The current file is incomplete. Earlier files on the same parcels show what was asked for before. A withdrawn file is not an approval, and it is not proof the next file is identical — or different.
Incomplete is not secretly approved and not already dead. It means the public does not yet have a complete plan to test against the developer FAQ.
Permit numbers can identify a family of related records, while application numbers identify particular filings. Keep each file’s date, request, and status attached to that file.
Applications 49674 and later 757974. Estates at Brooker Creek, beginning in the 2002-era record. This is neighborhood/construction history, not the 2024–2026 mitigation-bank file.
Open the 2009 official-record export (opens in a new tab)Received March 1, 2024. The applicant’s withdrawal was effective December 6, 2024; SWFWMD’s acknowledgment is dated December 11, 2024.
Open the SWFWMD viewer (opens in a new tab)The reviewed material references this related identifier, but the local record is too thin for a full narrative. This page does not fill that gap with assumptions.
Open the SWFWMD viewer (opens in a new tab)Individual Brooker Creek Mitigation Bank application received November 14, 2025. The live record remained Incomplete on August 21, 2026.
Open the SWFWMD viewer (opens in a new tab)On a phone, each table row becomes a labeled record card. Every limitation stays with the fact it qualifies.
| Identifier | Years | What was asked | Status | Earthwork/hydrology in THAT file | Residential/density notations | Title questions the District asked | What it does not prove |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Permit 24257 familyApps 49674 and later 757974 | 2002-era construction ERP; later record includes a July 30, 2009 County letter. | Estates at Brooker Creek construction ERP on the Ridgemoor / Wescott Square neighborhood-east tract. | Supported by a dated historical document Historical neighborhood application family. |
A construction-ERP context for the neighborhood-east tract. Its construction history must not be relabeled as the design of a later mitigation bank. | The 2009 Navaroli letter says 80 units had been built in Wescott Square under SP #2002.011, with the plat recorded March 12, 1985, and that 320 of an original 400-unit limitation remained on Tract 8 within an approximately 59.20-acre deed area. Folio 34-27-16-00000-110-0400 is the current approximately 28.11-acre remainder; its legal description matches Master Site Plan Parcel 3. Open the official export. | No mitigation-bank title RAI is attributed to this row. The cited material supplies historical parcel, plan, plat, and density context only. | Limitation: The 2002 neighborhood ERP is not the 2024–2026 bank. It explains why “320” exists as a County-document number; it does not establish present approval, vesting, transferability, or a current housing application. |
| Application 889588Permit 47575.000 | Received March 1, 2024; withdrawal effective December 6, 2024; District acknowledgment dated December 11, 2024. | Conceptual approval of the Brooker Creek Mitigation Bank. The February 27, 2024 C-1 sheet by 5M Civil, signed by Merly, P.E. 58113, Rev. A, describes a 172.59-acre survey bank; the application narrative describes a 168.40-acre bank. | Supported by a dated historical document Withdrawn/deleted. FWC issued no comments in October 2024. |
The file described pond-to-marsh conversion, hydrologic restoration, seasonal-high-water-table work, ditch/berm features, vegetation work, cart-path removal, and fencing. It was not described as planting-only. | The C-1 plan identifies Parcel 3—the legal description corresponding to folio 110-0400—and labels areas “POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.” Section G proposed a conservation easement over the entire 168.40-acre bank, including “removing the potential of platted development” in upland pine flatwood habitat. The target upland was approximately 88.46 acres under FLUCCS 411/434. | The August 28, 2024 RAI from Dasta and Hughes to Merly said the project extended onto folio 110-0400, then described as Foundation-owned, and that a co-permittee might be required. It also asked the applicant to remove redevelopment labels if no redevelopment was proposed with the conceptual bank. | Limitation: Withdrawal is not a merits denial, does not freeze the design, and does not show that every feature survived into Application 930235. |
| Application 907654Permit 47575 | Related application identifier referenced in the reviewed material; chronology not expanded on this page. | The available local record is too thin to describe the complete request safely. Open the live viewer. | Not established in reviewed record No fuller status narrative is asserted here. |
Not characterized on this page. | Not characterized on this page. | Not characterized on this page. | Limitation: A related identifier is not a basis for importing the facts, drawings, status, or conclusions of Applications 889588 or 930235. |
| Application 930235Permit 47575.002 | Received November 14, 2025; live status checked August 21, 2026. | Individual mitigation-bank authorization under the same project name and the 47575 permit family. | Confirmed by current official record Incomplete on August 21, 2026. The live tracking screen showed engineer BOYLE STEPHEN T and environmental scientist HUGHES LEE W; no public document was listed after the August 18 extension approval. |
The applicant’s separate conservation website says no earthwork, a conservation easement at the beginning, a 2026 start, and one to two years of planting. Those are owner/proponent statements, not a permitted plan. Earthwork, fences, ponds, and the final restoration design remain open questions while the agency file is incomplete. Read the attributed owner page. | No complete current response establishes how earlier residential labels, Parcel 3, bank boundaries, or the conservation-easement legal description are finally treated. | The December 14, 2025 RAI contained 18 items and again requested deed, ownership, legal-interest, and title material. Applicant correspondence dated August 14, 2026 said the revised title commitment had “just” been received and a complete RAI response was expected the next week. SWFWMD approved an extension on August 18 through September 14, 2026. | Limitation: Because the file is incomplete, the FAQ is not the permitted plan. Earthwork, fences, ponds, conservation-easement legal terms, and Parcel 3 control remain open until a complete RAI response and staff review exist. |
A later application can change earthwork, boundaries, credits, and labels — or keep them. The only way to know is the complete 930235 response. Application 889588 is the last complete-enough public design.
Where 930235 is silent, do not assume the old design died and do not assume it survived.
The public-facing promise and the withdrawn technical file do not describe the work the same way. The current agency file is not complete enough to resolve the difference.
The site describes planting and exotic-species removal and says there is “no earthwork associated” with the project.
Limitation: The conservation site is not an SWFWMD permit, staff report, or approval.
The earlier design described hydrologic restoration, pond/marsh conversion, seasonal-high-water-table analysis, ditch/berm features, vegetation work, and fencing—not planting alone.
Limitation: A withdrawn design does not prove those details remain in the current application.
The current file remained incomplete on August 21, 2026. The missing complete RAI response and later staff review are needed to determine the final technical scope.
Limitation: “Incomplete” is not an agency finding that there will—or will not—be earthwork.
Creation and enhancement of wetland habitat commonly involve grading, excavation, filling, or other soil movement; preservation-only projects can be closer to “no earthwork.” This proposal is publicly described as restoration of a golf course, not preservation of an intact marsh.
Important limitation: That is a general technical distinction, not a finding that Chapter 62-342 requires earthwork on this site. The final answer depends on the complete plans, cross-sections, hydrologic design, conservation-easement exhibits, and agency review for Application 930235.
We are not claiming that the withdrawn design governs Application 930235; that the current “no earthwork” statement has been disproved or accepted by SWFWMD; that Application 907654 supplies a narrative not shown in its record; that “320 units” are approved, vested, transferable, or inevitable; that Parcel 3 is outside the proposed bank; that title or conservation-easement authority is legally resolved; or that the current application will be approved or denied.
