When Robert Herbst returned to his hometown, about 30 miles north of New York City, in 1992, he wanted his children to be immersed in the lush greenery of his childhood. But over the decades, he noticed more trees falling to make way for bigger houses.
Herbst, an attorney, and other like-minded residents of Mamaroneck, New York, see disappearing trees as a serious threat in the era of climate change.
“We should protect trees for our own survival,” said Jacob Levitt, a dermatologist who lives in Mamaroneck. “It’s suicide not to do it.”
Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times
But some residents say they should have the right to remove any and all trees from their properties to make way for more sunlight or home expansion, or simply because they want them gone.
“People want to landscape the way they want,” said Eve Neuman, a real estate agent who lives in the area.
Recently, the debate has become more heated over a new law that expands the city’s oversight of where and when trees can be cut down.
Mamaroneck’s old tree ordinance was drafted in the 1980s and required tree removal permits only on lots of 20,000 square feet or larger. The new measure, enacted in February, requires licenses for smaller lots that represent about 80% of the city covered by the law.
Homeowners no longer need to explain their removal requests, describe the trees, or inform neighbors that a permit has been issued. They need to replace the removed trees or get approval to donate $300 per tree to a planting fund. No permit is required to remove dangerous or dead trees, which may become a hazard. Otherwise, small properties can remove up to three trees per year; in larger batches, up to seven.
“It’s just a regulated way of cutting down trees,” said Andrea Hirsch, a local lawyer representing a group of tree advocates to challenge the new law in court. She added that the new law no longer requires an environmental review before removals, and that property owners can get approval to exceed the annual limit if the trees interfere with the desired use of the property, such as placing a swing set in the yard.
Some property owners support the law but consider it overkill. “My property, my trees,” John Phillipson, a longtime resident, wrote in an online comment, adding, “We are overly regulated by the government as it is.”
The case is pending and both parties are expected to return to court later this month.
With Long Island Sound to the east and two major rivers running through the city, Mamaroneck has flooding problems. But it’s also a popular place to live: The average price of single-family homes sold this year is about $1.5 million. The city is part of Westchester County, a suburban region in southeastern New York that is experiencing intense and ongoing development.
In Westchester, tree canopy cover — the amount of foliage and branches that shade the ground — is declining, according to a 2022 study led by Andrew Reinmann, an assistant professor at the CUNY Advanced Science Research Center and Hunter College. He spoke at a public meeting in Mamaroneck during the tree bill deliberations.
By 2021, canopy coverage in Mamaroneck had declined to about 41% of the city’s land area, a concerning loss of about 7% since 2011, Reinmann said.
“As tree canopy coverage decreases, we may see tangible increases in local temperatures and a greater reliance on electricity to cool homes and buildings,” he said. Trees provide shade, intercept rainfall, and release moisture back into the air.
But some homeowners in Mamaroneck get angry when they’re told what to do.
Since an apartment building was built in an empty field behind Phillipson’s home in the 1990s, flooding has worsened in his yard and his vegetable garden has been left in shadow, he said. To allow for more sunlight, he removed two trees from his property, he said, adding that he was able to do so without applying for permits. And he would like to keep that right.
“I would like to see the law relaxed and give the homeowner a chance to do what they need to do,” said Phillipson, a retiree who bought his Mamaroneck home 40 years ago.
The debate over how to balance environmental concerns and property rights is becoming more common, said Max Besbris, a sociology professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who specializes in housing and climate change. “There is very real anxiety” about best practices, he said, especially since a home is the biggest purchase many people will make.
The new tree law came about because the city’s environmental advisory group became concerned about an increase in the number of trees being felled, coinciding with rising temperatures and flooding.
County Supervisor Jaine Elkind Eney, who is also a real estate attorney, worked with her four board members. “It was a lot of give and take,” she said.
But when the council unanimously approved the new law, there were protests from tree supporters. They argued that the new measure made it too easy to remove trees and its annual limits were too generous, while older trees, which have a powerful effect on the environment, lost some protections.
The new law includes a scale for the number of replacement trees that must be planted for each tree removed. A mature tree with a trunk diameter greater than 1.5 feet, for example, would need to be replaced with four young trees.
“We will be increasing the tree canopy, albeit over time,” said Elkind Eney.
Frank Buddingh’, a local arborist, said replacing one old tree with four new ones is not an equal exchange. Producing as much oxygen as a 100-year-old tree that was cut down — with its carbon storage capacity and extensive canopy and root system — would require hundreds of young trees, he said.
In Westchester County, about half of all municipalities have tree ordinances. New York and most other states place the responsibility for developing tree regulations for private properties and public spaces on municipalities, while most public forests are regulated by state and federal agencies.
Buddingh’ would like trees to be seen as valuable resources to be protected and regulated, like air, he said. “They should be on an asset list and not an expense list,” he said.
c.2024 The New York Times Company
