The County Road 9 Oak Debate Is About More Than Trees

At the center of the County Road 9 debate is a simple but important question for residents that cuts across both safety and community history: if a row of mature oak trees sits close to the road, should officials remove the trees, or should they first prove that slower traffic, better warnings, or road changes would not be enough to address the risk?

That question is the topic that has taken quickly in Greater Napanee. A petition created on April 22, 2026 states that the oak canopy between Hickory Lane and Sherman’s Point Road is expected to be removed this fall as  the trees are considered too close to the road. By April 24, it had already gathered 742 verified signatures from the residents. That fast response in such a short time shows that this is not a minor concern. It also matters that County 9 falls under Lennox and Addington County ownership and control, so any decision here is not just local frustration. It is a public policy choice.

The community comments are not dismissing safety concerns but asking whether the County has made its case transparent. Residents want to see the evidence and reason. Is there a documented crash record for this stretch of road? Did they let an arborist assess the trees? Were there alternative options for safety measures such as signage, reflective warnings, guardrail, shoulder changes, etc. that were studied before tree removal was proposed? These are fair questions. While road design guidelines do say that trees close to the road can increase risk, but that one that always has only one answer. The Federal Highway Administration’s clear zone guidance says these decisions depend on traffic speed, volume, roadside geometry, and engineering judgment and not just a simple one-size rule. 

The idea of lowering speeds also has some support though it’s not quite as simple as there's clear evidence that speed matters for both crash risk and injury severity, simply lowering speed limits is rarely enough of its own. 

The community clearly has a strong point in the value of the trees. Oaks are not just nice to look at but they provide food, shelter, and habitat for many kinds of wildlife. Oaks support a rich ecosystem. That does not automatically settle the road-safety question, but it does mean the bar should be high before removing them. Once trees like these are gone, planting new ones may help over time but it won’t replace what a mature canopy provides today.

So far right now, the weakest part of this debate is not the public reaction but it’s the lack of information. We can find the petition and the county’s general road authority information, but not a public notice, engineering report, or site-specific safety report laying out why this tree removal is needed now. Until that information is shared, the strongest position of this story is not ‘save the trees at all costs’ or ‘cut them down for safety’. It is that residents are asking the County to show evidence, explain the alternatives and prove that removal is truly the last reasonable option.

If you lived along this stretch, would you accept tree removal without seeing that case made in full?