Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Traffic Signal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves proportionate‑share agreement for traffic signal at WildBlue development after residents urge delay
Summary
Lee County approved a proportionate‑share agreement to fund a traffic signal at the Corkscrew Road entrance serving new development, despite residents and HOA representatives asking the board to remove the item because of litigation and questions over cost allocation.
Lee County commissioners approved a proportionate‑share agreement to fund a traffic signal at the Corkscrew Road entrance that will serve a new convenience/gas station development—after multiple residents from the WildBlue development asked the board to remove the item pending litigation and further cost review.
Residents and community leaders, including John Buckholz (WildBlue HOA vice president and CDD supervisor), told commissioners they had not been included in detailed discussions about the signal and said the county’s cost estimate — which one speaker said would be roughly $1.2–1.4 million — misallocated contributions among developers. "Please remove this item off the agenda, please. We have not been brought into the conversation about this traffic light," Buckholz said, adding that Lennar (the master developer) still owns substantial property and has told the community it will not contribute to the signal cost.
County staff responded that the 7‑Eleven development has a zoning condition requiring them to pay their proportionate share and that staff had negotiated an agreement so the project could move forward. Rob Price of DOT said GL Homes (the developer across the street) is cooperating on design and noted that collecting money from the 7‑Eleven now allows the county to move forward while staff continues to seek contributions from WildBlue/Lennar. "This issue is holding up their ability to develop the property, so we've worked out this agreement," Price said.
The board debated whether approval now would preempt ongoing litigation and whether the county should wait for other parties to the table. County counsel said the public meeting was not the venue to litigate zoning appeals and that the proportionate‑share agreement addresses traffic impacts. The consent agenda motion carried after discussion and public comments; the transcript records the chair saying "motion carries."
