More Bonita

• 13-year-old struck by vehicle after getting off of school bus in Lehigh Acres
• Blood donors needed; movie ticket awaits
• FGCU ‘Marrowthon’ competes to find a cure

Tell us about it

• What would you add to this story? Tell us what we missed.
• Do you have photos from this event? Documents we need to see? Share with us.
• Upload photos & videos
• More ways to get your stuff online and in the paper.

STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

Share and Enjoy [?]

BONITA SPRINGS — A swath of Bonita Springs residents visited their City Council members Wednesday.

They came because of the recent flooding in the city. They came because of a plan to allow development in the density reduction/groundwater recharge area in the eastern part of the city.

They came for both.

Bonita resident Ron Pure said the council may not have enough data to know how one will affect the other.

“In light of the recent problem, which was unexpected to all of us for sure,” said Pure, referring to the flooding, which has displaced hundreds of city residents, “I suggest we wait for the numbers to come in for what it’s going to take to mitigate the problem to the north, south and east of us.”

The city’s plan, which the council was examining as a group for the first time, is to increase the number of allowable residences and commercial space in the DR/GR area of Bonita Springs, which has had restrictions placed on it for nearly 20 years. The plan is intended to increase affordable housing in Bonita Springs thorough the use of compact development areas that will allow plenty of space for the restoration and maintenance of the environmentally sensitive locations within the area.

Developers will only be able to use the land if they fulfill many requirements, including paying for millions of dollars in infrastructure improvements, among them installing roads, sewers, an Interstate 75 flyover and other improvements.

The council listened to more than an hour of presentations from those conducting the studies that led to the recommendations and shared comments similar to those of the public. At least four council members said it was too early to send the plan to the state for a review before local approval. They did not make a final decision as to where the plan should go by press time.

But when the experts that helped the city develop its plan, little data was shared as to how development would affect any future flooding headed to the city.

“After the ‘95 floods, we had the ‘97 flood study,” said Councilman John Spears to Greg Rawls, who conducted an engineering analysis of the Bonita DR/GR. “Why is that not integrated into this recommendation?”

“We really weren’t looking at the flood aspect,” said Rawls, adding that looking at flood implications was not an intention of the studies done that led to the plan. “We didn’t do any flood analysis.”

Though Nicole Ryan of the Naples-based environmental group The Conservancy of Southwest Florida has not seen the city’s plan, she has seen the studies that led to its development. Ryan felt similarly to others at the meeting: The data isn’t yet there to make a decision on increased development in the DR/GR.

“Where are the FEMA flood maps? Was that part of this process? I haven’t seen where that information was part of any of the recommendations,” said Ryan. “We’d like for something like that to be looked at.”

The city will have another four months before it is expected to submit the plan to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. The plan is the result of a study completed in 2006 that made several recommended changes to the city’s comprehensive plan. The DR/GR plan is only part of those recommendations, which also led to suggested changes in the city’s plan for its Parks and Recreation Department and in controlling traffic congestion.

Among the traffic congestion changes are adjustments to the way in which the city monitors traffic congestion and the creation of incentives and penalties intended to encourage construction companies to finish road work more quickly.

If the council submits the plan to the state, it will take about 90 days for it to be returned with objections, recommendations or comments. The council will review and implement the response from the state, will hold further public hearings and has to approve the plan in another 90 days. Nonetheless, several council members wanted to hold the plan until fewer questions were left unanswered including the concerns of how developing the area would affect flooding.

Dan DeLisi, who studied the land and developed a plan for its use, said the development would not make the flooding situation worse. Concerns over adding roadways and paved surfaces that would increase runoff would not increase the risk of flooding, DeLisi said.

“It’s not quite that simple, because when you add impervious surfaces you also have to add water storage,” DeLisi said. “There may be no silver bullets in solving this problem but we’re not going to exacerbate it. I don’t see the issue.”

Councilman Bill Lonkart said there is no rush in developing the DR/GR.

“I don’t have any interest in pursuing something that we don’t even know how much it’s going to cost and I’m looking out for the people in District six, who are looking out for water also,” Lonkart said.

Councilwoman Martha Simons felt similarly.

“I think it’s very important, as John brought up, considering how you do an urban plan, how do you rectify the flooding problem,” Simons said. “What happens with the floods I also want to make a win-win situation. I still see some things we need to address like water storage.”

But Councilman Richard Ferreira said the council should note that the plan is just that: a plan. He also suggested further discussion is necessary.

“There’s nothing set in stone, we can revise it, we can change it. This is the beginning of a long process. If we do transmit it, personally I would like to see a workshop ... specifically on this particular document,” Ferreira said.

“A workshop where we can speak openly among ourselves and then make a definitive decision.”