LCMCD Board Votes Not to Extend Their Woodstock Lease

Five people addressed the Lee County Mosquito Control District at the Nov. board meeting. In favor of the purchase, Jonathon Hunt, of Matlacha stated, "When a resident comes before a board, I really feel that they should use their real name. . . that hasn't been done here today."

The complainants had just recently filed their brief appealing the decision to dismiss stating that the court did not accept or hear all of their arguments. However, easements issues were not included or articulated in the original complaint and there still are no specific complainants or complaints on the easement issues. It was the decision of the LCMCD counsel regarding easements that Florida's "Beneficial Use rule" and the "Adverse Position" law effectively limits or eliminates any serious future easements claims against the airport. Any possible easements claims in the future could be addressed individually and would not likely seriously or adversely affect operations.

There are no easements issues at the eastern end of the runway where it meets the bay and where the majority of the aircraft would be arriving and departing. Further, that the plaintiffs appeal was on procedural grounds and that it would likely not effect the original decision of the court, namely to dismiss the complaint. In addition, the LCMCD counsel said that they believed closing or not closing on the property will not change the nature or future of the lawsuit which has already been adjudicated with prejudice.

The board entertained the facts that all of Lee County's helicopter landing sites are closer, often much closer to residences in almost all cases.

There are fundraising sites set up by opponants of the airport to pay for legal fees and costs associated with opposing the sale of the already adjudicated and affirmed airport.

LCMCD's lease of the Woodstock airport expires Dec. 31st. The Board reiterated that if it terminated the purchase agreement early the $250,000 deposit would be refunded. However, the contract to purchase remains in effect and without any further action the closing would take place on the same date.

A motion not to extend the lease was passed.
A motion to close on the property at this Nov. 15th meeting failed for the lack of a second.
A motion to terminate the purchase agreement failed for the lack of a second.
A motion to complete the purchase at this Nov. 15th meeting failed for lack of a second.