.
THE RESPONSIBLE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT COALITION
Highlights of Actions
from 1988 to March 2003
Compiled
by Edith B. Slayton with assistance from Gene and Ellie Boyd and John Cassani
When
the Florida legislature’s 1985
Growth Management law allowed citizen participation in the planning process,
environmental and civic organizations began to monitor growth in Lee County. They focused on the Future Land Use Map
(FLUM), a part of the County Comprehensive Plan (Lee Plan), and opposed
amendments that emanated from developers. Unfortunately, the Lee County Board
of County Commissioners (BOCC), under intense pressure by the development
community, totally disregarded their concerns about rampant growth in the
area. The Responsible Growth Management
Coalition (RGMC) was incorporated in 1988 to fight back. It represented organizations and individuals
in Bonita Springs, Cape Coral, Estero, Fort Myers Beach, Fort Myers, Pine Island and Sanibel and opposed
development inconsistent with the FLUM and growth management guidelines set
forth in Chapter 163 Florida Statutes and Rule 9J-5 of the Florida
Administrative Code.
The
RGMC was instrumental in getting about one-fifth of Lee County lands designated as
Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource Areas (DR/GR). Development in these areas is limited to one
residence per ten acres of uplands and one residence per 20 acres of
wetlands. This was done to protect
aquifer recharge and limit urban sprawl.
The Coalition has consistently defended this reduced density when it
comes under attack by the development community. In 1992 a legal complaint by the RGMC
resulted in the BOCC rescinding a zoning approval permitting a 390-acre golf
course in a designated DR/GR adjacent to the Corkscrew Well-Field. This violation of the Lee Plan endangered the
county’s drinking water.
That
same year, RGMC entered into a legal dispute between a ferry owner and the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) over a shallow channel
in the Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve where boat propellers scarred sea grass
beds. An agreement was reached to
replace the existing channel with a longer, deeper water route. And, after RGMC action supporting the Florida
Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the BOCC decreased the amount of
development allowed on two parcels of land in Buckingham near a Florida panther and black bear
corridor. However, despite strong
objections by the RGMC, the BOCC deleted the requirement for wildlife corridors
from the Lee Plan in 1992.
During
1992, the Florida Board of Regents’ choice of the Alico site for the tenth
state university was challenged by the RGMC on the grounds that the site
selection process was flawed and approval of the Alico
location carried serious environmental and growth management implications for Lee County. A new university was not opposed per se but the 850-acre university site
was only a small part of an 11,000 acre (16 square mile) site owned by the
Alico Corporation and the Coalition believed the donation of the land for the
university, along with the funding of several endowed chairs, was a ploy to
eventually get development approval for the whole 11,000 acre parcel, which was
in the DR/GR. Prime concerns over a
development of the size were the impact on potable water supplies and damage to
the Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve and wildlife habitat. The RGMC’s 1995 legal challenge of the
university’s Surface Water Management permit from the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD, The District) resulted in a more environmentally
sensitive permit and the formation of the Estero Bay Agency on Bay Management (ABM). The ABM assesses the impact of
proposed development in southeast Lee County on the health of Estero Bay and its watershed. The agency has no regulatory powers but occasional attacks by Lee County commissioners
proves
it has been effective in fulfilling its mandate over the years.
In
2000, Commissioner John Manning sympathized with Economic Development Council
complaints about ABM actions and threatened
to abolish it. He dropped the action
when attorneys informed him that the ABM was created by court
action and not subject to legislative jeopardy.
Again, in March 2001, Commissioner John Albion, at the instigation of
the development community, asked the Southwest Florida Regional. Planning Council
(SWFRPC) to abolish the ABM, charging it had become
too cozy with, and useful to, environmentalists. Members of the RGMC, along with several
attorneys, appeared before the SWFRPC and pointed out the usefulness of the ABM and reminded them that
the ABM is a legally required
subcommittee of the SWFRPC. The matter
was dropped.
The
RGMC and Manasota-88, represented by Attorney Tom Reese, successfully
reinstated important provisions in the Department of Environmental Regulation’s
(DER) state mangrove
protection rules. Bowing to property
owners on both coasts, the 1992 Florida legislature passed two
bills that seriously undermined the DER’s ability to protect
mangroves. Governor Chiles vetoed the
legislation. Undaunted, the same
landowners pressured the DER to seriously weaken its
mangrove protection rules. A negotiated
settlement brokered by Attorney Reese eliminated the worst of the proposed
changes and reinstated crucial provisions of the previous rules. For example, mangroves cannot be cut in their
fruiting season or when occupied by nesting birds.
In
1992, the RGMC challenged the BOCC’s moving three square miles in the DR/GR
land use category to urban development status to allow residential development
by the Gargiulo family and others. This
area recharges the Lower Tamiami Aquifer that provides drinking water for Bonita Springs. The RGMC didn’t stop the development, but in
1997, the DCA and Gargiulo agreed upon a settlement that changed the zoning
from one unit per ten acres to one unit per acre, with conditions that
residential development be clustered to maximize open space; that five acres be
reserved for commercial uses; and that commercial development be aggregated on
any area of the development.
The
RGMC believed that Westinghouse’s Pelican Landing development was inconsistent
with the Lee Plan and objected in a 1994 hearing. The Hearing Examiner ruled against building
on a small upland island in the mangroves, numerous 200-foot high-rises, and
too much development in the Coastal High Hazard area without proper provision
for hurricane evacuation and shelter.
The BOCC ignored this ruling and approved all of the development. When the RGMC took the case to Circuit Court,
Judge Thompson dismissed the case due to lack of standing. An appeal to the Second District Court of
Appeal early in 1995 was also dismissed, setting a terrible precedent for other
citizen organizations planning to get involved in growth management
issues. At the state level, formidable
enemies of growth management passed a number of “property rights” bills in the
1994 legislature. When Governor Chiles vetoed all
of them, big landowners turned to the constitutional amendment route. Several proposed amendments would have
totally destroyed growth management in Florida. The Florida Supreme Court removed all of
these from the ballot except for one, approved by the voters, that makes it
easier to get anti-growth management amendments on the ballot.
Early
in 1994, the county submitted an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) on the Lee Plan two
years earlier than necessary. Then,
using the EAR as an excuse, the BOCCamended the Lee Plan and
essentially “gutted” it to eliminate growth management in the county. The SWFRPC and its planning staff, who are
supposed to play an important part in growth management, approved the county’s
terrible EAR amendments, saying they were consistent with
the Regional Policy Plan. However, the
Florida DCA, overseer o. local comprehensive plans, found that the amendments
violated 54 of the policies in the Regional Policy Plan and were not in
compliance with state law. They called
for an administrative hearing. The RGMC
took out a full-page ad in the Fort Myers News Press telling the public what
was happening to their Comprehensive Plan and intervened on the side of the
DCA. Much of the development community intervened on the side of the
county. After a two- and-a-half-week
hearing in September 1995, the case was sent to Tallahassee for a final
decision. Members of the RGMC and
Attorney Reese attended a meeting with the Governor and Cabinet on July 17, 1996. The DCA and the RGMC were supported on ten of
the twelve issues, and growth management in Lee County was saved.
After much prodding, the BOCC placed a
referendum on the 1996 ballot to levy a seven- year ad valorem tax of 0.5 mils earmarked for the purchase and
management of environmentally sensitive land.
RGMC members worked for the referendum with letters of support and
house-to-house canvassing for votes. Its
passage enabled Lee County to have an active and
well-managed land acquisition program that preserves natural habitat, supports
eco-tourism, manages water resources and enhances adjacent property values. The
RGMC carefully monitors purchasing by the Conservation Land Acquisition
Stewardship Advisory Committee (CLASAC) to ensure that they adhere to their
mandate of only purchasing unprotected environmentally sensitive land from
private owners.
Early in May 1998, the BOCC rejected the advice
of its own planning department and rezoned a 1,286-acre site along the north
bank of the Estero River, granting a density
increase from 900 to 1,598 units to the Sahdev Corporation, developers of Estero River Bay. The number was two units shy of the density
that triggers an Environmental Impact Study. Sahdev planned to build a
40,000-square-foot clubhouse, high-rise buildings, a golf course, and other
amenities along the river. This
environmentally sensitive site had been assigned high priority for acquisition
and preservation by the state’s Conservation and Recreational Lands Advisory
Committee. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, concerned about the rate at which
Lee County’s wetlands were being
gobbled up by developers, conducted an Environmental Impact Study in the same
area. Charging that members of the BOCC had
willfully ignored the Lee Plan by allowing the increased density, the RGMC
challenged the Commission by filing a verified complaint on June 3. The BOCC refused to reconsider their
position.
A coalition of environmental organizations led
by RGMC took Lee County to court. Others in the
coalition were the Citizens Association of Bonita Beach, the Environmental
Federation of Southwest Florida (ECOSWF), the Conservancy of Southwest Florida,
and Save the Manatee Club. The Sanibel-Captiva
Conservation Foundation and Audubon of Southwest Florida filed amicus curiae briefs, while the cities
of Sanibel and Fort Myers Beach voted to support the
action. Attorney David Rynders
represented the group. Circuit Court
Judge Wallace Pack ruled that the RGMC did not have standing to sue Lee County over the illegal
rezoning of the Sahdev property. On
appeal, the Second District Court of Appeal upheld the Circuit Court
ruling. Attorney Rynders then filed a
petition asking the Appeal Court to review their
decision denying standing. The decision
to deny was upheld and the Coalition planned to appeal to the state Supreme
Court if the state did not purchase the property. The strategy was to postpone development by
prolonging the matter in court until the state could purchase the land. In late June 1999, the Governor and Cabinet voted
unanimously to use the power of eminent domain and seize the property. It cost them over $10 million more because
the BOCC gratuitously and illegally doubled the density. When the state took title to the land, the
RGMC withdrew the lawsuit. Today the
Estero Bay State Buffer Preserve is considered the crown jewel in the mangrove
fringe, saltwater marsh, pine flatwoods and sand scrub that shield the bay and
its tributaries from the impact of development.
In 2000, the RGMC joined a 19-member coalition
led by the Save the Manatee Club that legally challenged both the federal and
state governments’ lack of enforcement of protected species laws as they
pertain to manatees. The settlement
required the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop new rules for manatee
protection that conform to federal statutes, and to create manatee sanctuaries
and refuges. It was also agreed that the
Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would deny
marina permits as interim protection measures until new federal rules and
regulations to protect the manatee and its habitat are implemented. As a part of the state settlement, the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission agreed to upgrade the Florida
Marine Patrol with more officers; standardize the counting of manatees; provide
uniform signage throughout the state; and strictly enforce more stringent rules
and regulations to protect manatees.. Concern about
the degradation of the Caloosahatchee River and the estuary by
excessive or inadequate fresh water discharges from Lake Okeechobee spurred the RGMC, Save
the Manatee Club and ECOSWF to challenge the South Florida Water Management
District’s release practices.
In April 2000, Washington D.C. attorneys representing
the coalition wrote the SFWMD and cited appropriate federal statutes that
govern the timing of releases and the coalition’s intent to sue for
noncompliance. Under the District’s policy, a recovery and prevention plan is
to be implemented when an estuary, damaged from Okeechobee releases, is in a
recovery mode. There must be two
consecutive years of Minimum Flows and Levels (MFL) violations before Phase III restrictions are
implemented, but that is unlikely under the seemingly special circumstances of
the Caloosahatchee River MFL. By
challenging the SFWMD, the RGMC and others may have legal standing to later sue
the District if that policy and other policies are not changed. In July 2000, the letter of intent to sue the
SFWMD was amended to include the District’s violation of the Endangered Species
Act by alteration and destruction of sea grasses from prolonged retention of
water and a sudden massive release of fresh water and toxic algae from Lake Okeechobee into surrounding rivers.
The District’s new rules on Minimum Flows and Levels were also a concern,
particularly when they allowed back pumping of highly contaminated water into Lake Okeechobee from nearby farmland to
maintain minimum levels in the lake. Early in 2001, RGMC protested the Governor’s Growth
Management Commission’s recommendation that the Legislature return control of
planning to local officials, abolish the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) requirement, abolish
the Regional Planning Councils, and abolish state oversight of planning by the
Department of Community Affairs. The
legislation failed.
The Florida Gulf Coast University attempted to include in
its Master Plan the conversion of campus preserves to parking lots and other
uses. The RGMC protested vigorously and
threatened to take legal action until the offending changes were removed. Meanwhile, land adjacent to the university
dedicated to uses supporting university activities was rezoned to less
compatible uses. Unfortunately, the
Florida Gulf Coast University administration is not acting in a way consistent
with the university becoming known as the environmental university as was
promised at its inception.
In a September 2002 listing of impaired waters,
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) stated that all the
tributaries to Estero Bay were fresh water to the
mouth of the tributary. It was obviously
wrong because Estero Bay is tidal, and salt and
fresh water are mixed (estuarine) for some distance up the tributary. The correctness o. this listing is important
because regulations permit higher levels of pollutants and lower levels of
dissolved oxygen in fresh water as compared to estuarine.
The RGMC, joined by the Sierra Club, the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida and ECOSWF hired an attorney to challenge the
listing. All parties met and reached a
compromise that U.S. 41 would be the boundary in each of the tributaries and
maximum amounts of specific pollutants and minimum amounts of dissolved oxygen
will be set for each segment of each tributary.
Having waters designated as impaired will allow pertinent agencies to
address watershed problems through better planning, improved stormwater
management, and permitting.
Current challenges to the designation of DR/GR
in the Lee Plan are the Miromar Lakes development trying to
change 24 acres to urban, and the Ginn Company’s 1400-home golf course
development primarily in the DR/GR. The
RGMC opposes both of these cases, and will go to court if necessary. Another challenge to the DR/GR is Babcock
Ranch, a 90,000-acre parcel in south Charlotte and north Lee
counties. All 6,500 acres of the land in
Lee County is designated
DR/GR. A proposal to build a city
housing 50,000 people in the southwest corner of the property would require a
FLUM change to urban. The RGMC is
advocating that the entire ranch be purchased by the state, the two counties,
or foundations. This acreage would
provide a badly needed wildlife corridor and greenway from Lake Okeechobee to the Gulf of Mexico.