Application 930235 / ERP 47575.002
Incomplete as of August 21, 2026. Applicant RAI clock: September 14, 2026. That date is the applicant’s deadline, not a public hearing.
Read current statusCampaign position, not an agency finding
The golf course can disappear in more than one way
Save Tarpon Woods opposes the Brooker Creek Mitigation Bank, opposes moving the historical 320 units onto this landscape, and opposes 320-unit housing here. The official file is still incomplete. Incomplete is not protection.
Campaign position, not an agency finding. Neighbors are not choosing between “a nice conservation project” and “the course we have.” If this application is permitted, Tarpon Woods stops being a golf course and becomes a private wetland-credit site. If it is denied or withdrawn, the owner is not required to keep a golf course open. The 320-unit County number did not vanish. The applicant’s own public site has already told neighbors that opposition does not freeze the land as a course. That is why waiting for a hearing date is how a neighborhood loses a landscape.
Official record facts
Application 889588 / ERP 47575.000
Withdrawn in December 2024 after a design that described hydrologic restoration, pond-to-marsh work, and fencing.
Compare the earthwork recordsThe historical 320-unit number
A 2009 County letter placed the number on Ridgemoor Tract 8. A 2024 County overview said the golf-course folio had zero density and described two approvals a transfer would require; no action had been taken. Folio 110-0400 is Parcel 3, about 28.11 acres, inside the proposed bank on C-1.
Read the density recordProject conservation easement
No recorded project conservation easement was identified in the reviewed record as of August 21, 2026.
See how easements and credits workThe paths residents must watch
Three doors. None of them is “the course stays by default.”
Campaign position, not an agency finding. A state bank permit does not rezone land. A County density transfer does not sell wetland credits. They can still happen in sequence. Residents who only fight the bank, or only fight housing, can still lose the landscape.
Worst case if the permit issues
Door A: The bank is permitted
The course closes. Neighbors do not get a park.
Campaign position, not an agency finding. A mitigation bank is a credit factory. Credits are sold so wetlands somewhere else can be filled. The land is managed to make those credits. It is not a county park, not a public golf course, and not a promise of trails. Fencing, “site security,” hydrologic work, and years of management are ordinary bank tools. Application 930235 is still incomplete, so the public does not have a final drawing set. The withdrawn 2024 file described pond-to-marsh conversion and hydrologic restoration — not planting pots on an untouched fairway.
- What would have to be true in the record
- SWFWMD issues 47575.002; a conservation easement is recorded on the final legal description; financial assurances are posted; and credits are awarded and released in stages. For permits issued after July 1, 2025, Florida law can release about 30% of credits when the easement is recorded and assurances are in. Read the statute context.
- What residents live with
- Golf gone; construction and management next to homes; possible flooding or water-table change depending on final hydrology (not established); wildlife displacement during conversion; no public 18-hole landscape; and credits leaving the neighborhood to offset destruction elsewhere.
- What this would not prove
- That water quality in Lake Tarpon improves as advertised; that fencing stays “minimal”; that every acre residents think of as “the course” is inside the easement; or that the 320-unit number is retired.
- Watch
- Staff report, intended agency action, final C-1 and exhibits versus the 172.59 / 168.40 / 172.46 figures, conservation-easement legal, clubhouse/parking carve-out (about 2.43 acres), and Parcel 3.
Worst case if the bank is denied or withdrawn again
Door B: The bank dies, housing is filed
Denial does not keep a golf course open.
Campaign position, not an agency finding. SWFWMD cannot force this owner to operate Tarpon Woods Golf Club. Application 889588 already withdrew once. The conservation site has told the public that if the bank is opposed, the land is not guaranteed as a course. The 320-unit figure is a real 2009 County-document number. The 2024 County overview already wrote the two local approvals needed to try to put those units on the golf-course folio. Folio 110-0400 — the adjoining tract those units have been associated with — is floodway-constrained and is drawn as Parcel 3 inside the proposed bank. If a bank easement covers Parcel 3, the pressure to “use” 320 units moves onto golf-course upland outside the easement, or onto a later County fight. That fight has not been filed. Unfiled is not impossible.
- What would have to be true in the record
- 930235 denied or withdrawn; a later Pinellas master-plan modification and FLUM amendment from Recreation/Open Space toward residential; then site plan, floodplain, traffic, and drainage review. DRM-24-00066 on July 1, 2024 was a pre-application, not an approval.
- What residents live with
- Multi-year construction; tree and canopy loss; traffic on Ridgemoor, East Lake, and local streets; floodplain and Brooker Creek questions; school and service load; permanent loss of the course landscape; and quality-of-life change.
- What this would not prove
- That 320 units are vested, buildable, or approved today. They are not.
- Watch
- Accela, DRC, and BCC records; FLUM; master-plan modification; and any new SWFWMD construction ERP for housing.
Worst case if the tracks are combined
Door C: Both, in sequence
Credits first. Leftover land later. The course still dies.
Campaign position, not an agency finding. This is the combination neighbors should refuse to treat as a conspiracy theory and refuse to treat as impossible. The bank can lock wet and restored land under a conservation easement and sell credits. Land outside that easement — clubhouse, parking, or any upland the final exhibit drops — remains a County question. Rule 62-342.800 also lets a banker seek to surrender a permit or phase if no credits have been used. No recorded easement plus unused credits is a different legal bucket from credits already sold to offset someone else’s wetland impact. The public cannot see which bucket this project is in, because there is no permit, no credit ledger, and no recorded project easement.
- What would have to be true
- A bank permit and easement that do not cover every acre residents call Tarpon Woods; later a County density-transfer filing on the remainder; surrender or modification of unused-credit land; or a smaller bank than the “172 acres” FAQ.
- What residents live with
- A fenced credit site in the backyard and a housing fight on the remainder, or a second fight years later when the neighborhood is tired.
- What this would not prove
- That the applicant has filed this plan. They have not. The conservation FAQ says 320 units “will not proceed under the mitigation bank plan” and no homes “within the Restoration and Mitigation Bank area.” Those are scoped sentences, not a neighborhood-wide housing prohibition.
- Watch
- Final easement exhibit versus Parcel 3, clubhouse carve-out, and the 146.91 + 28.11 tax-acre figures. Read Paths 3, 4, 5, and 7.
Why the developer website is not the permit
Campaign position, not an agency finding. Public website promises must be tested against the actual application, staff review, final exhibits, and recorded instruments.
1. “No earthwork”
Confirmed only as an owner statement
The withdrawn 889588 file described hydrologic restoration. Application 930235 remains incomplete.
Compare the records2. Easement “at the beginning”
Not established in reviewed record
No recorded project conservation easement was found. The approximately 30% credit release is tied to recordation after a permit exists.
Read the decision sequence3. “320 units allocated within the property”
Partially supported
That statement is broader than the 2009 Tract 8 letter and the 2024 overview. Parcel 3 is inside the proposed bank.
Read the County record comparison4. “No homes within the bank area”
Confirmed only as an owner statement
The qualifier is the bank area—not the entire course, clubhouse, or land a later easement omits. Kyle Parks’s 2024 television statement used broader “property” wording. Both are owner-side statements.
Compare the public claimsWhy “incomplete” is dangerous for residents, not comforting
Campaign position, not an agency finding. Incomplete means the applicant has not finished answering SWFWMD. It does not freeze the land. It does not lock a golf-course operator in place. It does not retire 320 units. It does mean neighbors cannot verify earthwork, fence lines, pond conversion, or Parcel 3 control from a FAQ. September 14, 2026 is when the District said it will process for denial if the RAI is unanswered—unless another extension is granted. Extensions have already been granted. Do not confuse an applicant clock with a public hearing.
Why we will not take the FAQ on trust
What we are asking you to do this week
Campaign position, not an agency finding. Act from the verified record now, before a staff report, intended agency action, or separate County filing appears.
- Join alertsHear about the staff report, not a social-media rumor.Join Alerts
- Send a SWFWMD commentReference Application 930235 / ERP 47575.002 and ask that first-hand facts be placed in the file.Write SWFWMD
- Write County officialsAsk for no density transfer, no FLUM change from Recreation/Open Space, and public notice if any housing filing appears. Do not invent an application that has not been filed.Official County channels
- Read before you speakUse the named-person roster and application comparison rather than a meme.Who Is InvolvedApplications
- Submit dated evidenceShare photos, flooding observations, wildlife, and public-record leads privately for review.Submit EvidenceReport Flooding
Sample comment
Optional copy-and-paste starting point. Not legal advice. Edit it so it truthfully reflects your own relationship and knowledge.
I am a [resident/neighbor] of Tarpon Woods / Ridgemoor. Please associate this comment with Brooker Creek Mitigation Bank, Application 930235, ERP 47575.002. The current file is incomplete. The withdrawn 2024 file described hydrologic restoration, not a no-earthwork plan. Folio 110-0400 is Parcel 3 inside the proposed bank. A state bank permit would not keep a public golf course and would not retire County density questions on land outside a future easement. I ask SWFWMD not to treat the applicant website as the permitted plan, and to deny or require a complete, public design before any intended agency action.
Evidence boundary
What we are not claiming
- We are not claiming Application 930235 is approved or that 320 homes are approved, vested, or inevitable.
- We are not claiming the applicant has filed Door C.
- We are not claiming WHOIS unmasked the owners.
- We are not claiming any named person committed misconduct. Who Is Involved is a roster, not a charge sheet.
- We are not claiming denial preserves the golf course.
- We are not claiming a recorded easement would be worthless. It would lock whatever land it actually describes.
- This page is not legal advice.
Last verifiedRecheck live agency and County records before relying on time-sensitive status.