Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brooksville council tables two large specimen-tree removal requests, asks developers for maps and engineers to return
Summary
Councilors delayed decisions on two contested specimen-tree removal requests tied to larger developments after residents and council asked for detailed topography, targeted tree-preservation maps, and engineering evidence; motions to table were approved while staff and applicants agreed to provide enlarged exhibits and answer technical questions.
The Brooksville City Council on February 2026 deferred decisions on two major specimen-tree removal requests after extended public comment and detailed questioning by council members.
Landmark Engineering (Todd Amadin) presented a request from HBWB Development covering roughly 440 acres; the application seeks removal of 119 specimen trees largely in areas proposed for floodplain compensation and stormwater ponds. Amadin said the project preserves large perimeter buffers and that most mass-tree removals occur at pond bottoms and compensation basins. Council members and members of the public pressed for clearer topographic exhibits, enlarged maps that call out particular specimen trees, and engineering justification for why certain tree clusters must be removed rather than relocated or redesignated. Several speakers said they had local examples (shopping-center tree wells, apartment-site plantings) where mature trees had been retained successfully and asked the developer to try similar approaches.
Separately, Stillwater Environmental (Steve Lumbert) presented background on a third applicant's site (CBD Real Estate Investments) and described anthropogenic wetlands and groundwater-mounding that complicate tree-preservation options; he said state water-management and FDOT permit requirements constrain alternatives and that mitigation had included contiguous forest set-asides, planting and mitigation payments.
After robust public comment and repeated council requests for more precise evidence about topography and targeted preservation, the council voted to table both the HBWB and the CBD-related requests and directed applicants to return with enlarged exhibits, topography, and engineers present to answer technical questions. Council members emphasized they want separate, easy-to-read maps showing (a) the final plat and (b) only the trees the applicant proposes to preserve so the council can clearly see the differential between proposed removals and proposed saves.
What happens next: Applicants agreed to meet with staff, prepare enlarged exhibits and targeted tree-preservation maps, and return to council with engineers and revised materials; the council set no new hearing date and left timing to staff coordination.
