Scarsdale's Tree Canopy is Rapidly Disappearing: Here's Why

Scarsdale’s tree canopy is rapidly disappearing. The number of trees lost is alarming as tree roots mitigate flooding and leafy canopies serve to cool the atmosphere and improve air quality at a time when global warming and flooding pose risks to our environment.

Though Scarsdale strengthened the code for tree removals a few years ago, it appears these laws have not gone far enough to protect the Village in a Park.

The numbers are shocking:

• In 2024, 272 tree removal permits were issued by the Engineering Department for the removal of 793 trees.
• These permits required the replanting of a total of 242 trees and a donation in lieu of planting of $10,500.
• 551 trees (70%) that were permitted to be removed, did not require replacement (per Village Code) due to:

1. They were certified by an arborist as being dead, diseased or dying
2. They were as of right (2 trees per year)
3. The trees being removed were less than 6” dbh (Diameter at Breast Height)
4. The trees were identified as being an invasive species (ie, Norway Maple)

These counts to do not include any trees that were removed without permits.

So, it seems that the wide scale attack on trees is due to a lack of enforcement and the fact that so many trees were either too small or deemed “invasive” and therefore taken down without replacement.

This was the subject of a work session of the Village Board on March 25.

At the session, the Village Board offered the Department of Public Works an additional $30,000 to step up enforcement to permit an arborist to visit a property before trees were removed, and to visit afterwards to confirm that the required number of trees are replaced.

However, Supervisor Jeff Coleman said that this was already being done by the Village arborist. Coleman contended that the loss of trees was due to the current Village code that permits removal of many trees and that some take down trees without permits or on weekends and do not report the removals.

Instead of additional funding, he recommended that all tree surgeons be required to be licensed by the Village and that the tree code be strengthened to prevent removals.

Specifically he said, “Currently, there is sufficient funding requested in the 2025/2026 budget for the consultant arborist to fulfil the scope of services required to support the Department. We do not recommend the wholesale increase in days per month as it will not yield a significant (if any) increase in the number of trees being planted on private property throughout the Village. As noted, the Village Code does not require planting replacement trees under certain circumstances, which constitute the majority of removals. If it is the Viilage’s desire to increase the number of trees planted on private property, the Village Code should be revisited.

It should be noted that, given the complexity of the tree removal permit process and to increase compliance with the Village Code, the Department is working with the Village Attorney to draft a local law to require tree surgeons to be licensed by the village annually.”

Trustees agreed that the code should be re-examined and enforcement stepped us. Dara Gruenberg said, "I would like to re-examine the tree code next year." Justin Arest said, "I believe enforcement is the key issue. This would give us teeth in enforcement.” With respect to Coleman’s idea to license tree surgeons, Arest stated that should have a provision where if a tree surgeon breaks the law they should lose their license. And Karen Brew said, "I think this should be more punitive for those who violate the code. Is someone surveying the trees beforehand and afterwards?"

There were several members present who participated in public discussion of Scarsdale’s quickly shrinking tree canopy and how to address it.  Michelle Sterling said, “We currently have a 1/3 tree replacement rate. If this continues at this rate we will lose our tree canopy and all of the benefits that come from it. We need to have enforcement that site-checks every tree permit both before the permit’s approval and after the removal to make sure the replacements have gone in. We have cases where people file to take out one tree and take out many more than that. We have cases where a replacement is required and instead of planting a canopy tree a bush or an arbovitae is planted. And then there are cases where the replanting just isn’t done. Without enforcement our canopy will be lost.”

Lena Crandall and Madelaine Eppenstein were present and agreed. Madelaine Eppenstein added that there are currently too many exceptions in the code that allowed for tree removals without replacement, and that the code needs to be strengthened immediately.

Despite Coleman’s contention that enforcement is in place, an application before the Planning Board on Wednesday March 26, 2025 offered a stark illustration of a failure of the current system.

At the 3-26 Planning Board meeting the developer of a subdivided property at 2 Cooper Road appeared to amend a 2019 subdivision site plan The re-planting plan for 2 Cooper Road was ignored.after the fact. He had already clear cut the property, removing many large deciduous trees without permission and failing to replace them with over 50 blackberry, red maple, hackberry, beech, junipers, laurels, red cedar, and cryptomeria as outlined in the plan. See what was specified here.

Instead, the 1.16 acre property was clear cut and ringed with arborvitae and hemlock trees. The plan to re-plant was ignored.
In addition, the site plan included a single curb cut on Cooper Road but the builder went for a circular driveway and built an additional curb cut within feet of a busy corner. New curb cuts require traffic studies and permits.

Now five years later, after the property was sold, the developer seemed surprised that the original plan could not be amended. He offered to pay a fine but the Planning Board ruled that he should submit a new arborist plan accounting for removal and new plantings and a traffic engineer report for illegal curb cut.

The loss of trees is staggering and so is the developer’s blatant disregard for Village code.