Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lee County hearing examiner hears rezoning request for Ted Allen property; staff recommends approval with conditions
Summary
A Lee County hearing examiner heard DCI 202500006 for 3640 SW Pine Island Road, where the owner seeks a Commercial Plan Development to allow contractors/builders uses and expansion to 3,000 sq ft. Staff recommended approval with conditions; the owner agreed to remove an existing billboard and to submit a revised master concept plan by the next business day.
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing examiner Amanda Rivera on Thursday heard a rezoning request (DCI 202500006) to convert 1.4 acres at 3640 Southwest Pine Island Road from agricultural to a Commercial Plan Development to allow contractors and builders group 1 and 2 uses and to permit future expansion of the existing 1,250‑square‑foot building to up to 3,000 square feet.
Brianna Schrader, a planner with Lee County Community Development, told the examiner that staff recommends approval "subject to the conditions" listed in staff materials. Schrader said the applicant provided a master concept plan that depicts required buffers and open space and that staff’s recommended conditions include abating active code enforcement violations, providing any required state wetland permits, and ensuring development stays within uplands.
Applicant representative Fred Droblec, AICP, said the current filing narrows the permitted uses from an earlier, broader proposal the Board of County Commissioners denied on March 8, 2023. Droblec described the revised plan as limited in intensity: it would allow small work trucks and administrative office use for a local roofing business rather than vehicle dealerships or large outdoor storage.
Schrader and Droblec both discussed open space and buffers. The master concept plan shown to the hearing examiner depicted roughly 57% of the site as open space (including buffers), while code requires 20% open space for projects of this size and the applicant offered to provide at least 30%. Staff said the master concept plan binds the applicant to the higher figure as "substantially consistent" with the MCP and recommended a condition to require the applicant to revise the plan to hatch the preserve area and state the preserve acreage.
Environmental staff noted roughly half the site is disturbed around the existing building while the south and southeast portions contain tidally influenced saltwater marsh and stands of Australian pine. Schrader said no protected species were identified on site and that a nearby bald eagle nest is outside the 660‑foot protection zone, but she reiterated that a formal wetland determination and any required state permits must be provided before development moves forward.
The record also included a discussion of an on‑site billboard in the northwest corner of the parcel. The applicant’s owner, Ted Allen, asked the county to allow the sign to remain, saying it has been on the property for decades and that removing it would be "a huge step back in value." County staff and natural resources personnel said the sign is not a lawful billboard under current rules and that keeping it without specific deviations would conflict with the MCP and buffer protections. Staff told the examiner that retaining it would require one or more formal deviations and additional review.
Faced with that regulatory uncertainty, owner Ted Allen said he would not pursue deviations and told the examiner, "I'll I'll let the sign go." The applicant agreed to remove the billboard as a condition of development and to submit a revised master concept plan that clearly hatches the preserve area by the end of the next business day; the examiner left the record open only for that update.
Staff also walked through outstanding code enforcement items tied to the property, including earlier violations for unpermitted restriping/paving, a fence permit application that received a rejection, and nuisance or open‑storage complaints. Schrader and the examiner urged the applicant to coordinate with code enforcement for reinspections to identify which violations have been abated before the Board considers the rezoning.
Schrader reminded the examiner that if a development order issues, the certificate of occupancy must be issued within 180 days of development order issuance or amendment (with a one‑time extension available under the code for specified circumstances). Droblec said the applicant expects the certificate of compliance portion to be straightforward but acknowledged the timeline for a full development order will be tight.
The hearing closed with the limited record left open only to accept the revised master concept plan showing the hatched preserve area. Staff said its record was complete otherwise and the matter will proceed to the Board of County Commissioners with staff’s recommendation and the conditions discussed at the hearing.

