Remand hearing for Southeast Water Reclamation Facility approved despite petitioners' legal and environmental objections
Loading...
Summary
After a court-ordered remand, the board approved a rezoning for a proposed Southeast Water Reclamation Facility (DCI 202300011) to allow an advanced treatment plant on about 112 acres; petitioners raised alleged procedural due-process defects, ongoing construction and environmental and aviation-safety concerns, which county counsel said would be addressed through the record and appeals process.
The Lee County Board of Commissioners approved the hearing examiner's remand recommendation for the proposed Southeast Water Reclamation Facility, a rezoning of about 112 acres from agricultural (AG2) to community facilities planned development, after an extended public record featuring legal and technical objections.
Anthony Rodriguez of the zoning section summarized the remand case (DCI 202300011), noting the board previously remanded the matter following a circuit-court order (Spahn et al v. Lee County) and that the hearing examiner had issued an updated recommendation of approval subject to conditions and deviations. County staff and the applicant were present, and counsel asked that any board motion be based solely on competent, substantial evidence in the record.
Petitioner Marsha Ellis told the board she was bringing historical evidence back to the record dating to 2017 and alleged legal inconsistencies, improper withholding of exhibits and continued construction she said "defied" a judge's order. Ellis urged the board to deny the rezoning on due-process grounds.
Several supporters, including Derek Felder and Neil Montgomery, urged the board to uphold the hearing examiner's recommendation and argued the county complied with statutory planning obligations. Petitioner Peter Spahn described the parcel's hydrological history and alleged selective use of monitoring data by the county.
Serge Thomas, a professor and water-quality expert at Florida Gulf Coast University's Water School, raised technical objections, saying a Jacobs engineering report found effluent would be intentionally released into surrounding wetlands in a way that could exceed total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for nitrogen and introduce contaminants such as PFAS and endocrine disruptors. He also warned wetland saturation could increase bird use near flight paths, creating an aviation safety risk.
County counsel responded that the remand hearing was limited to the three issues specified by the court, that notice was adequate, and that the court order did not include a stop-work injunction; counsel noted construction was continuing and that appeals of court orders were pending. Counsel advised the board to base any action solely on the competent evidence in the record. A commissioner moved to adopt the hearing examiner's recommendation on that basis; the motion was seconded, no objections were recorded, and the motion carried.
The approval resolves the remand at the land-use stage but does not foreclose judicial challenges; staff and counsel indicated related appeals and potential circuit-court challenges could follow. The project will proceed to development-stage review and any required environmental permitting.
