Resident Advocating for Improvement of Proposed New Blooming Grove Tree Law at Tonight's Public Hearing 5/12 @ 7pm
- ejreporter
- 17 hours ago
- 7 min read
Tomorrow evening the Town of Blooming Grove will be holding a Public Hearing for public review of the new Tree Law designed with the help of a recommended Arborist. Editor
Resident Ryne Kitzrow is advocating a number of improvements with the Law as currently written. Read his comments below, and please consider attending tonight's Hearing at 7pm at the Town Hall. This is the Public's chance to participate!
Hi Neighbors,
The Town of Blooming Grove is holding a public hearing on a new tree protection law (Chapter 219) on Tuesday, May 12 at 7:00 PM at Blooming Grove Town Hall. This is the hearing where the Town Board will hear from residents before deciding whether to adopt this law. Once it passes, it will govern what happens to trees on private property across our entire town. This is our window to shape it.
I’ve spent time reading through the Town’s draft and comparing it to what’s already on the books in communities across the Hudson Valley, places like Monroe, Ossining, Warwick, Greenburgh, Scarsdale, Bedford, Lewisboro, and others. These towns have had tree protection laws in place for years, and they share a set of common features that our draft is missing. Blooming Grove deserves a law that’s at least as strong as what our neighbors already have.
The biggest concern with this draft is that it lacks mandated accountability for large development projects, the kind of projects that have the potential to clear large groups of trees and dramatically change our landscape, tree canopy, erosion and flooding patterns, and wildlife habitat. A strong tree law requires developers and landowners to plan before they cut, replace what they remove, and face real consequences if they don’t. The tools to do this exist in other Hudson Valley communities: mandatory Tree Plans, Tree Bank Funds, and restoration requirements for violations. This draft has none of them. Here are the specifics:
Here’s what needs to change:
1. Clear cutting should not be allowed by permit.
As written, the Town’s draft allows a property owner to get a permit to clear cut 50% or more of trees on a two-acre area. That’s not tree protection. It’s permitted deforestation. Cornwall limits clear cutting to just 25% of trees on a property. Ossining defines clear cutting as removing just 10 or more trees of 6 inches in diameter or greater on a lot within twelve months, and regulates it accordingly. Somers prohibits clear cutting of trees 4 inches and greater entirely. Our draft’s threshold is dramatically weaker than what comparable communities allow.
2. More people need to be notified when clearing is proposed.
The draft currently proposes written notification of neighbors within 500 feet of a property line. While that might suffice in certain circumstances, there is no exception for clearing on steep slopes. Clearing on steep slopes can have significant, harmful impacts on residents who live below the clearing. In the past, clear cutting on hills and mountains in the Town has caused landslides as dirt was no longer held in place by trees. Clear cutting on steep slopes should be prohibited, and at the very least, more nearby residents should be notified when it is proposed.
3. The draft only protects the biggest trees and ignores most of our canopy.
The Town’s draft only regulates “significant trees” meaning those with a trunk diameter of 10 inches or more. A 9-inch tree can be 30 to 40 feet tall and decades old. Across the Hudson Valley, tree protection thresholds are significantly stronger: Ossining regulates trees starting at 6 inches in diameter, Greenburgh at 8 inches generally and 4 inches in wetlands, and communities like Harrison, Tarrytown, and Somers start at 4 inches. Cornwall regulates trees starting at 8 inches. Even Monroe, the town most often cited as a model, regulates trees at 6 inches on steep slopes and for landmark species. By setting the bar at 10 inches, this draft leaves a large portion of Blooming Grove’s tree canopy completely unregulated.
4. Tree removal permits are too weak
Monroe, Ossining, and most Hudson Valley communities with tree laws require a Tree Removal Permit before a regulated tree can come down. The Town’s draft has a substandard Tree Removal Permit for residential property owners. It exempts any tree within 100 feet of a dwelling, allowing removal without a permit, review, or limit on size or number. It also exempts trees removed during construction. It exempts trees removed when they are sold for timber. Trees should have comprehensive protection, regardless of whether they are proposed to be cut down by a home owner or a developer. Exceptions should be better considered and more logical.
5. There’s no mandatory Tree Plan and no meaningful replanting requirement.
A Tree Plan is a document that inventories which trees will be removed, what will replace them, and where replacements will be planted. This is a standard feature in Monroe, Ossining, and Warwick. The Town’s draft makes tree replacement plans discretionary and limited to construction projects, and even then only requires replacement of 50% of lost canopy. That means half the trees removed never come back, and for timber harvesting, there’s no replacement requirement at all. The solution is easy. Make it mandatory. A strong law requires a mandatory Tree Plan for every permit, with full replacement of what’s removed.
6. There’s no Tree Bank Fund for when on-site replanting isn’t possible.
The purpose of a Tree Bank Fund is that, when a property can’t accommodate replacement trees, the applicant pays into a fund that plants trees elsewhere in the community. This is a proven mechanism used in municipalities across New York. Cornwall has one as of 2024. It ensures that every tree removed results in a tree planted somewhere in town, and it creates a real financial cost that discourages unnecessary removal. The Town’s draft has nothing like this. Without a Tree Bank, lost canopy has no path to recovery.
7. Our oldest, most irreplaceable trees can still be removed with a permit.
A tree with a trunk diameter of 18 inches or more could easily be 75 to over 100 years old. Under this draft, those trees can be removed with a permit. Trees like that are irreplaceable within our lifetimes. The law should include a category for old-growth trees, 20 inches and above, and prohibit their removal except for genuine safety hazards. Monroe empowers its Conservation Commission to identify and protect landmark, native, protected, and specimen trees by maintaining a formal list appended to its zoning code. This draft has no such list and no nomination process.
7. Violators pay a fine and keep the cleared land. There’s no mandatory restoration.
The penalty section has no requirement that violators actually restore what they destroyed. A developer could clear a lot, pay a fine, and build on it. While the law has a provision for bonding, neither the bonding nor the remediation of improper or excessive clearing is mandatory. Without mandatory replanting and Tree Bank fees for violations, the penalty becomes just a cost of doing business. The law should require that violators replant trees equivalent to what was removed, and if on-site replanting isn’t possible, pay into the Tree Bank Fund.
8. The Conservation Advisory Commission has no role in the process.
Blooming Grove has a Conservation Advisory Commission with specific expertise in the local environment. The Town’s draft does not include the CAC in any part of the review, approval, or enforcement process. Contrast this with other local municipalities like Cornwall, which explicitly grant a role for the CAC in the review of tree plans. The draft puts all decision-making with the Planning Board and Building Inspector alone. Monroe’s tree preservation law specifically empowers its Conservation Commission to identify protected trees, review tree plans, and enforce the law. That’s the kind of role our CAC should have.
9. Trees on steep slopes and in wetlands need standalone protections.
Trees on steep slopes prevent erosion, mudslides, and flooding. Trees in and around wetlands protect our water quality and drinking water. The draft references both but does not prevent removing a tree on a steep slope or in a wetland. Greenburgh regulates trees at lower thresholds in these sensitive areas: 4 inches in wetlands and 6 inches on steep slopes, compared to 8 inches elsewhere.
10. Large development projects need mandated accountability, not discretionary review.
The town's draft law uses the word "may" 52 times. This is the thread that ties all of the above together. When a developer or landowner proposes a project that could clear dozens or hundreds of trees, the law should require, not suggest, a plan for how those trees will be accounted for. That means a mandatory Tree Plan before any clearing begins, a Tree Removal Permit with enforceable conditions, a Tree Bank Fund so that every removed tree results in a replacement somewhere in town, and mandatory restoration when someone violates the law. These are not radical ideas. They are standard practice in communities across the region. Without these accountability mechanisms built into the law, the Planning Board is left with discretion but no structure, and developers are left with permits but no obligations. The result is a law that regulates on paper but does not protect in practice.
This is the moment. Here’s what you can do:
• Show up on Tuesday, May 12 at 7:00 PM at Blooming Grove Town Hall. The Board needs to hear directly from residents. Numbers matter.
• Submit written comments to the Town Board. Even a short note identifying the one or two points that matter most to you becomes part of the public record and carries weight.
• Forward this email to your neighbors. The more voices the Board hears, the harder it is to pass a law that falls short of what our community needs.
The Town Board took an important step by drafting this law, and they deserve credit for that. There are many positive aspects to this draft law, and it offers more protection than we currently have in our Town Code. But communities across the Hudson Valley figured out years ago what a real tree protection law looks like. Blooming Grove shouldn’t settle for less. The trees that make this town what it is are counting on us to get this right.
Ryne Kitzrow
Blooming Grove Resident
Comments