathetic to others," says Kondo. Trees can even reduce crime and gun violence. A recent University of Pennsylvania study examining gun violence and tree cover in six U.S. cities found that higher neighborhood income was strongly linked to lower firearm violence over a five-year period. A 2018 study on cleaning-and- greening vacant lots in neighborhoods with residents living below the poverty line found a 29 percent reduction in gun violence around lots that were greened with trees compared to vacant lots. The process of planting and maintaining urban trees can also bring jobs to a community and lead to the creation of a local environmental workforce. According to Marcos Trinidad, senior director of forestry for Southern California's Tree People, which received $8 million in federal funding, upcoming tree plantings throughout parts of Southern California will require many workers—for planting new trees, pruning, and removing older trees. In fact, funding comes at a time when millions of trees are being lost to wildfires, drought, urban development, and a lack of good tree care. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) "I'm not a psychologist," adds Trinidad. "But when I'm around trees, and I can walk down a street lined with trees..., it creates this overall feeling of joy." Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Benefits of Trees Trees provide social,communal, environmental,and economic benefits. Trees provide benefits that promote health,social well- being,and even help your home.Trees serve many purposes in your local community and throughout the entire world. Social Benefits B •Trees provide beauty and help people feel serene, - I peaceful,restful and tranquil. .N'►4i •Trees significantly reduce workplace stress and fatigue ''' and decrease recovery time after medical procedures. ,v " D •Trees may help reduce criminal activity. ` Id" 110 lit l'$ °e° °e°° ppral'a t Economic Benefits iR= ' '` . 0 •Property values of landscaped homes are 5%-20% ;" higher than non-landscaped homes. ti •Individual trees have value that is affected by size, condition,and function.In general,the larger the tree, the greater the value. •Air conditioning costs are lower in a tree-shaded home; Environmental Benefits and heating costs are reduced when a home has a (See figure above) windbreak. A:Leaves filter the air we breathe by removing dust and other particles;absorbing carbon dioxide and various •Well-maintained trees can add value to a home. air pollutants such as ozone,carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide;and release oxygen. B:Deciduous shade trees cool homes in the summer Communal Benefits and allow the winter sun to heat homes when they lose their leaves. •City trees often serve architectural and engineering functions by providing privacy,emphasizing views or C:Trees help cool the environment,working as a simple and obstructing objectionable views. effective way to reduce urban heat islands(pavement and buildings in commercial areas cause higher temperatures •Trees may reduce glare/reflection or direct by absorbing the sun's heat). pedestrian traffic. D:Trees can serve as a windbreak.The more compact •Trees may soften,complement,or enhance architecture. the foliage on the group of trees the more effective the windbreak. •Trees bring natural elements and wildlife habitats into urban surroundings,all of which increase the quality of E:Trees intercept water,store some of it and reduce life for residents in the community. stormwater runoff. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Trees Require an Investment An informed home owner can be responsible for many tree maintenance practices.Corrective pruning and mulching Trees provide numerous aesthetic and economic benefits, gives young trees a good start.Shade trees,however,quickly but can have costs.The costs associated with large grow to a size that may require the services of an arborist. tree removal and replanting with a smaller tree can be significant.In addition,the economic and environmental Your local garden center,university extension agent, benefits produced by a young replacement tree are minimal community forester,or consulting arborist can answer when compared to those of a mature specimen. questions about tree maintenance,suggest treatments, or recommend qualified arborists.ISA Certified Arborists Extending the functional lifespan of large,mature trees have the knowledge and equipment needed to prune,treat, with routine maintenance can delay these expenses and fertilize,and otherwise maintain a large tree. maximize returns. `— What Is a Certified Arborist? .. • • ISA Certified Arborists are individuals who have ' proven a level of knowledge in the art and science of tree care through experience and by passing a comprehensive examination developed by some of the nation's leading experts on tree care. ISA Certified Arborists must also continue their _ , , 1 education to maintain their certification.Therefore, they are more likely to be up to date on the latest • techniques in arboriculture. Finding an Arborist Visit TreesAreGood.org for free tools: •The"Find an Arborist"tool can help you locate an arborist in your area. •The"Verify a Credential"tool enables you to confirm whether an arborist has an ISA credential. Be an Informed Consumer One of the best methods to use in choosing an arborist is to educate yourself about some of the basic principles of tree care.Visit TreesAreGood.org to read and download all brochures in this series. • fl Y ',rr ISATREES - --� �►r�� w..ith.... www.isa-arboccom www.treesaregood.org Selecting the right form(shape)to complement the desired 102021 International Society ofArbnMcutture(v02.2021) function can significantly reduce maintenance costs and Through research,technology,and education,the International Society of increase the trees value in the landscape. Arboriculture promotes the professional practice of arboriculture and fosters a greater worldwide awareness of the benefits of trees. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Arlene Novich 41111111111111.11.11 Sent Wednesday, November 15,2023 3:21 PM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind Cc: May,Allison Subject: Comment on the new draft of the tree Code for public comment Dear Supervisor Jaine Elkind Eney, Town Board Members, Robin Nichinsky, Sabrina Fiddelman, Jeffery King and Abby Katz, This is NOT a proper code. The Board needs to pause this process NOW and go back to the drawing board and do it properly. This is an ineffective code that does not aim to reduce tree-cutting. In fact, we sit in on the work sessions and see you've spent a lot of time deliberating over cutting 3 trees, 5 trees 7 trees- 100 trees! It doesn't matter since if you've read your own code, you should know that you can clearcut almost any property within 2 to 3 years. You're obviously not looking down the road. Doesn't sound balanced to me! Not everyone on the Board agrees with this code and yet the minority view is barely considered. You have never met with the Collaborative and in particular, the Tree Team, to discuss the code, to get information, to bounce ideas. According to the Climate Emergency Declaration, which you signed, you are required to work with the Sustainability Collaborative. You have not discussed this with our neighbor, VoM who have developed a much more effective code and have been willing to share their experience so you could see how this works in real life. You are not being responsive to the majority of the residents of this Town. We strongly suggest that you put this code on hold, stop trying to rush it through, and do it the right way so we don't continue to see our tree canopy decrease. The Sustainability Collaborative has been set up as an advisory committee to the board, yet you are not taking advantage of that for some reason. The Tree Team, set up 3 years ago as a sub-group, has spent a year working on this Code with some of the brightest, most committed residents in this Town, along with several experts. You never spoke to an expert until we arranged for Andy Reinmann to speak at the last hearing and then at that late hour after you drafted your latest version of your Code, you had a conversation with him and disregarded several of his suggestions. It's pretty clear that you have taken the easy way out, focusing on details and wording with no real substance. Can the Tree Team, as a subgroup of the Sustainability Collaborative, sit down with you and go over the several sticking points that do not preserve trees and allow for effectively eliminating all regulated trees in a few years? Can you agree to that now?? Your children and grandchildren will thank you for doing the right thing when it comes to our trees. Otherwise they will blame you and rightly so. Thank you, Arlene Novich Town of Mamaroneck Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent: Wednesday, November 15,2023 3:47 PM To: May,Allison Subject: FW: Revised Tree Law-Sustainability Collaborative Co-Chairs'&Tree Team Leader Letter to Town of Mamaroneck Board Members Attachments: Collab Chairs&Trees Leader Statement for 11.15.23 Public Hearing.docx Importance: High From: Sent:Wednesday, November 15, 2023 3:05 PM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org>; May,Allison<amay@townofmamaroneckny.org> Cc: ;Arlene Novich Subject:Revised Tree Law-Sustainability Collaborative Co-Chairs'&Tree Team Leader Letter to Town of Mamaroneck Board Members Importance:High Dear Supervisor Jaine Elkind Eney and Town of Mamaroneck Board Members Abby Katz, Jeffery King, Sabrina Fiddelman, and Robin Nichinsky, We appreciate that you have been willing to hold multiple work sessions and public hearings since the first public hearing on the Town's proposed tree law on October 4th.This is a highly consequential revision to our tree law in our global climate crisis,a situation you have recognized in unanimously adopting the Climate Emergency Declaration Resolution on November 17,2021. Unfortunately,in spite of your best intentions,the latest revisions to the tree law are not meaningful in protecting our trees and tree canopy. It falls short of the Greenburgh tree law which Westchester County recently endorsed as a model tree ordinance for our time. It also pales in comparison to the New Castle tree law that you reportedly used as a model for the revised tree law. We strongly urge you to consider the following BEFORE you vote on this revised law: 1)Consult with the Sustainability Collaborative(Collab),your designated environmental advisor,to address remaining gaps and problems a.A dialogue with relevant representatives of the Collab is critical for building trust and enabling us to work together effectively on the many climate actions and challenges the Town has directed us to work together.This has been lacking so far, but it is not too late. b.There remains internal inconsistencies and glaring gaps in this revised law which still need to be resolved.As just a few examples of problems in the revised text which would not reflect well on the Town, if voted into law as is: Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) i. In Section 207-17B,there is a reference to Section 207-15C which does not exist. ii. Definition of"clearing"effectively allows clearcutting of all regulated trees for lots with fewer than 7 regulated trees. And,there is no safeguard to prevent clearing of all trees on a lot,leaving barren and unsightly conditions with their host of adverse impacts on the environment and neighbors/community. iii. In last sentence of Section 207-12B,a simple and important best practice is recommended in qualifying"third day following the mailing of such order"with"third business day following...."to account for holidays and weekends. 2) Reinstate existing requirements and establish clear criteria to enable Town and private property owners to effectively manage our trees,prevent clearcutting,and prevent unnecessary removal of mature trees a. Under 207-6A,reinstate requirements in existing code for tree permit applicants to provide location,type of tree(s),DBH s),and reasons for proposed tree removal.This enables the own toe ,ke track of our community're'c' 'f 4 `ifry'�` "i'> sons for tree rer 'd'f`fb'' road v m eren 'and'`'I community education b.Incorporate required explanation by applicant as to why a proposed activity prompting the removal cannot be located on a different portion of the site or on another lot under the applicant's ownership and control (under 207-6A and where relevant) c. Incorporate concise requirements(criteria)for Environmental Planner/approving authority to assess environmental and community impacts of tree removal in determining whether to issue tree permits(under 207-6A and where relevant) d. Revise DBH for mature tree to 24"instead of 36"to exercise the"precautionary principle"and in absence of current tree inventory on existing tree sizes and distribution(under 207-5D). Make it unlawful for the Town to also remove mature trees for consistency and to demonstrate Town leadership. e.Add criteria that clearly prevent clearcutting(removal of all regulated trees)on any property(under 207-5). f. Clearly define and provide criteria for"substantially interferes with a permitted use of the property" otherwise there is risk of arbitrary decision making on this(under 207-4C4(i)). g. Ensure any cut or fill of land proposed on property assesses impacts on regulated trees in affected property and on adjoining neighbors'properties prior to its approval(under 207-4C4(iii))or in other relevant codes. 3)Revise the Legislative Intent to be in line with the Town's Climate Emergency and make the purpose clear a.Add wording on current knowledge of trees'critical function in slowing climate change as shown bolded and underlined: "The Town Board finds and declares that the preservation of trees,as defined herein within the Town is necessary to protect the health,safety and general welfare of the Town because trees provide shade, impede soil erosion,aid water absorption and retention,inhibit excess runoff and flooding,remove carbon dioxide from the air and slow climate change,enhance air quality,etc...." b. Include a clear,summary statement at the bottom of"Purpose"such as: 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) "The purpose of this Chapter is to preserve trees,the tree canopy, minimize damage in removal of trees, and promote and protect the public safety and general welfare by providing for the regulation of the planting,maintenance,and removal of trees within Unincorporated Town of Mamaroneck." 4)Increase fines/penalty fees to be effective deterrent to illegal tree removal a. Increase penalties for offenses so they are higher than tree planting fund fees and are an effective deterrent and make tree companies/contractor liable if they cut any tree on property with no tree removal permit (under 207-17). Please note that we also continue to stand by the main concerns and recommendations that were communicated in the Sustainability Collaborative's letter dated 10/4/23(see attached) under#1-5. We are living in the decade that has been called the most consequential in taking action to slow climate change,and our Town publicly advertises on a sign tagline"Town of Mamaroneck: Protecting Our Environment"attached to a lamppost along our major road,Boston Post Road,outside the LeBlanc Orthodontics building.Therefore, let's not pass this revised law as currently written when it's still not ready given our Town's laudable commitment to protecting our environment and realizing the stakes for not doing this to our best effort really has grave consequences for current and future generations.We can and must do better. Respectfully Yours, Arlene Novich,Mark Kramer&Karen Khor Tree Team Leader&Co-Chairs,Town of Mamaroneck Sustainability Collaborative Sustainability Collaborative Letter to Town of Mamaroneck Board Members on Revised Tree Law,10-4-23 Dear Supervisor Jaine Elkind Eney and Town of Mamaroneck Board Members Abby Katz,Jeffery King,Sabrina Fiddelman, and Robin Nichinsky, The minutes of the Town Board Work Session on August 17,2021 state that"The Town Board agreed that the Tree Code needs to be updated to address tree preservation,not just removal." On November 17,2021,you unanimously adopted the Climate Emergency Declaration Resolution in which you specifically recognized "the local adverse impacts of climate change and the need for local action to reduce flooding,extreme heat health risks,Greenhouse Gas Emissions,"etc. We appreciate that you have spent many hours trying to update this Tree Code over the past 2 years. We support the requirement of tree removal permits regardless of property size.And,we support the concept of penalties for offenses, although the proposed fines are too low to be an effective deterrent for committing the offenses. However,the Sustainability Collaborative has strong concerns that your newly proposed Tree Law released to the public on September 27,2023 falls far short of your own stated objective for updating the Tree Code to address tree preservation. Our main concerns with the proposed Tree Law in addressing tree preservation are: 1) Lack of restrictions on tree removal 3 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) 0 The applicant for a tree removal permit does not need to provide a reason for the proposed tree removal which is required in the current Tree Law. Neither is the applicant asked for an explanation as to why a proposed activity prompting the tree removal can't be located on a different portion of the site.Instead,all that the applicant need supply is"A general description of the proposed removal."An applicant is effectively given"carte blanche"to remove any tree on his/her property. 0 Depending on the size of the property, an applicant can apply for the removal of 4 to 10 regulated trees during any 12-month period. As a result, any property owner can systematically remove his or her trees over consecutive years without accountability to nor Town oversight over any adverse impacts on adjacent properties and the neighborhood and the overall Town tree canopy. 2) Absence of any guiding tree canopy preservation standard for the Town 0 Some forestry experts recommend that we maintain a minimum 40% tree canopy to sustain a healthy environment. Others recommend even more. Town of Mamaroneck's 2016 tree canopy was assessed at 44%which excluded the country clubs, Leatherstocking Trail, and Saxon Woods. Since then, many trees have been lost due to both storms and cutting. If this new law is to preserve our tree canopy,we should hold the line at 40%tree canopy cover,and we should state that this 40%canopy is one of the purposes of the law and that restrictions on tree cutting are needed to achieve this goal. 3) Inadequacy of tree replacement to compensate for loss of mature trees 0 Even if we replanted every tree cut down, it takes time and effort before newer trees can capture as much carbon as effectively as mature trees. Mature trees have an outsized difference in trapping carbon. New tree planting is a long-term plan, beneficial to our community in the future,but offering limited immediate remediation.According to the research,trees do not begin to provide environmental benefits until they are roughly 20 years old,depending on the species. 4) Risk of excessive tree removal during the 1-year grace period that the new code extends to lots of 7,500 square feet or less 0 There is a risk of excessive tree removals in lots of 7,500 square feet or less due to the proposed phase-in of the law with a grace period extended to lots of 7,500 square feet in the first year. Measures are needed to prevent this from happening. For example, consider a moratorium on tree removal outside of health and safety reasons and associated with a building permit for such lots in the first year. 5 Retain Section 207-10 in the existing tree law on removal of trees on Town-owned land&expand notification rules to neighbors of private properties 0 It is critical to maintain the existing guardrails and oversight on tree cutting on Town-owned land.In fact,the Town needs to be seen as a role model to the entire community in exercising sound judgement over any tree removals and that it takes into consideration any adverse impacts on its neighbors and the wider community. 0 At the same time,just as the Town currently needs to notify neighbors of planned tree removals within 250 feet of their properties,this notification procedure should also apply to private property owners who seek tree removal permits. The current logic that Town neighbors have the right to know and appeal to tree cutting applications that could have adverse impact on them should extend to all property owners affected by neighboring private property owners. In the Climate Emergency Declaration Resolution,the Town directed the Collaborative to"propose a Green Infrastructure Program,which will include community-wide efforts to reverse declines in the Town's existing tree canopy, increase the 4 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) rate of new tree planting along roads and public property, and improve rainfall runoff holding and absorption to reduce impacts to the Town's Storm Sewer system." The Collaborative determined that the most effective, near term and high impact Green Infrastructure Program recommendation for implementation by the Town is our proposal for preservation and expansion of the tree canopy.The Collaborative also presented the following toolkit to the Town in 2021 to preserve and expand its tree canopy (see attached): • White Paper: Restoring Mamaroneck's Tree Canopy • Suggested Revisions to the Town Tree Code • Town of Mamaroneck Tree Canopy Map • Tree Planting Location Options • Native Trees for the Town of Mamaroneck. We strongly urge the Town Board to reconsider the Town's Tree Law based on our abovementioned concerns and to incorporate the Collaborative's recommendations to effectively address tree preservation in our Town for the long term. We also respectfully request that BEFORE the Town Board makes any decision on this tree law,that it consider feedback from Andrew Reinmann, City University of New York Assistant Professor and established authority on tree canopies in Westchester County,and other relevant forestry experts on the proposed tree law.Dr.Reinmann and others have recently provided feedback on the Town's proposed tree law,such as specifically prohibiting tree topping(removing large branches from the treetop and leaving only lateral branches and stumps on the tree). Due to insufficient time,the Collaborative is unable to assemble all the feedback in time to present to the Town Board at the October 4th public hearing. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, Sustainability Collaborative Volunteers 1. Allen Reiter 12. June Wallach 2. Andrea Hirsch 13. Karen Khor 3. Anne Granger 14. Karin and Mitchell Weisburgh 4. Arlene Novich 15. Kevin Crowe 5. Denise Dunn 16. Luke Brussel 6. Elizabeth Poyet 17. Mark Kramer 7. Jacob Levitt 18. Melissa Hughes 8. John Zox 19. Michele Lewis and Jan Gould 9. Judith Darsky 20. Mitch Green 10. Judy and Robert Herbst 21. Steve Moser 11. Judy Caputo 22. Zach Hughes 5 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Sustainability Collaborative Co-Chairs' & Tree Team Leader's Letter to Town of Mamaroneck Board Members on Revised Tree Law, 11-15-23 Dear Supervisor Jaine Elkind Eney and Town of Mamaroneck Board Members Abby Katz, Jeffery King, Sabrina Fiddelman, and Robin Nichinsky, We appreciate that you have been willing to hold multiple work sessions and public hearings since the first public hearing on the Town's proposed tree law on October 4tn This is a highly consequential revision to our tree law in our global climate crisis, a situation you have recognized in unanimously adopting the Climate Emergency Declaration Resolution on November 17, 2021. Unfortunately, in spite of your best intentions, the latest revisions to the tree law are not meaningful in protecting our trees and tree canopy. It falls short of the Greenburgh tree law which Westchester County recently endorsed as a model tree ordinance for our time. It also pales in comparison to the New Castle tree law that you reportedly used as a model for the revised tree law. We strongly urge you to consider the following BEFORE you vote on this revised law: 1) Consult with the Sustainability Collaborative (Collab), your designated environmental advisor, to address remaining gaps and problems a. A dialogue with relevant representatives of the Collab is critical for building trust and enabling us to work together effectively on the many climate actions and challenges the Town has directed us to work together. This has been lacking so far, but it is not too late. b. There remains internal inconsistencies and glaring gaps in this revised law which still need to be resolved. As just a few examples of problems in the revised text which would not reflect well on the Town, if voted into law as is: i. In Section 207-17B, there is a reference to Section 207-15C which does not exist. ii. Definition of"clearing" effectively allows clearcutting of all regulated trees for lots with fewer than 7 regulated trees. And, there is no safeguard to prevent clearing of all trees on a lot, leaving barren and unsightly conditions with their host of adverse impacts on the environment and neighbors/community. iii. In last sentence of Section 207-12B, a simple and important best practice is recommended in qualifying "third day following the mailing of such order"with "third business day following...." to account for holidays and weekends. 1 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) 2) Reinstate existing requirements and establish clear criteria to enable Town and private property owners to effectively manage our trees, prevent clearcutting, and prevent unnecessary removal of mature trees a. Under 207-6A, reinstate requirements in existing code for tree permit applicants to provide location, type of tree(s), DBH(s), and reasons for proposed tree removal. This enables the Town to keep track of our community's existing inventory and reasons for tree removal to enable proactive management and community education b. Incorporate required explanation by applicant as to why a proposed activity prompting the removal cannot be located on a different portion of the site or on another lot under the applicant's ownership and control (under 207-6A and where relevant) c. Incorporate concise requirements (criteria)for Environmental Planner/approving authority to assess environmental and community impacts of tree removal in determining whether to issue tree permits (under 207-6A and where relevant) d. Revise DBH for mature tree to 24" instead of 36"to exercise the "precautionary principle" and in absence of current tree inventory on existing tree sizes and distribution (under 207-5D). Make it unlawful for the Town to also remove mature trees for consistency and to demonstrate Town leadership. e. Add criteria that clearly prevent clearcutting (removal of all regulated trees) on any property (under 207-5). f. Clearly define and provide criteria for"substantially interferes with a permitted use of the property" otherwise there is risk of arbitrary decision making on this (under 207-4C4(i)). g. Ensure any cut or fill of land proposed on property assesses impacts on regulated trees in affected property and on adjoining neighbors' properties prior to its approval (under 207-4C4(iii)) or in other relevant codes. 3) Revise the Legislative Intent to be in line with the Town's Climate Emergency and make the purpose clear a. Add wording on current knowledge of trees' critical function in slowing climate change as shown bolded and underlined: "The Town Board finds and declares that the preservation of trees, as defined herein. within the Town is necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the Town because trees provide shade, impede soil erosion, aid water absorption and 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) retention, inhibit excess runoff and flooding, remove carbon dioxide from the air and slow climate change, enhance air quality, etc...." b. Include a clear, summary statement at the bottom of"Purpose" such as: "The purpose of this Chapter is to preserve trees, the tree canopy, minimize damage in removal of trees, and promote and protect the public safety and general welfare by providing for the regulation of the planting, maintenance, and removal of trees within Unincorporated Town of Mamaroneck." 4) Increase fines/penalty fees to be effective deterrent to illegal tree removal a. Increase penalties for offenses so they are higher than tree planting fund fees and are an effective deterrent and make tree companies/contractor liable if they cut any tree on property with no tree removal permit (under 207-17). Please note that we also continue to stand by the main concerns and recommendations that we communicated in the Sustainability Collaborative's letter dated 10/4/23 (see attached) under#1-5. We are living in the decade that has been called the most consequential in taking action to slow climate change, and our Town publicly advertises on a sign tagline "Town of Mamaroneck: Protecting Our Environment" attached to a lamppost along our major road, Boston Post Road, outside the LeBlanc Orthodontics building. Therefore, let's not pass this revised law as currently written when it's still not ready given our Town's laudable commitment to protecting our environment and realizing the stakes for not doing this to our best effort really has grave consequences for current and future generations. We can and must do better. Respectfully Yours, Arlene Novich, Mark Kramer& Karen Khor Tree Team Leader& Co-Chairs, Town of Mamaroneck Sustainability Collaborative 3 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Sustainability Collaborative Letter to Town of Mamaroneck Board Members on Revised Tree Law, 10-4-23 Dear Supervisor Jaine Elkind Eney and Town of Mamaroneck Board Members Abby Katz, Jeffery King, Sabrina Fiddelman, and Robin Nichinsky, The minutes of the Town Board Work Session on August 17, 2021 state that "The Town Board agreed that the Tree Code needs to be updated to address tree preservation, not just removal." On November 17, 2021, you unanimously adopted the Climate Emergency Declaration Resolution in which you specifically recognized "the local adverse impacts of climate change and the need for local action to reduce flooding, extreme heat health risks, Greenhouse Gas Emissions," etc. We appreciate that you have spent many hours trying to update this Tree Code over the past 2 years. We support the requirement of tree removal permits regardless of property size. And, we support the concept of penalties for offenses, although the proposed fines are too low to be an effective deterrent for committing the offenses. However, the Sustainability Collaborative has strong concerns that your newly proposed Tree Law released to the public on September 27, 2023 falls far short of your own stated objective for updating the Tree Code to address tree preservation. Our main concerns with the proposed Tree Law in addressing tree preservation are: 1) Lack of restrictions on tree removal The applicant for a tree removal permit does not need to provide a reason for the proposed tree removal which is required in the current Tree Law. Neither is the applicant asked for an explanation as to why a proposed activity prompting the tree removal can't be located on a different portion of the site. Instead, all that the applicant need supply is "A general description of the proposed removal." An applicant is effectively given "carte blanche" to remove any tree on his/her property. Depending on the size of the property, an applicant can apply for the removal of 4 to 10 regulated trees during any 12-month period. As a result, any property owner can systematically remove his or her trees over consecutive years without accountability to nor Town oversight over any adverse impacts on adjacent properties and the neighborhood and the overall Town tree canopy. 2) Absence of any guiding tree canopy preservation standard for the Town Some forestry experts recommend that we maintain a minimum 40% tree canopy to sustain a healthy environment. Others recommend even more. Town of Mamaroneck's 2016 tree canopy was assessed at 44% which 4 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) excluded the country clubs, Leatherstocking Trail, and Saxon Woods. Since then, many trees have been lost due to both storms and cutting. If this new law is to preserve our tree canopy,we should hold the line at 40%tree canopy cover, and we should state that this 40% canopy is one of the purposes of the law and that restrictions on tree cutting are needed to achieve this goal. 3) Inadequacy of tree replacement to compensate for loss of mature trees ➢ Even if we replanted every tree cut down, it takes time and effort before newer trees can capture as much carbon as effectively as mature trees. Mature trees have an outsized difference in trapping carbon. New tree planting is a long-term plan, beneficial to our community in the future, but offering limited immediate remediation. According to the research, trees do not begin to provide environmental benefits until they are roughly 20 years old, depending on the species. 4) Risk of excessive tree removal during the 1-year grace period that the new code extends to lots of 7,500 square feet or less ➢ There is a risk of excessive tree removals in lots of 7,500 square feet or less due to the proposed phase-in of the law with a grace period extended to lots of 7,500 square feet in the first year. Measures are needed to prevent this from happening. For example, consider a moratorium on tree removal outside of health and safety reasons and associated with a building permit for such lots in the first year. 5) Retain Section 207-10 in the existing tree law on removal of trees on Town- owned land &expand notification rules to neighbors of private properties ➢ It is critical to maintain the existing guardrails and oversight on tree cutting on Town-owned land. In fact, the Town needs to be seen as a role model to the entire community in exercising sound judgement over any tree removals and that it takes into consideration any adverse impacts on its neighbors and the wider community. ➢ At the same time, just as the Town currently needs to notify neighbors of planned tree removals within 250 feet of their properties, this notification procedure should also apply to private property owners who seek tree removal permits.The current logic that Town neighbors have the right to know and appeal to tree cutting applications that could have adverse impact on them should extend to all property owners affected by neighboring private property owners. In the Climate Emergency Declaration Resolution, the Town directed the Collaborative to "propose a Green Infrastructure Program, which will include community-wide efforts to reverse declines in the Town's existing tree canopy, increase the rate of new tree planting 5 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) along roads and public property, and improve rainfall runoff holding and absorption to reduce impacts to the Town's Storm Sewer system." The Collaborative determined that the most effective, near term and high impact Green Infrastructure Program recommendation for implementation by the Town is our proposal for preservation and expansion of the tree canopy. The Collaborative also presented the following toolkit to the Town in 2021 to preserve and expand its tree canopy (see attached): • White Paper: Restoring Mamaroneck's Tree Canopy • Suggested Revisions to the Town Tree Code • Town of Mamaroneck Tree Canopy Map • Tree Planting Location Options • Native Trees for the Town of Mamaroneck. We strongly urge the Town Board to reconsider the Town's Tree Law based on our abovementioned concerns and to incorporate the Collaborative's recommendations to effectively address tree preservation in our Town for the long term. We also respectfully request that BEFORE the Town Board makes any decision on this tree law, that it consider feedback from Andrew Reinmann, City University of New York Assistant Professor and established authority on tree canopies in Westchester County, and other relevant forestry experts on the proposed tree law. Dr. Reinmann and others have recently provided feedback on the Town's proposed tree law, such as specifically prohibiting tree topping (removing large branches from the treetop and leaving only lateral branches and stumps on the tree). Due to insufficient time, the Collaborative is unable to assemble all the feedback in time to present to the Town Board at the October 4th public hearing. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, Sustainability Collaborative Volunteers 1. Allen Reiter 12. June Wallach 2. Andrea Hirsch 13. Karen Khor 3. Anne Granger 14. Karin and Mitchell Weisburgh 4. Arlene Novich 15. Kevin Crowe 5. Denise Dunn 16. Luke Brussel 6. Elizabeth Poyet 17. Mark Kramer 7. Jacob Levitt 18. Melissa Hughes 8. John Zox 19. Michele Lewis and Jan Gould 9. Judith Darsky 20. Mitch Green 10. Judy and Robert Herbst 21. Steve Moser 11. Judy Caputo 22. Zach Hughes 6 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Eney,Jaine Elkind Sent Wednesday, November 15,2023 2:20 PM To: May,Allison Subject: FW: Mamaroneck Tree Law From:Katherine Dehais 111.1.111.1.16 Sent:Tuesday, November 14,2023 7:37 PM To:Eney,Jaine Elkind<Supervisor@TownofMamaroneckNY.org> Subject:Mamaroneck Tree Law I am writing this email in support of a petition I signed regarding strengthening Town of Mamaroneck's tree law. Trees provide inumerable advantages to our community. Even when on private property they provide significant benefits to all so can not simply be considered as property to be cut down at will.Some of the benefits are:they moderate ambient temperature in a time of rising temperatures;they absorb the excess rain waters we are experiencing due to climate change:native trees provide habitat for pollinating insects and birds;they filter air pollution. A healthy tree canopy is a quality of life issue that need to be protected by municipal government. Thank you, Katherine Dehais Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Andrea Hirsch Town of Mamaroneck resident November 15, 2023 Supervisor Jaine Elkind Eney Town of Mamaroneck Board members Sabrina Fiddelman,Abby Katz, Jeffrey King,and Robin Nichinsky Town of Mamaroneck Attorney William Maker Jr. Town Clerk Allison May Dear Supervisor Eney, Board members, Mr. Maker, and Ms. May: Notwithstanding the slight decrease in the number of trees that, under the most recent revision, larger-lot size owners can cut as of right in a year,your reducing the waiting period for those who plant"replacement trees"from two years to one means an increase in the number of trees that can be cut in any two years. For the smallest lots,that number goes from three to six trees,for medium ones, from seven to ten trees, and for large lots,from nine to fourteen trees. This is a remarkable response to the near-unanimous opposition you have received to permitting cutting down any regulated tree as of right. The number of trees you are allowing to be cut will permit owners who are of a mind to to clear cut their properties in a few short years. Seventy-five percent of our tree canopy is made up of"community trees" —the trees in our yards and on our streets. Our tree canopy in the Town of Mamaroneck has declined by almost one percent a year over the past twelve years. By making it possible to cut trees essentially at will — especially bearing in mind the other basis on which at any time one can cut down a tree, that it"substantially interferes with a permitted use of the property,"which has no guiding criteria —you are giving the green light to tree-cutting and encouraging residents to ignore the environmental consequences.We are looking at a rapid decline in canopy, in the quality of our life in the Town,and, collectively, in our physical and mental health,to which trees contribute greatly. Last,without requiring that the applicant include in the planting plan a description of the type, DBH, and location on the property of each tree to be removed,those who want to will have no way to accurately measure the proposed code's effects. Sincerely, Andrea Hirsch Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May. Allison From: 1.1111.1.1111111.1.mis<SIBIEMNIMEINEM Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2023 4:01 PM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind; May,Allison Subject: Proposed Tree Law-Take 3,Comments by Mark Kramer Attachments: Comments on the Proposed Tree Law Mark Kramer-11-15-2023.docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Supervisor Jaine Elkind Eney and Town of Mamaroneck Board Members Abby Katz, Jeffery King, Sabrina Fiddelman, and Robin Nichinsky: Please see my comments on the proposed tree law that is the subject of the November 15th hearing. Mark L. Kramer Town of Mamaroneck resident Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) November 15, 2023 Re: Revised Proposed Tree Law for the November 15, 2023 Public Hearing Dear Supervisor Jaine Elkind Eney and Town of Mamaroneck Board Members Abby Katz, Jeffery King, Sabrina Fiddelman, & Robin Nichinsky: Town Clerk Allie May The Town Board proposed treating different size residential properties differently in some respects. That is all fine and good with the goal of preserving "regulated" trees on all properties. However, the proposed Tree Law is basically flawed since the definition of clearing in § 207-2 below is applied equally to all sized residential properties: "CLEARING :Removal of more than 7 regulated trees from any lot within any twelve-month period." The number of regulated trees on smaller properties 7,500 square feet and less, is often less than 7 and sometimes only 1, 2, or 3 regulated trees. Therefore, on all properties, but especially on the smaller residential properties, the proposed Tree Law does not prohibit clearing of all regulated trees as long as there are less than eight regulated trees being removed. I recommend that the definition of clearing be revised by residential lot size because the code could allow clearing of any size residential property that removes seven of less regulated trees which leaves no regulated trees remaining on the residential property. No other permit would be required by the resident if only trees are being removed. Therefore, I recommend that the Tree Law prohibit the removal of more than 20% of the healthy regulated trees greater than 6" DBH in a five (5)year period, which would leave 80% of the regulated trees on any size property. Again the goal of the Tree Law should be to preserve the existing canopy, insure that the code protects the community from indiscriminate clearing, mitigates flooding and preserves the cooling effect in the spring, summer and autumn that trees provide to neighboring properties and the community. The 6" DBH requirement is added because after 1 or 2 years any replacement trees which are now"regulated" could be used as the 80%remaining, and the property owner could choose to remove those larger,taller, mature regulated trees that were not able to be removed "by right"the first time. § 207-2 "APPROVING AUTHORITY For an application to remove 7 or fewer regulated trees, the Town Environmental Planner shall be the approving authority". For an application that requests removal of more than 7 regulated trees (a clearing) or is part of either an application for site plan approval, residential site plan approval, subdivision approval, a special use permit and/or a wetlands and watercourses permit issued pursuant to Chapter 114 of the Town Code, the Planning Board shall be the approving authority." Make it easy for the public to understand and incorporate the definition of a clearing directly in the paragraph above because people will ask, what about greater than 7 trees? Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) § 207-17. Penalties for offenses. A. Any person who removes a regulated tree without complying with this chapter shall be guilty of a violation within the meaning of NY Penal Law§ 10.00(3)and upon conviction, shall be punished by the imposition of a fine of $300.00 per tree for the removal of trees having a DBH between 6 inches and 12 inches, $600.00 per tree for the removal of trees having a DBH greater than 12 inches but not greater than 18 inches and $900.00 per tree for the removal of trees having a DBH larger than 18 inches. The proposed fines and penalties in the Tree Law for not obtaining a tree permit or violating the terms of the permit with respect to the number of regulated trees approved for removal versus the number actually removed does not presently act as a deterrent to abuse and continued clearing of properties. As we know, tree companies or contractors remove "regulated" size trees that this proposed Tree Law addresses. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to have the tree companies and contractors ask to see a tree removal permit prior to commencing work. If not, then said company/contractor would be subject to fines which would act as a deterrent for the future. I propose that the Town can easily inform and put on notice the number of tree companies and contractors by certified mail, and or statement on the tree permit application and permit, that if they proceed without a permit or remove more trees than permitted with 6" or greater DBH, they will be subject to a fine equal to 5 times the invoice/bill/payment by resident of all services provided/charged to the resident. If the tree removal costs the resident, $2,000, then the fine would be $10,000. I assure you they will ask to see the permit as currently, the resident, who may not be informed/educated bears the fines. The problems currently in the Town are residents with 20,000 square feet or larger properties do not know they need a permit and tree companies advertise that they are in the neighborhood and can "clear cut" and remove any unwanted trees. Informing the residents in the entire Town and making sure that new residents who move in are informed, is a larger, time consuming and possibly more expensive task. If all residents are not informed, then the Town has not lessened the chances that clearing will occur on properties. Also, if a permit is approved to take down three regulated trees on a property less than 7,500 square feet, and then your contractor removes an additional three regulated trees at the same time, all with the 6" DBH, then your penalty is $900 = 3 x $300 for something you could not legally get a permit for and would have had to wait at least an additional 12 months to apply. If the three additional trees were 30" DBH, the fine would be $2,700 or 3 x $900. This makes no sense. These fines do not act as a deterrent and are counterproductive to preserving regulated trees in our neighborhoods and in the community. Yes, the replacement trees also need to be purchased and planted. A developer is not going to think twice about violating the tree law because there is no deterrent or fine in the proposed tree law that would make them think twice; it's just the cost of doing business. The $900 or $2,700 penalty to remove three additional trees, for a total of six on a property less than 7,500 square feet, represents a minuscule percentage of the sale price of the new or rebuilt residence in the Town. Enforcement of the proposed Tree Law for removal without any permit now rests with the residents to call in to the Town after or during the removal process. The current proposed Tree Law has no notification process prior to an appeal. Again another reason for the Town to hold the tree removal contractors/companies responsible for asking to see a permit before any work proceeds. They should be liable for paying all fines, tree replacement fees or tree fund fees required times 5 or the Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) actual cost of the total tree work, including pruning, and tree replacements and plantings, etc.) on the property times 5 charged to the resident (of course cash would disguise the cost), whichever is higher. These much higher fines/penalties would make the tree contractors/companies ask first, and act as a strong deterrent for removal of regulated trees without a permit or a permit that covers the trees to be removed on future work on other properties in the Town. The Town regardless of the final Tree Law has stated at work sessions that the Town should undertake an education outreach to all properties and/or property owners, renters, leasers, etc., in the Town. The excuse, I did not know I needed a permit, is eliminated if we hold the tree contractors/companies responsible for asking to see the permit,just like the building contractors. It is interesting to note that the words "preserve" or"preservation" appear only twice in the law, but the words "remove", "removed" and "removal" appear over two dozen times. 207-1 Legislative Intent "This law strikes a balance between the rights of property owners and the maintenance of trees within the Town." As Bill Maker, Esq. proclaimed at the hearing, "This is a tree replacement law."And should be a tree preservation law to seek to preserve the canopy and the character and environment of the neighborhoods throughout the Town of Mamaroneck. It does not treat Town property and private property the same. It is interesting to note that the words "preserve"or"preservation" appear only twice in the law, but the words "remove", "removed" and "removal" appear over two dozen times. 207-2 Definitions APPLICATION "A request to remove regulated tree(s) made pursuant to this chapter." Even a single regulated tree requires a permit and the plural implies, you do not need an application to remove a single tree. Therefore, either use parentheses or change the wording to: one or more"regulated"trees "APPROVING AUTHORITY For an application to remove 7 or fewer regulated trees, the Town Environmental Planner shall be the approving authority. For an application that requests removal of more than 7 regulated trees (a clearing) or is part of either an application for site plan approval, residential site plan approval, subdivision approval, a special use permit and/or a wetlands and watercourses permit issued pursuant to Chapter 114 of the Town Code, the Planning Board shall be the approving authority." Make it easy for the public to understand and incorporate the definition of a clearing directly in the paragraph as above because people will ask, what about greater than 7 trees? Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) "EXCESSIVE PRUNING Removal of more than 25% of the crown of a tree within any twelve-month period." This is probably impossible to judge and/or enforce. Replace with prohibiting tree topping. Suggested language: The cutting back of the vertical stem (leader)and upper primary limbs (scaffold branches)of a tree, commonly called tree topping is strictly prohibited unless directly under utility wires. 207-5 B. "It shall be unlawful for any person, other than the Town, to remove a tree within a public right- of-way or on Town-owned property without the Town's permission. No department, agency, commission, authority or employee of the Town or any firm or individual retained by the Town shall remove five or more regulated trees located within an area of 2,500 square feet, or less without first notifying the Town Board of its intention to do so." This maybe 50 feet by 50 feet (2,500 square feet) and to have 5 or more 6" DBH trees (Why not also include fewer large mature trees that provide a canopy the covers the entire 2500 square feet) — e.g., One 38-inch diameter oak tree across the street has a canopy radius of 25 feet, area if circular of 1,963 square feet, but is inscribed in a square 50 feet by 50 feet and no other trees can be adjacent. Thus the town is permitted to cut down, instead of preserve 1, 2, 3,4, 5 regulated trees with DBH greater than 6 and one tree of greater than 36" DBH. This does not preserve the tree canopy and the Town does not need to replant. And yet 207-5 D. "It shall be unlawful for any person to remove a tree with a DBH of thirty-six inches or more unless it is determined by the Environmental Planner to be a hazardous tree or a dead tree or unless it (i) in the opinion of the approving authority, substantially interferes with a permitted use of the property, or" But 207-5 B (above)allows the Town to take down 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 such trees. Do as I say, not as I, the Town, does" 207-5 B needs to be changed. 207-6 A 1 g and 2c "c. The fee required for a tree removal permit. If work is commenced prior to the Tree Removal Permit being issued, the applicant shall be liable for the fine proscribed prescribed by§ 207-17A." The word "proscribed" I think should be replaced by"prescribed" because: prescribe means to instruct or dictate a rule for others to follow. E.g., A doctor prescribes medicine for treatment. Proscribe, although it sounds similar, means to forbid something. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) 207-8 Use the section symbol and replace the word "deed" with "dead" p 207-8 Period that must elapse before an additional permit can be issued. I. There shall be a period of time when a tree removal permit for the same property cannot be issued A tree removal permit shall not he issued for any property for which a tree removal permit was issued prior to the first anniversary of the preliminary letter of completion for the work done pursuant to such permit(see o 207-In),or in the case of a permit which does not require the planting of replacement trees, prior to the first anniversay of the deposit into the Tree Planting Fund that a property owner is required to make pursuant to§207-9.The prohibition upon the issuan a of a tree removal permit shall apply even if title to the property is transferred. 2 A tree removal permit may be issued within the time period where issuance of such permit would he prohibited by paragraph 1 of section 207-8,if the prior tree removal permit had been issued for the removal of a hazardous tree or a dead tree .. A property owner may apply for a tree removal permit during the period when this section prohibits the issuance of such permit if during that period a tree on that property becomes a hazardous tree or a dead deed tree A property owner who causes a hazardous tree 207-9 C 2 "(2) Proposed landscaping may include trees, shrubs, and other permanent plant materials. Planting and maintenance shall include purchase, transportation, mulching, watering, fertilizing, trimming, fencing and associated labor. The Tree Planting Fund may be used to fund other associated project tasks including the purchasing equipment to be used for watering plantings, the purchase and/or installation of irrigation systems to support plantings, design, tree inventory, construction of tree pits, and soil amendments that enhance and promote long-term sustainability of plantings." Associated labor should be dropped as the time may be also incorporated in other jobs, such as inspections of trees on private properties—where does one draw the line (only the actual time planting? Or driving around town and then planting a tree. Will the labor to review permits be included? The hearings and appeals? 207-12B "A stop-work order and/or suspension or revocation of a tree removal permit shall be delivered personally to the applicant or the property owner or sent by certified mail, addressed to the applicant at the address shown on the tree removal permit and sent by certified mail to the property owner at the address of the property for which such permit was issued. Immediately upon the receipt of a stop-work order if personally delivered or on the third business day following the mailing of such order, all work being undertaken pursuant to the tree removal..." Suggest inserting "business" as weekends and holidays, e.g., this week Friday town holiday, Saturday Federal Holiday and Sunday—bingo—you violated! Or excluding federal holidays and weekends? "207-15 A Appeals (2) In prosecuting the appeal, the property owner shall comply with the notification requirements of Chapter 144 of the Town Code except that the properties to which mailing notice of the appeal shall be the properties that are one hundred linear feet from each of the lot lines and corners of the subject property." If the permit application had been approved, neighbors would not have been informed. As part of the permit application, neighbors should be notified of the proposed tree removals and the 100 ft. distance including all adjacent properties, regardless of distance or direction, including those across the street. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) §207-17. Penalties for offenses. Any person who does not comply with a notification given by the Environmental Planner pursuant to§207-15 C. shall be guilty of a violation within the meaning of NY Penal Law§ 10.00(3) and upon conviction, shall be punished by the imposition of a fine of$500.00 plus a fine of$300.00 for each replacement tree that the property owner failed to plant plus double the amount of the funds that the property owner was required to deposit into the Tree Planting Fund. C. There is no Section 207-15 C. Therefore, either add Section 207-15 C or correct the cite. The above are just some of the sections that need to be reviewed and internal inconsistencies corrected before the law is passed. Why have to amend this law, when this Board can take the time and correct the obvious typos, errors and eliminate inconsistencies in the proposed Tree Law. Please deliberate on the next steps to be taken in implementing a Tree Law that preserves and grows the tree canopy. This is paramount because as the Town recognizes that trees reduce flooding, keep our community cooler than it would be without trees, reduce utility bills, provide shade, screening, wind breaks, awesome fall foliage colors, a sanctuary for birds and cleanse the air we breathe, etc. and should be treat as the Communities' infrastructure. Respectfully yours, Mark Kramer, Town of Mamaroneck Resident Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Jenny Ge Sent Thursday, ovem er , To: Eney,Jaine Elkind Cc: May,Allison Subject: The Tree Law Vote-and Remarks Made at Last Night's Hearing Dear Supervisor and Board Members, I am still shocked by your 5-0 vote last night, and the fact that you barely acknowledged the significance of 400 signatures gathered from your constituents in just 11 days on a petition asking you to revise the law before approving it. The petition was organized in the first place in part because of remarks made by a Board member at a previous hearing disparaging residents who showed up to support tree preservation,and positing the idea of a"Silent Majority"that would have an opposite point of view from that expressed by attendees. Given that challenge,we wanted to reach out into the community to identify citizens who were in support of tree preservation so we could show the Board that they were not just a few but in fact a large and impassioned group. As we circulated the petition,we found that few people knew about the law because of the near-total lack of community outreach by the Board. But at the farmers market and elsewhere in our community, we discovered that to a great extent people were supportive of tree preservation,and often shared traumatic experiences and sadness about the loss of trees in their neighborhoods. The assertion that was made by a Board member last night that you have heard from many on the"other side"was not borne out when I looked at the latest written submissions. In fact,the only positive letter there was from Planning Board head Ralph Engel,acknowledging that the PB issues had been mostly dealt with. Contrast that with the many letters from residents urging you to take a step back and strengthen the law. I would like to see the evidence that there is strong citizen support of this law as written. For now,you have 400 signatures from real people who are part of the public record—you have their names and addresses, and in many cases,you actually know them—who feel otherwise. I am not persuaded by the invocation of Andy Reinmann's words to justify where this law came out. Being"a good start"is not enough and a low bar at that.Why can't we have a strong law like that in Greenburgh? Why couldn't you work together with our neighbors in the Village of Mamaroneck to craft a law that would be as strong as theirs? As I said last night,what is the rush? Why not spend another couple of months to get it right? Furthermore,Andy Reinmann's recommendations were only followed in the most limited way—just to cite one example,the law he is working on in Pleasantville will provide special protection for trees with a DBH of 18", not 36"as in our code. And yes he did say towns may do 24"or 36"—so why did you choose 36"? I know from the working session I attended that this was not a unanimous choice. So please do not invoke his name as a justification for this law as written. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Further,Andy was brought in by the Sustainability Collaborative and consulted by the Board only after he appeared at a public hearing. Were there any other experts consulted before the law was drafted? If that were so, I assume you would have said as much since it would strengthen the case for this law—since that hasn't happened I assume the answer is no. Before you voted last night I raised a number of additional questions, and they remain unanswered. I am copying my written remarks from last night for your reference and the public record. Now that you have voted, I have to repeat this question: What do you suggest we tell the 400 people— your constituents—who signed the petition asking you not to vote but instead to make further changes to strengthen the law? I hope you will provide a substantive response to all the questions that have been raised, and seriously consider amending this law before it goes into effect. There is still time to make it right. Regards, Jenny Geer Resident,Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area 11/15/23 Tree Law Hearing - Remarks My name is Jenny Geer and I am a resident of the Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area. I am here tonight to report on the results of the Petition to Save Our Trees, which was started just 11 days ago as a grassroots effort by a coalition of citizens concerned about tree preservation in the Town. As of tonight the petition has been signed by close to 400 Town residents, two thirds of them in the unincorporated area, and more signatures are coming in. I hope you've had a chance to look at the names that I submitted earlier. You will recognize many of them. They are not just your constituents—they are your neighbors. Quite a few are leaders in the community, including two former school board presidents. What are these 400 people—your constituents—asking you to do? Just two things. First— DO NOT take a vote on this law tonight because it is not ready—it is full of flaws, and it will not preserve our disappearing tree canopy, even though that is its stated goal. Second - DO take a pause and make changes now to get this law right before you vote. Listen to the experts, including your own Sustainability Collaborative, AND follow the model of stronger legislation like the tree code in Greenburgh, which was recently endorsed by Westchester County. 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) The petition includes 8 recommendations for specific changes to the law, and I won't go into them to save time —they have been submitted to you and are in the public record. Some are easy, some a little more complicated, but they are all essential for preserving our tree canopy. As you yourselves have said, you spent a whole year on this law. So I'd like to ask, what's another couple of months? What's the rush? As written the law will not go into effect for some properties for another 15 months. Why not get it right the first time? If the Board does vote yes tonight, what is the message we should take away? Basically, you're telling your constituents that all the talk about how you're here to listen is just lip service. If you do vote yes, be prepared to get a few questions from your constituents. Here are some we've been hearing in our conversations: • Did the Board actively seek out experts and meet with other municipal leaders to learn about best practices before drafting this law? Who were they? • Why did the Board sideline the Sustainability Collaborative, which is supposed to serve you in an advisory capacity, in this process? • Why did the Board do zero community outreach about this law before releasing the first draft, and why has there been zero outreach since? • Why the lack of transparency? • Why did the Board issue the legally required announcement of this public hearing on a Friday night when few people would be likely to see it, giving only 5 days notice to read and respond to the new draft? • Similarly, why did the Supervisor's newsletter, released on October 31, fail to even mention the tree law, despite the fact that you had held two packed hearings that month? And that's just for starters. In closing, please do the right thing and make changes to strengthen this law to ensure that it protects our tree canopy. Otherwise these 400 people and the rest of your constituents will deserve some answers. 3 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Michele Lewis Sent: Thursday, November 16,2023 11:45 PM To: May,Allison Subject: w : ew ree aw asses in Town of Mamaroneck Please forward to those who can receive notes after the hearing. Thank you, Michele Lewis From: Michele Lewis Date: November 16, 2023 at 5:14:26 PM EST To:Michele Lewis Subject:New Tree Law Passes in Town of Mamaroneck Though times have changed to protect our environment and think about the larger picture, the Town of Mamaroneck last night passed a"new"tree law that centers on replacing trees, not protecting them. The Town Board held 3 public hearings which were well attended in opposition from the ground up. Residents want lots of all sizes to be included,they want trees of all sizes to be protected,they want the tree canopy to be respected and enhanced and residents want their input in the"law." The Town wants people to be allowed to do as they please.And not even to be held accountable for their own actions. Most shocking was to hear the attorney for the Town designate the town as taking the responsibility as the lead agency for the SEQRA.This is a self appointed position, known as a sham in professional circles.TheTown Board sat still saying.... It is better than what we had before.We have worked hard to integrate all of your comments at 3 minutes a piece. really? What was the most sad is that the Sustainability Collaborate was just pleading for the Board to take a pause in the process,to set up a community committee to write the law with its details.So much work on their part, down the drain. I felt shafted. I wish my neighbors respected the beautiful trees in our community and their value. It is shocking to have to fight for something so obvious. Leadership is not a given. Respectfully submitted: Michele Lewis,AIA Founding Member Sustainability Collaborative Town of Mamaroneck Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Andrea Hirsch Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 12:04 AM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind; May,Allison Subject: letter regarding last night's hearing Attachments: Letter dated Nov 16 2023 re change in waiting-time requirement.rtf; Letter dated Nov 16 2023 re change in waiting-time requirement.pdf Dear Supervisor Eney and Ms. May, Please consider this letter(attached as a Word document and as a pdf),forward it to the other addressees,and enter it into the record. Sincerely, Andrea Hirsch Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Andrea Hirsch Town of Mamaroneck resident November 16, 2023 Supervisor Jaine Elkind Eney Town of Mamaroneck Board members Sabrina Fiddelman,Abby Katz, Jeffrey King,and Robin Nichinsky Town of Mamaroneck Attorney William Maker Jr. Town Clerk Allison May Dear Supervisor Eney, other Board members, Mr. Maker, and Ms. May: Last night,when I asserted at the public hearing that, between the last version of the proposed code and the most recent one,you had halved the waiting time until a new as-of-right cutting permit could be sought, Mr. Maker disputed that fact and Supervisor Eney shook her head from side to side indicating that I was wrong. I was not wrong.The first "proposed"code, released September 27th, provided that an individual could not obtain a new permit to cut trees as of right until the first anniversary of getting an "unconditional letter of completion."Section 207-8 stated: Period that must elapse before an additional permit can be issued. A tree removal permit shall not be issued for any property for which a tree removal permit was issued prior to the first anniversary of the unconditional letter of completion for the work done pursuant to such permit (see§207-16), or. . . prior to the first anniversary of the deposit into the Tree Planting Fund that an applicant is required to make pursuant to§207-9. Section 207-16 then explained that the Environmental Planner issues an "unconditional letter of completion" after all the planted replacement trees have survived for one year: A.Within 30 days after completion of the removal of all trees for which a tree removal permit shall have been issued and the planting of all replacement trees,the applicant shall notify the Environmental Planner of such completion. B.Within 30 days of such notification,the Environmental Planner shall conduct an inspection to determine whether there has been compliance with all the terms of the tree Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) removal permit. If the Environmental Planner determines that there has been compliance and/or the required funds [paid],the Environmental Planner shall issue a conditional letter of completion. If all of the replacement trees survive for one year after the Environmental Planner issues a conditional letter of completion, the Environmental Planner shall issue an unconditional letter of completion. If any of the replacement trees do not survive for one year after the Environmental Planner issues a conditional letter of completion,the applicant shall replace the replacement trees that did not survive with a like number of replacement trees and the notification and letter of completion process stated above shall pertain to such replacement trees. In other words,if all replacement trees did not survive for a year,the waiting period would be even longer than two years. These provisions remained substantively unaltered in the next version, released October 27th: § 207-8. Period that must elapse before an additional permit can be issued.There shall be a period of time when a tree removal permit for the same property cannot be issued.A tree removal permit shall not be issued for any property for which a tree removal permit was issued prior to the first anniversary of the unconditional letter of completion for the work done pursuant to such permit(see§ 207-16), or in the case of a permit which does not require the planting of replacement trees, prior to the first anniversary of the deposit into the Tree Planting Fund that a property owner applicant is required to make pursuant to §207-9. § 207-16.Action upon completion of work.A. Within 30 days after completion of the removal of all trees for which a tree removal permit shall have been issued and the planting of all replacement trees,the applicant shall notify the Environmental Planner of such completion. B. Within 30 days of such notification,the Environmental Planner shall conduct an inspection to determine whether there has been compliance with all the terms of the tree removal permit. If the Environmental Planner determines that there has been compliance and/or the required funds have been deposited into the Tree Planting Fund, the Environmental 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Planner shall issue a conditional letter of completion.If all of the replacement trees survive for one year after the Environmental Planner issues a conditional letter of completion, the Environmental Planner shall issue an unconditional letter of completion. If any of the replacement trees do not survive for one year after the Environmental Planner issues a conditional letter of completion,the applicant property owner shall replace the replacement trees that did not survive with a like number of replacement trees and the notification and letter of completion process stated above shall pertain to such replacement trees. In its most recent iteration —that which was voted into law last night— however, §207-16B replaces the terms"conditional" and "unconditional" letters of completion with "preliminary" and "final" letters of completion.Just like a "conditional" letter of completion, a"preliminary" letter of completion issues when replacement-tree planting is complete.Just like an "unconditional" letter of completion,a "final" letter of completion issues after all replacement trees have survived a year.Section 207-16 states: A. Within 30 days after completion of the removal of all trees for which a tree removal permit shall have been issued and the planting of all replacement trees, the applicant shall notify the Environmental Planner of such completion. B. Within 30 days of such notification, the Environmental Planner shall conduct an inspection to determine whether there has been compliance with all the terms of the tree removal permit. If the Environmental Planner determines that there has been compliance and/or the required funds have been deposited into the Tree Planting Fund,the Environmental Planner shall issue a preliminary letter of completion. If all of the replacement trees survive for one year after the Environmental Planner issues a preliminary letter of completion, the Environmental Planner shall issue a final letter of completion. If any of the replacement trees do not survive for one year after the Environmental Planner issues a preliminary letter of completion,the property owner shall replace the replacement trees that did not survive with a like number of replacement trees and the notification and letter of completion process stated above shall pertain to such replacement trees. 3 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) And section 207-8 uses this new term, "preliminary letter of completion" (what would have been a "conditional letter of completion"under the prior versions), in place of"unconditional letter of completion"to denote the moment from which the one-year waiting period runs. Period that must elapse before an additional permit can be issued. 1.There shall be a period of time when a tree removal permit for the same property cannot be issued.A tree removal permit shall not be issued for any property for which a tree removal permit was issued prior to the first anniversary of the preliminary letter of completion for the work done pursuant to such permit(see§ 207-16), or in the case of a permit which does not require the planting of replacement trees, prior to the first anniversary of the deposit into the Tree Planting Fund that a property owner is required to make pursuant to§ 207-9. . . . In other words, the one-year waiting period to obtain a new as-of-right cutting permit now runs from when replacement trees are planted, not from when they have survived a year. One need wait only one year rather than two or more. Notably, upon its release, Mr. Maker did not include a "blue-lined" version of this new revision, as he did with the previous one.Thus, it was left to the public to dig up this critical change in the law,which doubles the number of trees that can be cut as of right in any two-year period.And then,at the public hearing, both he and Supervisor Eney denied having made this change. Because the public endows its officials with an expectation of good faith and fair dealing, anyone listening last night was likely to accept your word over mine. I therefore ask that you issue a statement on the public record acknowledging that you changed the code between the last version and the most recent one from requiring owners to wait at least two years from planting replacement trees to having to wait only one year before again cutting trees as of right. And that you change the provisions back to the ones that you said that you were passing,which statements the other four Board members may have relied on in voting for the law. Sincerely, s/ Andrea Hirsch 4 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Jenny Geer < Sent: Thursday, November 16,2023 5:01 PM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind Cc: May,Allison Subject: The Tree Law Vote-and Remarks Made at Last Night's Hearing Dear Supervisor and Board Members, I am still shocked by your 5-0 vote last night, and the fact that you barely acknowledged the significance of 400 signatures gathered from your constituents in just 11 days on a petition asking you to revise the law before approving it. The petition was organized in the first place in part because of remarks made by a Board member at a previous hearing disparaging residents who showed up to support tree preservation,and positing the idea of a"Silent Majority"that would have an opposite point of view from that expressed by attendees. Given that challenge,we wanted to reach out into the community to identify citizens who were in support of tree preservation so we could show the Board that they were not just a few but in fact a large and impassioned group. As we circulated the petition,we found that few people knew about the law because of the near-total lack of community outreach by the Board. But at the farmers market and elsewhere in our community, we discovered that to a great extent people were supportive of tree preservation,and often shared traumatic experiences and sadness about the loss of trees in their neighborhoods. The assertion that was made by a Board member last night that you have heard from many on the"other side"was not borne out when I looked at the latest written submissions. In fact,the only positive letter there was from Planning Board head Ralph Engel,acknowledging that the PB issues had been mostly dealt with. Contrast that with the many letters from residents urging you to take a step back and strengthen the law. I would like to see the evidence that there is strong citizen support of this law as written. For now,you have 400 signatures from real people who are part of the public record—you have their names and addresses, and in many cases,you actually know them—who feel otherwise. I am not persuaded by the invocation of Andy Reinmann's words to justify where this law came out. Being"a good start"is not enough and a low bar at that.Why can't we have a strong law like that in Greenburgh? Why couldn't you work together with our neighbors in the Village of Mamaroneck to craft a law that would be as strong as theirs? As I said last night,what is the rush? Why not spend another couple of months to get it right? Furthermore,Andy Reinmann's recommendations were only followed in the most limited way—just to cite one example,the law he is working on in Pleasantville will provide special protection for trees with a DBH of 18", not 36"as in our code. And yes he did say towns may do 24"or 36"—so why did you choose 36"? I know from the working session I attended that this was not a unanimous choice. So please do not invoke his name as a justification for this law as written. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Further,Andy was brought in by the Sustainability Collaborative and consulted by the Board only after he appeared at a public hearing. Were there any other experts consulted before the law was drafted? If that were so, I assume you would have said as i wt6 ild oirengthen the case for this law—since that hasn't happened I assume the answer is no. Before you voted last night I raised a number of additional questions, and they remain unanswered. I am copying my written remarks from last night for your reference and the public record. Now that you have voted, I have to repeat this question: What do you suggest we tell the 400 people— your constituents—who signed the petition asking you not to vote but instead to make further changes to strengthen the law? I hope you will provide a substantive response to all the questions that have been raised, and seriously consider amending this law before it goes into effect. There is still time to make it right. Regards, Jenny Geer Resident,Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area 11/15/23 Tree Law Hearing - Remarks My name is Jenny Geer and I am a resident of the Town of Mamaroneck unincorporated area. I am here tonight to report on the results of the Petition to Save Our Trees, which was started just 11 days ago as a grassroots effort by a coalition of citizens concerned about tree preservation in the Town. As of tonight the petition has been signed by close to 400 Town residents, two thirds of them in the unincorporated area, and more signatures are coming in. I hope you've had a chance to look at the names that I submitted earlier. You will recognize many of them. They are not just your constituents—they are your neighbors. Quite a few are leaders in the community, including two former school board presidents. What are these 400 people—your constituents— asking you to do? Just two things. First— DO NOT take a vote on this law tonight because it is not ready— it is full of flaws, and it will not preserve our disappearing tree canopy, even though that is its stated goal. Second - DO take a pause and make changes now to get this law right before you vote. Listen to the experts, including your own Sustainability Collaborative, AND follow the model of stronger legislation like the tree code in Greenburgh, which was recently endorsed by Westchester County. 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) The petition includes 8 recommendations for specific changes to the law, and I won't go into them to save time—they have been submitted to you and are in the public record. Some are easy, some a lithe more complicated, but they are all essential for preserving our tree canopy. As you yourselves have said, you spent a whole year on this law. So I'd like to ask, what's another couple of months? What's the rush? As written the law will not go into effect for some properties for another 15 months. Why not get it right the first time? If the Board does vote yes tonight, what is the message we should take away? Basically, you're telling your constituents that all the talk about how you're here to listen is just lip service. If you do vote yes, be prepared to get a few questions from your constituents. Here are some we've been hearing in our conversations: • Did the Board actively seek out experts and meet with other municipal leaders to learn about best practices before drafting this law? Who were they? • Why did the Board sideline the Sustainability Collaborative, which is supposed to serve you in an advisory capacity, in this process? • Why did the Board do zero community outreach about this law before releasing the first draft, and why has there been zero outreach since? • Why the lack of transparency? • Why did the Board issue the legally required announcement of this public hearing on a Friday night when few people would be likely to see it, giving only 5 days notice to read and respond to the new draft? • Similarly, why did the Supervisor's newsletter, released on October 31, fail to even mention the tree law, despite the fact that you had held two packed hearings that month? And that's just for starters. In closing, please do the right thing and make changes to strengthen this law to ensure that it protects our tree canopy. Otherwise these 400 people and the rest of your constituents will deserve some answers. 3 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Andrea Hirsch Town of Mamaroneck resident November 16,2023 Supervisor Jaine Elkind Eney Dear Supervisor Eney, Civility takes many forms. I and fellow Tree Team members, most often Arlene Novich, attended many working sessions of the Board when the Tree Law was on the agenda. Most often, it was slated for 5:00 or 5:30,and we came well enough in advance to be on time for the discussion.Yet, invariably,some other item on the agenda was moved to that spot or the Board went into Executive Session for 45 minutes to an hour,following which its dinner would arrive and you would eat for 30 to 45 minutes. Finally,after an hour and a half or so,you would reach the Tree Law.Then,you often discussed the items solely by section number and, since we did not have the draft code,we could not follow along. Rarely, if ever,did you even acknowledge our presence. Nor do I recall any Board member ever doing so. It goes without saying that our time was valuable too and being made to wait as we were was frustrating and took time from other things that we needed and wanted to do. Exigencies and emergencies arise, but I can say fairly confidently that the Tree Law was never discussed at the stated time. In disregarding us, our presence,and that our time had value too,you treated us disrespectfully. We were community members seeking to observe our law-making process, and yet we continually had to buffer ourselves against your and the Board's rudeness towards us. Perhaps this can be a learning moment in this way too. Sincerely, 5/ Andrea Hirsch Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) Supervisor Jaine Elkind Eney's monthly newsletter misrepresents both the new tree law and our old one, which it replaced. The new law allows an almost unlimited number of trees to be cut.The old law required tree-by-tree decisions and that the environmental effect be considered before any tree could be cut down. Eney claims that the new law limits the number of trees that can be cut whereas the old one did not.This is highly misleading.The new law allows large numbers of trees to be cut"as of right" every year.In addition,it allows any tr ee to be cut that"substantially interferes with a permitted use of the property."During the public hearings,Eney and other Board members explained that,under this provision,one can cut down a large mature tree if it stands where one wants to put a swing set.Given this expansive category,the law places no real limit on the number of trees that can be cut.The old law required that a permit be obtained before one could cut down any tree greater than 6"in diameter,and the Environmental Planner could issue that permit only after considering several criteria,including the effect on the environment of cutting down the tree.Over great protest,Eney and the Town Board refused to keep that criterion in the present law. Further,Eney claims that,over time,in response to the public protest to the new tree law,she and the Board reduced the number of trees that could be cut"as of right."This is false.By halving the time period within which one could obtain a new permit to cut down more trees,she and the Board actually increased the number of trees that could be cut down in a two-year period.From the first version of the law that was proposed to the last,the number of trees that could be cut down as of right during any two years (for small,medium,and large properties)went from 4, 8,and 10,to 6, 10,and 14. The new law eliminates important provisions that were in the old law,including by effectively eliminating coverage by the law of the Town itself. The new law eliminates important provisions in the old law.Under the old law, applicants for permits to cut trees had to notify neighbors and the neighbors could object to the permit being granted.The new law eliminates neighbor notification.Now, the applicant who wants to cut down trees has a right to object to a permit being denied.But those who oppose the applicant's cutting down the tree have no right to object. The old law also required that the Environmental Planner,the person who issues permits,must be periodically educated on the science of trees and tree health.The new law eliminates this provision.The old law also required that the applicant for tree Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) swapping out of old mature trees for small saplings will destroy our tree canopy and worsen the already-serious erosion and flooding problems that we have. The new law provides no meaningful protection for old trees. Eney's claim that the new law provides"added protection" for trees 36"in diameter and greater,whereas the old law did not,is also misleading.Under the new law,these trees, like any others,can be cut if they"substantially interfere with a permitted use of the property,"i.e.,placement of the swing set.Under the old code,the Environmental Planner had to consider environmental factors and the species of the tree(depending on species,some very old trees may not be large),which would have almost certainly caused the Environmental Planner to deny a permit to cut a large(or an old tree,no matter what its size)for this purpose. Further, the Town's Sustainability Collaborative and others urged the Town to protect trees 18"and larger(as,notably,our old law did regarding trees on Town property). Other localities determine protected tree-size based on species.They also have special provisions concerning trees that are on steep slopes or in wetlands,due to the extra protection against flooding and erosion that these trees provide.But our new law has no such provisions and in fact has no scientific grounding whatsoever because,as explained below,in writing the law Eney and the Board never consulted with tree experts. Eney's description of the process that resulted in the law completely misstates the facts.The Town never consulted with any experts before writing the law,and it never spoke with either the Sustainability Collaborative or members of the public. Finally,Eney grossly misdescribes the process that resulted in the new law.The Town Sustainability Collaborative,which,under our Town's Climate Emergency Declaration, is to advise the Board on environmental matters,provided the Board with a white paper and a proposed new tree code.But Eney and the Board never asked the Collaborative a single question and never met with any member of the Collaborative,and the new tree law evidences none of the provisions that they proposed or principles that they emphasized.Most important,Eney and the Board never consulted with any arborists or tree experts before writing the new law.And, rather than there being"many hours of difficult negotiations over a period of years,"as Eney states,no negotiations ever occurred. As stated,neither she nor any Board member ever met with the Collaborative or with members of the public before issuing the proposed law.She acknowledged this herself at the final hearing,saying that the Town never consults with experts or members of the public before writing laws. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Hans Zachis Sent: Friday, November 17,2023 2:59 PM To: May,Allison Subject: For the public record regarding Tree Law hearing 11-15-23 The ToM Supervisor and Board members acted with unbelievable cowardice and negligence last night in passing this heinous law,a law which 99%of the people in the room and *in the community*CLEARLY did NOT want passed. Here is a summary of comments the Supervisor and Board members made,along with fact-checked responses: 1) "Now the law applies to all properties, including those under 20,000 Sq Ft." Not true. The Board entirely *excised*Tree Law coverage of Town-Owned land,like parks and public buildings,vis-a-vis tree removal public notification,appeals,18"+diameter trees,penalties,and binding Town subcontractors to the Tree Law. 2) "We consulted with experts" Not true. The only expert the Board would admit to consulting with is Dr.Andy Reinmann,an Urban Forestry research scientist(not a Tree Law Attorney). No other expert was ever quoted or cited in the 3 public hearings,nor during the limited Q&A that the residents were allotted with the Board. 3)"We can always improve this law down the line." Half true. Once the law kicks in(90 days),it will be another 9 months before it applies to lots under 7500 sq ft. Then,it can be assumed that amendments won't be considered for a period of at least another 2 years(right?),since the Town will want to assess how effective the law is before altering it again. In those 3 years,ToM's tree canopy will be reduced by 3-5%,and dozens of ancient trees will be felled. 4)"We tried to balance the needs of all constituents." Not true. The Board would often mention people in opposition to a strong tree code,but over 3 hearings,not once did any of these people come forward to speak. When asked at the hearing how many(of those people)they've personally spoken to,the Board wouldn't give even a rough answer. A cursory examination of the few(out of 100s)"hands off my property"postings to the public record can be ostensibly linked back to colleagues of the Board;seemingly one of Supervisor Jaine's Real Estate contacts,or in one apparently egregious case,Bill Maker's(Town attorney)ex-business partner(who at first glance doesn't live in Town). Ironically,as such,the Board ultimately ignored the wishes of the vast majority of its constituents. 5) "We are combatting tree loss with re-planting." Not true. The Town is losing upwards of 250 Trees per year(an estimate,as one crowd member yelled out),and is only slated to plant 30-50 per year;there is no tree planting committee,as VoL and VoM have,to facilitate such plantings. Jaine will speak of"hopefully 100"trees in 2024 to be planted,yet this will not scratch the surface of what is required to prevent annual canopy loss,if even achieved.(The last Town Tree Inventory was 25-30 years,so the Board wouldn't even have an understanding of what would be required annually,to keep up with the ongoing canopy loss.) 6) "We have no agenda." Not true. Despite the public vote on the matter,the Board was split; its widely suspected that Jaine/Jeffery/Abby were pro-the-proposed-law,and Sabrina/Robin were anti-the-proposed law. (It's unclear why the latter two felt like they couldn't act bravely and vote"nay"when it came to the final vote.) With Anant being sworn in on Jan 20th(replacing ABBY),the majority,pro-law faction,might have been concerned that Anant could have swung the vote the other way,i.e.to not approve the law/get a stronger one. The agenda thus being,"let's pass*something* quickly,so we can say we strengthened a weak law,*before*we potentially lose our majority." 7) "We are listening." After over an hour of public testimony last night(12+speakers),the Board callously and disrespectfully voted to pass the Law. They obviously weren't listening,because most public comments requested further discussion or examination of specific elements of the code that were either erroneous,confusing,or not based Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Michele Lewis Sent: Friday, November 17,2023 9:06 AM To: Jenny Geer; May,Allison;Mkramer ;Arlene Novich; Karen Khor Subject: Fwd:New Tree Law Passes in Town of Mamaroneck Begin forwarded message: From: Michele Lewis Date: November 16,2023 at 11:44:38 PM EST To: amay@townofmamaroneckny.org Subjec : w : ew ree aw Passes in Town of Mamaroneck Please forward to those who can receive notes after the hearing. Thank you, Michele Lewis From: Michele Lewis Date: November 16, 2023 at 5:14:26 PM EST To: Michele Lewis Subject:New Tree Law Passes in Town of Mamaroneck Though times have changed to protect our environment and think about the larger picture,the Town of Mamaroneck last night passed a "new"tree law that centers on replacing trees, not protecting them. The Town Board held 3 public hearings which were well attended in opposition from the ground up. Residents want lots of all sizes to be included,they want trees of all sizes to be protected,they want the tree canopy to be respected and enhanced and residents want their input in the"law." The Town wants people to be allowed to do as they please.And not even to be held accountable for their own actions. Most shocking was to hear the attorney for the Town designate the town as taking the responsibility as the lead agency for the SEQRA.This is a self appointed position, known as a sham in professional circles.TheTown Board sat still saying.... It is better than what we had before.We have worked hard to integrate all of your comments at 3 minutes a piece. really? What was the most sad is that the Sustainability Collaborate was just 1 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) May, Allison From: 1111111111111111111111111/. Sent: Friday, November 17,2023 2:52 PM To: May,Allison Subject: For the public record regarding Tree Law hearing 11-15-23 The ToM Supervisor and Board members acted with unbelievable cowardice and negligence last night in passing this heinous law,a law which 99%of the people in the room and*in the community*CLEARLY did NOT want passed. Here is a summary of comments the Supervisor and Board members made,along with fact-checked responses: 1)"Now the law applies to all properties,including those under 20,000 Sq Ft." Not true. The Board entirely *excised*Tree Law coverage of Town-Owned land,like parks and public buildings,vis-a-vis tree removal public notification,appeals, 18"+diameter trees,penalties,and binding Town subcontractors to the Tree Law. 2)"We consulted with experts." Not true. The only expert the Board would admit to consulting with is Dr.Andy Reinmann,an Urban Forestry research scientist(not a Tree Law Attorney). No other expert was ever quoted or cited in the 3 public hearings,nor during the limited Q&A that the residents were allotted with the Board. 3)"We can always improve this law down the line." Half true. Once the law kicks in(90 days),it will be another 9 months before it applies to lots under 7500 sq ft. Then, it can be assumed that amendments won't be considered for a period of at least another 2 years(right?),since the Town will want to assess how effective the law is before altering it again. In those 3 years,ToM's tree canopy will be reduced by 3-5%,and dozens of ancient trees will be felled. 4)"We tried to balance the needs of all constituents." Not true. The Board would often mention people in opposition to a strong tree code,but over 3 hearings,not once did any of these people come forward to speak. When asked at the hearing how many(of those people)they've personally spoken to,the Board wouldn't give even a rough answer. A cursory examination of the few(out of 100s) "hands off my property" postings to the public record can be ostensibly linked back to colleagues of the Board;seemingly one of Supervisor Jaine's Real Estate contacts,or in one apparently egregious case, Bill Maker's(Town attorney)ex-business partner(who at first glance doesn't live in Town). Ironically,as such,the Board ultimately ignored the wishes of the vast majority of its constituents. 5)"We are combatting tree loss with re-planting." Not true. The Town is losing upwards of 250 Trees per year(an estimate,as one crowd member yelled out),and is only slated to plant 30-50 per year;there is no tree planting committee,as VoL and VoM have,to facilitate such plantings. Jaine will speak of"hopefully 100"trees in 2024 to be planted,yet this will not scratch the surface of what is required to prevent annual canopy loss, if even achieved. (The last Town Tree Inventory was 25-30 years,so the Board wouldn't even have an understanding of what would be required annually,to keep up with the ongoing canopy loss.) 6)"We have no agenda." Not true. Despite the public vote on the matter,the Board was split; its widely suspected that Jaine/Jeffery/Abby were pro-the-proposed-law,and Sabrina/Robin were anti-the-proposed law. (It's unclear why the latter two felt like they couldn't act bravely and vote"nay"when it came to the final vote.) With Anant being sworn in on Jan 20th (replacing ABBY),the majority,pro-law faction,might have been concerned that Anant could have swung the vote the other way, i.e.to not approve the law/get a stronger one. The agenda thus being,"let's pass*something* quickly,so we can say we strengthened a weak law,*before*we potentially lose our majority." 7) "We are listening." After over an hour of public testimony last night(12+speakers),the Board callously and disrespectfully voted to pass the Law. They obviously weren't listening,because most public comments requested further discussion or examination of specific elements of the code that were either erroneous,confusing,or not based Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment E (Cont'd) on science. Meredith(Town Administrator)and Abby(Board Members)sat there with ashen faces the entire hearing, because it was obvious they knew what was about to transpire, regardless of anything any given constituent stated. 8) "The Board embraced science". Not true. The ToMis4p,5igd,79fr,to•10%.of its tree. nopy every decade(see:Dr.Andy Ltd:?, k� . Reinmann's latest data),which is a reduction from 40%canopy coverage cur�i'eritl19,' o approx 36%in 10 years,and to approx 25%within 50 years. They did not convene a public-facing panel of scientists and experts. (In fact,did not need to, if they had simply kept the existing Tree Law and made it apply to all residential properties.) Instead,they butchered the law,creating a science-less"swiss cheese"(to quote one commentator) mishmash of environmentally catastrophic provisions. 9)"We have now prevented clear cutting." Patently false. The new law's math in fact*sanctions*clear-cutting. Within a 2 year period,for lots under 7500 sq ft(1/6th of an acre),6 trees can be cut down;for lots 7500-20000 sq.ft.(1/2 an acre), 10 trees can be cut down,and for lots 20,000+sq.ft., 14 trees can be cut down. That is clearcutting for most properties of those sizes. And under 20,0000 sq.ft. properties make up 80%-90%of residential plots in the ToM. 10)"Roots will be protected in the code." Not true. Bill Maker,the Town Attorney,said this. If you listened closely,he was strangely referring to the Building/Planning Code,which is irrelevant to most of this law. The new Tree Law does define a"critical root zone"(CRZ),yet roots,or the CRZ definition,are never referenced anywhere else in the document. i.e.there is no mention of protecting a tree's roots,and in fact, *damaging*the roots is used later in the document as a reason why a tree can be removed! Roots of course are the literal foundation of any tree,absorbing water,preventing erosion,and keeping the tree alive. Root destruction is often the cause of a tree's death(See:Memorial Park). 11)"We care about the climate." Not true. According to a local Tree Law attorney,the law as written does not take into account the latest science regarding climate change(the science has evolved so much even in the past 5 years),nor best practices for writing a tree preservation law of this nature. In fact,the law itself still has vestigial language dating back to the 70s when it was first written,which is plain embarrassing! 12) "We know what we're doing;this is how we pass laws." Not true. NYS has guidelines on how local municipalities should draft and pass laws; in short,the emphasis is on transparency,experts,and community involvement,over a long period of time. This law was drafted behind closed doors,secretly over the span of 1-5 months,and without public or expert involvement. Further,at last night's hearing whenever an error or major problem with the law was brought to the attention of the Board by one of the attendees,the Board and Town Attorney seemed outright flustered and fumbling,equivocating and unaware exactly how the law would specifically function(in regard to the question). 13)"We are protecting old trees." Not true. The"protected"tree level is 36"diameter,but a"permitted use",such as an addition,would still allow for the tree to be felled by the homeowner. As reference,a 35-inch....Red Oak is 239 years old,a Hickory is 254 years old,and a White Oak is 271 years old. An 18" Hickory is 155 Years old. Etc. All of those are under 36",so NOT protected,and can be cut down'as of right'by the homeowner. Trees of this age absorb 50,000- 100,000 gallons of water a year,lower the temperatures and associated energy costs in ever-hotter years, provide shade and privacy,increase property values by up to 20%,etc. 14) "This law will be enforced" How? Where? Enforcement should be written into the code,and it is not. 15)"I went to the'Rooting for the Trees' presentation(75mins)by Dr.Reinmann,so we are aware of the science,and we care." (Jaine said this.) It's petty,yes, but Jaine was texting on her phone 75%of the time of that presentation,and even ducked out early. Appalling process,abhorrent law,embarrassing"leaders",and Governance at it's absolute worst. Anon Maus Resident of the Town 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment F Ma , Allison From: Michael G <michaelgesq@aol.com> Sent:. Tuesday, December 19,2023 5:21 PM To: Meredith Robson Cc: Eney,Jaine Elkind;King,Jeffery; Nichinsky, Robin; Fiddelman,Sabrina;May,Allison; Yogman,Tracy;Abby Katz Subject: Re:Preliminary Budget 2024: Comment re Engineer Budget Dear Meredith Thank you for your email. The effect of deferring until 2024 to determine if the authorities I provided you over a week ago is sufficient is to unnecessarily charge vom and vol taxpayers for services being provided that will not benefit them. I apologize for being blunt but the consultants budget is truly hard to swallow. If Mr maker cannot, I stand ready to walk you through my analysis tomorrow. If it has to wait until 2024.I trust you will see that my analysis was built upon a review of the New York State comptrollers guidance which sets the standards for best practices in New York. By the way,there are other departmental allocations which should be applied under the state comptrollers guidance I cited. I did not raise those because I don't submit incomplete analyses and I didn't have pertinent data necessary to finish my analysis of other departments in the time I had. Separately if I may, I did not have time at the sanitation budget meeting or at the town budget meeting to make one last suggestion which I referenced at the end of my remarks on the record,namely repatriating some of the sanitation fund balance. The fund balance of the commission is in excess of$600k. Its principal purpose is to fund the cash flow of the commission for January to May of each year. Why? Because 25 years ago when there was no authority under state law or the enabling law to maintain fund balance, the village and the town came up with a funding mechanism for the commission wherein the town front loaded its commission payments and the village paid 1/7th rather than 1/12th when its fiscal year started in June. After the laws changed in 2000 and municipalities became permitted to maintain fund balance, The town gravitated to paying its 1/12th of its annual cost monthly and the commission starting using fund balance to cover the cash flow short fall in the first five months of the year that continued because the village paid its annual costs over 7 months starting in June rather than over 12 Months starting in January. The$600k commission fund balance becomes mostly unnecessary if you call Sarah and ask her to cause the village to start paying 1/12 of its annual cost monthly starting in January 2024. You don't need to amend the enabling law to do that. Since the amendments in 2000,the village may book those"early" payments as part of its fund balance since they would constitute a prepayment for its next fiscal year. Tracy,I am sure,can confirm the accuracy of my statement with respect to the type of fund balance which constitutes prepayments. With that,you could repatriate 300-400k of fund balance and save UA taxpayers.Giving due respect to the penchant for conservative budgeting, I would be happy with a$200k repatriation in 2024 and more in 2025. I calculate a$200k repatriation alone will shave 4/10 or a per cent from the 4.87%overall town tax levy increase. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment F (Cont'd) As you will note, this action would not reduce my town tax. But it is in the best interests of taxpayers in my community for you to pick up the phone and call Sarah and get rid of an obsolete financing structure that causes taxpayers to overpay just to maintain fund balance to provide cash flow over the first five months of the commission's fiscal year. Respectfully, Jaine, unfortunately cannot make the call under oml laws since that would trigger a meeting and there isn't sufficient time for notice. Sorry for piling on at the last minute but the opportunities to present these suggestions are rare. And you can lower town taxes with a phone call. Best Michael On Dec 19,2023,at 3:51 PM, Meredith Robson<MRobson@townofmamaroneckny.org>wrote: Dear Michael: Thank you for your in-depth analysis of the allocation of the Engineering Budget. The Town charges direct expenses only to capital projects as a best practice.We will look at this further in 2024 to determine if an allocation of engineering costs to the Part Town Fund is appropriate. Thanks again and Happy Holidays. Meredith S. Robson Town Administrator Town of Mamaroneck 740 West Boston Post Road Mamaroneck, N.Y. 10543-3319 914-381-7810 PE Skin LID for Town Alerts! From:Michael<michaelgesq@aol.com> Sent:Monday,December 4,2023 3:34 PM To:Jaine Elkind Eney<supervisor@townofmamaroneck.org>; King,Jeffery <JKing@townofmamaroneckny.org>; Nichinsky, Robin<RNichinsky@TownofMamaroneckNY.org>; Fiddelman,Sabrina<SFiddelman@townofmamaroneckny.org> Cc:Meredith Robson<MRobson@TownofMamaroneckNY.org>;May,Allison <amay@townofmamaroneckny.org>;Yogman,Tracy<TYogman@townofmamaroneckny.org> Subject: Preliminary Budget 2024: Comment re Engineer Budget Good Day Jaine: 2 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment F (Cont'd) • In advance of the public hearing on the 2024 budget, I am sending for the record a writeup of one of the issues that I intend to speak about, I hope that something might be done about it in the interim. Thanks for your consideration. Separately, if Allison would be so kind to forward this email to Councilman Nambiar, I would be grateful as I don't have his town email. Respectfully, Michael Gottfried 16 Ocean Avenue Larchmont, NY 10538 3 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment F (Cont'd) May, Allison From: Brian Lobel <brian.lobel@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 20,2023 9:45 AM To: Eney,Jaine Elkind;Fiddelman,Sabrina;Katz,Abby;King,Jeffery;Nichinsky, Robin Cc: Meredith Robson;May,Allison Subject: Finance and technology committees As I've suggested in the past, and as Michael Gottfried suggested this year, I urge the formation of a town finance committee. I also repeat my suggestion from prior years for the formation of a town technology committee. The need for both remain clearly obvious and presumably the town has residents who could make meaningful contributions to them. Thank you for your attention and best wishes for the holiday season. Brian This email message and any attachments may contain privileged and confidential information. Personal private data of individuals identified in this message may only be released as required by law. If you are not an intended recipient,you are prohibited from printing, forwarding, saving or copying this email. If you received this e-mail in error,please notify the sender and delete it and any attachments from your computer. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment G t HEINONLINE Citation: 1938 1134 Provided by: Charles B. Sears Law Library Content downloaded/printed from HeinOniine Wed Feb 13 17:13:53 2019 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at https://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. Use OR Code reader to send PDF 0 ° !�4:4 to your smartphone or tablet device Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment G (Cont'd) 1134 LAWS or+'14 w'Yoax;••1938i [CHAP: for real estate-broker's :license.•maintains more' than one place of business;the'broker shall apply'for•and procure a supplemental license for:each;branch Wee•so-maintained; the license fee for each! such supplen'iental license shall be one-half the license fee prescribed in' section four;hundred forty-one-b for a real estate broker's license:in the-place•wherein such •branch office shall be located: • § 2. This act shall take•effect immediately. CHAPTER 430 AN ACT to authorize and enable the village of Larchmont and 'the town board of the town of Mamaroneck, acting for refuse and garbage district number one of the town of Mamaroneck, county of Westchester, jointly to construct and maintain an incineration disposal plant for refuse and garbage in the town of Mamaroneck,, Westchester county, and to severally issue bonds or other obligations to'defray•.the cost thereof, and to validate the establishment of refuse and garbage district number one of the town of Mamaroneck' • Became a law April 4, 1038, with the approval of the Governor. Passed, . three-fifths being present The People of the State of New.York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: harahmont Section 1. The village of Larchmont and the town board' of the and humaro, town of Mamaroneek, acting.,for and on behalf of .refuse and Zthorlaed garbage district, number,one,of. the `town of Mamaroneck, having to mot heretofore agreed upon a,tentative plan and agreement for'jointly Incinerator. constructing,•maintaining and,operating 'an incineration disposal plant,for refuse'and, garbage collected from the village of,Larch- mont and refuse and garbage,district number one; of't,he, town of Mamaroneck, .which agreement';includes an apportionment of the capital cost of the acquisition:of'land'fort'and the'construction of said incineration disposal,plant,'in the sum of'one hundred'thirty thousand defiers,on.the basls.'of a'payment of fifty'.percer t'thereof by, toe village 'pf Larchmont,arid fifty percent thereof try"refuse and garbage'•d}strict'numher One of the town',of Mamaroneek and the m apportionent of•the cost of maintenance, operation and repair,of said disppsal, lant on'the basis;of the weight of refuse and garbage from,said,village' and'said garbage district incinerated or disposed of after:the irst,year and annually thereafter, which maintenance and operating.,expense, the ,village of harchmont' and the town board of the town of Mamaroneck acting for,and on behalf of refuse and garbage district number.one, of the town of Mamaroneck, have severally agreed to appropriate,'the said village and the'said town board acting for and on behalf of said refuse and garbage district number one, of the town of 'Mamaroneck are hereby authorized, enabled and empowered to carry'out jointly said agreement and to acquire land for, and construct,'maintain, operate and repair a Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment G (Cont'd) 430]'>; LAWS or, NEW ;Your, 1185 .refuse and garbage incineration disposal plant, including,the•.con- struction and maintenance:of. roads thereto, at their joint expense and to appropriate and expend the.;moneys' and funds ,of said respective village and district pursuant to said agreement and for the-purposes',authorized in this act;: notwithstanding that, said .funds may be wholly orin part expended outside of the respective territorial.limits of said ,village ^.nd said,district,- •, § 2, Money shall be provided for carrying,out the.provisions of cow eyes ,section. one of this act,to the extent agreed upon by the respective provided. 'governing boards of said village and ,district for.their respective agreed shares of the cost of.acquiring,land and for the construction of the said:incineration:disposal,plant, and :the village of Larch- mont.and town,of Mamaroneck, as respectively'provided herein, or by any other law, but without further.or other authorization,,May respectively issue notes,tcertificates of.indebtedness, renewals there- of, including interest :thereon, or bonds,:,or Obligations,,or any, eitherr or.all of the same ,to;defray the cost of said acquisition of land and construction, on may.,provide for payment of the,same,out 'of the:annual•.tax levy next,ensuing:after the adoption of a resolu- tion so providing, all in such manner as,to,the respective governing boards of said.village or district,,may„seem proper and desirable, and the provisions of law relative,.to the raising,of funds,,the crea- tion of• indebtedness, ,the issuing::of .certificates of ,indebtedness •or other obligations and bonds, shall!apply to and govern the pro- cedure of the said village and town in,,the same manner as though all of said land was to be acquired and,work:and'construction.was to be done within,the territorial:conflnee and for ordinary munici- pal purposes of said'village and district but the provisions'of section six of the general municipal law shall not apply to the issuance of bonds or notes pursuant to this act. . ' • 1,. •§ 3., The;mayor, of.the village of Larehmont and.the supervisor natty mud of the town of!Mamaroneck may meet.and cause to be prepared laaiinpe, plans and specifications for the construction of said incineration disposal .plant .with .an estimate of the cost thereof and the ;said .mayor and supervisor or.,in the ease of their. absence, or:inability to act, however caused, the official designated by law•or respectively appointed by! resolution of the board of trustees,of the.village of Larchmont or..the town board,of"the.town of Mamaroneck td per- form the duties :of either ,said.mayor, or. supervisor during. the absence or•'.inability,of said mayor: or,supervisor,''are ,hereby.ap- pointed'a:joint board of control to serve without compensation for the purposes herein 'stated and are hereby authorized and empow- ered to•'agree.upon •the final plans .and specifications •for. the construction of said incineration disposal plant,' including also.the 'acquisition of such lands, easements and rights, in land r.eeessary therefor.and:including the ,construction of roads! thereto; all of 'which plans and specifications shall.be agreed'upon.br said board of control and 'also shall be approved by'the board 'of trustees of said village-and the town board of said town acting for said' dis- trict; and said joint board of control is hereby authorized and Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment G (Cont'd) 1136 LAWS OF NEW YORK, 1938 [CHAP. empowered to employ such engineers or other superintendents thereof as they may deem necessary; to advertise for bids; to 'award contracts•and institute condemnation proceedings as herein- after provided; to receive and deposit the funds raised for the 'acquisition of land and the construction of said plant including roads thereto, to make payments therefrom as the work progresses; to engage such legal services in the preparation of said contracts for the acquisition of such land and construction of said plant as they deem necessary; and to employ such labor, skilled or otherwise, and such accounting and auditing, technical and engineering aid as in their judgment may be required and to certify the cost thereof upon completion and jointly to do all things necessary or appro- priate speedily and properly to complete the construction of said incineration disposal plant. In case the mayor of the village of Larchmont requests•the board of trustees of said village to appoint another of its mem- bers to act in his place and stead upon said joint board of con- trol,'said board of trustees may make such appointment and when so 'appointed such member shall serve at the pleasure of said board of'trustees. In case the supervisor of the town of Mamaroneck requests the town board of the town of Mamaroneck acting for said refuse and garbage district number one to appoint another of its members to act in his place and stead upon said joint board of control, said town board may make such appointment and when so appointed such member shall serve at the pleasure of said town board. The board of control shall be a continuing body, its members holding office therein by virtue of their respec- tive local officer's positions or by virtue of appointment as pro- vided in this section. Assessment § 4. The amount contributed by the said village for the acquisi- tor beneat. tion of land for and the construction of said incineration disposal plant, as well as the annual appropriation for the share of said village for the maintenance, operation and repair of said incin- eration disposal plant and the amount to be levied to pay the principal and interest for any certificates or bonds or obligations of indebtedness issued pursuant to this section by said village shall be levied and assessed against said village at large which is hereby declared to be benefited by the construction and main- tenance of said incineration disposal plant; and the amount con- tributed by said town for the acquisition of land for and the construction of said incineration disposal plant, as well as the annual appropriation for the share of said town for the mainte- •nance, operation and repair of said plant and the amount to be levied to pay the principal and interest for any certificates, bonds or obligations of indebtedness issued pursuant to this act by said town shall be levied and assessed against the property within the territorial limits of refuse and garbage district number one of the town of Mamaroneck, ad valorem, which said district is'hereby declared to be benefited by the construction and maintenance of said disposal plant. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment G (Cont'd) LAWS OF NEW YORK, 1938 1137 No notices, resolutions or hearings shall be necessary or requi- site for the assessment of the share of the cost of the acquisition of land for or for the construction, maintenance, operation and repair of said incineration disposal plant including roads thereto upon the property benefited as herein declared. Said final plans for the erection and construction of said plant shall not require the approval of any planning board, zoning board or other commission of said village or town. § 5. Said village so issuing bonds shall annually raise by tax Goode and upon taxable property therein, and said town so issuing bonds "meat' shall annually raise by tax upon taxable property in refuse and garbage district number one of said town a sum sufficient to pay the principal and interest of said bonds cis the same shall become due, in the same manner as is provided by law for the payment of principal and interest of any other bond issues of said village or town for like improvements and the life of said improvement shall be deemed to be fifteen years from the date of completion of the same notwithstanding the provisions of any general or special law. • § 6. The cost of maintenance, operation and repair of said Cum or incineration disposal plant for the first year of its operation shall a o;" be borne between the village of Larchmont and the town of Mama- roneck acting for said refuse and garbage district number one of the town of Mamaroneck, on the basis of fifty per cent thereof which is to be paid by the village of Larchmont, and fifty per cent thereof which is to be paid by the town of Mamaroneck acting for said refuse and garbage district number one of the town of Mamaroneck. There shall be a reapportionment of such cost of maintaining, operating and repairing said incineration disposal plant after the same shall have been completed and in operation for one year, which reapportionment shall be on the basis of the weight of garbage and refuse and substances col- lected respectively within said village and said garbage district and delivered to the plant for incineration or disposal during the first year's operation. There shall be a further reapportionment of the cost of maintenance, operation and repair of said inciner- ation disposal plant as of the first day of December annually thereafter on the basis of the weight of garbage, refuse and sub- stances delivered to the plant for incineration from said village and said garbage district during the preceding year. The joint board of control shall cause daily record!, to be kept of the quantity of refuse and garbage collected and received from the village of Larchmont and from said refuse and garbage dis- trict number one of the town of Mamaroneck, and the same shall be weighed as received. The joint board of control shall render to said village and said town board acting for said garbage dis- trict a statement of the quantities so collected and received for the year ending December first last preceding. At the same time the board of control shall deliver to said village and to the town board acting for said garbage district a report of the affairs of Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment G (Cont'd) • ;11,38 LAWS oF.,NEW Yonii, 19.38 [CHAP. such joint incineration disposal plant and,,a ,statement,,of;the ,amount required to be paid on,account of the next ensuing.year's ,operation, maintenance and repair .of said, disposal. plant. Such report and statement.shall•,je delivered annually not later .than the tenth of December. In making up such annual,statement said village and.said garbage district,shall be credited,or,;debited with their proportionate share of any surplus or deficit ,z•ernaining from the previous. year's :operation: ; , In the event that the:actual cost of.acquiring land!for and con- istructing said plant and'roads thereto shall exceed;the,estimated ,cost thereof, the said village and town acting,for..said garbage •district,shall pay their proportionate share of such.•additional cost in the same proportion.and in.the same manner as, determined .by this act for the estimated.cost of acquiring•land for and•construc- tion of said.plant... • ; : . • • If,the actual cost of acquisition'of land and •construction of•said plant and roads thereto•oi'the annual cost,of maintenance, operation and repair shall be less than the estimated cost, any excess:,w•hich may have:been paid .to, said joint•garbage..disposal.plant shall be refunded to the,village or to the town for said.district,which has paid such, excess payment or upon consent of suck.village or.such town may. be applied to.reduce its share of the next ensuing.annual cost of maintaining, operating, and. repairing.said disposal .plant. A0g019110n 7: :The,.village of,•LRrchmont.and.town of Mamaroneck shall of lands, ,have the,power to•.acquire the necessary lands, easements.or rights and privileges' in land for'. the purposes of ,this act by'purchase •thereof, •or if.unable .to agrde the':'owners•for!the purchase thereof, then•by condemnation, and,the right to:acquire such.•lands, easements or,rights, shall be deemed for public;use:;i.If;the board of trustees of the village of I.archmont•and the •town:.board.of the town of.Mamaroneck by resolution. so declare,;the title' to;the real property or interest therein to'be 'acquired.for public,purposes.by condemnation shall "pass.:to the village or' town aedordin'g,'to:the 'location'.of the• property:upon qualification of,the.,commissioners appointed..to condemn the.same•and the village ;or 'town in,which such property is 'lbeatcci may thereupon enter:and take:possession of such•property.. •Whenever title is thus Vested.in the village or town, the commissioners shall.add'interest to the awards at the Tate of six percent per annum'•from' the•date of•their.•qualification to the date of the awards 'and in case of neglect or:default in,the pay- ment:of the sum or:sums-of money awarded by:the•commissioners within four months after the confirmation of their report;the person 'or persons to whom the awards have been made'may bring,an!action against the village of Larehmont or the'tewri of Mamaroneck:accord- ing to the location-of the property to recover the same with interest. • All'condemnation proceedings shall be eomrinenced and:maintained by the' said village or•town within which the• said• property is located,in the same manner.as though:it wore the•sole municipality Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment G (Cont'd) 430] ' , LAWs Or NEW Yoai , 1938 '1139 affected•by said improvement, but the awhrds'in'such'condemnation proceedings'•shall be paid out of the joint fund;contributed in• the proportions above-mentioned by said village and said town. No lands, easements or rights of way shall be condemned or'otherwise acquired except upon the approval of the joint board 'of. control and upon the approval of the board of•trustees of said village and of the town board'•of the town•of Mamaroneck' acting for said garbage district. Except as otherwise specifically provided 'in this act such con- demnation'proceedings shall 'be•conducted according to' the provi- sions of chapter seventy-three of the'consolidated laws, as amended. In any such proceeding it shall''be lawful for';the partirs thereto to waive the appointment of commissioners to ascertain• the com- pensation to be made to the owners;for the•property•to be taken, and, in such; event, 'jurisdiction' is hereby:'conferred'i.ipon th'e supreme court to do each and every act which,' according to the provisions of the condemnation law, such commissioners may do. •; §'`8,'Whenever the'mayor Of the 'village•of Larchmont and the eaaluoiu " supervisor of the town of:Mamaroneck, (or official designated by ca nes,pion, law or appointed pursuant to'the provisions of this 'act'to perform the duties of either'said mayor or'supervisor upon;said joint board oftcontrol), may determine it to be necessary;to''enlarge;"extend or otherwise 'improve'the joint 'incineration disposal they shall 'cause to be:prepared and approved a plan,'estimate and other data pertaining thereto, and.transmit the same to 'the board of trustees, of,the village 'of Larchmont•and the town board• of the town of Mamaroneck acting, for said 'garbage' 'district. • If'said boards approve such proposed'enlargement,extension'or:improvement the procedure:shall thereafter'in all'respects be, td the procedure herein provided for the acquisition of land and' construction of said plant, .and.the cost shall-be'apportioned on' the basis Of the 'weight of refuse, garbage midi substanices delivered'to'the said plant for incineration from said village 'and•said'garbage'district'during the two years•immediately preceding:. •The funds'for'such enlarge- ment, extension'or'. improvement-of said ,plant"shall'be'provided inr the same:Manner;as provided in'this'act for the'original'cost of said plant;and funds for the operation;'repair•aii'd'maintenance of said disposal plant as so'enlarged;'e:itter ded and improved shall be provided in.the. same nianner ;as.funds for''the.'operation; 'repair and maintenance ot the original disposal plant'. ' : '`"' § 9. It shall' not'be necessary to 'submit any:Proceedings Or oi action taken pursuant to this act. to.4:vote of the:eleeters'in saidcronaum village, town or town district aitd auy•such proceedings•or actions shall riot be subject to any permissive referendum procedure; the provisions of any general or special law 'td the contrary notwith- standing'. §"10. Said village shall annually raise by ...taxes upon taxable Tana. property therein; and said town shall annually raise by lain upon taxable property in said'reftisc and garbage district number one Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment G (Cont'd) 1140 Lews of NEW YoRK, 1938 [CHAP. of said town a sufficient sum to pay all costs and expenses of main- taining, operating and repairing said garbage incineration disposal plant. Deemed § 11. The amount of the costs and expenses necessary or appro- Attaga e:ve�e, priate for maintaining, operating and repairing said incineration disposal plant shall be deemed indebtedness for current expenses of said village and of said town acting for said garbage district to the extent of their respective shares of such costs and expenses as apportioned under the provisions of this act. § 12, All combustible refuse and garbage collected within said village or within said refuse and garbage district number one shall be delivered to said garbage incineration disposal plant for incin- eration or disposal. Said village and said town board acting for said garbage dis- trict shall be entitled to and shall dispose of one-half of the ashes and residue from the operation of said incineration disposal plant. Joint § 13. The joint board of control created by this act shall be board of control, known as the Larehmont-Mamaroneck joint garbage disposal com- mission. Said commission shall under the provisions of this act be deemed the agents of said village and said town board acting for said refuse and garbage district in establishing and maintain- ing and operating said garbage incineration disposal plant, and shall have exclusive direction, operation, management and control of said plant. No judgment shall be rendered against its officers or members, where the transaction upon which the action was brought or arises shall have been in the performance of their duty as officers or members of said commission, and such judgment shall not be paid and enforced against the individual property of such officers or members. Said joint garbage disposal commission may contract for indem- nity insurance insuring itself and the village of Larehmont and the town board of Mamaroneck acting for said refuse and garbage district number one or any or all of them against liability imposed by law for damages for injuries to persons or property. Said commission shall have power to receive and deposit funds for said incineration disposal plant and make payments there- from, to contract in its own name and to employ superintendents, engineers, experts, legal, auditing and .technical aid and labor skilled or otherwise, and to do and perform also in its own name, any and all things necessary, appropriate or incidental to the carrying out of all of the purposes authorized by this act. convey- § 14, Said village and said town board acting for said garbage p l n,t° district shall cause refuse and garbage to be delivered to said plant, in such conveyances at such time and manner as the rules and regulations of the board of control shall direct, but such rules and regulations shall not discriminate against said village or said district. Such board of control is hereby authorized to make, promulgate and enforce such rules and regulations, pro- Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment G (Cont'd) 430] • LAWS or NEW Yoax, 1938 1141 vided that before promulgation such rules and regulations are subject to the approval of the board of trustees of said village and of said town board acting for said garbage district. § 15. Jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the supreme courtJurrsareuon to enforce by mandamus orders, upon the application of said joint°r court. garbage disposal commission or of either the village or the town board acting for said garbage district interested in the joint gar- bage incineration disposal plant, any of the provisions of this act. Any individual or corporation entitled under any contract made pursuant to the provisions of this act to receive a sum of money from the joint garbage disposal commission, or from any munic- ipality or district interested in the said incineration disposal plant, may likewise enforce payment thereof by mandamus orders. § 16. The board of control, subject to the approval of the board of trustees of said village and of said town board acting for said garbage distr1et, shall have the power to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any land or other property which in its judgment is not necessary for the maintenance or operation of such joint gar- bage disposal plant, or which in its judgment it is advisable to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of. The funds derived from the sale, leasing or other disposition of any such property shall be credited ratably to the village or district in accordance with the original capital amount said village or district pays into the joint disposal plant, unless otherwise apportioned by agreement of the board of trustees of the said village and the town board acting for said garbage district. § 17. The board of control may, by and with the approval of Contracts said village and of the town board acting for said garbage district,nriha to enter into a contract with any person, corporation, firm, district nOnoerns. or municipality, to take, receive and dispose of garbage, refuse, decayed animal matter or other substances. The moneys received therefrom shall be paid to the joint board of control and applied to the cost of operating, maintaining and repairing said garbage incineration disposal plant. § 18. With respect to provisions herein authorizing the acqui-rowor to sition of land for and the original construction of an incineration is d'r° disposal plant this act shall be interpreted as permissive only permissive. and not compulsory upon the municipality or district affected thereby. § 19. The acts and proceedings of the town board of the town Acts of Mamaroneck and of the supervisor of the town of Mamaroneck valiA81ed. and of any officers of said town heretofore bad, taken or caused to be had in relation to the establishment of refuse and garbage district number one of the town of Mamaroneck, are hereby legal- ized, validated and confirmed notwithstanding any limitations contained in any law or any irregularity or defect in such acts or proceedings or lack of authority to perform such acts or take such proceedings. § 20. If any, clause, sentence, paragraph or part of this act Sonora- shall for any reason be adjudged by any court of competent borer. Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment G (Cont'd) 1142 Laws of NEW YOax, 1938 [CHAP, jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be• confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered. § 21. This act shall take effect immediately. • CHAPTER 431 AN.i CT to amend the New York city municipal court code, in relation to sums allowed as costs in actions against two or more defendants Became a •law April 4, 1038, with the approval of the• Governor. Passed, three fifths being present ' The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: ' a,Iota, , Section 1. Section one hundred and sixty-four of .chapter two i024°' hundred and seventy-nine of the laws of nineteen hundred fifteen, now ded:. entitled "An act in relation to the municipal.court of the city of surxi II-b. New York and repealing certain statutes affecting such court, its added, justices:and officers," as amended, is hereby further,amended by inserting,a new subdivision to be known as subdivision eleven-b and to read as follows: coma; •. 11-b. , ierei in an action against two or more defendants, the a oT °°' plaintiff IS entitled to costs against one or more, but not against detendante. all,of them, none of the defendants are entitled to costs,.of course. In ,such a case, costs may be awarded in the discretion of the court.to any,defendant against whom the plaintiff.is not entitled to costs, where he did not unite in an answer, and was not united in interest, with a,defendant against whom,the plaintiff is entitled to costs. In Meet ;§ 2, This act,shall. take effect September first, nineteen'hundred Qsss ' thirty-eight. CHAPTER 432 • AN ACT to amend the education law, in relation'to private schools • Became a law April .4, 1938, with the approval of the Governor. Passed, three-fifths being present ;The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and,Assembly, do enact as follows: i es-a, Section 1. Section sixty-six-a of chapter twenty-one of the laws amended. of nineteen hundred nine, entitled "An act relating to education, constituting chapter siiteen of the consolidated laws, as•amended by chapter one hundred and forty of the laws of Ajpeteen hundred Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment H TOWN OF MAMARONECK FIRE DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE CHIEF Headquarters 205 WEAVER STREET LARCH MONT,NEW YORK 10538 WEAVER 834-2100 EMERGENCY t � � 834-2101-NON EMERGENCY 834-2438 CHIEFS OFFICE STREET 834-0922•FAX WWW.TMFD.ORG Zota....1200N To: Board of Fire Commissioners From: Chief Thomas Broderick Date: November 01,2023 Re: Fire Report for the Month of October 2023 The following report outlines response to calls made during the month of October 2023. It summarizes the nature,the number of personnel responding and the total time spent. I have also attached a report showing a further breakdown of these alarms. Alarm Type Number Generals 46 Minors 26 Stills 1 Out of Town(Mutual Aid) 1 EMS 54 Drills 3 TOTAL 131 Total number of personnel responding: 819 Total time working: 52 hours and 30 minutes Respectfully Submitted, Chief Thomas Broderick Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment H (Cont'd) Incident Type Count Report Date Ranee: From 10/1/2023 To 10/31/2023 Selected Station(s):All Incident Type Description Count Station: EMS 31 -Medical assist 1 0.78% 321-EMS call,excluding vehicle accident with injury 51 39.84% 321F-EMS call,excluding vehicle accident with injury 1 0.78% Total-Rescue&Emergency Medical Service Incidents 53 98.15% 611-Dispatched&cancelled en route 1 0.78% Total-Good Intent Call 1 1.85% Total for Station 54 42.19% Station: HO 131 -Passenger vehicle fire 2 1.56% Total-Fires 2 2.78% 251 -Excessive heat,scorch burns with no ignition 1 0.78% Total-Overpressure Rupture,Explosion,Overheat-no fire 1 1.39% 300-Rescue,emergency medical call(EMS)call,other 1 0.78% 321-EMS call,excluding vehicle accident with injury 1 0.78% 322F-Vehicle accident with injuries 5 3.91% 353F-Removal of victim(s)from stalled elevator 1 0.78% Total-Rescue&Emergency Medical Service Incidents 8 11.11% 412-Gas leak(natural gas or LPG) 2 1.56% 424-Carbon monoxide incident 3 2.34% 440-Electrical wiring/equipment problem,other 2 1.56% 444-Power line down 1 0.78% • 463-Vehicle accident,general cleanup 1 0.78% Total-Hazardous Conditions(No fire) 9 12.50% 500-Service Call,other 1 0.78% 510-Person in distress,other 1 0.78% 511-Lock-out 2 1.56% 531 -Smoke or odor removal 1 0.78% 550-Public service assistance,other 1 0.78% 555-Defective elevator,no occupants 3 2.34% Total-Service Call 9 12.50% 651 -Smoke scare,odor of smoke 3 2.34% Total-Good Intent Call 3 4.17% 700-False alarm or false call,other 12 9.38% 736-CO detector activation due to malfunction 2 1.56% 743-Smoke detector activation,no fire-unintentional 8 6.25% 744-Detector activation,no fire-unintentional 1 0.78% 745-Alarm system sounded,no fire-unintentional 15 11.72% 746-Carbon monoxide detector activation,no CO 2 1.56% Total-Fals Alarm&False Call 40 55.56% Page 1 of 2 Printed 11/01/2023 11:05:46 Town Board November 15, 2023 Attachment H (Cont'd) Incident_ Tvpe Description Count Total for Station 72 56.25% Station: STIL 311 -Medical assist,assist EMS crew 1 0.78% Total-Rescue&Emergency Medical Service Incidents 1 50.00% 571 -Cover assignment,standby,moveup 1 0.78% Total-Service Call 1 50.00%° Total for Station 2 1.56% 128 100.00% Page 2 of 2 Printed it/01/2023 11:07:42