Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Rowlett council to deny variances for Columbia/Alfred Estates, cite loss of large trees
Summary
Two residents told the Rowlett City Council that variances and potential rezoning for the Columbia/Alfred Estates project would create density inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and result in removal of hundreds of large trees; one commenter said the developer plans to remove the equivalent of more than three football fields of trunk inches.
Justin Marston, a Rowlett resident, used the public-comment period to press the council on the Columbia/Alfred Estates development and the variances the developer is seeking. "There are over a thousand trees that were surveyed," Marston said, adding that the survey measured "13,200 inches" of tree trunk and that "the developer plans to remove 11,247 of those inches," which he described as "equivalent to 937 feet laid side by side. That's over 3 football fields." He identified specimen trees listed for removal, including a 37‑inch American elm and multiple pecans.
Another speaker, Reginald Neely, warned the variances and possible rezoning would enable higher density that he said contradicts Rowlett's comprehensive plan and the city's long‑term vision. "Denying these variances sends a message that Rowlett values long term planning and responsible development practices," Neely said, urging council to require a plan that preserves the site's vegetation, lake adjacency, and neighborhood character.
The comments came during the citizens input portion of the meeting, when the council cannot act on items. City staff and council did not take final action on the variances during the recorded portion of this meeting; public commenters asked council to align any approvals with the comprehensive plan and to preserve mature trees.
What was said matters because Marston supplied quantitative details from a tree survey and described specific large trees slated for removal, while Neely framed the variance requests as a policy conflict with the city's comprehensive plan. The transcript does not show council action on the variances during this session; any developer requests for variances or rezoning will proceed through the city's formal review and public-notice processes before council votes.
Next steps: the matter remains in the public‑review process; commenters asked the council to reject variances or require a redesign that preserves significant trees and conforms to the comprehensive plan.
