Same project, different amendment: LPA recommends approval of Bay Harbour
In 2015, Developer Jack Mayher delivered a comprehensive plan amendment request for Bay Harbour Marina Village before the Lee County Local Planning Agency. That request failed.
In 2018, Mayher returned to the LPA with another amendment request for Bay Harbour. This one succeeded, so far.
The project remains the same, but Mayher secured a success this round by changing the amendment request to a land use already existent on San Carlos Island: Destination Resort Mixed Use Water Dependent (DRMUWD).
The first time around, Mayher asked to change the land use to Central Urban.
But both amendments precede the same development: 113 residential units, a 500-car garage, a marina, a rooftop restaurant, and other commercial space on a 7.47-acre property on Oak and Main Street.
“They had an opportunity to change their project based on sound criticism, but instead they brought back the same crap they did last time,” said Joseph McHarris during public comment.
McHarris worked with the EbbTide team, a dormant project approved just down the street from Bay Harbour. He helped write the DRMUWD land use – and says Bay Harbour doesn’t fit the bill.
“Using (EbbTide) as a precedent is inappropriate,” he said. “It is not a destination resort. I doesn’t make sense, it’s being hjiacked. It’s basically a slight difference from Central Urban.”
The Bay Harbour project amendment requested a density allowance of 15 units per acre, which is on par with surrounding mobile home neighborhoods, but still above the limit of the Lee Plan. DRMUWD is required to have at least 8 acres; but Bay Harbour asked to adjust that, too, in the amendment.
McHarris argued this: EbbTide did not add residential density; its condo towers matched unit for unit the current mobile home park. Bay Harbour was adding density where there is none now.
While it’s true residential density isn’t increased in EbbTide’s approval, that development includes a convention center and a 450-room hotel.
The majority of Bay Harbour’s amendment requests were met unopposed by County Planner Sharon Jenkins-Owen, except if language was repetitive or duplicative.
County staff did make one victory for the county’s residential base, however.
Mayher offered up 38 units to be priced as workforce housing as a fair trade for the 15 units per acre density increase. In his application, the definition of this affordable housing was pricing it somewhere in the moderate income range, or about $2,026-per-month rent.
But Jenkins-Owen opted to propose approval if the workforce housing would be committed just to low and very low income categories, with rents being more in the $1,158 a month range.
Jenkins-Owen compared the average incomes of the local workforce – bartenders, secretaries, Walmart employees, and more – to local housing costs within five miles of the proposed development.
“Staff wants affordable housing to be committed to very low and low income housing,” she said. “It really tipped the balance. Otherwise, you’re just providing more marketplace housing. To me that was not enough for bonus density to be appropriate.”
However, Lee County only requires affordable housing to be committed for seven years.
LPA members did not have many questions of staff; Only Stan Stouder voted nay to recommend approval.
“Changing the Lee Plan, we’re reaching beyond into the future and how this will be adaptable to others who may ask for this,” he said. “I oppose the increase in density, it’s inconsistent with surroundings.”
Approximately 19 people spoke during public comment to voice their opinion about the development.
“It’s been over two years since the original, and objections remain the same. it has not changed in overall impact.,” said Mary Ellen Ruddick, a San Carlos Island resident. “It’s not contributing to maintaining the working waterfront.”
Ruddick referenced a 1978 resolution by the county that recognized increased density would be detrimental to San Carlos Island and Estero Island and should be controlled – but that resolution pre-dates the current Lee Plan and it was not incorporated into the plan once it was adopted.
Joanne Semmer brought with her a stack of back-up information to give to the LPA, including 230 letters of opposition she’d gathered.
While a majority opposed the project, about six stood up in favor.
Margie Tiree, who lives across the street from the proposed development, would like to see an upgraded view.
The property is currently home to Southern Comfort Storage and has often been called an eyesore.
“I have to look at this mess,” she said. “It would be a pleasure to see something really nice and make our property values go up.”
John Russo, a Fort Myers Beach resident, also spoke in favor – and said he’d spoke in favor of EbbTide, too, and was disappointed it hasn’t yet come to fruition.
“I’ve been here since 1987, I’ve seen a lot of changes from the fishing village to the tourist attraction it is today,” he said. “People living there cannot tell me (Bay Harbour) is not going to enhance the area, increase jobs, housing and amenities. We’re done.”
Dennis Church, the chair, told the speakers that many of the issues the opposition brought up – height, for example – wasn’t something the LPA could address as it was tasked only with the comprehensive plan amendment request. Many of the details related to the development have to be addressed in zoning, he said.
“I’m sorry we can’t address those,” he said.
Paired with the comprehensive plan amendment, the developer also has a pending rezoning request. Mayher’s asked to keep the two together.
The rezoning request was heard by Laura Belflower, Lee County Hearing Examiner, in 2016 and it was remanded back to staff. In her comments, Belflower said the project requested too much and would negatively impact the surrounding area.
That rezoning request must go back through the process; it’s been under staff review and found sufficient, said Planning Manager Mikki Rozdolski, but has not yet been scheduled to be reheard by the HEX.
The plan amendment will move on to the Lee County Commissioners, but as Mayher has requested the rezoning and plan amendment to stay together, it is uncertain when the pair will go before the board.
Charlie Whitehead, representing Beach Area Civic Association, spoke during public comment to tell the LPA that BACA was not going to oppose the development out right this time, or at least not yet.
“BACA sees a high rise as out of character with the neighborhood, and stacking density in the Coastal High Hazard Area is not a good plan,” he said.
But, a subcommittee of BACA has been meeting with the developer and supporters. BACA is hopeful to use the time between now and the HEX hearing to see if Mayher will work with the community to find a compromise more neighbors can support.
“Some people didn’t like that BACA didn’t oppose, but we may at the commissioners,” Whitehead said. “Someone reminded me that BACA was created for community conversation, and that’s what we’re doing.”