A row of redwood trees planted more than 100 years ago along 96 Avenue is proving to be an impediment to a 13-unit townhouse development.

The trees, planted around 1909, are protected from destruction through 91原创 Township鈥檚 heritage designation. They form the northerly boundary of a 2.43 acre parcel at 21620 96 Ave., on which Lanstone Homes has applied to build 13 townhouses.

Speaking on behalf of the proponent at a public hearing on Monday, Colin Hogan of  Focus Architecture said Lanstone 鈥渨ould like nothing more than to have access on 96 Avenue.鈥�

The only solution to access appears to be through Redwoods Bridge, a development of 47 townhouses at 21704 96 Ave. An easement between the two properties was procured in 2005.

Redwoods Bridge residents don鈥檛 like the idea one bit, telling council that the road through their tiny community is narrow and has no sidewalks.

Telling council she was 鈥渧ehemently opposed鈥� to the plan, Letitia Eakins said residents paid a lot of money for the exclusivity of living at Redwoods Bridge, and property values would plummet, perhaps as much as $100,000 per unit, if the easement was used as an access road from Lanstone Homes鈥� development to 96 Avenue.

The development prerequisites include registering the 鈥渃ross access easement鈥� through Redwoods Bridge and the property west of Lanstone鈥檚.

Redwood Bridge鈥檚 strata council president David King said that the council passed a resolution to deny access on what is deemed a private road. King added that residents are concerned about safety and parking, and the potential for increased liability costs should traffic through Redwood Bridge be unrestricted.

While the strata currently pays 鈥渧ery little鈥� for road maintenance, it could become a nightmare if it becomes an access road for Lanstone homes.

Another resident, Fred Baker, said that the easement through Redwoods Bridge was built at the request of the Township, 鈥渂ut that doesn鈥檛 mean it can鈥檛 be changed.鈥� He said that if the easement is allowed, Redwoods Bridge residents would likely use it to reach 216 Street.

Some residents said they did not object to some kind of barrier to prevent vehicular access, and said they did not object to people walking through their development.

Hogan explained that the easement 鈥渃an never become a public right of way鈥� and is a private access agreement between the owners of four properties.

The development is also impacted by two tributaries of Munday Creek.

Asked by Councillor Kim Richter if he would be willing to meeting with Redwoods Bridge residents to see if a compromise can be reached, Hogan replied 鈥渁bsolutely.鈥�

Council is scheduled to consider third reading of the bylaw to rezone the land from suburban residential to comprehensive development at its July 11 meeting.