[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6397602,"mediaKeyId","2092123-41b89337c485dd264f862810524ea1e0","parentId",2092123,"title","Council Continues Burnt Store Road District Land‑Use Amendment After Residents, Owners Raise Property‑rights Concerns","audioSeconds",4000,"startMs",8440000,"endMs",12440000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2092123-41b89337c485dd264f862810524ea1e0&start=8440&end=12440","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2092123-41b89337c485dd264f862810524ea1e0/thumbnail_8440000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6397602/Cape-Coral-City/Lee-County/Florida/Council-Continues-Burnt-Store-Road-District-LandUse-Amendment-After-Residents-Owners-Raise-Propertyrights-Concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6397602-9016c18eda65bf3638db938238020f9d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771204025&Signature=l5gM2oEQD41W04-9UdIVOqpj5dIQJpqgwGzw5dO5cu3thFHaQ~GSSPRoLfWCfbkIb82bzXpOR6UpfSOne4cLW3X0hXmGpitJm0bUtjwjWzUVgXvrV8NJ6RfVgt3nbULb~1H~bjkqTXoUyAPen-pCajEPZNbxev4xaCH2DeSGBNqOun~YaRFUI3KLg6Ys8bVghH9D9CrRoJup1qFRY0Bd6iwhmootJ6FSont93VtkPlef2gCe5wVRHK6n9prG3Wy1qBZe1D-01RMjNb-0LwEv7v-VPbQfvT5Udpo83lEDnriA-CBvWdh-HIR4w-QSRFaNPCbVponxHBilUTz2dX~s9w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Cape Coral, FL","date","2025-01-09T02:37:57Z","article","City planners and property owners sparred openly over a proposed future‑land‑use change for roughly 1,141 acres along Burnt Store Road at the Jan. 8 Cape Coral City Council meeting. The council agreed to continue the ordinance’s consideration after multiple owners and residents asked that three inland parcels be excluded or that more detail be provided before transmittal to state agencies.

What was proposed: The city brought forward Ordinance 78‑24, a city‑initiated amendment converting multiple existing land‑use designations (commercial activity center, commercial professional, mixed use, multifamily, open space and public facilities) to a new Burnt Store Road District future‑land‑use designation over a broad swath in northwest Cape Coral. The change is intended to create a planned commercial/mixed‑use corridor similar to the city’s Pine Island Road district and to encourage nonresidential growth along the principal arterial leading to I‑75.

Property owners and neighbors objected to the scope: Speakers representing large parcels — including the Acorn/Gator Slough tract and two other inland holdings — told the council that the Burnt Store district would strip them of existing entitlements under Commercial Activity Center (CAC) zoning, particularly the ability to build freestanding multifamily units. Acorn Storage Properties (owner representative David Faheymey) said the CAC entitlement (which can allow a mix of retail and stand‑alone multifamily in some settings) is what makes some large mixed‑use projects viable and that switching to the Burnt Store district — which requires vertically integrated mixed‑use buildings — would “kill” the project economics for sites set back a half‑mile from the road.

Residents raised fit and transparency concerns: Derek Runyon and other speakers asked that Westchester Estates parcels be excluded from the map because setbacks and unknown future zoning rules could “render my property completely useless.” Environmental and traffic concerns were also raised by a resident from northwest Cape Coral.

Staff background and a prior error: Planning staff and Wyatt Daughtry explained the ordinance’s history. The council previously transmitted a Burnt Store map in 2023 but staff later withdrew that transmittal after discovering the map did not match council direction (a set of parcels was mistakenly excluded). Daughtry said the new 78‑24 package restores the parcels and updates the materials for a fresh transmittal and regional review period. Planning staff noted the Burnt Store district was adopted in principle by Ordinance 12‑22 and that this step would be a transmittal to state and regional reviewing agencies; adoption would follow later.

Council action: After extended public comment and council discussion, members voted to continue the transmittal process to a committee‑of‑the‑whole meeting on Feb. 12 (9:00 a.m.) and to continue the public hearing to the March 5 regular council meeting (5:00 p.m.) so council and staff can review the specific parcels, the resident concerns and proposed boundary refinements. The roll call for the continuation recorded six ayes and one nay.

Why it matters: The Burnt Store Road district is a major land‑use and economic plan for northern Cape Coral. Changes remove the option for stand‑alone multifamily on sites that are deep from the roadway and replace it with a vertically integrated mixed‑use standard; property owners warned that those rules change the marketability and value of deep parcels.

Ending: The council paused the process to allow a focused committee meeting and additional outreach; staff said they will prepare parcel‑level materials and a clear map so council can decide whether to transmit the ordinance with certain parcels excluded or proceed with the full corridor as drafted.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council Meeting - January 8, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","City planners and property owners sparred openly over a proposed future‑land‑use change for roughly 1,141 acres along Burnt Store Road at the Jan. 8 Cape Coral City Council meeting. The council agreed to continue the ordinance’s consideration after multiple owners and residents asked that three inland parcels be excluded or that more detail be provided before transmittal to state agencies.","taxTitle","Cape Coral City, Lee County, Florida","taxId",4188,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6397607,"City Utilities Defend Yellow Fever Creek Booster Station; Residents and Wildlife Group Urge Alternate Site",2222,1776000,3998000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2092123-41b89337c485dd264f862810524ea1e0&start=1776&end=3998","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2092123-41b89337c485dd264f862810524ea1e0/thumbnail_1776000.jpg","/articles/6397607/Cape-Coral-City/Lee-County/Florida/City-Utilities-Defend-Yellow-Fever-Creek-Booster-Station-Residents-and-Wildlife-Group-Urge-Alternate-Site","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6397607-c149fda2abf1a949ccf51bbd52f63f61/orig.mp4?Expires=1771204025&Signature=dImCB78zY92xhUJ4LwPjXo8xAQD437vtoUvkpbcTtHVRLqJO-G5HjMT7OFbv-lUWonMIKlr-Qc6VGFEyInoCSvGx4vrVbay-Q1VDGlexG7xMhVQ~d7NhyGzWYfDB7MZNoy6Y~Zs9VkegerEKyY~~A2BvN~ivcuTYj5x3yaKD3hc3apnJ6HTByePh5~9u9FP8O~pIE7pjDRrY-U7-2oY4BQyrI8hWPhaNheSyWK-t0qClq4NiJBs1kCHDJV-LguNOT6t9f75s9kEvMMTDQIsOKfjdpuUFj-yR6a1C~DCd7sMRyLkmBdTAgu8Xr6JXm1sl~TnHUxlggQKM2hcI7Mj28Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Cape Coral’s planned Yellow Fever Creek booster station and ground storage tanks drew opposition from residents and conservation groups at the Jan. 8 council meeting while the city’s utilities director said the site is already far along in design and moving forward to improve reclaimed‑water capacity.

Noelle Tolbert and other Entrada residents and Judy Mitchell of Cape Coral Friends of Wildlife said the proposed 14‑acre site would require changes to the city comprehensive plan and restructure preserved land at Yellow Fever Creek Preserve. Tolbert warned that bright lighting and habitat fragmentation would harm species including gopher tortoise hatchlings, bald eagles, roseate spoonbills, wood storks and Florida bonneted bats, and urged the council to use a city‑owned mixed‑use parcel at Kismet and Del Prado instead.

Utilities director Jeff Pearson told council the city already owns the site designated for the booster station, that the project is at “90% design,” and that earlier siting alternatives were ruled out due to utility infrastructure and cost. Moving the booster station to the Academic Village (the alternative site suggested by residents) would require large‑diameter mains, additional off‑site infrastructure, extensive wetland mitigation and at a minimum an estimated $4 million in additional cost, Pearson said. He added that keeping the proposed site would expand the city’s reclaimed water storage and allow Cape Coral to purchase more reclaimed water from a regional supplier, which is currently limited by an existing 1,000,000‑gallon storage tank.

Why it matters: City staff said the booster station would significantly increase reclaimed water capacity and help reduce pressure on local groundwater supplies. Residents and wildlife groups say the preserve designation and wildlife impacts make the polar site inappropriate and urged the city to consider a municipal parcel near an industrial park.

Pearson also clarified technical and jurisdiction issues: the southern half of the preserve parcel is county property, and the city‑owned site selected for the booster station was included in Council Resolution 259‑22 adopting the project in December 2022. He said reclaimed water purchases cost about $0.30 per 1,000 gallons and that improved storage will increase the city’s ability to consume more reclaimed water and reduce groundwater stress.

Council reaction and next step: Council members asked staff to recount the project history and to answer resident questions; multiple council members noted the project has been in planning for several years and warned that changing course now would be costly and delay needed utility capacity. No formal decision or vote was taken at the Jan. 8 meeting.

Ending: The council heard both the environmental concerns and the utilities rationale; staff said it will keep stakeholders informed as the project proceeds to bid. Residents asked the council to pursue alternative city‑owned sites before construction begins.","Cape Coral’s planned Yellow Fever Creek booster station and ground storage tanks drew opposition from residents and conservation groups at the Jan. 8 council meeting while the city’s utilities director said the site is already far along in design and moving forward to improve reclaimed‑water capacity.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6397611,"Three Fishermen, City Spar Over Chiquita Lock Removal; Council Hears Calls to Drop Fee Lawsuit",298,1273000,1571000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2092123-41b89337c485dd264f862810524ea1e0&start=1273&end=1571","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2092123-41b89337c485dd264f862810524ea1e0/thumbnail_1273000.jpg","/articles/6397611/Cape-Coral-City/Lee-County/Florida/Three-Fishermen-City-Spar-Over-Chiquita-Lock-Removal-Council-Hears-Calls-to-Drop-Fee-Lawsuit","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6397611-fe4dca1ab7091b8f216ef0e3b4c501b6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771204025&Signature=F4hP1YalMT~arng2YLWZrpv4ZGijyIti8NVpYG3YIFxhW76cP4p6XAFpKtWDCWcy90ghemRoUn441h2VuU6w~WNuT2UYCngAcdRxuk82SHndNbEiJNoaGvc7MvcwlKNpQ9L207hN1mzsJnastRBAXri0izxml4SnIu2q800W1sSPPyedtdtAn6SSPWDhtDcH84ePaCaBCc1fkj7jgU3LHYf1kCAYyFiJlRV2LJ3H92Sh99WGjztneXeI06590kST0GL3znKRe2Vq8UVUwcGC8UqyQTtRhvqurvuJJf0m-X8gT9qAXtnOtMGJpvy6RZ3fh8XScBFS1T4o8uA3vva5Jw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Three fishermen who petitioned the city over the planned removal of the Chiquita lock and several supporters used the Jan. 8 Cape Coral City Council public‑comment period to press the council to abandon a city action seeking attorneys’ fees and to clarify why the city’s bill became large.

Jim Collier and Kevin Sparks, two of the three petitioners who challenged the lock removal, told the council they did not file a frivolous petition and have hired appellate counsel because they believe errors occurred in the administrative process. “We had no improper purpose in our challenging the removal of the lock,” Collier said. He added the petition was a response to a public notice and that the petition was granted, a hearing occurred and they lost at the hearing; now the city is seeking fees against them.

City attorney and council discussion: The city attorney told the council the petition was an administrative challenge under Chapter 120 and that when the petitioners proceeded in a manner the city characterized as “in violation of law,” the city placed them on notice and sought to recover attorneys’ fees and costs when they were unsuccessful. The city attorney said the city had retained outside experts and performed depositions and motion practice that increased costs. “Responding to that…required us to retain experts. And experts in this matter were not cheap at all,” the attorney said.

Public supporters and critics: Several public speakers in red shirts defended the fishermen, saying the challenge was aimed at protecting waterways and the environment. Cheryl Anderson, a longtime volunteer, said the prospect of being on the hook for “$2,000,000” is crushing to the petitioners and urged the council to “drop the lawsuit.” Multiple speakers said the legal action chills residents who speak up about environmental permits.

Council response and next steps: Council members repeatedly said they did not want to see residents personally liable for large sums, and several asked the city attorney to explain how the bill grew. The city attorney said the petitioners’ conduct compelled the city to respond with expert witnesses and discovery; that work drove up the city’s costs. Council member Kaduk asked the city attorney to re‑explain the timeline and legal posture. The city and petitioners confirmed that an administrative hearing remains scheduled Feb. 24–28 and that pending motions and appeals may affect any fee proceeding.

Context: Petitioners said they previously signed an agreement that halted future litigation but now face a separate sanctions process and potential fee claims tied to an October 7 judicial order. The petitioners said they have retained appellate counsel and intend to challenge parts of the record.

Ending: No council vote was taken Jan. 8. Council members urged patience with the legal process while expressing sympathy for petitioners’ concerns and asking the city attorney to clarify the legal basis and size of potential recovery.","Multiple residents and the three petitioners who challenged the Chiquita lock removal told council they face potential sanctions and high legal fees; the city attorney said the city is pursuing recovery of costs after an administrative challenge was denied.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6397616,"Residents, Council Members Debate JC Park Contract Changes as Public Seeks Stakeholder Role",3164,286000,3450000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2092123-41b89337c485dd264f862810524ea1e0&start=286&end=3450","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2092123-41b89337c485dd264f862810524ea1e0/thumbnail_286000.jpg","/articles/6397616/Cape-Coral-City/Lee-County/Florida/Residents-Council-Members-Debate-JC-Park-Contract-Changes-as-Public-Seeks-Stakeholder-Role","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6397616-08e7cb561ad428b3d853136d3967310d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771204025&Signature=bKWYIdghMzuS5uK~TegJE84aACFMtSfRaVHszNePGHFhfadvGmBxi6qESOeEGYLNsu~XjErcIUQ9gRwpdXyufmj2Qs52~F7szTpAvuTqGXSNPJYVZWf5xheKs2y1aow6p-AqV8JlLxClNRLpOF3jcioR0JniZhWgW6hcx9cfO9Fxd0q8hUYCl0E0XO6qwkjS8hVfg7boeFsKjMPozeIGcljsXc2ydU486URuHEiwsKkYJT4a8Hughsj67PlAn0l14ZunZtyTqXQgYZH-qttmGSBWhK2AKv~D4rkbbKZWN0DV6N~04PWMl9fFPycnW27Gg~KgZVGXMKdCHSroR7vsBw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Council members and residents clashed over JC Park design and contract terms at the Jan. 8 meeting of the Cape Coral City Council, with residents urging council to reopen contracts and elected officials warning that signed agreements limit what can be changed without significant cost.

Anthony Karp, a Cape Coral resident, urged the council to convene a stakeholder meeting “ASAP” and to halt further contract signings until citizens’ design suggestions are addressed. Karp said the current park plan is “one-sided” and asked council to allow more public input early in design instead of after contracts are executed.

Why it matters: JC Park is a high‑visibility parks project that residents say will set a precedent for citizen involvement in future park designs. Several speakers told the council the current contracts limit the city’s ability to make the changes they want.

Council members described legal and budget constraints. Council member Nelson (spoken as “council member” in the record) told the chamber that city staff and the city attorney previously advised that adding features to the current plan might be feasible but subtracting contracted items could be “costly” and possibly expose the city to legal claims. “We talked about that…taking things away would be costly. Could be a waste to taxpayer dollars because we would potentially have legal implications,” Nelson said.

Council member Lehman pressed again during council reports for staff to explore reopening the contracts; she said she believed removing or altering items could produce contract deductions, or alternatively that some features could be added later as “add‑ons.” Nelson said she would support Lehman meeting with the city attorney to discuss pros and cons and potentially bring a formal report back to council or a CAL meeting.

Public commenters pushed for more stakeholder involvement beyond the formal council process. Several speakers asked for early consultation on park designs and criticized the “cone of silence” around contracts during procurement. The mayor and other council members repeatedly pointed to prior guidance from the city attorney that substantial contract changes after execution could create legal and budgetary exposure; multiple council members suggested stakeholder groups or town halls as the appropriate next step for public input.

What the city says: Parks staff and the city attorney have told council members that some additions can be negotiated but removing contracted elements is likely to trigger claims from vendors. Council members encouraged residents to work with staff and to bring specific, documented requests for what should be added rather than wholesale reopenings.

Where this goes next: Council members said they will discuss stakeholder groups in upcoming CAL and committee meetings and that individual council members can meet with staff and the city attorney to explore limited changes that avoid breaching contract terms. No formal vote or contract amendment was approved at the Jan. 8 meeting.

Ending: Residents and several council members said they want more engagement earlier in the design process; the council’s next steps will depend on legal advice and whether a majority supports reopening parts of the contracts or creating parallel stakeholder processes.","Public commenters and one council member pressed the city to reopen JC Park contracts for changes to the mobile stage and design. City attorneys and other council members warned that altering signed contracts could trigger large costs or legal exposure.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6397597,"Votes at a glance: Cape Coral council actions Jan. 8, 2025",1429,6883000,8312000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2092123-41b89337c485dd264f862810524ea1e0&start=6883&end=8312","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2092123-41b89337c485dd264f862810524ea1e0/thumbnail_6883000.jpg","/articles/6397597/Cape-Coral-City/Lee-County/Florida/Votes-at-a-glance-Cape-Coral-council-actions-Jan-8-2025","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6397597-31bb937953b04ddc5aa4a17873d122a4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771204025&Signature=NSW3hTU9L7wvOm77ALeyjs6UEZzjL17goWGOu92-wCIletfTIHxOtQ-zYTCrhmanjxgzt42sXYGD~~wVWCBCDh06xYc9CD3RPENNuBJM6aKltdj1xlfP6YEps1cQKGiMvjlIPcn6M7QrquP1fL3zqq0i9Mh1NB5mUXvG~lLyLNv7QZRKb72GHq6L09fP~UmrO4t1kM-kNvNBBjLxUWEqDhuhVPnaJ-6czJ3a-DQ6xOQzcKS8H5sO8zgwwcDDljXqHIdhfYSvO1vX38cPHW8YWJAlhvdDHa-q3IwRC4gDDjUJq8tgu0QRYUXzREVPzUqrtmcUa-8LXbbGrZbMLHIJQg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Cape Coral City Council took several formal actions during its Jan. 8 meeting. Below is a concise summary of the recorded votes and outcomes.

Ordinance 86‑24 — Rezoning (Pandela area)
- What it did: Rezoned six parcels (about 1.02 acres) near Pandela Road from single‑family to commercial to align zoning with an existing commercial professional land use.
- Action: Council approved ordinance 86‑24 (final action).
- Vote: Motion carried (recorded roll call resulted in the ordinance passing; clerk recorded 7 ayes, 1 nay).

Ordinance 87‑24 — Cape Christian Fellowship PDP build‑out extension
- What it did: Extended the development/build‑out period for the Cape Christian Fellowship planned development project to allow completion of previously approved improvements.
- Action: Council approved ordinance 87‑24.
- Vote: Unanimous recorded vote in favor (8 ayes).

Appointment — Lee County MPO Citizens Advisory Committee recommendation
- What it did: Council recommended David Kramer for the City’s citizen seat to the Lee County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Citizens Advisory Committee; final appointment is made by the MPO.
- Action: Motion to forward Kramer’s nomination passed by roll call.
- Vote: Recorded as 8 ayes, motion carried.

Consent agenda
- The council approved a broad consent agenda of routine matters by roll call (all ayes recorded by clerk). See the city clerk’s minutes for the full consent list.

Transmittal (continued)
- Ordinance 78‑24 (Burnt Store Road District future land use amendment): Council voted to continue the transmittal/public‑hearing process to a committee meeting on Feb. 12 and to continue the public hearing to the March 5 council meeting for further review (motion carried 6–1).

Procedure note: Several other ordinances were introduced and scheduled for public hearing on Jan. 22; those items were not acted on Jan. 8. The council also approved minutes and other routine procedural items by voice or roll call votes.

Ending: The council’s recorded roll calls and ordinance numbers are included above; the city clerk’s official minutes provide the verbatim roll call record and full vote tallies.","Summary of formal actions at the Jan. 8 Cape Coral City Council meeting, including ordinance adoptions and a board appointment.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council Continues Burnt Store Road District Land‑Use Amendment After Residents, Owners Raise Property‑rights Concerns

City Utilities Defend Yellow Fever Creek Booster Station; Residents and Wildlife Group Urge Alternate Site

Three Fishermen, City Spar Over Chiquita Lock Removal; Council Hears Calls to Drop Fee Lawsuit

Residents, Council Members Debate JC Park Contract Changes as Public Seeks Stakeholder Role

Votes at a glance: Cape Coral council actions Jan. 8, 2025