Council approves small-scale comp plan change for Bonita Beach Road parcel; rezoning, marina and noise plans draw strong neighborhood opposition

The Bonita Springs City Council on Sept. 17 approved a small-scale amendment to the city’s future land use map that redesignates about 0.7 acres at 4752 Bonita Beach Road from medium-density multifamily residential to general commercial. The council voted to approve the comprehensive plan amendment on second reading.

Later in the meeting the council conducted a quasi-judicial hearing on a related rezoning request and a Commercial Planned Development (CPD) for approximately 5.07 acres fronting Bonita Beach Road. The rezoning would permit up to 23,717 square feet of commercial uses and as many as six multifamily dwelling units; the hearing included a staff presentation, an applicant presentation and more than a dozen public speakers. A final council vote on the rezoning was not recorded in the transcript excerpt.

Why it matters: The project is waterfront and involves changes to land use and zoning that could affect boat traffic, mangroves, canal hydraulics, noise levels and traffic on Bonita Beach Road. Residents who live along nearby canals voiced concerns about boat slips, wakes, noise from outdoor entertainment and flooding; applicants and staff described multiple concessions and proposed conditions intended to mitigate those impacts.

What staff and the applicant said: Mary Tornberg of Community Development told council that staff and the Local Planning Agency recommended approval of the comprehensive plan amendment and had edited several conditions on the rezoning since a prior hearing. Among staff-recommended provisions were: review of live/outdoor music at the development-order stage with a sound engineer study, parking to be reviewed at development order (staff said they had limited time to analyze a candidate alternate parking approach submitted by the applicant), and mandatory opaque buffering between commercial and residential properties (staff suggested the council could require a 42-inch knee wall in addition to plantings).

Applicant attorney Rich Yovanovitch summarized revisions made since first reading and said the project team reduced the number of marina slips and narrowed the hours and form of outdoor entertainment. Key applicant proposals and commitments described in the hearing included:

- Limiting outdoor entertainment to a single solo performer and requiring a sound engineer to specify speaker location and equipment; outdoor entertainment to end at 9 p.m. Sunday–Thursday and 10 p.m. Friday–Saturday. The applicant proposed a 1-year review triggered either by three valid complaints or one year, so the council could reassess the outdoor entertainment provision.
- Reducing private boat slips from an earlier 37 slip plan to 25 slips; eight slips were described as vested and any additional slips would require approval under the manatee protection plan.
- An alternative parking calculation for the restaurant that would reduce the on-site parking requirement from the city code’s 194 spaces to 105 spaces (with credit for eight boat slips); the applicant proposed a two-year test period with a requirement to implement valet operations or other remedies if the lesser parking provision proved insufficient. The project team also offered two eight-person shuttles for guest transport.

Public response and concerns: More than a dozen residents spoke at the hearing. Common themes in resident testimony were:

- Boat traffic and marina slips: Residents described the canal as narrow and shallow in places and warned that additional slips would create congestion, safety issues and wake damage to riprap and private bulkheads.
- Noise and outdoor entertainment: Neighbors said sound travels strongly across the water and that an outdoor performer—even a soloist—would cause noise impacts for households, early-morning workers and families with young children.
- Environmental and flooding concerns: Speakers asked about mangrove trimming and preservation, manatee protections and how added impervious surface would affect drainage and flood risk. Multiple residents urged the council to require demonstrable mitigation for stormwater impacts before permitting the project.
- Traffic and access: Speakers and one attorney representing an area restaurant noted potential traffic impacts on Bonita Beach Road and urged a thorough traffic analysis with Lee County review.

Council discussion: Several council members praised compromises between staff and applicant but expressed remaining reservations about the drive-through component, the adequacy of parking and the marina slips placed near residential docks. One council member suggested delaying final action on any parking deviations until staff had completed a thorough review; staff confirmed that parking language sent by the applicant had arrived late and had not been fully vetted. Council members discussed options such as removing certain slips that directly abut residential properties, requiring signage and adding stronger buffering requirements.

Action taken in the meeting: The council approved the comprehensive plan amendment (small-scale map change) by roll call vote. The transcript does not show a final vote on the rezoning/CPD; the hearing record shows staff presentation, applicant rebuttal, and extensive public comment, and the council took a 10–15 minute break before resuming deliberations.

Next steps: If the council proceeds with rezoning, staff indicated the final ordinance would incorporate the negotiated conditions and any additional council direction; the development-order phase would require more detailed submissions (parking plan, sound-engineering specs, manatee plan, stormwater design) that staff and the council said must meet code and state protections.

Who spoke for the project and who opposed it: The applicant team included attorney Rich Yovanovitch and property owners Mike and Tracy (last names not provided in the transcript). Community Development staff were led by Mary Tornberg. Speakers opposing the project included multiple nearby residents who identified themselves in the record, among them Ashley Oshalski, Jesse and Shanna Osovskiy, Todd Bradley, Gregory Hill, Arlen Bartling, Vicky DeMeo, Erin Steinbeck, Diane Miller, Sandy Kiesel, Tom Vanderlawn, and Martha Evans. Terry Lennick appeared as counsel for a nearby restaurant, Fish House, and urged more thorough traffic analysis by Lee County.

Representative quotes from the hearing: Applicant attorney Rich Yovanovitch said the project team had made concessions: "We reduced the hours of operation for the outdoor music... we reduced the number of boat slips..." Resident Ashley Oshalski testified, "This restaurant will be about 180 feet from my bedroom window. Meaning, I will be the person most affected by the noise and lights of this proposed development." Mary Tornberg (Community Development) summarized staff's view that parking should be reviewed at time of development order while noting the parking alternative submitted by the applicant had been received only recently.

Limitations: The transcript excerpt ends after an extended public-comment period and a procedural break; a final council decision on the rezoning/CPD (the quasi-judicial item) is not recorded in the provided text.