Applicant offers tighter setbacks, capacity limits and sound‑mitigation in Lee County kennel variance rebuttal

Lee County hearing examiner Amanda Rivera presided over the second day of a quasi‑judicial hearing on April 17, 2026, at which the applicant, Guardians of Florida Animal Rescue, presented a revised site plan and a set of legally binding conditions intended to address neighbors’ concerns about noise, safety and operations.

Attorney Lowell Davies, speaking for the applicant, said the revisions respond to testimony presented at a February hearing and include a reduced variance request that sets the closest outdoor‑kennel perimeter at 145 feet from neighboring boundaries, clustering kennel buildings toward the site center, fully enclosing outdoor exercise areas with a 6‑foot sound‑mitigating fence, and other operational limits. “We have made meaningful revisions and we’re looking forward to sharing those with you today,” Davies said during his rebuttal presentation.

Why it matters: Neighbors testified in February that the proposed facility could generate disruptive noise and traffic. The applicant’s package attempts to replace broad public concerns with specific, enforceable limits and construction standards intended to reduce sound transmission and site traffic.

What the applicant proposed

- Setback and site layout: Davies said the applicant revised its setback request from 100 feet (previously proposed) to a 145‑foot minimum at the closest points and clustered three kennel wings toward the interior so sound would be funneled away from nearby homes. He said other measurement points on the site reach 153–160 feet depending on the perimeter point measured.

- Sound mitigation and fencing: The outdoor runs will be fully enclosed by a 6‑ft opaque fence using a sound‑attenuating product; Davies and staff referenced a vendor spec for “AIL sound walls” (or an equivalent meeting the attached specification) to be included at time of local development order.

- Operational limits: The applicant proposed adoption activity by appointment only, limited to five appointments per day, with operating hours later clarified as 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.; no dogs exercised in fenced outdoor areas from dusk to dawn; each outdoor exercise yard limited to three adult dogs at one time; a facility cap of 40 kennels with a maximum of two adult dogs per kennel; and a requirement that someone be on site 24/7. Counsel said these conditions would be legally recorded to run with the land and bind successor owners or operators.

- Use clarification: Counsel withdrew any request for an on‑site animal clinic and said that veterinary procedures would occur off site; the on‑site building at the southwest corner is intended for quarantine or recovery only.

Evidence and legal framing

Davies urged the hearing examiner to weigh expert testimony and local government staff recommendations more heavily than lay public testimony, citing Florida administrative‑law standards and case law. Reading from precedent, he summarized the parties’ positions that “lay witnesses’ speculation about potential traffic problems, light and noise pollution, and general unfavorable impacts of a proposed land use are not, however, considered competent substantial evidence.” He offered to provide case citations to the examiner post‑hearing.

Staff response and next steps

Cam Mohammed, planner in Lee County’s zoning section, presented a revised staff condition sheet that reflects many applicant edits: condition wording to limit approval to kennel use (with the word “clinic” removed per the applicant’s request), a corrected site‑plan date, and a requirement that plans depict an opaque fence or wall with the specified sound‑attenuating material (AIL sound walls or equivalent) at the time of local development order. Mohammed said staff’s review of the revised plan did not change the findings in the staff report and that staff remains willing to work with the applicant toward final, joint conditions.

Hearing examiner Rivera accepted the applicant’s revised site plan and the parties’ proposed condition materials into the record as exhibits and set a deadline of May 1 for a joint final proposed conditions filing; she said the record will close when she receives that submission and that she will issue a final decision after her review.

Claims and disputes recorded in the hearing

- Neighbors had argued the facility could generate significant nighttime barking, traffic and safety risks; the applicant disputed those characterizations and proposed specific operations limits to address them (for example, “That is not going to be the case here,” Davies said regarding claims of “hundreds of barking dogs”).

- Applicant counsel argued that much public testimony should be weighed as less persuasive than expert evidence and staff recommendations under the applicable administrative standard; he cited case law to that effect and agreed to submit citations post‑hearing.

What remains unresolved

No final administrative decision was issued at the hearing. The examiner gave parties up to two weeks to submit a joint, codified set of final conditions (deadline May 1), asked for a strike‑through/underline comparison where changes exist, and said she would release her written decision after reviewing the submitted materials.

Who spoke (selected)

- Amanda Rivera, Hearing Examiner (presiding officer) - Lowell Davies, Attorney, Davies Duke (representing Guardians of Florida Animal Rescue, Inc.) - Cam Mohammed, Planner, Zoning Section, Lee County (staff) - Dana Burch (speaker from the record who discussed feline accommodation and limits)

Next procedural milestone

The parties were asked to produce and file a joint proposed final conditions document by the end of business on May 1, 2026; the hearing record will close upon receipt of that joint filing and the examiner will then issue a written decision.