Lee County LPA considers Calusa 80 map amendment as residents warn of rural, wildlife impacts

The Lee County Local Planning Agency on April 27 heard more than two hours of technical presentations and public comment on a privately initiated future‑land‑use amendment known as Calusa 80 (CPA 2024‑00016), a request to redesignate about 92.71 acres of a 192.3‑acre site from rural to Sub‑Outlying Suburban and to add the whole site to Lee County Utilities’ water and sewer service maps.

Pat Neal, the applicant’s sponsor, and members of the applicant team told the panel the change is intended to allow density to be clustered across the full site, preserve more open space and wetlands and fund utility extensions without cost to taxpayers. “We have made a revision to delete our RV park and to create an affordable community for our Simply Dwell brand,” developer Pat Neal said, describing the shift from a prior RV‑resort concept to predominantly single‑family homes and a small neighborhood commercial node.

The applicant’s planning lead, Alexis Crespo, said the map change does not aim to increase maximum allowable density on the full property but would allow clustering across the site so units can be spread rather than concentrated on the urban portion. Crespo told the LPA the companion rezoning will request a maximum of 690 dwelling units under the MPD, while the map change alone could permit up to roughly 796 units under a strict reading of maximum future‑land‑use allowances. “By being able to spread the units out across site, we’re able to maintain an 80‑foot wide restoration area along Bateman Road,” Crespo said, adding the proposal provides “30% additional open space above and beyond the code requirements.”

Technical consultants presented engineering, water‑quality and transportation analyses. Jackie LaRocque (engineering) said the stormwater system will use interconnected ponds to treat runoff and that discharge points have not yet completed state permitting; the water and sewer extensions, she said, would be developer‑funded and letters of availability from Lee County Utilities were obtained. David Brown, the hydrogeologist, described a plan of six smaller basins with monitoring gauges and a five‑year sampling program and said the design reduces the need for private septic systems: “This approach is consistent with the DEP’s basin management action plan… and significantly reduces pollutant loading downstream,” he said. A traffic consultant estimated a worst‑case net increase of roughly 845 daily trips from full build‑out of maximum allowed units but said short‑term and long‑range plans would not require amendments based on the project’s analysis.

Staff recommended the map and table‑1B amendments be transmitted under Florida’s expedited review process. Kate Burgess, principal planner, told the panel the staff report found the amendment generally consistent with the Lee Plan and noted FGUA had provided a release letter allowing Lee County Utilities to serve the property. Burgess also said concurrency and service‑level analyses will be required during subsequent development review.

Several members of the public urged denial. Denise Eberle said the amendment “moves density into a rural area that was planned to remain low density” and warned the decision would set a precedent for further conversions. Ashley Randolph, representing the Brown Family Trust, raised wildlife concerns and said survey evidence shows the site supports more than the gopher tortoise the applicant reported: “We have extensive evidence of this land being an active breeding habitat for the endangered Florida panther,” she said, and warned of habitat fragmentation and increased vehicle collisions. Holly Schwartz, an Alva resident, called the utility extension “leapfrog development” that could open more rural land to conversion and expressed concern about groundwater impacts from irrigation tied to stormwater reuse. Debbie McEwen, a neighbor, recalled a prior sand‑mining proposal and said she opposed higher densities.

Applicant representatives and consultants responded that formal protected‑species surveys and permitting remain part of the regulatory process and that relocation permits and other state and federal approvals would be required if listed species were affected. The applicant emphasized developer‑funded utilities and mitigation measures meant to avoid forcing existing large‑lot landowners to connect to centralized systems.

The LPA debated whether the clustering and ecological benefits the applicant described outweighed concerns about encroaching on rural character. One panel member said the map change represented a significant 100% increase on the affected 92 acres and that he could not find the project consistent with the community‑plan goals protecting rural character; another member said the clustering approach offers meaningful water‑management and open‑space advantages for any development that occurs. A motion to recommend approval of CPA 2024‑00016 was made and seconded, but the hearing paused before a final recorded vote because a member was absent; the body did not record a final vote during the session.

If transmitted and later adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, the expedited state process requires one LPA hearing, two Board hearings and submission to state review between Board hearings. The LPA’s staff packet and the applicant’s submissions will provide the technical documentation required for subsequent concurrency, permitting and environmental reviews.

What happens next: the LPA motion, if finalized in a subsequent session, would transmit the amendment to the Board of County Commissioners for their hearings. Any required state permits for wetlands and listed species, and routing of utility extensions under Lee County Utilities procedures, will be evaluated during later stages of review.