Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables large HBWB development tree-removal request; asks for enlarged maps, topography and engineer attendance
Summary
Landmark Engineering presented a plan that would remove more than 100 specimen trees on a 440-acre subdivision; after extensive questioning and public comment the council tabled the item and directed the applicant to return with enlarged exhibits, topographical data, and clear tree‑save maps, and asked staff to coordinate a technical review.
Todd Amadon of Landmark Engineering presented a long‑running subdivision proposal on behalf of HBWB Development that would, in the firm’s estimate, require removal of a large number of specimen trees (the applicant cited roughly 119 specimen removals across 440 acres). Amadon said designers clustered lots and retained buffers where feasible, but that floodplain compensation, interconnected stormwater ponds and FDOT/Swiftmud permit requirements placed constraints on pond locations and grading.
Council members repeatedly asked for clearer scaled exhibits and topographical detail to explain why particular clusters of specimen trees fall within proposed pond/compensatory storage areas. Several panel maps (referred to during the discussion as the 4.x exhibits) were difficult to read at packet scale, prompting members to request blowups, high‑resolution topography layers and explicit notation of which specimen trees are on proposed lots versus in undisturbed buffers.
Residents urged preservation of the city’s live-oak canopy and asked the council to demand stronger tree‑save commitments. Staff (Steve Goldman) and the applicant agreed to provide additional analysis. After extended discussion, the council made a motion to table the request so the applicant could return with requested materials and for the project team (engineer, developer, landscape architect) to be present for the next hearing.
The motion to table passed 4-0; councilmembers emphasized they were open to preservation where engineering and regulation allowed but required clear, engineer-certified exhibits to document the need for removals.
