Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Protection Buffer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer seeks PD amendment after county utilities removed trees for watermain; planning board recommends approval
Summary
Charlotte County staff and a developer told the Planning and Zoning Board that utility installation removed trees inside a planned‑development buffer, and the board voted to forward an amendment (PD‑25‑09) to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval.
Get email alerts on the Tree Protection Buffer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Charlotte County Planning and Zoning Board voted to forward application PD‑25‑09 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval to modify a planned‑development (PD) condition that defines a 25‑foot natural buffer along State Road 776 in Port Charlotte.
Jay Shao, community development staff, said the item is a major modification to Ordinance No. 2024‑017 that would amend PD Condition M to define and enforce the natural buffer standard on Tracks S, T and U of the KL Westport Expansion LLC project within the Murdock Village CRA. Staff displayed aerials and a site plan and said that, during installation of an oversized water main, approximately 30 trees in the PD setback were removed and roughly 15 of those were outside the public‑utility easement; the applicant proposes to replace those trees under a defined replacement standard.
Paul Martin, vice president of development for Coulter Group, the applicant’s representative, told the board the water main was installed at the property line and large machinery, plus Charlotte County Utilities’ 10‑foot clearance policy near utility lines, required removal of trees. Martin said the developer plans to replant the removed trees but needs a PD amendment to reflect how and where replacements would be placed.
Staff and the applicant presented a draft PD modification that specifies tree size thresholds, replacement species and locations and a process for review. County staff advised the board that the proposed modification is not inconsistent with the comprehensive plan or county land‑development regulations and that the PD condition was originally imposed by the Board of County Commissioners; the ultimate decision will rest with the BCC.
After public comment (no speakers registered), the board moved to forward PD‑25‑09 with a recommendation of approval based on the staff report dated 08/02/2025 and the testimony at the hearing. The motion was carried and the item will go to the Board of County Commissioners for final action.
If approved by the BCC, the change will permit the applicant to replace specified removed trees in locations and sizes described in the submitted PD amendment rather than be held to the unmodified PD condition that had prohibited removal. County staff and the applicant noted that Charlotte County Utilities had contracted to oversize the line and that the right‑of‑way between pavement edge and property line is constrained by utilities.
