Captiva community panel and county staff clash over South Seas MPD density, building‑height compliance

A contentious portion of Lee County’s Feb. 20 hearing focused on whether the South Seas Mixed‑Use Plan Development (MPD) conforms to the Captiva Community Plan and the county’s Land Development Code. The applicant’s planner and county staff said the petition — which would rezone about 120.5 acres to allow up to 193 multi‑family dwelling units and 435 hotel rooms with a maximum building height of 45 feet as measured under the Land Development Code — satisfies applicable standards when conditioned. Neighbors and civic groups countered that the petition would breach the historic, low‑density development pattern the Captiva plan requires.

Why it matters: The disagreement turns on long‑standing density allocations and how the county and courts have treated an administrative interpretation (ADD) and earlier zoning approvals for South Seas. A change in the MPD could alter how many units are allowed island‑wide and set precedents for building heights on the barrier island.

What the applicant and staff told the examiner

- Alexis Crespo (RVI, planning consultant for the applicant) presented the MPD as a redevelopment that reduces overall residential units compared with older administrative allowances while increasing hotel room counts in specified hotel tracts; she said the proposal protects wetlands, meets stormwater and resilient‑construction requirements, and adds sea‑turtle‑lighting protections beyond code. “It is in my professional opinion as a certified land use planner that the South Seas Mixed Use Plan Development has met or exceeded all of the applicable standards requirements of the Lee Plan as well as the Lee County Land Development Code,” Crespo testified. - Adam Mendez, principal planner for Lee County staff, reviewed the zoning history and current conditions and recommended approval with a range of conditions and deviations. Staff’s recommended conditions include perimeter setbacks tied to building height, limitations on public access to formerly public commercial tracts (which the MPD would convert to resort‑exclusive amenities), protections for listed species, and distribution requirements to avoid placing all new units on a single tract. Mendez explained staff considered the administrative interpretation as an appropriate starting point and concluded the mixed uses, as conditioned, would be compatible on the site.

Public opposition and legal context

- David Mintz, president of the Captiva Community Panel (and representing other island groups), argued the island’s historic development pattern is fixed by an early PUD concept plan, an administrative interpretation (ADD 2002‑000098) and a 2003 settlement that he said the circuit court upheld. He told the hearing examiner the community believes the island‑wide density limit and the South Seas allocations should restrict any net increase that would let the applicant move from the allotted 272 units to the 628 units represented by the MPD’s hotel + condo math. Mintz repeatedly invoked Goal 23 and Policy 23.2.4 (the “historic development pattern” policy) as the governing standard and said approval would violate that policy. - Owners and managers within South Seas, including Ken Suarez, testified about resort character, circulation constraints and parking enforcement limits inside the resort. The Captiva Fire District provided a letter (in the record) expressing concern that taller structures would require different ladder and rescue equipment, potentially imposing capital costs on the district and island property owners.

The building‑height and density specifics

- Existing local rules historically limited heights on Captiva to the lesser of 35 feet above grade or 42 feet above sea level, or a lower standard tied to FEMA base‑flood elevations in some places. The applicant requests a 45‑foot maximum measured under the Land Development Code and seeks deviations for several development standards; staff’s conditions accept some deviations while proposing greater setbacks for portions of taller buildings that face Captiva Drive. - The applicant proposes 193 multifamily units and 435 hotel rooms in the MPD area. Staff’s review materials and public testimony referenced the resort’s longer history: a 1973 zoning approval that established a PUD concept plan, a 1982 county ordinance that set density expectations island‑wide, an administrative interpretation that allocated 912 units across the whole resort, and later amendments and administrative amendments that reallocated units among tracts but did not increase the 912 cap.

Next steps and outstanding items

The hearing examiner signaled that the record will stay open for supplemental materials and that staff and the applicant should clarify outstanding deviations, buffering/native‑plant requirements, and whether transportation analyses reflected the conversion of previously public facilities to resort‑exclusive amenities. No formal vote was taken at the hearing; the examiner will prepare a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners after closing the record.