Neighbors packed the meeting Dec. 15 and urged the Tuscaloosa Planning & Zoning Commission to deny a rezoning that would allow a 108‑lot subdivision near Woodland Forest.

Staff described the companion items — Z2625, rezoning roughly 60 acres from single‑family detached (SFR‑1) to SFR‑3, and S125, a preliminary plat for what the petitioner identified as Golden Forest Glen (107 single‑family lots and three open‑space lots on ~107.3 acres) (staff presentation, SEG 975–1006). Tom Sims of Longleaf Engineering said prior water‑capacity issues that had delayed an earlier submittal were resolved and that the developer proposed homes of about 1,500 to 2,300 square feet, with an average lot size near 10,000 square feet (petitioner remarks, SEG 1085–1210).

Public comment was extensive. James Phillips of Woodland Forest said the project would "materially change the character" of the neighborhood and that removing trees and adding impervious surfaces could increase runoff into the adjacent flood zone (public comment, SEG 1266–1288). Larry Murphy and other speakers from Chestnut Street warned that the subdivision’s two entrance points would push more than 200 daily additional vehicles onto their street, which lacks sidewalks and already serves school traffic (public comment, SEG 1368–1400). Several speakers raised property‑value and developer‑reputation concerns; one speaker cited litigation history reported about the proposed builder (public comment, SEG 1368–1426). The Woodland Forest Homeowners Association representative asked the commission to respect the framework plan and keep the land single‑family (public comment, SEG 1560–1613).

Petitioners and their representatives responded that wetlands and floodway areas are shown on the plans and will be preserved, that retention/detention will be provided and reviewed by city engineering, and that Skipper Consulting’s traffic study found acceptable levels of service under build‑out (petitioner responses, SEG 1626–1748). Mason Lake, representing the development team, said the homes were planned as for‑sale housing ("not gonna be a rental community") and estimated build prices based on roughly $175 per square foot (SEG 1668–1684).

City engineering explained the development review process, noting that designers must show post‑development runoff will not increase net flow downstream and that the city requires hydraulic analysis during land‑development permitting; a downstream property owner harmed by increased runoff would pursue civil remedies against the responsible design or development entity (engineering explanation, SEG 1846–1909).

Commissioners debated whether the jump from SFR‑1 to SFR‑3 was justified in this location, particularly where existing lots in Woodland Forest are larger. Several commissioners said they were not comfortable recommending the rezoning without more precise information about lot configurations and impacts. On roll call the commission recorded multiple 'no' votes and the minutes show the body recommending denial of the rezoning to City Council (commission discussion and roll call, SEG 2016–2052). The commission then considered the subdivision S125 separately and recorded a split vote after adding plat notes and discussion about private‑road maintenance and other requirements (SEG 2056–2086).

What happens next: Because the rezoning is a recommendation to council, the Council will consider Z2625. Subdivision S125 outcomes and any conditions will be reflected in the permit record and plat if pursued further.