Lee County approves rezoning of 1.8-acre site on Daniels Parkway for commercial plan development amid Port Authority concerns

At the April 2 Lee County Zoning Hearing, the board considered a rezoning request to change a 1.8‑acre parcel from split commercial zoning to a Commercial Planned Development (CPD) so the property could be developed with a single, unified plan.

Tina Ekblad, principal and founder of Sage Entitlements, representing DPG Florida Shopping Centers, told the board the request would allow a 10,000‑square‑foot commercial development and that, per a real estate contract, Dollar Tree was the expected end user. Ekblad said the parcel currently contains split zoning (commercial tourist and general commercial), which imposes differing development rules and makes unified site development difficult. She described access arrangements: the site would connect to a frontage road to be constructed by an adjacent 7‑Eleven, and the parcels rely on cross‑access easements along private Rickenbacker Parkway. Ekblad said turn‑lane improvements or a traffic signal might be installed later through a proportionate fair‑share agreement covering the subdivision.

A Port Authority representative told the board they were notified too late to participate at the hearing before the hearing examiner and urged caution, saying the area across Daniels Parkway has planned, high‑end entertainment and commercial development (including JetBlue Stadium and approved Skyplex elements). The Port Authority representative expressed concern that a discount retailer in the corridor would be incompatible with the envisioned entertainment district and asked whether the case could be remanded to allow additional Port Authority participation in the hearing record.

The hearing examiner and county staff recommended approval. The county attorney advised the board that its decision must be based on competent, substantial evidence in the record and that to deny or remand the board would need an articulable basis tied to existing policies or code provisions; a remand to the hearing examiner for a narrowly written issue was an available procedural option.

Commissioners debated the trade‑offs. Some expressed sympathy for the Port Authority’s concerns about corridor character and compatibility with planned high‑end development across the street; others cautioned against "picking winners and losers" among lawful commercial uses and emphasized that the request leaves the parcel in a commercial use category with a robust schedule of allowed uses if the Dollar Tree contract fails. Board members discussed access, wetlands and adjacent uses (including a conservation parcel to the west, an approved 7‑Eleven to the east, and industrial and service businesses nearby).

A motion to approve the rezoning was made and seconded. The hearing record shows the hearing examiner’s recommendation and staff recommendation for approval and multiple commissioners placed their concerns on the public record; the board approved the rezoning at the April 2 hearing. Members discussed remand as a procedural option but did not direct a remand.