Estero Village Council unanimously voted to affirm a development order Dec. 13 for a four-story, 137-unit apartment complex at the northwest corner of Three Oaks Parkway and Coconut Road.
The development order for the project, known as Brooks Town Center apartments, was approved with conditions by the Planning, Zoning and Design Board on Oct. 10 in a 5-2 vote.
The apartment units will be 20% to 40% larger than in a typical apartment community and monthly rent is expected to range from $2,500 to $5,000. The developer plans to demolish the former Winn-Dixie grocery store, previously a Sweetbay Supermarket, and replace it with a multifamily building.
At the time of the Oct. 10 meeting, Brooks resident Kathy Wyrofsky requested adversely affected party status, which was ultimately denied by the board in two failed motions.
The development order approval came four months after Council voted to settle a lawsuit with Long Bay Partners LLC, Top-CR Associates LLC and PAC Estero Apartments, which began in June 2020.
Village officials consistently stated that the village has no control over development of the site, considering the property was rezoned in 1997 by Lee County to include commercial, multifamily and hotel uses.
“When it’s approved with those uses, you cannot take those uses away,” Community Development Director Mary Gibbs said. “Even though the village incorporated, we inherited it from Lee County, it doesn’t go away. It doesn’t become void. It’s still in effect.”
In early November, a group of Brooks residents filed an appeal seeking to reverse the development order for the proposed apartment complex and void the approved settlement agreement that would allow the four-story project to proceed.
Five Brooks residents sought to become aggrieved parties and were allotted 45 minutes to present their concerns to Council on Dec. 13. Aggrieved parties are defined in the village’s land development code as anybody who has a legally recognizable interest, which may be adversely affected by an action of the village.
The main issue argued was that the development order was not consistent with the comprehensive plan and the land development code.
“The settlement agreement and the development order clearly only favor the landowner and developer,” Wyrofsky said. “If this inconsistency is allowed, we will be putting out the welcome mat for developers and many more unnecessary legal complexities. Both the site plan settlement agreement and development order lacked good faith, resident protection and, in our minds, necessary authority under the law.”
Village Land Use Attorney Nancy Stroud said the petitioners were incorrect about the consistency issue.
“The [development of regional impact] authorizes the multifamily use,” she said. “It authorizes the height. It authorizes the number of units, in fact more units than what the development order has approved. Because there’s no change, all the testability that was provided is irrelevant.”
Staff and Council acknowledged that while the testimony of the petitioners was heartfelt and passionate, it is not substantial competent evidence.
Developer Tom Cavanaugh, President and CEO of PAC Land Development, said he was open to discussion with residents on fencing and additional landscaping to address residents’ concerns about safety.
Council member Jim Ward, a resident of the Brooks, said while he feels the project isn’t compatible with what was originally intended, Council still has to make its decision based off substantial competent evidence.
“I remember the community being reached out to to support Sweetbay, because we recognize that if we didn’t support Sweetbay that it wouldn’t be there,” Ward said. “Subsequently, Sweetbay went away, Winn-Dixie came in. We again went out to the residents and said, ‘Please support Winn Dixie.’ Apparently, neither one of them was financially stable and could not exist. The developer had to reach out and do something different. Unfortunately, I don’t really see any reason to deny what the Planning and Zoning Board did.”
