No one showed up to save them, but the Croton Planning Board agreed to require the developer to plant two new ones. Also, news of a clock for the "pocket park."
I am guilty of this myself but it is sad not a single resident showed up to advocate for those two very mature trees. They are beautiful too. It will take many decades for the two they plant (depending on the species of tree) to get anywhere near as large as the two marked to come down.
This week is an incredibly busy week for me. Especially afternoons and evenings. I really wish a few people showed up like they did when the Katz property was first being debated for development, and advocate for mature tree protection. These big trees help with runoff and erosion control from heavy storms too. Saplings won’t do nearly as much in those terms.
I wonder if any of the benefits of saving these big trees was even debated?
Thanks for your comment. There was no debate about saving the trees, or even any thoughts about that expressed. Everyone assumed that they had to come down, especially the one that had been damaged during the construction of the retaining wall.
That’s very disappointing to hear. It sounds like they definitely had this debated and already decided well before any public emails went out or held the meeting. Oh well. I wish there was some additional action a resident could take but it’s definitely not going to change their plans. Nothing does.
Maturity is determined by diameter at breast level, not height. Remember, this is all second growth woodland and the trees do not look very healthy (to me). Better to remove a potential liability near a public gathering space. Proper native species will be a fine replacement.
Perhaps these particular two trees are not a huge loss, but I think the more overarching point was made by Eva Thaddeus at the meeting last night. She pointed out that a lot more trees have been lost due to this project than was originally anticipated.
I don’t know what people were anticipating, but when you look at the building envelope I don’t see how any fewer trees could have been taken down. I don’t believe they removed any more than they had to. Speaking from experience, this appeared to be a very well run project.
What Eva might have been referring to—not sure—is that the original conception for the site, as it was sold to the village by Ann Gallelli eg, was that there would be a lot more green space. Cramming two apartment blocks in there was not the original idea and only came more recently.
I am guilty of this myself but it is sad not a single resident showed up to advocate for those two very mature trees. They are beautiful too. It will take many decades for the two they plant (depending on the species of tree) to get anywhere near as large as the two marked to come down.
This week is an incredibly busy week for me. Especially afternoons and evenings. I really wish a few people showed up like they did when the Katz property was first being debated for development, and advocate for mature tree protection. These big trees help with runoff and erosion control from heavy storms too. Saplings won’t do nearly as much in those terms.
I wonder if any of the benefits of saving these big trees was even debated?
Thank you for this update!
Thanks for your comment. There was no debate about saving the trees, or even any thoughts about that expressed. Everyone assumed that they had to come down, especially the one that had been damaged during the construction of the retaining wall.
That’s very disappointing to hear. It sounds like they definitely had this debated and already decided well before any public emails went out or held the meeting. Oh well. I wish there was some additional action a resident could take but it’s definitely not going to change their plans. Nothing does.
If an independent candidate would run seriously for trustee, even just one, then there might be some real debate in the village.
Those did not look like very mature trees.
Maturity is determined by diameter at breast level, not height. Remember, this is all second growth woodland and the trees do not look very healthy (to me). Better to remove a potential liability near a public gathering space. Proper native species will be a fine replacement.
Perhaps these particular two trees are not a huge loss, but I think the more overarching point was made by Eva Thaddeus at the meeting last night. She pointed out that a lot more trees have been lost due to this project than was originally anticipated.
I don’t know what people were anticipating, but when you look at the building envelope I don’t see how any fewer trees could have been taken down. I don’t believe they removed any more than they had to. Speaking from experience, this appeared to be a very well run project.
What Eva might have been referring to—not sure—is that the original conception for the site, as it was sold to the village by Ann Gallelli eg, was that there would be a lot more green space. Cramming two apartment blocks in there was not the original idea and only came more recently.