MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY - County council has passed a motion directing administration to include in upcoming budget deliberations a proposal to have operational service personnel remove some of the trees along Twp. Rd. 314 between Rge. Rd. 22 and Rge. Rd. 23 west of Didsbury.
The move came by way of motion at the Nov. 30 council meeting, held in person and on Zoom.
The proposal calls for the removal of trees within 24 feet of the centre of the road in both directions, which should leave 18 feet of road allowance undisturbed or approximately nine feet on each side if the road is centred within the road allowance.
The motion also calls for the removal of trees around the intersection with Rge. Rd. 22.
The estimated cost of the project is $25,000, which would be covered under the existing operations services budget with existing equipment and manpower being used to take down the trees and burn them onsite.
Supporters and opponents of tree removal beside the roadway appeared as delegations at the Nov. 16 council meeting.
Two farmers who own land and/or farm along Twp. Rd. 314 had requested the trees be removed, saying removing the trees would provide better access for emergency vehicles meeting each other on the roadway.
As well, they said the movement of large agriculture equipment such as air seeders is difficult along the road because the trees make the passage too narrow, in some cases causing damage to equipment.
They also said the trees reduce sight lines, creating a traffic hazard for vehicles meeting each other on the roadway.
Adjacent landowners Glen and Annette Kershaw spoke in opposition to the proposed tree removal.
They cited a number of reasons for their opposition, including that the removal of the trees will result in the loss of scenic beauty and habitat for birds, the loss of shelter and wind break, and that it would negatively impact water and soil quality.
A number of area residents also signed a petition calling for the trees to remain in place. That petition was included in the Nov. 16 agenda package.
Coun. Greg Harris put forward the approved motion on Nov. 30.
“I just won’t compromise on safety and I know it’s hard for people to say that it’s been safe all these last years but it only takes one occurrence,” said Harris.
Reeve Angela Aalbers said the approved option will promote safe travel on the roadway while leaving some trees in place.
“I think the option is a common ground and it will allows some trees to remain and give that buffer,” said Aalbers.
Council defeated an earlier recommended motion which would have called for the removal of trees from the north side of the road only at a distance of 24 feet from the centre of the road, with some selective tree removal on the south side may also be needed.
The estimated cost of that option was $18,000 to $20,000.
The approved motion will go to the Dec. 14 council meeting for budget deliberations.
Landowner not happy with plans
Following the Nov. 30 council meeting, Annette Kershaw told the Albertan she has several concerns, including with the proposal to burn the trees once they are cut down.
“That is a lot of trees and (burning them) is going to create a lot of smoke,” said Kershaw. “I’ve seen when the county has burned before and it burns forever and I’m sitting right there as the north wind blows it right into my house.
“Personally I’m not in agreement with removing any of them, but the idea of burning them onsite and thinking they are going to leave 10 feet of trees on either side intact is ridiculous. I don’t understand the logic behind this.”
She said she would also oppose the use of herbicides to stop trees from regrowing at the site.
Removing the trees could cause drainage problems that could impact the roadway, she said.
