Phil Buchanan Comments
on the Lee County Attorney Draft Pine Island Amendment,
2015
To Lee County Attorney Welsh and his team:
Although I am Co-Chair of the Pine Island Planning Committee, these comments are entirely my own.
The Planning Committee may offer comments later, but official comments will probably await wide-spread
public distribution of the document and public hearings here on Pine Island.
As you know, I would much prefer to defend the 810/910 rules and all that goes with them,
but it appears that moment has passed. The strike-throughs in this document that eliminate
all references to 810/910 cause me great sadness and remind me of the hard work by thousands
of Pine Islanders, Lee County staff, and county commissioners over the last thirty years.
Work that derived from afternoon commissioner hearings that lasted until 11 p.m., island
meetings that included over 500 Pine Islanders stuffed into halls designed for half that number,
convoys of hundreds of Pine Islanders to Fort Myers, the heroic and brave efforts of our founders
Doctors Gene and Ellie Boyd, several hundred thousand dollars in consultant fees and other
expenditures
hard-fought success in ALJ proceedings, a prestigious award from the Florida Planning
Association - these
are burned-in memories not easily discarded. Of course, the work derived mostly from just Pine Islander
grit and determination, which in turn derives from their love of our coastal rural paradise.
Nonetheless, despite enormous opposition from Pine Islanders (300 attended the hearing)
all five commissioners voted to rewrite the Pine Island Plan. Any tears are wasted.
An era has passed, and I will accept current reality-I'll now get off the soapbox.
You were instructed by the commissioners to rewrite the Pine Island Plan to avoid any potential
county financial liability (political speak meaning the demise of the 810/910 rules).
I think you have done a good job of carrying out your mandate.
You also did a good job of preserving other portions of the Pine Island Plan.
I note with great satisfaction that the following provisions remain unchanged.
Maximum height of buildings (38 feet)
Commercial fishing equipment storage allowed at home
Prohibition on entrance gates, fences and walls
Commercial building "Old Florida" design standards (but see my page 13 comment below)
Street layout rules
Aquatic Preserve buffer requirements (50 foot buffer)
Sign restrictions
Your proposed replacements for the 810/910 rules can in my view be divided into two major categories.
Proposal one is that the post-810/910 development restrictions be replaced with rules that require 50%
open space for a development and a density of one dwelling unit per 2.7 acres (density can be increased
to one unit per acre if 70% of the development is preserved in native habitat or kept in farming).
Personally, given the circumstances, I think this is a reasonable compromise. Special interests will
surely propose that the numbers 50% and 2.7 be replaced with something more favorable to them.
I do not regard the numbers as negotiable, and neither should you.
Proposal two is your proposed TDR system. It is downright innovative, and has the potential to prevent
development and preserve much or all of our coastal rural area for farming. If successful,
it would also provide a lucrative source of revenue to our large landowners.
I will gladly work with you to try to make this program successful and I'm hoping that the large landowners
will do likewise.
Both proposals are well thought out and well-drawn. With a little refinement, they will be ready for prime
time.
That said, here follows are my comments on specific provisions. Some are important, others just nitpicks.
None are in opposition to the intent of the proposals. The draft text upon which I am commenting is the
one you handed out at the 9 June meeting, a copy of which can be had at Pineislandplan.com.
Page 5. Allowing commercial facilities at the intersection of "local and arterial" roads is too broad. That
covers the entire island.
Page 8. Line 1. Add "will serve" after fifth word. (The sentence needs a verb.)
Page 10 & 18 (Policy 14.2.2 & 14.8.3) Why an 18 hour evacuation time as a standard?
That is reportedly some two or three times the existing evacuation time.
We can't evacuate now-why wait until we have a multiple of existing traffic before we do anything?
Maybe I'm missing the point of this provision.
Page 11. Please delete Policy 14.2.4. The bicycle (or shared-use) path has been completed, and this
provision is no longer meaningful.
Page 13. Policy 14.4.4. Please leave in the policy the words and encourage metal roofs and other
features of traditional "Old Florida" styles.Those words constitute our basic commercial building
design standard and do not appear elsewhere. I assume this deletion was intentional-if not, the change
exceeds your charter.
Page 18. Policy 14.8.3. The words "In the event of a pending hurricane (defined as Categories 1-5)"
are unnecessary and confusing in this context. Please delete.
LDC Page 2. The definition of "development right" should be limited to the right to construct housing and
commercial structures.
LDC Page 6. Part (6)(b)(ii). Agricultural tax exemptions are generally expressed in percentages 80%
or so being common. Does that cover "the entire parcel"?
LDC Page 6. Part (6)(d). Should not the size of the lot matter?
LDC Page 17. The Greater Pine Island 50% open space requirement should be added to the table.
LDC Page 17 Footnote (1) has an obvious typo.
LDC Page 30. Sec 33-1001. Please change last sentence to read: "A legal description of the Greater Pine
Island Planning Community" is set forth in Appendix I.
It includes Matlacha (the Chamber of Commerce Building and all lands to the west,
as well as Little Pine Island, Pine Island, and small adjacent islands."
LDC Page 30. Sec 33-1002. All references to "50%" should read "70%" as per Policy 1.4.7 and other
portions
of this draft. This is an inconsistency and I think the references to 50% were unintentional.
LDC Page 53. The reference in Sec 33-1084 to Sec 33-1088 should be changed to Sec 33-1087.
LDC Pages 55 to 61. Many of the uses of agriculturally-zoned land after TDR transfers are too
commercial for AG lands. Some are also inconsistent with coastal high hazard area zoning.
They include assisted living facilities, cemeteries (none on Pine Island due to high water table)
consumption on premises facilities, day care center, golf course, hospitals, and churches.
LDC Page 64. All of the numbers in the table under "Standard Density Range" are stricken. Was that
intentional?
Site Plan 3 - is worrisome because the lots are so small (0.17 acres).
Would this be workable for multifamily or manufactured housing?
Site Plan 4 - must be corrected to reflect the 50% open space requirement of Sec 33-1054.
With that change, it would probably look like a decent development.
I know you want to get away from required conservation easements, using some form of development
order
to obtain the required perpetual restrictions. Nonetheless,
I see references to conservation easements here and there. Are they oversights?
That ends my specific comments.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment.
I look forward to our scheduled meeting on 13 July to again review and discuss your proposal.
The meantime, please ask your team to review my proposed changes and comments.
Again, job well done. You and your team have carried out your mission well.
Phil Buchanan