The County of St. Paul took two very different approaches to brushing requests during its latest council meeting — approving one project tied to road safety while rejecting another viewed as a private benefit.
Brushing request denied over private benefit
Council first considered a request to clear an undeveloped road allowance near Spring Park so a landowner could move a fence into the proper location.
Administration said the request was not tied to access, safety or any planned road development.
“My answer was no but I promised to bring it,” council heard during the discussion.
Councillors agreed there was no clear benefit to the county or the public.
“I can’t see like this is not going to ever be a build priority in my time and it’s not for access at all. Nothing,” one councillor said.
Council ultimately voted to deny the request, though administration noted the landowner could still pursue options such as brushing the area privately or leasing the undeveloped road allowance.
Additional brushing approved along Township Road 565
In contrast, council approved expanded brushing work along Township Road 565, where overgrowth is beginning to impact the roadway.
Administration said crews were already mobilized in the area for an existing project when an additional quarter section — about 800 metres — was flagged for concern.
“It has been noted by numerous folks though that the brush on this border is approaching the roadway and trees are constantly falling on the road throughout the season,” council heard.
Councillors agreed the work was justified, particularly given safety concerns and the fact equipment was already on site.
“The whole road needs it. We’re just trying to do chunks at a time,” one councillor said.
Council approved the additional brushing, noting it would be completed within the county right-of-way.
Balancing private requests with public need
The two decisions highlight how council evaluates these types of requests — weighing public benefit, safety, and cost against private landowner needs.
In one case, brushing was seen as unnecessary for county operations. In the other, it was considered a practical and timely response to ongoing maintenance concerns.
Help us stay Connected! If you enjoy our content, consider giving us a small tip. Your $2 tip helps us get out in the community, attend the events that matter most to you and keep the Lakeland Connected! Use our secure online portal (no account needed) to show your appreciation today!
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!
you might also like
news via inbox
Get Connected! Sign up for daily news updates.
County of St. Paul approves one brushing project, denies another
The County of St. Paul took two very different approaches to brushing requests during its latest council meeting — approving one project tied to road safety while rejecting another viewed as a private benefit.
Brushing request denied over private benefit
Council first considered a request to clear an undeveloped road allowance near Spring Park so a landowner could move a fence into the proper location.
Administration said the request was not tied to access, safety or any planned road development.
“My answer was no but I promised to bring it,” council heard during the discussion.
Councillors agreed there was no clear benefit to the county or the public.
“I can’t see like this is not going to ever be a build priority in my time and it’s not for access at all. Nothing,” one councillor said.
Council ultimately voted to deny the request, though administration noted the landowner could still pursue options such as brushing the area privately or leasing the undeveloped road allowance.
Additional brushing approved along Township Road 565
In contrast, council approved expanded brushing work along Township Road 565, where overgrowth is beginning to impact the roadway.
Administration said crews were already mobilized in the area for an existing project when an additional quarter section — about 800 metres — was flagged for concern.
“It has been noted by numerous folks though that the brush on this border is approaching the roadway and trees are constantly falling on the road throughout the season,” council heard.
Councillors agreed the work was justified, particularly given safety concerns and the fact equipment was already on site.
“The whole road needs it. We’re just trying to do chunks at a time,” one councillor said.
Council approved the additional brushing, noting it would be completed within the county right-of-way.
Balancing private requests with public need
The two decisions highlight how council evaluates these types of requests — weighing public benefit, safety, and cost against private landowner needs.
In one case, brushing was seen as unnecessary for county operations. In the other, it was considered a practical and timely response to ongoing maintenance concerns.
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!
you might also like
news via inbox
Get Connected! Sign up for daily news updates.