Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Home RSS

Matlacha Civic Association case against incorporation

February 7, 2018
Pine Island Eagle

To the editor:

Regarding the recent lead article pertaining to my presentation to the Matlacha Civic Association, I offer 2 minor corrections. First, from my first-hand experience, Phil Buchanan was not involved in the original Pine Island Plan (1989-1992) along with the various implementing amendments through the 1990s. His involvement was with the 2002 Coastal Rural amendment. Second, I did not say that the Pine Island Plan can protect Matlacha from future annexations. I stated that Lee County has historically had our community interests at heart as demonstrated by numerous examples presented in the brief. Of particular note was the 2015 Pine Island Plan restudy. I stated that the 2002 Pine Island Plan Coastal Rural and the 810/910 Rule became illegal and indefensible, so the county redid the plan, to put it on sound constitutional footing while also increasing community character enhancing design standards in the process. A plan that does not have a firm legal foundation is a fake plan. To conclude, the idea of Pine Island claiming to look after the interests of Matlacha but not giving Matlacha and Matlacha Isles separate representative votes, while using fear as the driving tactic, is not right!

Greg Stuart




I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web