Checking the hazard reason on Leesburg’s tree-removal form is not the same as obtaining the professional assessment described by Florida law. One explains why removal is requested; the other must satisfy specific statutory conditions.
The City’s forms library now links a one-page download. Use that actual link rather than an old copy returned by search: the former two-page PDF address returned 404 when checked.
Explain the conflict, not just the preferred outcome
The form offers reasons involving street opening, utilities and drainage, access, use of the property, hazards, location and poor tree health, plus an Other entry. Several overlap. The useful distinction is what the tree interferes with and why the proposed layout cannot reasonably preserve it, where relevant to the selected reason—not how many boxes can be checked.
LSL’s hypothetical example: a proposed driveway would pass through Tree A. That is initially an access/layout question, not evidence that the tree is dangerous. On an existing plan, identify Tree A and the proposed entrance; describe any alternative entrance or alignment considered and the actual constraint on it. The City’s property-access reason calls for minimizing tree loss, so a statement that removal is simply preferred does not explain the design conflict.
A working explanation might be: “Tree A overlaps the proposed entrance shown on the attached sketch. The alternative alignment shown as B is constrained by [describe the real condition]. Please advise what information is needed to review this access proposal.” The labels, sketch and wording are LSL’s optional preparation method, not additional City-mandated form fields. Do not invent an obstacle or conclude that the hypothetical proposal qualifies for approval.
If the concern is instead suspected decay or instability, do not substitute that driveway explanation for a professional assessment. Keep people away from an apparently hazardous tree; use existing plans or safely available records rather than approaching it to collect measurements.
The form’s short statutory sentence is incomplete
The form includes an abbreviated sentence about professional documentation and asks that it be submitted to Planning and Zoning. Read the complete current Section 163.045, not only that sentence. It defines qualifying residential property and signed onsite professional documentation, and requires the specified unacceptable-risk finding. Removal must be the only practical means of reducing risk below moderate under its named assessment procedures.
When the section’s conditions are met, it restricts local notice, application, approval, permit, fee and mitigation requirements and required replanting; its mangrove-authority limitation remains. LSL does not convert the form’s submission request into an unconditional legal obligation, determine an owner’s eligibility or resolve a disputed City requirement. Ask for the basis of a disputed requirement and obtain qualified legal advice where needed.
Do not carry an old attachment checklist into a new form
The linked one-page PDF has owner/contact information, a signature and the removal reasons. It does not contain the old PDF’s second-page attachment checklist. That absence does not prove the City will never request supporting material; ask Planning and Zoning which current instructions apply to the actual proposal.
Sources checked September 12, 2026. LSL compared the linked download with the older record, visually checked text missing from PDF extraction, read the complete statute and developed the hypothetical example. We did not inspect a tree, submit a permit or obtain a property-specific ruling.