Smyrna residents press council over tree buffer in Saddle Grove PRD amendment; council directs staff to negotiate

Residents of the Saddle Grove neighborhood urged the Smyrna Town Council on Tuesday to block or substantially alter a developer’s proposed planned residential development (PRD) amendment that would reduce the approved number of homes and replace an existing tree buffer with newly planted trees.

In public comments, Liana Levitt, a Saddle Grove resident, told the council the amendment for tax map 54, page 8, parcel 18 “did not give nearby members of the community … the chance to express their concerns,” and said the change would reduce a previously approved 15-foot tree buffer and harm residents’ privacy and quality of life. Tanya Hadley, another Saddle Grove resident, said the developer, Blue River/Catalyst Design Group, intends to remove the existing tree line and plant new landscaping in its place. Eric Chenoweth asked the council to require a native buffer to protect wildlife and cited federal environmental laws in urging stronger protections.

Kevin (planning staff) explained the project’s recent history: the original PRD was approved in January with 83 lots; the developer later requested an administrative amendment reducing lots from 83 to 73 and increasing open space. Staff reviewed the amendment under the ordinance’s ‘‘minor deviation’’ provisions and found it met the criteria for administrative review because it would lower density and increase open space. Kevin said the amendment proposes a 25-foot buffer but clarified that the buffer as proposed would be newly planted trees, not retention of the existing tree line. He added that engineering and grading constraints were cited by the developer as reasons the existing trees could not be preserved.

Council members pressed staff and debated next steps. Several council members, including Councilman Sullivan and others, said they prefer the amendment because it reduces density and increases open space; others, such as Councilman Shore and some residents, said they want the existing trees preserved and asked for the matter to go back to the planning commission so neighbors can comment there. Council members also asked staff to require faster-growing, more substantial plantings in any buffer and to specify plant types and maintenance in site plans so the buffer provides meaningful privacy quickly rather than slow-growing shrubs.

Kevin said he has not approved the amendment yet. He told the council the developer’s representative has indicated they would likely withdraw the amendment and proceed under the original PRD (83 lots and a 15-foot buffer of new plantings) if the council directed staff to refer the amendment to the planning commission. Council discussion ended with staff receiving direction to proceed with the administrative review and to continue discussions with the developer, including pressing for faster-growing plantings for the proposed buffer. Several council members said they wanted staff to seek specific planting standards and a maintenance plan; others reiterated that sending the amendment to the planning commission could provide residents a formal public forum but risked the developer withdrawing the amendment and reverting to the original approvals.

No formal council vote on the amendment occurred at the meeting; Kevin said the administrative review remains pending. He told the council he would continue discussions with the developer about grading options, planting specifications and whether the developer would withdraw the amendment if required conditions were not acceptable.

Why it matters: Saddle Grove residents say the existing tree line provides habitat, privacy and a noise buffer; the council’s decision on whether and how to require preservation or more robust replacement plantings could shape the neighborhood’s character and the developer’s final buildout. The exchange also highlighted limits of the town’s PRD administrative-review pathways and how staff-level approvals can affect neighbors’ opportunities for public comment.

What’s next: Kevin will continue negotiations with the developer, pursue more specific planting and maintenance requirements if the administrative amendment moves forward, and return to the council and planning commission if staff determines the amendment is a ‘‘substantial deviation’’ from the approved PRD or if the developer requests referral. Residents said they will continue to submit petitions and to seek clarifying commitments in writing.