Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DRC denies Serenity at Tower Oaks plan after staff cites tree‑code hierarchy and failure to preserve rated heritage live oak
Summary
The Alachua County DRC denied the preliminary and final development plan for Serenity at Tower Oaks, citing inconsistency with the county conservation/open‑space policy and tree‑code hierarchy after staff and the county forester identified a heritage live oak (Tree 950, 35 inches) recommended for preservation.
The Alachua County Development Review Committee voted June 18 to deny the preliminary and final development plan for Serenity at Tower Oaks, a 20‑lot single‑family subdivision proposed on approximately 5 acres within the Pine Glade planned development.
Planner Jacob Sal told the committee that the proposal, while providing open space and required subdivision elements, was not consistent with the conservation and open space element (policy 4.11.2) and the Unified Land Development Code hierarchy described in section 406.14(c). Senior forester Andrew Cadiglia testified that Tree 950, a live oak measured at about 35 inches and rated a 4 under the county’s rating system, was in good health and merited priority preservation under the code’s tree‑preservation hierarchy. Cadiglia described the rating process and listed canopy density and structural factors that led to the heritage designation.
Applicant representative Sergio Reyes said the project exceeds the 20% open‑space requirement and exceeds canopy requirements stated in the application materials and that the owner did not intend to preserve the tree. Public commenter Bridal Buganum urged the committee to allow mitigation rather than removal, arguing that the small project could lose a lot and that the code provides mitigation options that should be considered.
Development Review Manager Christine Barris and other staff clarified that the current code prioritizes preservation of higher‑rated trees (landmark and champion categories) and treats heritage trees according to the hierarchy for canopy preservation; mitigation is available for some categories but the hierarchy governs which trees must be prioritized for retention. After discussion, a committee member moved to deny the application; the motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.
The denial was based on the staff finding that the plan is not consistent with the conservation and open‑space policies and the tree‑code hierarchy in the Unified Land Development Code. The committee’s action terminates the application before it would advance to the Board of County Commissioners.
