Local Planning Agency - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Okay. Good morning everyone. This is a regularly scheduled special continued hearing of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency. It is um Friday, May 8th, and it's 9:00 a.m. If you would please stand for the pledge of allegiance and the invitation. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We meet today to focus on the very best that can happen for our lives. Show us what we need to do this day. Give us strength physically, mentally, and emotionally. Help us to successfully meet every aspect of our lives. We ask to be inspired with creative and dynamic ideas and trust we are guided so that we can meet our lives with joy and confidence. Amen. Amen. Thank you, Amy.

Let's just do a roll call vote first, please. Um, we have Don Doug Ecman who has an excused absence today. Start with you, Jim. Jim Dunlap, John. Jane plumber, Anita Sarasa, Jim Bowen, Ed's going over. Okay, make sure your mics are on. There we go. Okay, so um this is a continued hearing. Um the hearing that we were working on was the comprehensive plan text amendment for the outrigger uh resort mixeduse CPA. So I'm going to read the title and reopen the hearing. Nancy. So, Madam Chair, um there's a couple other items, uh housekeeping in nature on your agenda.

You go right ahead. The first would be the approval of your final agenda. Yes. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Look, I'm just jumping the gun here. May I have a motion to approve the final agenda or with any changes, please? So moved. Second. Thank you. Any objection to the motion? Yes. Can you hold on a second, please?

Yeah. Um, I'd like to have a conversation and be glad to put it in the form of a motion about uh continuing today's hearing until the regular scheduled LPA meeting on the 12th, four days from now. The rationale around that was on April 14th and April 21st, we had long discussions to make sure we had a full complement of LPA members. Um, we obviously have some changes now in the um outline of the project which staff has not a chance to fully review, nor has the public in my mind. Um, as I understand it from watching the 21st meeting, Doug can be here and express significant interest in being part of the final conversation and I think on the 12th, unless someone else indicates on the today they can't be there, uh, we owe the full compliment to LPA to hear this thing.

So, yesterday morning I sent Amy a message saying I'm not going to be here on the 12th, Amy. Um, I mean, that's changeable if that is uh really what you all want to do. Um, uh, what's everyone else think? I have appointments in the afternoon. The only thing I will tell you is I have I have some hard stops early afternoon today. So, you will lose me today. Early afternoon today. Yeah. Like 1:00 [sighs] and and I am here, but I almost wasn't here. So, okay, Jane, I have appointments in the afternoon, so I'm not sure I can stay long on the 12th. Okay. Because I thought it was going to be

Jane Whis. I understood it was going to be a short meeting on the on Tuesday. On Tuesday the 12th. I scheduled. Okay. How about you, Jim? Um, well, I I had similar thoughts with Jim and Jim, your mic. [clears throat] I had similar thoughts with Jim. Um the amendments haven't been reviewed by staff and the revisions on page 56 are not consistent with all the language or the exhibits in the rest of the application.

So I also thought that we ought to have a discussion uh along with the um developer and whether he feels that it's uh important to have staff input. Um but in any event um so we don't um discourage the public. I think we ought to at least finish the public hearing portion of it even if we uh agree to continue uh the balance of it to another date. That being said, my question to staff would be, would you be able to

Well, let's hear what let's hear what Ed has to say. I have all day today open and I have all day on the 12th open.

So, can I just add to what Jim said? Um, we do have quite a number of people here this morning um representing the the community. Um, and if you do decide to make a motion to continue it to the 12th, you would have to go through each one and basically make that motion and um vote on it. We of course would want some input from our um our applicant to make sure that they are comfortable with with what you're proposing. Um but that would be the opportunity to go ahead and get the public comment into the record. Um since everybody is here

also I'd indicate I checked with staff and with town attorney um there won't be a disruption to the current applications on the 12th. There's a couple of them on there that we can dispatch certainly within the first hour and then continue with this one. So we wouldn't put anybody out of sequence that's already scheduled and planning on coming. Yes. So the the agenda has been distributed for the 12th. Um it consists of a one variance request and one text amendment um regarding setbacks and that would be legislative. So arguably it would not take too long. [clears throat] Advertise this. No, you don't have to advertise because it's a continuence. So, it's it was it's advertised in its continuence today. That's right.

So, um sounds like we might not have the full complement of the LPA, which is also part of the issue today. I mean, I agree. Staff hasn't reviewed it. We kind of don't have we're not at the ready. Well, you won't have either of us, [clears throat]

but I don't know. Will staff have it reviewed by Tuesday to get us something out? I mean, today's Friday. Uh, good morning, Jason Green, Community Development. Um, I don't want to be the No, I think you guys move forward how you want to move forward. Don't let us be the barrier to that. Um, it's going to be an evolving conversation with each of these different applications anyways. [clears throat] Uh, I don't foresee us revising or editing anything in the staff report at this time. The biggest hurdle was to revise the staff report to change the numbers that they're requesting. We could probably do that by Tuesday, but it's also, do we need to do that? You have in front of you, right? So, I'm kind of caught in in between here on what we're ready to move forward and discuss things as necessary. I'll answer it that way. Okay,

there you go. Yeah, but Jason, I don't want to come to Tuesday. I [clears throat] mean, so I change my plans. I don't go out of town. I'm here. I mean, I'm not going to not be here for this hearing. I wouldn't miss it for all the tea in China. So, um, if, uh, so we move forward on Tuesday, I don't want anyone to say, "Oh, we can't do it now today." Because staff hasn't had a chance to review whatever has been submitted. We will try to review as best as possible. My point is, I don't think it's a good good use of resources for us to scramble around and modify staff reports and change the numbers that are in there because, frankly, the agenda has to be modified and go out today

for to update the Tuesday. So that part you're going to get it's going to be out of sync with what they propose, but what they're proposing and revise you have in front of you and we can be we can respond to that at any time. Okay. I'm just not going to spend a lot of resource. I don't think we should spend resources to update the staff report. We can do that for council if it moves forward for there. But for this purpose, I I think you've got what you got.

And again, my motivation is primarily around having a full complement of decision makers both in front of the public in front of the applicant to express their opinions. Madame Chair, you probably would like to hear from the applicant as far as if this is a adverse impact on them. I know they're ready for today, but um is this something that you would consider?

Yeah, thanks Nancy. I think from our st excuse [clears throat] me, from our standpoint, I think when we set the ETH, it was um my understanding we're scrambling around with dates, looking at calendars, and everybody was kind of going, can we make this date? And I think part of that was on the basis there would be a full compleiment of everybody here. Certainly we were led to believe that Doug was contacted and could say yes. I think it does help us. We think it is a really important project to Fort Meers Beach. I think you all think it's a important decision to be made and I think for that a full compliment helps. I I think all my team uh can be here on the 12th. Uh so we would favor moving to the 12th. Thank you.

So is it a um majority uh wish here from everybody that I don't I want I want I want to deal with this. I want to deal with this. And um uh so um [snorts] but if it's a majority wish of this LPA members, I mean Ed, you're you're available either way. So you could go either way. That's correct. And and the fact that it wouldn't put any I know we have a lot in our queue, but I don't think we'd be putting anybody out if we if we extended this to next week.

Okay. You want to extend it to next week? Um, I'm available either day based on what the majority is, but I just wanted to make sure that the applicant would be agreeable to any extension and that the public had ability to voice their uh interest in the project today or next Tuesday. Yeah. Okay. And Jane, at this point, I'm not available after noon on Tuesday. Afternoon on Tuesday. Okay. Um, and Don, what's your Tuesday? You're open. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the whole day is open.

And do and and you're open. You've made this motion or you've made this. And what about Doug? Do we know that Doug's going to be here on Tuesday? [clears throat] We do not know that. He indicated on the 21st as I watched that hearing that he would be here. So, we can certainly make a contingent on uh that acceptance. [clears throat] But just yeah, for the record, we we will not have the full complement of the LPA because Jane has a conflict in the afternoon. So, we won't be through this by noon, did you say? Yeah. Yeah. We're not going to be through it by noon. Is there any way that you can change? I can work on it because I mean people flying in. Okay. Well, if I'm not going to go out of town, you [laughter] can change yours, too. Okay. There's leadership.

There's There's leadership. There's friendship. Yes, sir. Is there another date next week that would work where where we could have Jane? We don't have time to advertise another It doesn't have to get advertised, but we we don't have if if you know that. No, Courtney starts. Amy, are you finding a glitch? We were just checking on the procedural components. Okay, we're fine. And is everything okay? Yes. We just have a motion and a vote that's already on the table to accept it the agenda as it was. So something has to happen there. Yeah. Yeah. And then we can go. So that was the discussion of the motion.

So um so then the motion is going to fail because he doesn't want to Well, you do or you don't want to accept this as the final agenda. It's the final agenda, but you're going to ask for a thing. Different date. Yeah. Doesn't change the agenda at all. Let's let's have a motion to accept the final agenda. All in favor? I I Anyone opposed? No one. Okay. So, an an approval of the minutes of the last meeting. So, moved. Thank you. Thank you. Any objection? They were very good minutes, by the way. They were very good minutes. Um uh and all in favor? I

I Okay, passes. So before we move on to um public comment about anything that is not on the agenda, so if you're here to talk about this particular issue, you really should wait until I open this hearing. Um at at what pl at what point are you planning to ask for this delay, Jim, or are you hoping the applicant asks for another um continuence? I can go either way. Um the point I was putting it was the approval of final agenda because it would just change the date of the approval of final agenda which is why I put it in upfront.

So I think we have to take our vote on accepting that change uh as long as we're confirming with the applicant that that's um both acceptable and they can be prepared. Are we can I ask a question? Are we but if we're going to have a public hearing, doesn't the agenda stand and then it gets continued after the public hearing? It does. the agenda stands and you could open each public hearing on the item. You could hear public comment um and then at that point um it might be a little out of sequence [clears throat] for the um for the quasi judicial ones but um I think it's possible to do that. So Nancy um today [clears throat]

uh should we try to should we just cut our losses here and say okay Mr. Wilson asked for another continuence. He asked for another continuence and we're finished today. Or do we open these hearings, listen to what anybody has to say, and clarify any issues that the LPA might have or anything that Mr. Yvanovich or Mr. Wilson might want to bring up.

So, I want to avoid any kind of um issue relating to um noticing for the public hearings. Okay. So unfortunately my recommendation to you will be that you open each one um and then once [snorts] you open the public hearing I would say that it would be in your discretion on how you proceed. You have more flexibility with the first two items as they're legislative in nature. Um generally with the quasi judicial we would go through the script and um you know take comments and things like that but you could um in view of the circumstances I think you could just um accept public comment maybe hear from the applicant and then if you if there's a motion to continue those two as well or three

and I think it's out of respect for the people that might be here today that can't be here Tuesday we should let that get in the record. Absolutely. Absolutely. Okay. Then but I would suggest though we without a member missing any reaction, comment or interaction we would have without the benefit of the other member should be suspended until uh the date we push it forward if we choose to do that till Tuesday. Not having a member here any conversation we would have in reaction to or interaction around without the benefit of the member that I think we'd have a full compliment. I think it ought to stop short of discussion amongst us without the uh missing member. Are you going to ask for that every time somebody's missing? Not at all. This is not an every time situation.

I don't Yeah, I don't think I So you don't want us to discuss anything today? Not suggesting that. Suggesting if you're going to go line item by line item, we're missing one member's input. So what are you going to do on th on Tuesday when I'm not here in the afternoon? Yeah, we I don't think we can do that. We we don't we don't have to have a full compliment. We have to have a quorum and we have that.

That's exactly right. That is correct. And um for quite judicial matters and legislative matters for that um for that in effect as well. Um if you are absent and this holds true for any meeting that you have, it is your responsibility to review the record before because that way you are fully um prepared and um and there's no um you know lack of information on your part. And Jim,

happy to support that. Listen, I didn't mean to be snappy. I know this is an important case and and I've, you know, so you all know, I I've never sat on a board whose members I respect more than this LPA. I there you all are just quite extraordinary and it would be nice to have Doug's input on this, but I just it's just just a little sticky for me. But Mr. Yvanovich, did you have something you wanted to add to this little uh mix? Yes. Yes. Again, when we set today as the date, it was with uh the understanding that we would have all seven members here. That's why we agreed to that date.

But for that representation to us, we would be Well, let me correct you for a second. There there really we asked Amy to call Doug, correct? And she did, right? But but she got no response from him, so we didn't really know. We just made an assumption. Oh, and and I'm not saying anybody did anything wrong. I'm just saying we assume we would have a full all seven people here.

So, we're asking we are asking for the continuence on all of these items just to make sure it's clear on the record. We're not objecting to it. We're requesting it. We would prefer if you want to hear public comment on each of these items. That's certainly within your discretion. We would prefer not to present until we have the full compliment. That's what we're we would prefer not to present any materials today until they have a full compliment. I I just have a question. If you're not going to have a full compliment on Tuesday either, it sounds like. So, are we going to continue this until we have a full compliment? Because I that could be 3 months from now. I mean I mean everybody has schedules, right? So, it's Well, we we assumed since it's a regular meeting um everybody was going to be That's not the question, right?

That's not the question. And the question is on Tuesday when Jane Plameumber leaves at noon, are you going to ask for another continuence? If if that's the we would like to have all seven of you here. So maybe we'll get through at least the comp plan amendments on on the [clears throat] on the 12th. I'm I'm just I'm just not sure if we're looking for a full complement of the LPA. We may need to just look at calendars when Doug's here Tuesday and find a date when everyone can be here and hope nothing changes. I'm I'm just out of respect for what you're asking for. I mean I I don't know how we guarantee that

but I think we can get through on the 12th if you say it's going to take an hour. We've already made our presentation on the comp plan. We've already made essentially it's the same presentation for the reszone. The changes that we're making are what we thought you asked us to do regarding height and unit numbers and then we'll hopefully we can get at least through the comp plan and hopefully the PD and then if we need to continue again because Miss Pamemer can't change her plans we'll come back for the other minor petitions at hopefully your next meeting. We have a meeting if we have a quorum that we should be able to hold a meeting and move forward. [clears throat]

It should not matter if one person is missing. We're we're just it was important and we agreed to this day because we were rightfully or wrongfully told we were going to have the full compliment. This is a big project and we should go through.

It's also a numbers game and we all know that. So [laughter] it's just let's uh let's move on from here and um and you gentlemen can uh can ask for your continuence whenever you feel uh the need and um [clears throat] anybody have anything else before we move into the process of this meeting to honor the people who have taken their time to be here today including the six of us. Um anything else? So, where did we leave the We left it with I'm going to Mr. Ivanovich or Mr. Wilson will ask for a continuence. I thought I just did. We are asking for a continuence of

If you're asking for a continuence of all the items right now, then we'll just there'll be no discussion. Well, I just makes me mad. I think just to have the record clear because I don't want to deal with a notice issue. I think the public hearing has to be opened and then at that point the motion could be made to continue it to the date certain of May 12th. May 12th.

Okay. So, I'm going to read the title. I'm going to open the public hearing. There'll be no presentation on part of the applicant. Um the public hearing will be opened. Uh staff's not going to make any comments either. Is that the idea? Would you like to do the public comment on non-aggenda items first?

Yes, I I I will, but I'm just trying to get this this just Okay. Um, folks in the audience who are going to comment on this uh process here, our first public of availability for public comment is on non-aggenda items. I suspect you are all here to talk about this project. Is there anybody here who'd like to say something about something that is not about London Bay? Tom Brady. And Rebecca, did you raise your hand also? And and both of you did. I'm sorry. This may be correct process. Say your name. This is Tom Brady. Thank you, Tom.

Full-time resident. This may be correct process, but to the public, this looks like some hokey hijinks that are being played by them to manipulate the votes here. You can't possibly know whether he's going to be here or not unless you've had Sunshine Law violations. You don't know whether he's going to be here. So, you can't judge that because you can't communicate. Well, Tom, not not to interrupt you, but um Mr. Dunlap said he did review the record and Mr. of of the April meeting. So, that may be that may or may not be the case. That was I'm sure it is. If Jim said it is, I'm sure it is.

It's in question here. I mean, what's being done here? I I do have a concern about and how this looks and the people that flew in today, can they fly back in and then the request that you not discuss this or listen to it, it just it just blows everybody's mind that's sitting out here. So that's my comment on this. I I have a slight question. I know I can't ask questions, but I will be able to comment on the um legislative aspect of this as part of the regular agenda even though it's not a quasi judicial hearing. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Brady. I remember you spoke last time, but I don't remember your name. Good morning, David O'Brien.

Yes, sir. 12. Uh, I just have a a question about the the process in that uh this meeting there was not a public notice sent out like there was for the first meeting. Is is that correct or should we have received one? is because it's a continuence of a previous meeting to a certain to a date certain and then public comments that we sent sent in that we asked to be part of the record have those all been received by the members so that if somebody wants to uh speak today they can or if they want to submit and ask them to be part of the record you will receive them yes sir as part of that.

Yes sir we will. And then I have one comment about the original uh public notice which had an incorrect email in uh the notice to where to send your public comments to and it it bounced back. So in my case I I knew well it was it looked like it was supposed to go to the town clerk according to what the email address was. So I sent it to Amy and she clarified that. I she also asked for a copy of that public notice which I sent her. But my concern is there could have been a lot of public comments sent to that email address that bounced back and and people who didn't know what to do with them at that point uh were never heard. So that's a concern of mine for due process.

Amy, could you check on that, please? It has since been corrected. It has since been corrected. Okay, very good. The email was wrong. Thank you, Mr. O'Brien. U Mr. post. [snorts] Can you tell when I get mad, I start using Mr. and Mrs.

Hello, my name is Cameron Post. I'm a um property owner Don Curu. Um I did fly in today to basically hear the presentation live. I wanted to understand what was happening. I also flew in today to hear the public comments and I also flew in today to hear all of you see it, debate it, understand it. It'd be very disappointing if I basically paid $1,000 to come in and come out just to basically miss this whole thing. Um, and again with a quorum, it seems like there's no reason to delay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Rebecca, now you don't need your name tag on, Rebecca. People

don't know who I am. So, out of respect, um, with all due respect, it's nice to see you, too. I'm Rebecca Link, town counselor here on Fort Myers Beach. With all due respect, I would love to see a full quorum or I should say a full body every single time. We have the rules of quorum because life happens. We have dear ones who get in an accident changes their whole life and our whole life. We can't guarantee anyone anything. But for those of us whether you have a busy schedule or you don't, your time is as valuable as ours as theirs as theirs as theirs. Let's please respect that. We have a quorum. This isn't a strategic process. It's a following the process. And I do say that with all respect because it would be wonderful if everyone is here. Not about your project, but about all projects that come before us. We have these rules because they are important to us and we all agreed to them. Thank you.

Thanks, Rebecca. Respect. Is there someone else who'd like to speak about something not on the agenda? All right, we'll close that public comment. And um Nancy, do you have anything before I open the No, not at this time. Um you'll start with reading the title.

Yep. Okay. So this is the comprehensive plan text amendment, an ordinance of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, amending the text in the future land use element in the town of Fort Myers Beach comprehensive plan 2045 adopted December 1st, 2025 to include outrigger resort mixeduse land use category providing for clarifications as necessary. providing for conflicts of law, scriveners errors, severability, and providing for an effective date. Okay. So, um we have officially read the title. Um I the applicant is not going to make a presentation. Is that correct, Mr. Wilson? Mr. Yavanovich, you've got nothing to add here.

The comp plan amendment because you're going to ask for continuance. Do I ask now or do I wait? Nope. [clears throat] you wait until the public hearing is over. Thank you. Um Jason, you have anything you want to say in this particular moment on this?

Okay, I am going to open the public comment. This is the text amendment to the comprehensive plan. Amy, now Amy has a bunch of tickets. you know, um, uh, I see a questioning looked face on this you [laughter] and so I'm just going to it, you know, this of of all the elements of this case, it's perhaps the most important. It amends our comprehensive plan so you understand it to the guidelines that they are requesting for their project. So, if you have something to say about this, uh Amy is going to call your name. And if you still didn't um sign up, you're still welcome to speak.

Swear in and and and thank you, Jim. Thank you. Anybody who's going to speak today, if you would please stand to be sworn in. It's actually not necessary in a in a legislative forum. However, if go ahead and do it so we can uh have that out of the way for the quasi judicial. Thank you. Thank you. If you'll raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes. Okay. Everybody's been sworn. Okay. First up for public comment is Dave Nusbomb. Dave will be followed by Marsha O'Brien.

Good morning everyone. My name is Dave Nusbomb. I live at 66 Tennosero Boulevard. I'm here to again voice my support for the Outrigger Project. [clears throat] My family has been here for 40 years. It has been written that time is a merciless thief. If time is a merciless thief, hurricanes are its accomplice. For the last three and a half years, we've had our lives stolen. I, like everyone in this room, have spent time putting it back together. We were fortunate. We were one of the first to open up. Um, but for those people that continue to say the economy on the south end is booming, I encourage you to drive down the street from here to the new bridge and look at all the chainlink fence and empty lots that are there. We had noticed this week that one of the two places serving alcohol at Santini is closing its doors. We had a notice

that one of the other major projects are now looking for another investor or trying to sell the property. Everything from the red coconut down here is slowly having difficulty recovering. It's because we don't have enough bars, we don't have enough restaurants, and we don't have enough people. And I've sent you all letters stating that fact. It is going to be a long time before we get that in. And many places like the old theater that claimed to be a steakhouse coming haven't turned a shovel yet. even though it's been approved. So, I go to the LPA and say we need progress. We need something moving forward. We need people that are committed to make it happen. Make it happen when they say it's going to happen because the longer we wait, the more time steals from us. And we don't want to be waking up one morning and find out that all the time is gone. I ask the LPA to expedite however possible this project. get it started, get the people moving on it so that the south end can recover because compared to what has happened to the north end, we've had our lives stolen and it's very it's going to take a very long time to get it back. Thank you.

Thank you, Dave. Marsha, excuse me, [clears throat] Marcia O'Brien. Marcia will be followed by David O'Brien. Good morning, Marcia.

Good morning. So, my name is Marcia O'Brien. I'm a full-time resident of Fort Meyers Beach. I live next door to the proposed um project at Gulfside 12. We purchased our condo in January of 23 with the expectation that the adjoining property would be developed in accordance with the comprehensive plan and the land development code. We never thought it possible that variances of the size and scope proposed would even be considered. I'm opposed to the London Bay project for the following five reasons. The value of our condo will decrease due to the noise generated from the tiki bar which will be 50 ft from our pool as well as noise generated from the outdoor restaurants and pools. We will no longer be able to sit on our balconies and watch the sunset in peace and quiet. We will no longer be able to see stars at night due to the lighting coming from the resort. We will have to endure smells from the um emanating from the restaurant's grills. The private serene beach will be proliferated with who knows how many umbrellas and beach chairs. The sightelines and views, particularly those from the north side of the 6230 building, will be diminished and the loss of privacy due to the location of the tiki bar and rooftop restaurant within 50 ft of our building. Second, I am opposed to the project due to the increase in traffic generated by 200 more cars on our already congested streets. Excuse me. It'll become increasingly difficult to make a left turn onto a sterile boulevard from our driveway and the use of golf carts to ferry visitors from the Fishtail Marina will slow traffic down even more. I'm opposed to the seaw wall being proposed to the London Bay property due to the unknown and potential damage that could come to our property caused by a storm surge.

And I'm opposed to the relocation of the tiki bar within 50 ft of our pool. There's many residents of Gulfite 12 that have young grandchildren. They should not be subjected to loud music and adult language emanating from a bar. Lastly, I'm opposed to the project due to the increase in trespassers going onto our property either to reach the bathrooms or having to walk around the tiki bar. So, I respectfully ask you to vote no and to not uh recommend the project to the town council. Thank you. Thank you, Marcia. David O'Brien. And David will be followed by Cameron Post.

David O'Brien, uh, GFide 12. I have a question before I start if I could because I'm confused. Um, are we continuing or are we not continuing? Do I have another opportunity at the next meeting or will there be another? It looks like you're going to have an abundance of opportunities, Mr. Post. [laughter] I mean, Mr. Mr. O'Brien. So, this the applicant has said that they are going to request a continuence, but the process requires us because this was a continued hearing to open this hearing, hear the public that is here, close the public hearing. They will ask for a continuence which means that it will get opened again on Tuesday. Okay. So I can comment then.

You can comment then and your com any every every this pertains to everybody. Your [snorts] comments from the first meeting and this meeting and Tuesday will all be part of the hearing record and those that we submitted. Yes sir. They'll all be online. Everything will be a part of it. Is is impossible for me to ask? You're breaking all the rules Mr. Mr. O'Brien. But that's okay. It's a day of this. No. [laughter] Go ahead. the public comments we sent via email. Uh have you can you confirm that you've actually received and read them? I mean are those do those go into nowhere land or do they actually they come to us? Yes. Okay. Thank you. I'll wait till next meeting. Okay. We'll look forward to seeing you.

Cameron Post after Mr. Post will be Carol's Styer Steer. So does everybody understand this process now? Yeah. Okay. It's a little twirly. I understand it. Okay. [laughter] Um, nice to meet you, Cameron.

Nice to meet you as well. I appreciate having the opportunity to speak. I appreciate the forum. Um, and also to be able to speak and in this forum. Um, like I said, I'm going to actually read a lot of my notes because I wrote this last night. Um, and again, I flew in especially for this. So, my name is Cameron. I, my wife and I own a house um, on Curly Street that's close to the property. Back in April, listening to neighbors and what I was hearing from people more familiar with the planning infrastructure issues, the overall [snorts] scale of this proposal seemed concerning. While I wanted to preserve my ability to participate in the process if necessary, I also wanted to give the process time to work, to personally learn more, and to see whether discussions, revisions, and the continuence would move things towards more of a reasonable middle ground. I also wanted to better understand Fort Myers Beach more broadly, including its history, character, and people who care deeply about the island. But as I spent more time listening to people, reading the materials, and following the process, I'm afraid I'm not sure anything's really meaningfully changed since the last LPA meeting. While we are still learning about the latest version of the proposal, as far as I can tell, the overall density intensity still did not appear to have meaningfully reduced in any way that aligns to the recently adopted comprehensive plan framework. Instead, it seems like the revisions may largely involve reducing height in one building and then massing it in another and redistributing it in another while fundamentally changing the overall scale of the projects really hasn't happened. I also remain concerned that the cumulative impact of this project on traffic, flooding, infrastructure, and the overalla um compatibility on the constrained barrier island is is is not there. While I personally support redevelopment in general, we need to be cognizant of the level of growth that the island can realistically support long term while still preserving the scale and character that drew many people, including my wife and me, to invest in Fort Myers Beach in the first place. At least from where I sit today, while I absolutely believe in investment and redevelopment, this proposal still feels very difficult to reconcile versus the comprehensive plan and the existing

zoning framework that may many people believe would guide the future scale and character of the redevelopment on Beach. I believe there is absolutely a path forward of an outstanding redevelopment of this property and one that works within the the current comprehensive plan and vision that the town just adopted for the future. But I do not support amendments or approvals that move materially beyond and contradict the comprehensive plan and existing zoning framework many people believe would guide the redevelopment on the island. Thank you for your time and consideration. Um, and I do request that you don't do the continuation. Many of us flew into this. There was a quorum. I I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Carol Styer and following Carol will be Lori Webster. And I apologize if I said your last name wrong. That's okay. Everybody does.

Carol Styer, full-time resident on Driftwood. At the last LPA meeting, London Bay handed you a stack of form letters in support of this development. London Bay had a town hall meeting a few months ago at their Grand View condos. They left those letters on the chairs and asked everyone to fill them out because of all the opposition at the initial town council meeting. During that town hall meeting, London Bay indicated they would need to sell X number of units before starting construction. No one knows how long that will take. During the same segment, London Bay said they still had two units left to sell at Grand View before finally being sold out. Look how long it took them to do that. Look how long it took Golfside 12 just to get their pre construction sales to sell out. If London Bay would have designed this to the comp plan, they would have already been approved. had less pre-construction units to sell. They may have already started construction and be completed sooner. London Bay says, "We need this to get our mojo back to the south end." At the town uh hall meeting, they said it would be a minimum of 5 years before they're opened. In the in that time, Sandbar, South Beach, Pinchers, and the theater restaurant hopefully should all be opened. We'll have our mojo back by then. Also during the town hall meeting, London Bay said they would employ employ about 300 employees. How will those positions be filled during peak season? During peak season, only visitors want to sit in one to two hours of traffic to get on and off the island. How many people are going to be willing to do that several times a week for part-time minimum wage positions? This development will turn into a ghost town that's empty because there won't be enough people to run it. As for public benefit, someone mentioned it online. Have them rebuild the school. Have them renovate renovate the chiropractor office next to the 7-Eleven. The problem is with every development that's approved, less full-time residents will

stay and/or afford to move here. Until the town makes an effort to promote more family living, this is going to be a resort rental community with no need for schools or medical services. Rhetorically, how is Santael doing it? We heard that the water and sewer pumps on and off the island can barely support the current infrastructure and they're being manually emptied at night. There are two huge houses at the end of Bay View Lane in Fair View subdivision that couldn't get water to them during construction. How are these huge London Bay buildings going to get water pressure when two houses can't get it? Public benefit would be to have London repair the enti the island's entire water, sewer, and pump infrastructure. None of these public benefits still take the place of building so outside the comp plan. This these benefits should be pro provided to build slightly outside the comp plan. Finally, no corporation as successful as London Bay is would not have a backup plan to build to the comp plan. If it comes down to that, make them build to it. It's not our problem to secure their ROI. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Um Lori after Lori will be uh Lisa Weissman. Good morning. Good morning Lori.

Lori Webster. I live on Kuru Street as well. This town incorporated to prevent largecale development from crushing our island. When they incorporated, our founders determined the appropriate zoning for each node of the island. It was not done randomly or without thought. It was done carefully, intentionally, strategically. Rules were put in place to protect the island from overdevelopment and to support a healthy infrastructure. A lot of time, effort, and money was put into that plan. Our founders forethought extended to allowing variances that made sense to allow for responsible development. This proposal makes so little sense that they need to rewrite the comp plan to accommodate it. They can't accomplish what they want through variances alone. They need their own classification. That is not responsible development. That is arrogance and greed. Neither of those are healthy for our island. Despite what some residents believe, bad development is not better than no development. Let's assume for a moment that all of the propaganda that they're putting out is true. It's not. By their own timeline, any realized gains by the town are 5 to 6 years out. The south end will be robust and bustling again before they even put a shovel in the ground. They promise a beach access. We already have one right on the other side of their property line. It's beautiful. We don't need a grand ballroom as a public benefit. They need it to bring in clients for their hotel. This can be said for all but two of their quote public benefits. Every [clears throat] other one benefits them, not the residents of this island. They are revenue generators, not public benefit.

Public restrooms and a wave mitigation wall are the only two which might benefit the public for what? the tallest towers on the island and far so far beyond the comp plan that they had to reinvent the computation of it. As for the most popular argument I have heard in favor of this project, the tiki bar that we all knew and loved, there is zero chance it materializes. It is simply a carrot being dangled to garner support. London Bay likes to say it has requested and listened to the surrounding public. I live one street over and have never been invited to invo to voice my concerns. Every event has been small and exclusive. I'd love an actual public forum. In closing, there are over 300 condo units currently for sale on Fort Myers Beach. Tell me again why we need 96 more.

Lisa Wiseman and following Lisa will be Todd Capella. Uh, my name is Lisa Wisman and I am a full-time owner of a home in South Fort Myers Beach on Bay Beach Lane. I've been to two of London Bay's presentations, was at the entire April 14th L uh, LPA meeting. Skim the comprehensive plan. I've looked at everything on London Bay's website. Um, I've looked at conversations on social media for what that's worth. Um, I continue to be strongly in favor of this project, and it's not because of a tiki bar. That's that's like the last thing I really care about. Um, I've emailed every member of the LPA and I had real specific reasons for supporting this project. At this point today, I am simply asking that the LPA consider the facts and not the emotions and make a decision that aligns with the realities of the present and the future of Fort Myers Beach and not the past. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Todd. Todd Capella. Following Todd will be Beth Burwinkle. Good morning. Todd Capella, full-time resident on uh Bay Beach.

Um I also went to both of the London Bay presentations in their Granville property. Um and I also implore you to follow the facts. The facts are that there is nothing in this project that this island that this town that we as residents need and virtually nothing that we want. Uh absolutely correct. The tiki barb isn't even a promise. It's a carrot. We all know it's not going to happen. FEMA's never going to allow it. Florida is never going to allow it. There's zero chance. and a restaurant that is far beyond what most of us residents of the island are going to be willing to pay. I'm not going to pay $15 for a Mc Ultra. I'm not going to pay 30 bucks for a margarita. I'm We don't We don't go and have dinner for $250 to $300 for a couple. And I don't think all that many people on this island do. So, they're going to truck their own people in. are going to boat theoretically their own people in. Um it's it's not for this town, it's for them and it's as as was previously said, it's just their own profit centers. Um so I mean I think the facts are clear. They've got to rewrite the comp plan to even make some crazy umbrella under which this makes sense. The town exists to make sure that that doesn't happen. Town Council exists to make sure that doesn't happen, you are here to make sure that doesn't happen. And aside from all of the hard facts of which you've seen many times and has been presented to you in emails and letters and everything else,

I want to just talk about our lives, our lifestyles, our quality of life. Before the storm and before these excessive overdevelopment projects started popping up and attacking our way of life, we used to go to the bars and restaurants on the island, on the north end, on the south end, and we'd have conversations with the person beside us who might be from Minnesota or Ohio or wherever it was about, hey, where's a good place to eat and and about our quality of life and our beautiful beaches. Now, those conversations are we're being attacked every day by these huge overdevelopment prospects that obviously the majority of the people here don't want. We've got recalls that showed you that. We've got an independent survey that the town didn't pay for and didn't ask for. That shows that clearly the majority does not want this. So, just vote no and drop the mic.

Thank you, Mr. Capella Bethw Beth Beth Burwinkle following Beth will be Ellie Bunting. That's a great name you have. It's acquired. [laughter] [gasps] And yes, sometimes they call me Rocky. So, [snorts]

um, good morning. I am Beth Burwinkle. I've been a resident of Fort Myers Beach for over 35 years and I currently live at 6240 Eststero Boulevard and I stand before you this morning to state my opposition to the development of the outrigger property by London Bay as it stands today. The developers state that this largecale complex is in the high-rise section of Fort Myers Beach when in fact highrises don't start for another half mile or more down the boulevard. They're propo pre their previously proposed tallest building could be 150 feet taller than the houses to the north and easily 100 ft higher than the buildings immediately to the south [clears throat] seems like an insult to the neighbors frankly. Um before today in your mail I provided you with a comparable land use analysis and I think it provides the real story of land costs and project feasibility. In that analysis it showed that the Gulfide 12 uh land price per unit was about $957,000 while London Bay per unit is only $369. So all of their variances they need um sorry their ROI is not a valid reason

for all these variances that they're requesting. Their ROI is not our problem at all. Plus, their request for this outriggered district is egregious. They refer to it as a small request, but in fact, it is a huge request. It's comparable to giving them a blank check. Please, Linda Bay, when they purchased the Outrigger property, they knew this the laws of the state of Florida. They knew about the comp plan for Fort Myers Beach. Please have them stick to our comp plan and have them calculate their FAR value properly. Thank you for your time and attention.

Thank you, Beth. [clears throat] Ellie Bunting. Following LA will be Moren Mahoney. Good morning, Ellie. Good morning. [laughter]

I learned that. My name [snorts] is Ellie Bunting and I'm here today to ask you to vote no on the London Bay project. This project does not follow the comprehensive plan that the residents of Fort Myers Beach work so hard to create after incorporation. The plan specifically designed to prevent overdevelopment and to protect the character, scale, and livability on our island. We have been down this road before. In the 70s and 80s, hundreds of units were built on Fort Meyer Beach with very little long-term planning. The result, increased congestion, strain on infrastructure, loss of neighborhood character, and development that often benefited outside interests more than the residents who live here. After incorporation, our community came together to create a vision for the future. One that respected the limitations of a small barrier island and prioritize resilience, safety, and quality of life over unchecked growth. We do not need any more large hotels on the island. Our tax base is already secure. We do not need to sacrifice our comp plan simply to accommodate another large developer. Once projects like this are approved, the president is set and it becomes harder and harder to defend the protections that residents fought to establish. Fort Myers Beach is not Naples, Miami Beach, or downtown Fort Lauderdale. It is a unique island community with environmental limitations, evacuation concerns, traffic challenges, and a distinct character worth preserving. This is the moment to stand up for our island and uphold the comp plan exactly as it was intended to be used. I respectfully ask that you vote no.

Thank you, Ellie. Moren [clears throat] Mahoney. Following Moren will be Karen Lecu Janvari. Good morning and thank you for letting me speak today. Good morning. Morning. I've been an owner of a condo in Cookina which is at 6100 right next to the property. I've been an owner there for 35 years. I was at the celebration party when Fort Meyers Beach became its own town and Anidia danced with my husband that night. [laughter] I don't have my own. I have to borrow them period.

It's okay. I don't mind. [laughter] I just thank you to know that we've been here for a long time. [laughter] Thank you, Lord.

I I everything everyone that's spoken so well has has they've all done such a great job and they've said a lot of the things that I wanted to talk about, but I want to mention quickly four four issues that I have an issue with in this project. Density. This is a seven mile island with a width of probably less than a half of a mile. It can't stand this infrastructure keep going up all over this island. Um density with objects with a lower density than the surrounding fluid float while those with higher density sink. Uh, ostentation. Someone mentioned this is these are not the restaurants we're looking for. We're looking for the ones we've had on this end of the island for so many years. Ones that the people at Fort Meyers Beach can spend time with their families at uh neighborhoods. This is a neighborhood. This part of the island has always been a neighborhood. When we purchased here, we looked from one end of this island to the other because we liked it so much. And this is the place in the area of this island that we chose to live on because of the neighborhood, the quiet neighborhood feel that it had. And my fourth item is traffic. And I don't think much has to be said about that because we all know how terrible it is and it only keeps getting worse. Being down here in season is just crazy. If you didn't all notice, the first letter of the four points I brought up for discussion today spell the acronym don't. I'm asking you to please don't

vote for changes in the comprehensive plan. We don't want our island to turn out like Marco Island. We want to live in the place that we've always lived. [snorts] Thank you very much for listening to me and I appreciate your efforts. Thank you, Moren. Tell your husband I said hello. [laughter] [clears throat] After Karen will be Ellen Vaughn.

Good morning. My name is Karen Lecu Jandberry and I own a condo also at Coina next door to the former outrigger. The town of Fort Myers Beach incorporated back in 1995. Tall building construction that was approved by Lee County was a main reason that the town moved to incorporate more than three decades ago. Why does town council continue to entertain amendments brought forward to big corporations with deep pockets when incorporating the island was specifically supposed to prevent these situations? London Bay purchased the outrigger property knowing full well what the building restrictions are on Fort Meyers Beach yet seems to have had every intention to convince the planning committee and town council to adjust the codes for them and support their application for variances. In my opinion, Londonbased project does not enhance islanders quality of life as suggested. It simply lines the pockets of their investors. The rapid population growth on the island has led to severe traffic congestion during season and a strain on community resources. Despite many condo buildings and homes still not occupied after Hurricane Ian, many residents have left the island or are leaving due to increased density, high costs, and overwhelming development altering the area's original character. Countless condos and properties remain unsold or empty. Has any planning committee member or town council member examined real estate on Fort Meyers Beach to help them make an informed decision about adding more condos, especially ones above the town's height restrictions? Residents already contend with ridiculous traffic and poor in infrastructure, yet property taxes remain pretty high. Last meeting, I listened to members of the planning council committee respond with statements like, "I really don't care how tall London Bay builds. More condos equals a higher tax base. Hotel or condo language really doesn't matter to me, etc. Comparing a new height allowances to buildings like Point of Steroile,

which was built over 35 years ago, wasn't the intent behind the current building restrictions. The buildings referenced were already built prior to the building [snorts] uh restrictions. To me, this isn't a thoughtful approach to a decision that will impact our island residents, beaches, and wildlife. These reckless and offensive opinions completely disregard public input. Current building restrictions and the negative impact increased density will have on our small, already compromised island. The London Bay developers and their investors will build their massive condo buildings with inadequate parking spaces and leave our residences behind to address the long-term impact of such a build. We live on a barrier island. In one breath, we are mandated to change lights to accommodate our beloved sea turtles and to be mindful of the birds and nesting along shores who is protecting our Fort Myers Beach residents from overdevelopment. London Bay's proposal will further handcuff us to our homes with increased t traffic and parking problems. I live in a condo building next door to London Bay's proposal. Parking overflow will land in our neighborhood parking lots. Our views once guaranteed never to be lost when my family purchased in the 80s will be grossly impacted and steady stream of deliveries for their businesses will add to traffic and noise. The amenities on port on London Bay's resort life lifestyle will likely be reserved first for the permanent residence and gasoline little opportunity for locals. I I thank you for your time and efforts and I surely vote no for this. Thank you. Thank you very much for your comments.

Good morning, Ellie.

Good morning, Ellen [clears throat] Vaughn. I'm a resident of Fort Myers Beach. I live at 7500 Astero Boulevard, and I've always referred to this area as the suburban end of the island. It is the land of the highrises and has been before the town was incorporated. I really want to direct my comments to the representatives from London Bay that are here because I'm not opposed to building a 15-story building. However, how many feet will that building be? I understand that you want to have high ceilings and and all the above. Uh, keep in mind that whatever the tallest building is right now, which is 13 stories, and that happens to be Bermuda Dunes, which is down the street from where I live. Um, anyway, I'm I'm usually not tongue-tied, but there's been so much said this morning that I want to ingest all of it. But really what the point I would like to make to you is that this is to me reminiscent of when TPI came forward with what developed and became Margaritavville. And what they did is they listened to this town for I think it was like 18 months maybe was some very prolonged period of time. They had listening sessions where they took in information and they changed their design multiple multiple times. It got to the point where we actually formed an organization we called five decide because we thought at that time five town council members made the decision. It turns out it's only three. However, the point being that we got to the point where we would come to town council meetings and we had t-shirts made in support of TPI. We were supporting them. I was part of a group that we we actually went neighbor to neighbor and had petitions printed that we paid for to have printed and we submitted them to the town council and I kept them for the longest time. And in any event, they made changes to their development plan and they won the endorsement of the entire community. There were there were town council meetings that would go on for hours and hours. They had to have an overflow with a tent in the in the backyard and in Yeah. behind the the town council because we were all in favor of it

because it was going to breathe life back into the north end which had been sorely decimated by Hurricane Charlie which was in 2004 and it took them years and years to bring that project back. But we all embraced it and Margaritavville absolutely brought this town back to life after Ian. you had that same opportunity to put something together on the outrigger property that we could all fall in love with. Thank you. That's all I have. That's all I have signed up. Okay. Would anybody else care to speak? Tom and Nancy. Okay. And someone egg. Hi.

Tom Brady, protect FMB and full-time resident 339 Madison Court. I strongly oppose this London Bay development. The applicant is asking town for extraordinary concessions, including amendments to the comprehensive plan that are effectively spot zoning. They're not minor adjustments. They represent a fundamental shift in the policy to accommodate a single private project. Now, I'm try to be nice, Anita, and I know you're going to chastise me, but um

Well, get ready for it then. You're you're opening the door for me. But uh at the last meeting I was nice and I thought uh I suggested to the applicant that they not discuss the economic advantages of the project and they still presented 15 slides on it that were complete in my opinion misinformation. The AC the applicant even described them as undeniable facts yet the town manager count contradicted them and suddenly they've gone somewhat silent. although they continue to advertise it as an economic benefit on their website with false information in my mind or com no detailed information and um some members of the public continue to regurgitate this misinformation. This alone should give this and the town council serious pause in my opinion because the applicant either purposely mis misrepresents the impacts of the project or fails to adequately understand the impacts on our town. [clears throat] Neither would justify the extraordinary attention that you are giving them to hear their case. I also question why the town is applying additional resources to this project when they're asking for special benefits. the Jason's and the rest of the staff have dedicated so much time to this and yet I feel that other people are put to the back of the queue. People that should be advanced through this LPA meetings and other hearings and yet we're still not keeping up with the with the demands of this one project. Um we would better focus on issues that are really facing the public, not this particular project. The public deserves permanent enforcable concessions for the benefit of the majority of the residents, especially those directly impacted by the projects. Residents of Gulfside 12, the adjoining property do not support the proposed developments. The views of adjacent residents

should carry far more weight than supporters who clearly do not bear the daily impacts. I urge the LPA to reject this proposal and require compliance with the existing comprehensive plan and land development code. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Nancy. Yes, ma'am. [snorts] Oh, not you. That Nancy [laughter] Walker. Nancy Walker. There's so few of us around.

Nancy Walker. I'm a full-time resident on IBA Street. Uh, first of all, consider the facts. We were talking about facts. The comprehensive plan was made by the town. You're the LPA. Your duty is to uphold the comprehensive plan, which is our constitution. Why would we change the whole constitution for one entity? That's wrong. Go around it, work around it, amendments, however you have to do it, but don't change the actual comprehensive plan for one entity, which states your comprehensive plan, your visions are to keep the small town character and to limit high-rise development. That's on like page two or three. It's right there in the beginning. Um, they are asking for deviations for public benefit. I live around here. It's time to realize the outrigger is gone. It's not coming back. They're not going to bring the outrigger back. They're maybe give us a tiki bar. Who cares? I mean, at this point, it's not worth 17 stories. We have to understand that. It's not worth the overdevelopment for whatever they're going to give us. We have a linear park aka sidewalk that already goes to the beach. We could put a temporary bathroom like you had by Diamond Head at the Flamingo beach access. It can be removed by a light duty truck for FEMA. Um and you know, and bingo, we've met the public benefit. I mean, that's that's it for this neighborhood. um as far as their public benefit. The other thing is um regarding restaurants, it's not going to be done for five years or so. Santini will be done. Maybe the maybe the beach um theater will be done. I mean, we're coming back slowly. Nobody's invested in Santini because the condos weren't done. They didn't have the people here. Now the people are back. They're coming back. So, they're going to the business will come. We have a paradise here and we need to protect it. Um, and the other thing is the real benefit to London Bay

is beach access. All right, they have this beautiful stuff in Asterero and I see their ads and the stero Bay looks beautiful, but they have no access to the beach. Bonita Bonita Bay has a beach club. Uh, the what is it? The Hyatt or whatever has their own little island on Big Hickory. Um, this is going to be a selling point for any property they want to develop in Asterero on the old what was it the old weeks fish thing whatever the camp they're going to they're going to market this guaranteed if this gets approved for their private beach club to run them over by boat to fishtail and bring them here to their private beach club. This is not for Fort Myers Beach people. Don't fool yourself to think that you're going to get an outrigger out of this. It's not going to happen. It's time to face the facts. The public benefits are not worth what we are going to give up. Um, let them develop a private beach club, a hotel, whatever, but not this monstrosity that they have been presenting to us. It's not worth it to the town, and we need to protect our paradise. We can be something really beautiful. Thank you.

Thank you, Nancy. Uh, yes, sir. He wasn't someone, you know. I well this is a this is a legislative hearing so it doesn't have to be

I uh Walter Pilkins fix this short people also known as Teddy uh live right down the street 159 Pia Vio we like to describe our uh where we live as five houses from the water in both directions because it's a skinny island right here at this point in fact that area is low density housing no more than four families per acre if you want to put a duplex, you need a third of an acre. And even if you have a third of an acre, that's it's not an easy sell apparently because I actually when we first bought the house, and this is little while back, we told that it's not an easy process. When I went to the very first um meeting about the outrigger at Diamond Head, when they first did it, if you were to close your eyes and listen to what they were describing, two floors of parking, bigger rooms, taller ceilings, bigger restaurants, it sounded great. It sounded pretty much just like Margaritavville. If you can envision Margaritavville being where the outrigger was, sounds beautiful. They could be they could be building it right now. No, no doubt about it. Unfortunately, then they went on to talk about this big condo tower. And of course, the big condo tower takes up all the space that you needed for your margarita style hotel. And now you got two ugly towers. And I've become a little bit cynical about this because obviously this uh the comp plan doesn't allow two one ugly tower, let alone two. So I'm wondering if they ever really thought that they'd be able to build this because clearly the rules say that they couldn't. And they kept saying every now every now and then they say, "Of course we could just build condos." So I'm beginning to think that was always the plan. They're going to say, "Well, since you won't approve this, we'll just put condos." And I believe that was always the plan. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak? No one. Come on up, Steve. Good morning, LPA. My name is Steve Johnson. I'm a resident uh residing on Seminal Way. Uh first, I was uh actually we were watching the meeting and I was a little bit appalled at kind of the positioning that was going on from this LPA regarding the numbers and and the votes and and uh the potential for a stalemate if uh you know, if there were if there were three votes for, three votes against. Um, in my mind, I'm surprised we're at this we're at this place right now. Uh, it wasn't even 6 months ago there was a a historic recall on this on this island. And really the purpose of that was because of overdevelopment. The support for these unilateral decisions by a very small group of people to attempt to change the the uh the uh the future of this island. Um, and so here we are again looking at a monstrosity that doesn't uh there's no life uh human scale uh project. This is this is a complete overdevelopment on this island. Um, when I moved here, I assumed I was uh, you know, there's a covenant protecting homeowners for their investments and what the future and the value proposition of this island would be for uh, residents moving forward that would move in. Now, this is as far away from this covenant as I can even imagine. This was to be a small barrier island, nice, relaxed, uncongested as possible. Even at that time it was congested. So to thought that we were even going to increase intensity and provide even more congestion to this island to me is absolutely absurd and has been rejected.

Clearly 6 months ago and even most recently this uh independent survey that went around that confirmed everything we all know that the residents of this island are objectly against overdevelopment of this island to the scale that is being proposed by London Bay. Nobody's against development. We all know and all lived through these uh these terrible storms over the last four years and we need to we need to redevelop but not to the scale that is being offered by London Bay. Um so the thought of actually amending our plan just for this uh project seems to be a little bit too convenient and being driven by special interests. We can't allow these special interests to continue to run this island. We can't do it. I mean, there's literally a cabal of people with a self-interest that are opposed to the residents. Um, so as you all know, I mean, there's uh the the the intensity this town cannot absorb the intensity of these projects. We've we've just most recently had a couple of fish kills. our storm water system that was just recently put in uh is is what I I think is an abject failure to this point until it can be uh can be uh uh reconstructed and um and I thank you for your time.

Thank you, Steve. Mhm. Come on in. Good morning.

Hello. Cindy Johnson, resident seinal way. I will address I'll try and I want [clears throat] to give some concrete uh examples of how this comp plan amendment is a bad idea and we should not do it. So a comp plan amendment to benefit one project should not be to the detriment of what is around what's surrounding it. So what is surrounding it? We have GFide 12, a recent positive development that I think everyone agrees on is a a great place has a beach access for the neighbors and they're not it's not high intensity dens, you know, it's not high intensity density. It's fine with everyone in the surrounding area. North of that you have Coina which as she said they were promised views perpetually. Well, why doesn't Fort Myers Beach do that? They do that everywhere else in the United States. I was just in Oceanside, California. And you cannot take away someone's view by doing something that is against a comp plan and to to further put a comp plan amendment in for them for their purpose is not a is not something we should be doing. And then we have what I would I would say if I wanted to live on the beach I would want to live in that neighborhood because you're not backing up to a sterile boulevard. the houses that are north of London Bay should not have to would be it would be detrimental to the area to have something with such intensity and density and we should not change the comp plan by agreeing to an amendment for this project. Then I want to talk about the storm water. That project is covering almost the

entire property. That means all the storm water and say they say they're going to treat it, but it's going to go into the town's storm water system. Well, the storm water is going right into the canals that are on the bay side. And those are lowlying streets and they're already flooding when it's sunny out. And this is something that Miami is dealing with right now. It's not a place that people want to live and people see that and it's and people are fleeing here because of it. So unless they could figure out a way to make some space on their property to deal with the storm water, you should not be agreeing. We have to think of what's what they're asking and what the what's going to happen down the road. And I the wildlife in general to put that density on the beach is detrimental to our wildlife. And more than 60% of the tourism in the state of Florida is for the natural areas and we need to be preserving not trying to build out onto the beach. Thank you for your time. Please do not vote for their comp plan amendment. Thank you.

Thank you Cindy. Barbara.

Good morning. Barbara Hill, a resident of Madison Corp, Fort Myers Beach. Good morning to LPA and to staff. Um, I am opposed to this London Bay development as presented. Um, my family and I have lived here and had a presence on Fort Myers Beach for over 70 years. I have seen a lot of changes on this island and I want to tell you that I'm very excited about all of the things that are happening. uh such as Margaritavville, the new 7-Elevens, the Islander Shop. Um things are happening that are very positive on this island and we're very very excited about that. Uh however, I am opposed to this development because this is not smart development. This is not in keeping with our comp plan and not in keeping with our LDC. I would like to um state too that to me this building the this development is too high is too dense and it is within the neighborhood established neighborhood of single family residences. That alone should have stopped LPA in its tracks from even thinking about considering this project. Please vote no. Uh, and also to London Bay, do better. Thank you.

Thank you, Barbara. Is there anybody else who'd like to speak? Uh, David, you already spoke once. Yeah, I went up and asked questions. I was wondering if I could speak. [laughter] Is there any objection? Come on up. Boy, you're playing your cards all over the place today, David. I was just trying [clears throat] to clarify before. Sorry. All right, you go right ahead.

Uh, I just wanted to go on the record that uh, all of the owners at Gulfide 12 are opposed to this uh, proposal even though only two of us, two of the families are here today, but we're we're all opposed to it. One of our issues has been that uh, London Bay never contacted us directly, never asked for our input. Uh we think that that would be very helpful when residents that are within a few hundred feet of a a development that's asking for these kinds of variances that they asked for our input and did whatever they could to try and accommodate that. They never did and and and that's I think a a poor way to go about it. uh you know in this process the developers put forth a maximum plan that they think can be approved and then they leave it up to the citizens the LPA and the town council to try and whittle away at the plan uh until and unless there's enough votes for approval and and that makes this process very arbitrary uh and and it's likely that it never achieves the goal of following the comprehensive plan or making a minimum number of adjustments and variances needed Um, one other uh piece of of data, uh, Gulfide 12, their property was purchased uh 190 ft for 11.5 million. Uh, the outrigger property is 365 ft and using the same value would value that property at 22 million, not the 38.2 that they paid for it. Uh if you add in the uh parcel across the street at uh what was estimated by a local real estate agent at 4 million, that's 26 million. The the actual amount they paid is is way above what was paid just in uh within a few years at a a neighboring property. At that land value, the developer should be

able to develop the property at a much low at much lower building heights just like they did next door at Gulfide 12 and and should not be allowed to overdevelop their property for their economic uh benefit. At one of the last town meetings or at the last town meeting, uh, an arbitrary maximum height of 158 feet was proposed that might gain consensus, but that shouldn't be the goal. You know, you don't just throw out a number because it's it's another height uh along the panorama. Uh, the goal should be to find the lowest economically feasible height ideally within the compliance of the comprehensive plan. For instance, couldn't you move the restaurant and event center across the street on the property they have across the street and lower the heights of the buildings uh from what they are now? I think you could do things like that. So, to me, there's a lot that can be done to further try to get within the comprehensive plan.

Thank you, David. Anyone else who'd like to speak today? Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing. Um, uh, Mr. Yanovich, do you care to put on the record the changes you have suggested to the You don't have to. I'm just asking. You've suggested changes to this. Do Do you Yeah. Do you have Do you have the changes? We you you submitted them to us. Yes.

Right. Yes. And I'm happy to do that, but we're still going to because I don't know if the public's commenting on any of those changes or not. That's what so we can but Nancy what does that do for the continuence request if we if we go down this road? Well I think that today's meeting is part of the record and in the event at the final end when we compile the record whatever said today would be part of it. I mean if if you just want to highlight it it's your call. Well, I I think I think it's probably our request is to do it in front of the full contingent of of you all. Are we going to continue this or not, I guess, is the question. That's that's entirely up to you.

Well, we asked for the continuous. Yes, you're and and it'll be your [snorts] opportunity to ask for it right now. And we've had the hearing and Don, do you want to say something? Yeah. Do we have We've had public comment. We've had public comment hearing. Yes.

Could I make a statement? Just maybe just put on the record. Um, I might suggest that if London Bay I'm confident London Bay looked at a lot of scenarios for this property. I'm [clears throat] confident they looked at how many stories where the break even works, you know, whether it's condos, whether it's hotel rooms. I think it would be interesting for people to see what we would actually get with either all condo, uh, all hotel, four or five stories above parking, whatever it is. I I would I think it would be interesting to see that and for the public to see that because it's going to be different. Everybody talks about don't crowd the street so you push back, right? Everyone talks about height. There there is there is something that works on this property. It might swallow the entire footprint with four floors above parking. I don't know what it it might be ugly, right? But there is something else that works. I just think, you know, as you go down this path, it might be something worth saying, look, we looked at these three other options. Here's what you get. Here's the box you get if you go with that. Does it work? Maybe it works exactly within the plan and you don't even need, you know, requests for some of these uh complent amendments. Anyway, that's my just on the record thought.

We can present that at the 12th. That way, you're asking us to present that. We're not prepared to do it today, but we can be prepared by the 12th to let the public know what's the I'll call it the buy right option um of the property versus [clears throat] what we're asking for. Um, and I think that is a great suggestion and would be I think helpful for everybody to consider uh as you're sitting there in your legislative capacity uh on on how you want to move forward. So, we would like the continuence to be able to present the tweaks we made based upon comments as well as present to you the byite options. Ed, were you leaning in to say something?

No, he covered what I was going to bring up. Okay. Y thank you. Um,

need if I could just follow up on Don here for one second if if you're not aware of an opportunity that these developers have uh with Florida legislature support called live local which is workforce housing um a lot of by rights that we have very little control and influence over as a local community. You need to look at that also and maybe you all have ideas around that yourself. be surprised you didn't based on your track record. Several of those are going up in Florida and communities have very little uh ability to influence or impact those because they're trying to fasttrack uh workforce housing. So, it is a much denser situation than we're talking about here, but it's completely within your options and I'd be surprised if you haven't considered that or looked at it, but something else you had to share with us. You're

you're referring to the Live Local Act, correct? Yes. Okay, we'll be prepared to to to show all the options that we believe are legally available to us if this is not approved. Okay. Uh uh there is a request for a continuence. Um Jim, would you like to make a motion to continue this to a date certain on um May 12th at 9:00 a.m.? So moved. Is there a second for the motion? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Uh, your vote. Jim I. Ed. I. Jim. I. Jane.

No. Don. I. No. Passes. You're continued for was that was just the first first item, right? Yes. That's correct. That's correct.

Okay. Okay, we'll move on and we'll open the um the ordinance 2603 CPA 20240067 6200 EO Boulevard outrigger mixeduse CPA map. This is the future land use map amendment. This is an ordinance of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, amending the town of Fort Myers Beach future land use map 2045 2045 adopted December 1st, 2025 for the portion of property at 6200 EO Boulevard identified as strap number 334624 W300120000 that is landlord of the 1978 coastal construction patrol line in Fort Myers Beach, providing for clarifications as necessary, providing for conflicts of loss, scrivener's errors, severability, and providing for an effective date. Um, so Madame Chair, um I believe at the last p uh hearing that we had on this item, the applicant had asked that the um the record, the testimony from the prior matter be incorporated by reference. Is that still your request to this item?

Yeah. Yes, we're we're going to request that that be brought forward, be incorporated by reference. So, the effect of that would be that everyone in the public whose comments were made will also be duplicated for this particular legislative item as applicable. Correct? So, you don't feel don't feel like you have to testify again. However, madame chair, it is a public comment. So, if there is additional something you forgot, um, this would be an opportunity to present that to the LPA. Okay. So, Jason, anything you'd like to say on this? No, ma'am. And Mr. Yvanovich, I'm guessing you're taking a pass as well. Yeah. Are we are we still on public comment?

Yeah, we're going to move to that next. I'm just kind of following the natural course of things here. Okay. So, I'm going to open up the public hearing, but and Ellen I'm glad this is coming up to to um I'm calling it footprint and I think the footprint is a big aspect of what we can tolerate as far as tall buildings at the south end of the island. As I was stating previously, I live in a 12-story building, but the footprint of that building u in relationship to the property that we own is small. So there's a lot of lot of view corridors and a lot of green space. I suspect well I recommend that you consider proposing something that would provide view corridors and green space because I think that would win you a lot of friends.

Thank you Ellen. Anybody else care comment on the future land use map designation? All right seeing none just remember if you commented in the first meeting it will be incorporated today. Um any discussion from the LPA? Jim like to make your motion. So moved for the continuing sim with item number one on the 12th and 9:00 a.m. Is there a second for the motion? Second. Okay. There's a second by Ed. Uh discussion on the motion. Your vote. Jim I. Ed. I. Jim I. Don. Hi. Jane. No.

And I'm a no. I you know we're just being sticklers here. I know. I know. All right. Um, next item uh is the ordinance 2605 CPD 202400061 6200 Estero Boulevard outrigger mixed use. This is the reasonzoning request. This is quasi judicial in nature. So now we're going to disclose who we've talked to, what we've talked about and everything else.

Madam chair, may I just um clarify for the record? So this is a continued quasi judicial um item. It it is not necessary for me to explain the quasi judicial process because that was done at the first meeting. Um however, you are correct. Um it would be appropriate to go ahead. First of all, um I I can ask the clerk if notice was proper for this item. Yes, it was. Okay. And then um Madame Chair, you are correct. Any conflicts or any exparte communications uh could be disclosed at this time? Does anyone have any conflicts for this case? No conflict. None. Ed, any conflicts?

No conflict. How about you, Don or Jim? Anything? No conflict. None. Okay, let's start with exparte. Jim Dunlap.

Yes. I attended going back now quite a while the original um London Bay proposal at their sales center. Um don't have the specific date on that way the one that actually got pulled from the agenda when it originally came in. I also attended a presentation at that same location for the current proposal. Uh not the current proposal, the one before the change they're making right now. I attended a um community meeting on the south end of the island when they went through the entire proposal for um several members of the community. I know there were several of those held. I only attended one. I also attended the opening session of the development that they have in Asterero um and got a chance to interact with um employees there um potential residents there and other individuals that had attended that from the community as to how London Bay interacted with them, the promises made, promises kept and the anticipation of the uh full proposal including including amenities that they represented those community when it was going to be built. Okay, Don.

Yeah, I've met with London Bay uh team Mark Wilson and team a couple times uh I think twice in person uh maybe once or twice uh virtually uh via Zoom or Teams and that dates back to the original proposal that was uh pulled. I've had conversations with with Mark Wilson and and their team. Okay, Jane. I think I've only gone to one presentation and um that was on the way back when they first put it out. Okay, Jim,

I went to the uh original uh proposal uh what six or eight months ago at Diamond Head. Um I think we've all received numerous emails. I've had a number of conversations with residents. um who are both opposed and in and in in favor of this project. Thank you. Jim Ed had two meetings with London Bay, one in person, one by Zoom. I also received so many emails I lost count of them actually. How many that we've received and um also in my travels around town, I've talked to people uh the same as Mr. Bone both for and against.

Okay. Point of clarification, there's there's not a for emails from residents or conversations with residents is not exparte. Correct. Am I correct, Nancy? No, they actually are. Okay. Um, it's basically anything that uh any type of communication, tax, email, in person that transpires outside of today's hearing um for purposes of fairness uh and transparency. Okay. So, it's all men in my exparte to say I've received all the same emails as the others. I've had multiple conversations with residents, with visitors. I've had conversations with my wife, my children. [laughter] So,

my dog, I've probably talked to my dog. Yes. About this. So, [laughter] so my dog's very opinionated. Yeah. She feels very strongly about it. Y Madam Chair, I would amend mine also like Don did similarly. And just clarification, all the emails that we received through Amy are all public record. They are they are we we received what they've seen and they will be made part of the record. Thank you. The clerk has put a lot of time and effort into making sure that that is um complete. Yeah, I've received over 70.

Okay. You too, Jane. Okay. So, um my first meeting with Mr. Wilson was way back um way back. Uh I think I was in Spain when it first happened and it was a Zoom meeting. Um, I have all the emails of record of course and the uh I'm going to tell you people who have had an impact on my thoughts about this because I've spoken to an enormous amount of people and a lot of people I don't know in my store have shared their thoughts with me. um Pat Vaness, um Tom Torgerson, Rebecca Link, um Scott Safford, Bill Vich, Jesse Titus, um are some people who I've had conversations with about this who have um uh helped me formulate some opinions. Um I also spoke with Mr. Wilson uh here at town hall back in the fall. Um I forgot the gentleman that you had with you, Mark. um [music] you know you're in trouble for that, right?

Yeah. [laughter] And um once

and we had a conversation that was really very general in nature. I would say it was kind of a 30,000 foot view of not only the project but of the environment on Fort Meyers Beach. Mr. Wilson did call me um I think it was week before last uh asking specifically about uh whether he felt we had settled on a height. Um, I said he should call Don about that since Don was the person who suggested it and and he also asked me whether or not if we settled on a height were we settled on the F. And I said, "Oh, I would really love to talk to you about this, but I don't think I should." And um and he responded with, "Well, I guess that's still up for discussion." And I said, "I suspect it is." So that's that's my exparte. Um Okay. So, uh, all of that being said, now, um, we will open the, uh, quasi judicial hearing for ordinance 2605 CPD 20400 6200 outrigger resort mixed use. Mr. Yvanovich, you getting up for a reason?

I think I for I got forward. You're you're correct, Rich, because we already had the opportunity for public comment. So the record is pretty right. We're bringing that we're requesting that you bring those same comments forward to this hearing as well so people don't have to get up this again as part of this item. And I'll I'll do that on all of the items. I'm looking forward to it. When you tell me when you tell me I'm supposed to when you tell me. Okay. Thank you.

Um this is a res resoning request. It's an ordinance of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, approving approving with conditions or denying a reszoning of the property located at 6200 EO Boulevard, Fort Myers Beach, generally identified as strap number 334624W30012000 from a previously approved commercial plan development, Outrigger Beach Resort, to a commercial plan development with 12 deviations to allow for a 46 for for 46 dwelling units, 150 hotel rooms, and 46,000 square ft of commercial use, 340 parking spaces, providing for other clarifications as necessary, providing for conflicts of law, scrier's errors, severability, and providing for an effective date. Um, Jason, anything?

No, ma'am.

Mr. Giovanovich. Nothing. Public comment. Anyone wish to speak on the CPD? Of course. Come on, Tom. Oh, Anita, I'm going to fall over you because it's exactly what the public wanted to hear in terms of exparte communications. They just don't want to hear I met with them twice. Don't remember the dates. You explain the whole thing. Explain what they ask you. And now we have confidence that you know and that's what you all discussed at one time that you we were going to go into those kind of level of details not super not every five minutes but give us an idea about what these discussions were about not just oh yeah I met with them on such and such a dates I thought we were going to transition into this new world so thank you so glad to see that [snorts] okay so first of all uh town manager said we don't need your money uh last time you presented 15 pages of e economic information, none of which was competent, but you declared it as undeniable. Advilarm taxes are 13.7 mills. Fort Myers portion of that is 1.25 mills. We're about 9% of the tax taxes that come in. So, how you say 6.7 million, 1.5 direct to Fort Myers Beach, that's not direct. You may count the school, but you know, school, we don't have much influence over that, so that doesn't count. And uh maybe it's the library, maybe it's the fire department. I don't know but it's it's not right. Um and those claims are not based on the incremental impact. So when you do it when you come up with your uh built to write that's what you'd be interested in. That would be a benefit for this tall building is what would the be incremental tax base over what you would have with 30 feet over flood which is what you're entitled to. Impact fees and matching costs. That's no net impact by state law. You can't

charge more than you take in. So that's no thing. Construction wages and ongoing wages, very minimal impact to the island because very few residents on this island work in construction. And most service jobs today due to lack of workforce housing are done by islanders offshore. So in terms of public benefit, there's already beach access here. A linear park is uh a walkway, not a park, just because you call it a park. Beach bar not approved. wave mitigation wall hasn't been committed to no legal document ensuring that there's a canal will not uh sorry water taxis will not access the canal just a Texas handshake and a public restaurant well if you look at the Aqua Bistca in their Asterero Saltleaf facility uh you can buy a bottle of wine for $4,000 cocktail is $20 and that level of restaurant is probably not going to be satisfactory to the people on Fort Meyer Beach. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Tom. Anyone else wish to speak on the CPD? Okay. Thank you very much. The public hearing is closed. Uh the gentleman has asked for a continuence of this to a date certain of May 12th at 9:00 a.m. May I have a motion, please? So move, Madam Chair. Second, Jim, and thank you, Ed. Uh any discussion? Your vote. Jim, I. Ed, I. Jim I. Don. Hi. Jane. No.

No. The motion carries. We'll move on [clears throat] to the next item. This is ordinance 2605. Uh, no. I'm sorry. This is a special exception. Sez2040112 6200 Estero Boulevard outrigger resort mixed use. This is the special exception. Um, and this is for construction in the environmentally critical zone. a res a resolution of the town council of the town of Fort Myers Beach to allow construction of a major accessory structure in the environmentally critical EC zoning district as an as authorized by section 6-366 of the town of Fort Myers Beach Land Development Code for property located at 6200 Eststerero Boulevard providing for Scrier's errors, severability, and an effective date. Okay. So, Madame Chair, as far as conflicts, I mean, it is the same developer and previously um there's been a disclosure that there is no conflicts. Are there any exparte related to the special exception? Any related to the special exception? Okay. Um, you know, Nancy, I think there's been a I don't know if it's specific, but there's been a lot of talk about uh would this get permitted as opposed to should it get permitted. So, I'll just put that on the record. Okay. Um, so we'll move on. Jason, anything?

No. Thank you, Mr. Yavvanovich. Anything? You're going to ask for a continuence? No. I think I need to ask that we carry forward the record of all the prior conversations and testimony from the public. That's what [clears throat] I'm requesting that. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. We'll open the public comment. Would anybody Nancy um this is on the construction in the EC zoning district, please? Is that the It is. It sure is.

Please make sure you state your name for the record again. [cough] Nancy Walker, Iva Street, full-time resident. Um, we don't need the tiki bar if it's going to have this monstrosity approved. Thank you. Thank you, Nancy. Anyone else? Mr. O'Brien, Cindy,

Cindy Johnson, Seino Way resident. Um, the EC zone, we shouldn't go down that road. I mean, we have approved things in the EC zone. This is new construction. We need to protect the environmentally critical area because we have a lot of things there. That is the place where our wildlife rests, our people rest, and we shouldn't have development there. We don't know what's coming in the future as far as weather and legislatively how we're going to have to deal with the beach to protect our island. Good.

I don't think we should approve we shouldn't approve anything else in the EC zone, especially something built like that. Thank you. Thank you, Cindy. David,

uh Dave O'Brien, G from Gulfite 12. The original location of the tiki bar, as referenced in the original plat document, shows the tiki bar location was approved in a more central location on the property almost entirely behind the 1978 coastal construction line. The variance and special exceptions request it be reconstructed on the accessory building location on the south border of the property and seawward of the 1978 CCL. The variance puts the proposed location of the cheeky hut bar within 50 ft of Gulfside 12, which is less than the standard 500 ft from a residential structure and will create noise issues for adjacent residents. There's no way to buffer the noise from this location, which will adversely affect the adjacent residents and likely c create numerous calls to the town and police for uh noise reduction. The Cheeky Hut Bar should be located in a more central location behind the 1978 CCL similar to similar to the original Tiki Bar location. These special exceptions and variances are not required and should not be approved since it is not a hardship for London Bay to place the Cheeky Hut Bar in a more central location behind the 1978 CCL. The only reason for this exception appears to be that the accessory building was larger than the original tiki bar so that they can build a larger tiki bar than than was originally there. And this is this is one of the the um biggest items of opposition from Gulfite 12 uh as well as the next two items that that move it closer and not only put it there but try to move it closer to our property. uh that we we have great opposition to that.

Thank you, David. Does anybody else care to comment on the tiki bar? Steve.

Good morning, LPA. Steve Johnson for the record. Seinal way. Um the environmentally critical zone is exactly that. It's it's to uh it's to protect the the environment and it represents a zone, a buffer to the to the beach. um when you start allowing variances and you you start allowing construction into that area, it's it's pure encroachment and what you're messing with really is the family jewels. So the town jewels are exactly that. It's the beach and for personal self-interests and essentially greed, you uh cannot allow development into that environmentally critical zone. Uh attempts in the past have been met with issues. This past most recently, there was a boardwalk that was on the south end. Of course, a uh a um uh hurricane came through, lifted it up, and threw it back up on the up up onto the uh uh near the homes. Um for somebody that's again been through these hurricanes, we don't need any more debris in the environmentally critical zone close to the uh to the beach. And uh the wildlife does need some type of uh habitat to live and again it contributes to the quality of life uh on this island. So please uh vote no for any type of development in the environmentally critical zone. Thank you.

Thank you Steve. Anyone else? Did I see somebody else's hand? No. Dave.

Hi Dave Mosbomb for the record. Um the complex that I live in has come in front of it in front of this committee twice to to go on the e the EC zone. Once we had to move we had to rebuild a retaining wall that survived five hurricanes, two tropical storms and a tsunami. And thankfully the committee granted that we were allowed to replace our wall. We also came in because we had a tiki hut that was right on the edge of the landscape barrier and again the committee gave us we were replacing it [snorts] post for post. It had been there for over a decade and was part of the culture of our community. Just so you're aware, that section of the beach has a 300 yard sand beach to the mean high watermark. It's one of the biggest sections of the beach. The tiki bar from the outrigger went over the coastal construction line. I don't know what it was, you know, that's up to them to decide. And I agree with some of the people perhaps placing that further towards the center may b may benefit but to come back and say you can't build anything back even a replacement of what was there before you know is kind of a disservice to all of the people like ourselves and other people that lost so much from the storm and only want to get back what we had. So, I ask you to keep that in mind when you look at this variance because if if

they're asking to get back what they had, that's different than building a new bar on the beach. So, please keep that in mind when you look at this. Thank you. Thank you, Dave. Anyone else? Okay, we'll close the public hearing portion of this and uh a continuence has been requested. May I have a motion, please? [clears throat] So move, madam chair. Thank you. This a continuence to a date certain of May 12th at 9:00 a.m. Second. Second. Thank you, Ed. Okay. Any discussion? Uh your vote. Jim I. Ed, I. Jim, I. Jane, no.

Don,

no. Motion carries. Uh thank you very much. Uh next item is also a special exception. This is 2024112 and this is a special exception for consumption on premises. Um, a resolution of the town council of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, approving approving with conditions or denying special exception SEZ204112 to allow expansion of consumption on premises in the environmentally critical EC zoning district as per land development code section 341264G1 for property located at 6200 EO Boulevard providing scrier errors. severability and an effective date. Nancy,

so for the record again there has not been any disclosure of any conflicts. Um there was a request previously which I believe is also relevant to this one to incorporate by reference the prior record of the prior items. Um if there is any additional ex additional exparte um regarding this specific special exception that should be disclosed at this time. Is there any additional exparte from anyone? No. No. No initial. Okay. Thank you all. Um Jason, anything? No, ma'am.

Thank you. Um [clears throat] nothing from Mr. Ivanovich. Okay. So we'll open the public hearing. Would anybody like to comment on the expansion of consumption on premises? David.

Uh David O'Brien from Gulfside 12. Uh I'm opposed to expanding alcohol service into the EC zone uh to all two and a two and a half acres of beach property. Uh some of the effects that will be felt in the EC zone are damage to dunes and vegetation, increased litter, and disruption to wildlife, including protected species and rowdy behavior. Uh Gulfide 12 residents have already experienced these since the beach access path has been open. So, it we don't have uh alcohol consumption on our beach, but because there's more traffic there and people are bringing alcohol with them, we've already seen it. Uh so, opening up the beach to alcohol consumption is only going to make that worse. Uh there is no need to make this special exception. In in my view, the beach should be a safe, clean, and alcohol-free zone. And and I my opinion is that the only reason that they're asking for this is so that they can extend alcohol service from either the tiki bar or their property out to people who will be at cabanas and so forth on the beach and they can provide that kind of a a service from their property out to the beach. And I don't I don't think that makes sense to carve out one one section of beach that that's allowed on. It's not allowed anywhere else.

Thank you, sir. It is. Um, anyone else? Cindy

now. Cindy Johnson, resident. I want to talk about that area of the beach. And if this is truly on the beach, I guess I see a lot of things that happen over time with not just major storms like Ian or Milton and Helen that have come upon our shores, but just even m Hurricane Michael from years ago that was far away from us. For one thing, um, M Mr. Nusmom, I measured the beach last year because we have to measure the turtles, how far they are from from the buildings and how far they are from the water. And it was down to 600 ft. You're not going to have a stationary amount of of sand there ever. It's a very lowlying area. After Hurricane Ian, that area was fortunate. Now up to outrigger I believe they took extra sand from the state but other properties like Island Winds did not take sand and that area is still lowlying. When we did have some rain last year everything flooded. So and going forward the state is not going to be giving as much money to give sand to the beach particularly if you have seaw walls and you don't have a dune system in that will sustain and keep the sand on the beach and that's something everyone needs to be concerned about. Who's going to continually put sand on their beach in the future when you are I'm sorry raking the beach and there's nothing growing to hold the sand there and you continually flood in that area. So I don't know I don't know how that area I I just don't know how a bar on the beach out there will do and we need to uh Jr. Evans and FGCU both talked about

how that beach needs a multiple dune system to protect the upland properties. So, I don't know. Is that what's going to happen going forward? Is it really what they're envisioning or they're selling right now? Is that the future of that area or is the state going to actually do something else? Uh I think it was over a year ago. Governor DeSantis took back a law that Governor Scott put in and said that if you are a critically eroded beach, which may be even you are not a high enough beach and water's just constantly flooding you, that the state can go ahead even though it's private property there and and put in a ECL line, an EC line, environmentally erosion control line, and start putting sand there to build up the beach to protect the beach and protect the state from spending taxpayer dollars over and over and over again on reourishment. So there's a lot it's a lot more complicated than putting a tiki bar on beach. Thank you.

Thank you, Cindy. Yes, Nancy.

Nancy Walker again. Uh just to address what Cindy said and there is a legal challenge. We know that island winds are I'm just picking on you because you're here is going to say we own that land. We're allowed to rake it. Um even though environmentalists like myself see raking as something that's very detrimental to the beach. Um because you don't get the railroad vines and the sea oats and all that stuff. Um there is he does have that right from what I understand but there is a challenge to that going on right now specifically with the state and I believe there was just a successful challenge to that. So this is not a this is a fluid situation regarding beach using the beach.

Thank you Nancy. Anyone else like to speak to the cop? Cameron. Oh Dave's coming up. I'm not sure what this has to do with alcohol on the beach. We're being we're being a little since it's my three minutes. We have owned the property island winds since we incorporated in 1972.

Our deed says we can go to the mean high watermark on both sides of our property and we've maintained it. I have a letter from two different coastal engineers stating that for the last 50 years we've been a beach of accretion which is the opposite of erosion. A beach of accretion gains sand every year. We've gained sand throughout all of the hurricanes since we incorporated and everything else, which is why I made this comment that that's, you know, hundreds of yards going out to the mean high water mark in front of the outrigger. Um, I didn't say that they should serve alcohol out at the end of the beach. I just said they had a tiki bar there before, they should be able to do it. Good way to tie it into alcohol.

Thank you. [laughter]

I also I also not only have two coastal engineers, I also we also petitioned FD and they sent us a letter stating that we are not critically roing on the beach and they stated that they were not going to do it. So again, I understand Mrs. Johnson in her zest to have us stop breaking the beach. And that's their right, but it's still our property. We [clears throat] don't carry alcohol out on the beach. We don't sell alcohol out on the beach. And I don't think the outrigger is trying to sell outrigger out on the beach either. So, I think what they want to do is try and reclaim the right to sell on the beach where the tiki bar used to be.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Cameron. You can then Lori, remember to stay on topic. Dave kind of tried to tie it in. [laughter] Yeah. Um, honestly, between all the discussions at this point, I'm not even sure what we're discussing at this point. We're discussing the expansion of COP. Yeah, I get it. And please state your name again. Cameron, say your name again.

Try to do this. Cameron Post and I am in a property owner in Kuru. Um I I stated my objection overall to the comp and I'm not actually going to go variance by variance because again I think it all ties into the comp directly. Um on this one in particular, an expansion of um consumption on premises. Again, I don't know exactly where it is on this thing, but I do think everybody should note that this is a family area. I have a nine-year-old and 11-year-old. So, I did want to talk about this in particular of like we do need to be very careful about making a very family oriented beach something that goes beyond that. So, I I'm going to leave it at that, but that's I just want to make sure that that was actually addressed as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Cameron, Lori, and then Marsha. [snorts] Lori Webster, Carlo Street. Um, it's been stated a couple times and I just want to say that this is not a buildback. They did not have anything there before because they did not own the property before the outrigger did. So, this is not about precedent of what they had before and the tiki bar was not there before. It was within the hotel area by the pool. Thank you. Thank you. Marsha

Marsha O'Brien Golf Side 12. Uh it's illegal to drink alcohol on the beach. So this section that they're requesting, uh an exception for it should also be illegal there. Thank you, Marcia. Anyone else? Okay, we'll close this public hearing. The applicant has requested a continuence to a date certain of May 12th at 9:00 a.m. May I have a motion to that effect, please? So move, madam chair. Thank you, Jim. Second. Thank you, Ed. Discussion on the motion. Uh, your vote. Jim, I. Ed, I. Jim, I. Jane, no. Don, I

no motion carries. Next item is um V. That's a variance request. This is V6200 is Sterile Boulevard uh the outrigger redevelopment. This is a resolution of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency approving approving with conditions or denying variance 20250299 requesting a variance of a 15 foot reduction to the required 25 foot sideyard setback for an accessory structure to the Outrigger Resort in the environmentally critical zoning district to allow a 10-foot sideyard setback in order to accommodate historical location of the Tiki Hut for the property located at 6200 EO Boulevard, generally referred to as strap number 334624 W30012000 0 in Fort Myers Beach. Um and providing for other clarifications as necessary for conflicts of law, scriveners errors, severability and providing for an effective date. Um any further exparte or um conflicts on this issue? Anyone?

No. None. No. Okay. Um Jason, anything? No, ma'am. [laughter] Okay, Mr. Jvanovich, anything to carry this forward or you? Yes, although you know the criteria is a little bit different, but I would say do it. Um, and that way we have a full record on the variance as well. Again, we're just requesting that all the public comment made to today be part of this hearing.

Thank you, Mr. Ivanovich. Nancy, let me just say back to exparte, you know, just the title of this or the description being the historical location. I've had several people ask me if they really mean that historically that's where the tiki bar was located because it was not. Um, so do you want to opine on that because or is that just refer to the applicant or to Jason as far as the the terms that have been used in the title? Sure. I'll say that that was what I was debating mentioning when you were reading that. Okay. That that title essentially comes from the applicant's description of what their application is.

Um, so I would agree with you that there will or could be debate about the accuracy of that terminology. I'm bringing it up. affects the title. I've had a lot of people comment on this to me. So, I'm disclosing that as exparte. If you'd like to comment on that, Mr. Yvanovich, or if you'd like to save it, save it for Tuesday. It's up to you. Save it for Tuesday. Okie do. All right. Um, we'll open the public comment. This is for I see your hand. I see it. I see it, Ellen. Overzealous there. Go ahead.

Small footprint. Small footprint. That's what everyone wants. There's a there was always a lot of green space and small footprint in that and that's what exists in that area. I I implore you to consider developing something that will make us happy. Ellen, please state your name for the record. Ellen Bon, 7500 Dero Boulevard. Thank you, Ellen. Uh David

Dave O'Brien from Gulfside 12. Uh I'm opposed to this variance for the same reasons I was opposed to the special access exception to rebuild the accessory structure. Uh and and I agree that I I don't believe the the wording of uh the historical location is accurate because the historical location of Tiki Bar was not on was certainly not on the side of the property and it was not 10 ft closer to the the border than as the variance is requesting. It appears the only reason to have a public beach access abuing the existing public beach access is to [clears throat] funnel the public through the cheeky bar at the end of the path. And I think that's why they want to move it closer to the to the border is then everybody going down that public access will have to go essentially through or around the cheeky bar. I'm not sure it's in the the public's best interest to have families with small children essentially pass through a bar on their way to the beach. I would also like to bring attention to the fact that there is an active osprey nesting site in a pine tree marked with yellow tape on the south side of the property apparently marked to be cut down to make way for the duplicate public access path. Osprey mate for life and typically return to the same nesting site annually. Although it may be possible to legally remove the tree when nesting season is over, I think it would be in the best interest to protect osprey habitat and leave the tree untouched.

Thank you, sir. Uh, yes, Janet. I don't think you were here to be sworn in earlier. I was not. Okay, come on up. Come on up. My knee checked. Sorry, Janet Gotautle. I live on Bajia Via. If you'll raise your right hand, Janet, I'm sorry. Do you [clears throat] swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Perfect. Thank you.

Okay. Um Janet Gotautly, my parents uh owned a property on Fort Myers Beach at Beach Access 14 for 61 years. And I recall that when it was sold after my father died 10 years ago, the people who bought it from the second owner, it it's not a commercial property. It was a residential property. They requested a variance because they were going to tear down the old cottages that were there, build a very large um pardoned home as is now the standard. and they wanted a variance from the beach access which I believe was 25 ft for view corridor reasons and uh they wanted to expand their structure fill up the entire lot and have a I believe an elevated pool and uh they were turned down on the basis that view corridors are sacrosanked and I believe that that should apply if it does not apply to commercial even more so to commercial properties because they occupy or they are intended to occupy in this case a much larger footprint and to keep encroaching on the edges uh for no actually necessary reason certainly not a reason of safety or ability to serve the public is um to me not in keeping with what the community needs or wants. Um it regardless of whether that's for a bar that serves alcohol, a restaurant, a swimming pool, I think we need to maintain as many of the actual standards in the land development code uh and in all of the planning documents of Fort Myers Beach that we can. If there's an overriding reason, that's different. But if it's simply we want to maximize filling up the space and having uh revenue sources increased in size, I

don't think that that is that should be allowed. So I'm not in favor of that. Thank you, Janet. Anyone else care to comment on this setback variance? Anyone? Okay, we'll close the public comment. Uh, the applicant has requested a continuence to a date certain of of May 12th, Tuesday at 9:00 a.m. May I have a motion to that effect? So move, madam chair. Thank you, Jim. Second. Thank you, Ed. Any discussion on that motion? Uh, your vote. Jim, I. Ed, I. Jim, I. Jane, no. Don, I

no motion carries. Okay. So that concludes this um this hearing sessions and um everything is continued to May 12th. Um uh folks in the audience, I'd just like to tell you that all of your comments that have been made today or that were made previously will all be part of the record in whole of this case because when it's all finished, whenever that is, uh it will all be one record. and all of your comments will be preserved as well as your emails. Okay. So, thank you all for coming and um we'll move on with the rest of our agenda. Uh anybody you want to take a break for a few minutes to let people leave? Uh we'll we'll take a break for five minutes. Mr. Ivanovich, you didn't have anything else, did you? Okay. Thank you very much.

Okay, good morning and back. Here we are back at it. Yeah, Jason has moved into the public comment zone. I can't wait to hear that. [laughter] Um, okay. So, under the administrative agenda, any items? Anything else from you today, Mr. Dunler? No, I'll pass the Okay. Uh, Don, anything? Uh, no. Thanks, Jane. Nothing. Jim? Yes. Um well, I would just uh like to suggest that these continuences uh to the next Tuesday occur after the regularly scheduled items so that we don't hold up the other uh two items that are on the agenda.

Totally. Okay. Good. Good. Um Ed, anything? No, nothing.

All right. Um I I I don't have anything. Um, [laughter] I'm just I'm just I do I have a lot of things, but I didn't get a chance to say them today. So, I'll uh you know what? One thing I would like to ask Amy, um, several people have asked me about these changes that were made to that London Bay has proposed. I know they are on page 154 or two 154 or 254, I can't remember which of our agenda. Is it 154? It goes like 154 to 160. That's those are the changes that have been proposed for anybody that's listening. It's also on page 56.

Also on page 56 according to my uh my pal here. Uh so if you could um is there any way to highlight that so people will know or maybe just saying that was enough for people to be aware. Okay. All right. And um All right. A uh Nancy, anything from you? No. Um, I just want to thank you for your patience. I know we had a lot of um, gymnastics as far as um, making sure the record was complete. Um, and and I appreciate your patience in that.

May I say one thing on attorney items, just to point out, I've made several calls to Nancy over the time. Um, there's never a time I crawl in bed and she's not called me back. So, the response time, the conversations, um, her exhaustion notwithstanding, good conversation, good advice, good recommendation, she's very responsive. So, I'm sure you all had the same feeling, but we need to remind people that. And thank you for calling me back before you call Jim back. I appreciate that, too. [laughter] Um, uh, community development items, Jason,

I get called back after all of you. So, um, just kidding. Um, yes, we have a I have I have a request the J squares have a request for a date change. J squares uh in June uh your June 9th LPA date. You can do it just we won't be here. Um, so we're requesting that we move that date and look at another date to any particular date. Not the last week of Janu June. Uh, but like to the next Tuesday, the 16th for example, that works. Whatever you guys can figure out. Um, we've had some people ask earlier, later.

Uh, or can we or Don saying, "Can we keep it that week?" Maybe I might have missed. Uh, well, I am not here that entire week. Okay. And Jason's not here the entire week either. Okay. Well, then that eliminates that entire week. Um, and um, that was not planned. It just luckily happened for us. Okay. You're not vacationing together or anything. We're not vacation. I'm not vacationing, but No, we're not. Okay. [laughter] Um, so um, uh, Amy Nancy, can we move to the 16th? The 16 works for me very well. How does it work for all of you? What's going to be on this agenda? Is this the silver sand? Don't ask me that. What?

Don't ask me that question. Um, I would suspect uh it has an it's a chance of being a somewhat long and full agenda. Somewhat long and full. There's a couple of projects that look like they're making progress towards that June date and uh will be longer [clears throat] than your average bear. Not for good to batteries. It's just they're complicated. So silver sands coming in that is that is under review. They just admitted. Okay. So So is the 16th good with everybody? Don, did you have a conflict with that or I may be remote, but I can attend. I think

it's okay. Um and we don't know about Doug. So all right, let's tentatively say the 16th. Yeah. As long as we have a quorum. Okay. Well, that's [laughter] right. Um, okay. So, we'll move that to the 16th. All right. Um, anything else, Jason? Any other tidbits? No tidbits? No, I don't think so. Okay. You're going to Oh, so com the agenda stuff is we try to the changes that were submitted and sometime we're going to try to do this when things are last minute like that. keep all of those proposed changes from an applicant together rather than trying to stick them piece by piece in throughout the no

rather than sprinkle it through. It's just it should be a documents a PDF with all of that together um as an attachment uh so that you can take that to one side and then compare it if you want go back and forth. But if we sprinkled it in through there I think it would get lost and you guys would get confused. Um so it's just something moving forward if this if similar things happen that's the way we'll do it. Okay. Very good. Um, all right. Nothing else. Anybody? Um, we know what's next month. We've got a little tidbit. It's going to be long. Amy, anything from you? Okay. Um, I'll entertain. Motion to

It's 11:31. Any objection to that motion? Okay, we are adjourned. 11:31. Thank you all. Thank you for those listening far. Bye-bye.