Editor:
Re: Tree removal has neighbours upset, May 10 I find it odd the reporter would write this very biased article without consulting with anyone from The Royal Oaks strata or our management company.
The headline mentions 34 trees, however, there were only 12 pine trees that were within our property line on 10A Avenue, which is the area of discussion in the article, the others being on Ferguson Road (where no one complained) and within the interior of The Royal Oaks.
Your photo showing the cut tree limbs was taken shortly after the trees were felled. Several days later all the logs were removed, the area cleaned up and the fence power washed.
A certified arborist prepared a detailed plan, photos of each tree and corresponding review of the reasons why each had to be removed. This, of course, accompanied our tree removal application, for which a permit from the municipality was given.
Complete blockage of sunlight to the affected homes, roof and gutter damage, including overflow in heavy rains, inability to grow anything in the back yards, lifting of patios and fences are some of the reasons why these terrible pine trees had to be removed.
The owners can now enjoy their back yard patios and have now begun the process of cleaning up many years of pine needles and can now plant flowers and gardens.
It seems odd that one person's desire to look at trees on other people's property was the reason for this article. We cannot tell the neighbours across the street what to do on their property so why should she?
I think it would have been appropriate for your reporter to talk to us prior to writing and printing this article. In future, instead of trying to write sensationalism, she should be advised to get all the facts from both sides.
Phil Cote Owner & Strata Council Member The Royal Oaks
