Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Plan Update topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
LPA backs large Southeast Lee plan update, asks staff to refine protections and map boundaries
Summary
Lee County's LPA recommended approval of a county-initiated Southeast Lee comprehensive plan update that removes some overlays, creates two new land-use categories, replaces a hard commercial cap with a FAR approach, and includes direction to remove a Daniels trade port area and add the Freeman property to the preservation/innovation category.
The Local Planning Agency on July 27 recommended that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a county-initiated update to the Southeast Lee community plan (CPA 2026-064) and forwarded specific recommendations on map boundary changes and clarifications. Principal planner Kate Burgess told the LPA the update responds to 11 privately initiated amendments and aims to consolidate and modernize policies, remove the 300,000-square-foot cap on nonresidential uses and instead apply a floor-area-ratio (FAR) approach (staff proposed a 0.25 FAR baseline for the new preservation and innovation category).
Burgess said the update keeps strict environmental safeguards: wetlands preservation, hydrologic modeling for developments, connections to central utilities, and coordination with the county’s natural resources and utilities departments. She cited consistency with state requirements, including the Everglades West Coast Basin Management Action Plan and the statutory review process. During deliberations, LPA members asked staff to clarify terms such as "adequate protection" and to ensure companion Land Development Code language is adopted quickly; staff said state law allows up to 18 months but that the intent is to adopt implementing LDC amendments promptly.
After public comment, Committee member S3 moved to recommend approval to the Board with specific recommendations to remove the Daniels trade port designation from the Southeast planning area and to include the Freeman property in the preservation and innovation category; the motion also called for clarifying "adequate protection" language and to consider 'legal conveyance' in property-rights wording. The motion was seconded (S7) and passed by voice vote.
