Village of Great Neck tree proposal debated

Joe Nikic

The Village of Great Neck Board of Trustees adjourned a public hearing Tuesday on proposed changes to village tree removal regulations to give more residents an opportunity to voice their opinion.

Dozens of residents appeared at the Village of Great Neck Village Hall to comment on legislation that would make it easier for the village to order the removal of a tree on a homeowner’s property.

“The reason for this meeting is to hear the people out and have a pulse of what people believe should be the law in the village, “ Village of Great Neck Mayor Pedram Bral said.

The legislation was proposed after a tree crashed through the home of Jeff and Rachel Epstein on Wooley’s Lane East on July 27 and landed on their 20-year-old daughter, Stephanie. She was treated and later release from North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset.

Rachel Epstein and other residents called for changes to the tree removal law at a board meeting on Aug. 4

“The reason we are having this meeting is because of what happened about three weeks ago with what we call a near miss,” Bral said. “A young lady almost died because of a tree that fell on their house.”

The board told residents on Aug. 4 that it was working on a bill regarding tree removal, which Village Attorney Peter Bee said would “liberalize the grounds under which the public works department will be authorized to grant a permit for the removal of a tree.” 

Under current laws, the village’s building department’s authority is limited to taking care of trees that are dead, dying, or in imminent danger of falling, Village Clerk Joe Gill said. 

Gill said that with revisions to the local law, the building department would be able to take into account concerns of property owners regarding the potential of very large trees or branches falling onto their homes.

Bee said Tuesday the proposed changes would allow the building inspector to consider “the appropriateness of the removal or alteration of the tree or trees in question in order to assure the safety of adjacent persons and/or structures, and to minimize the concern of citizens regarding their safety.” 

“We are trying to make a slight change in the wording of the law and it is not really to take significant measures,” Bral added.

Some 14 village residents spoke during a  60-minute public hearing, with many more waiting to speak, before the decision to adjourn was made.

The residents focused mostly on the change of the “necessity” to “appropriateness” in determining when the village could order the removal of a tree.

“The word ‘necessary’ to me means it is essential to remove a tree but only if it is dead or damaged or damaging to property,” Arrandale Ave. resident Jean Pierce said. “Changing the word to ‘appropriate’ has myself and a lot of people concerned. Appropriate to who? The homeowner who doesn’t like trees.” 

Opponents of the new bill said they are concerned about the beauty and preservation of the village and it’s trees. 

“In the past, it was about a life or death issue for the tree,” Gill said. “They are now more interested in taking into account the likelihood of things happening not because of the health of the tree. If something is so tall and so close to the house, that even a branch falling could cause damage, that could be incorporated into the building department review as to whether the tree could be taken down or not.”

Jeff Epstein, who said he was asked by Bral and other trustees to attend the hearing, said he supported the new legislation.

“We are not advocates of anything that should be misconstrued as illegal or something that is detrimental to our community,” Epstein said. “However, I really would like each of the first three people who spoke before us, and anybody else who will come up here afterwards, and does have a child or children, and if they would have witnessed what I witnessed three weeks ago, see how important they feel about the beauty of a tree.”

Amy Glass of Hampshire Road said she believed the village was overreacting to a single incident.

“You are reacting to people’s fears right now, and of course we are all upset that one tree fell,” Glass said. “I just don’t see us as a community that is going to react out of fear and irrational fear because most of the trees around are fine. And yes, people should care for their trees and make sure they are properly cared for and properly pruned if necessary.”

Epstein said he believes there is no guarantee that all residents will make sure to upkeep the trees.

“I don’t think that we as a community can ignore the fact that not every single person who has 30 trees on their property or more will be as attentive to that as we are all talking about. If there is any resident who should feel that a tree or more than one tree is potentially unsafe on their property, they should have the right to have that tree examined or removed from their property,” he said.

Bral adjourned the hearing until the next public board meeting on Sept. 8. 

“Our job is to hear and make the best decision for the village,” Bral said.

Share this Article