Letter: trees must be respected

Letter contributor Dianne Baker asks: Why do we not have a bylaw concerning significant trees?

Dear Editor,

Once again, Coun. Kim Richter is the voice of reason. Her proposal to save 30 per cent of all significant trees on a property should have been passed.

Why do we not have a bylaw concerning significant trees? I am shocked that Coun. Angie Quaale motion to require that 100 per cent of replacement of significant trees is new.

I was told over 10 years ago when we were faced with the development across the street, that developers were to replace three trees for every tree removed, just not necessarily in the same development, which is sorely evident that only a small portion of the trees were replanted in those new developments.

I can’t believe that Coun. Angie Quaale is not asking developers to rejig their designs to fit in more trees. Why not? Surely this is not a novel idea. This is happening across other municipalities in order to save more trees. These developers are suggesting to remove 97 per cent of the trees. Imagine only saving four trees out of 376. This shameful and irresponsible.

Why does the Township council not respect our trees?

Dianne Baker, Langley

Langley Advance