EIBC Wants Town To Reconsider Denial Wording

48
688

Last month, after the LPA approved Estero Island Beach Club’s new building proposal, the Town Council denied the project. The reason given was there was not enough public benefit for the town to approve a 10-story building. The denial was done ‘with prejudice.’

According to town code if an application is denied ‘with prejudice’ that applicant cannot come back to the town for a year. This is done to prevent the LPA and the Town Council having to look at an application over and over again, meeting after meeting. EIBC is asking the Town Council to reconsider their denial ‘with prejudice’ to either a denial without prejudice or to continue their application to another date.

The EIBC team believed they were following the direction of the town staff when they proposed a 10-story building that created a view corridor from the beach from Estero Boulevard. Before Hurricane Ian EIBC was 2 buildings of about 2-3 stories. The property is owned by about 2,200 to 2,300 people and operates as a time-share. 

The Town Council has agreed to look at whether they should change the reason for denying the EIBC proposal. If it is changed from ‘with prejudice’ to ‘without prejudice’ or the proposal is allowed to be continued, EIBC would be able to come back to the town with a revised plan before March of 2025.

EIBC was not asking for more density but the height of the new building certainly attracted some negative comments from residents on the island. During their first visit to the LPA, the EIBC team presented an unflattering looking building that LPA members felt was too close to Estero Boulevard. They were sent back to the drawing board and came forward with the 10-story building backed away from Estero and they eliminated two sidewalk cuts on Estero. The EIBC team believed they were responding to what town staff was asking them to do by adding a view corridor which is actually a public benefit listed in the town’s code. They simply couldn’t sell it to this Town Council.

 

48 COMMENTS

  1. You made a good point a day or so after this article-why EIBC show public benefit? That facility was a TS rental with OWNERS. Those owners pay maintanence fees and taxes for the upkeep of that building just to visit 1 or 2 weeks a year. They also visit restaurants, bars and stores. Lost revenue for all. Bad decision by the powers that be.

  2. Someone finally mentioned it —
    CORRUPTION … ✔️
    Buildings don’t need to be 12, 15, or 17 floors to be at Code.
    Paid too much, want to max out $$$ for every possible square inch.
    That is not this Islands’ problem –
    it’s theres.
    Who cares about infrastructure, etc., and Lawsuits !!!!

  3. Bingo !!!
    Obviously this was, will happen with every single (vulture) —Developer, Town opened Pandora’s Box wide open !!
    None of these developments should be condidered on “Public Benefit” …..
    just the rules.
    Why can’t Council just stick to rules, sorry – keep forgetting $$$ talks !!!

  4. One is on the beach and the other is closer to the back bay. One is closer to town and the other is further down. I cannot figure out how people are not factoring in location. Is there a difference in the land use as well? From what I understand, it is not an apple to apple comparison.

  5. It’s a Pandora’s box ! But if you set aside rules for one entity, the others are going to expect the same! Trading heights for more sight distances?? You go over the current heights then the row behind wants to go higher, then higher ! ?

  6. So EIBC wanted to build back the way it was before..going up one floor on each building to accommodate the first level parking..ada requirements but was denied because of no view corridor. So essentially denied following the required height restrictions.. one building would have been 4 stories high, the other three stories and maybe two stories across the front. Now they open up the view corridor but go higher on a narrow width building and still no approval. Not sure what the residents want. They couldn’t see before and now they were given an opportunity to have a huge view corridor and still a no go. EIBC can’t win for nothing. I guess they aren’t a big enough corporation.. just timeshare owners…. Sad..

    • This is so wrong. It looks like EIBC isn’t big enough for the town. We might not generate enough money for their greedy little hands. Our little timeshare is getting a bad rap. Very sad and wrong!

    • They were never denied building back what they had. If you listened to the meeting and heard what the Mayor said, they told him that they were going to build back what they had, but the fire department had some concerns. They didn’t address those concerns but instead came back with a proposal to build 10 stories with twice the square footage of the unit. and ceiling heights went from 8 feet to 9.5 feet. Total misrepresentation.

      • Agree Steve.
        They say town steered them that way. I said town was wrong to do so. Stop asking for zoning and CPD change and they could build back much smaller than proposed and denied by town.

  7. The comprehensive plan says no tall buildings – that’s it end of story, done, finished. but now we have a 10 story building denied correctly and a 17 story building approved against the comprehensive plan.

    What can be the explanation?

  8. Rebuilding anything on the island has the same problems. I don’t think cost of land should be considered. It is not the town’s fault that a developer overpayed. BUT changes in codes, changes in lot sizes, changes in set backs, and having to be ADA complient, all make it impossible to build back ‘as was’. Town council should put in writing why EIBC (and others) are turned down, and what will be excepted. 2300 time share owners translates to something like 45 units. Town has an engineer. He should be able to do simple math. Take available lot size, subtract parking and common area. Divide what is left by square footage of code compliant unit, and bingo, you get how many stories are necessary. Everybody nerds to, and should, work together.

    • Ken, Your figures are correct if you don’t know the whole story. The figure of 2300 owners is correct. However that does not mean 2300 units. Most owners own several weeks. I would imagine that a very small percentage only own 1 week. Most all the people I know own 3, However many own many more. We own 6. There are 75 units and 52 weeks in a year. That is how many unit weeks there are. That makes 3900 “owner weeks”

  9. Is it time to reconsider the incorporation height restrictions?
    Could multiple massive lawsuits against town council be in the future?
    Can developers build back short buildings and be in compliance with current hurricane codes?
    Can a developer get bank financing and insurance for a structure not in compliance with current hurricane codes?
    If redevelopment doesn’t happen at a faster pace, will tourists give up and start going to other areas?
    If redevelopment doesn’t pick up from the current snails pace, what will happen to jobs on the island?
    Is FMB a good place to open a business if there are no tourists to support it?
    Do you have the right people on town council?
    Do residents have a forward vision or fleeting memories of what once was but can never be again?

  10. The town just approved a massive project which has 2 building 17 floor 16 floor 14 floors and 11 floors

    Taking away my view corridor and blocking out a entire 10 street neighborhood.
    But they don’t want this smaller project .
    Very confusing

  11. Litigation, Litigation, Litigation….
    If one is approved, they will all eventually be approved, one way or another. This “Public Benefit” BS won’t hold up in any court. You either have standards for building or you don’t. Minor adjustments are one thing, 3 stories to 17, that sound like corruption…….

    FMB was incorporated for this very reason…. If we’re going back to the old ways we need to disband the town government and go back to Lee County and save some tax $$

    • The town just approved a massive project which has 2 building 17 floor 16 floor 14 floors and 11 floors

      Taking away my view corridor and blocking out a entire 10 street neighborhood.
      But they don’t want this smaller project .
      Very confusing

  12. EIBC will eventually get the 10 stories , only it will involve lawyers. The Seagate ruling sets a new precedent that will be used in court to get this passed. Then the town may get sued for lost include to an unfair ruling. They need to find some common ground quick and compromise to get this thing done.

    • Tracy, exactly what the development industry wants you to believe – you must change and 10, 12 and 17 story towers must be the new island. That kind of change has nothing to do with hurricanes.
      It has to do with profit, that somehow bigger is better.
      the question is, for who?

      • I was a many year visitor to FMB at the beloved Red Coconut. As I have no skin in the game and as an unbiased commentator, I think you are missing a concept. Of course, it is about “profit”. Do you expect the victims of Ian to rebuild at a “loss”? With today’s prices and lot sizes fixed, what else do you expect?

    • Bigger yes but not ridiculous, stronger yes that’s code, and yes somewhat larger in uni5 size. So scale it back and submit something in the middle.

    • Again, a comment from a realtor who neither lives or has an office on the Island. Trying to get her name out for business and doesn’t care about the full time residents, the vast majority of whom do not want tall buildings.

  13. Yall expect these companies buying property on the beach to build a 3 story building and be able to re-coop their returns on the investment in a reasonable amount of time? Yall don’t understand business and profits. Profit isn’t a bad word. These building look so much better than a trailer park or ran down old hotels. It’s called progress.

    • These companies knew the restrictions before they bought the land and that they could still make a profit within that plan or else they would not have purchased the land. Anything above is just “gravy”. Just more profit.

      Big does not equate to progress! Big is just more.

      • Correct Mary and it is not the towns responsibility to make developers money.
        They new before going in what was allowed.

        EIBC is different than Seagate. EIBC existed prior. My problem with EIBC is that they expanded the size of the units far above what meets ADA and code. They want zoning changes and CPD changes to get the much larger units which will increase density.
        Keep units to 750 Sq ft
        each and can do so to meet ADA and code. Could build with 60,000 feet not the 120,000 they want.

    • Margaritaville’s size and success has destroyed your argument.
      If a developer can’t succeed profitably on 3 and four story buildings they have the freedom to go elsewhere. TPI stayed, conformed and is profitting.
      It isn’t government’s job to guarantee profits. It’s government’s job to plan and protect the vision resident’s have for their community.

    • First, you’re right, the newer buildings may look better than the old Red Coconut, Outrigger or Wyndham. But those properties were all well kept and had the old Florida charm. Second, developers can build to code and still make a profit, it’s just going to take longer. Finally, their ROI is not the responsibility of the residents of FMB. Those developers knew what they were getting into and I’m sure all have several build versions each with its associated ROI. It’s not my problem if they don’t reach it within a short period of time. It took me 40 years of working to experience my retirement on FMB and I’m not complaining. They can wait a few more years to experience their ROI.

  14. What you don’t understand is we can’t build back on all the property we own due to coastal issues and code. We would love nothing more than to build back the way it was but we can’t. We are trying like hell to follow the codes the ADA. Requirements and what the LPA said they wanted and still it’s denied. Residents just don’t want anything to happen and forgets who provides a lot of your towns revenue the tourism!!!

    • Residents DO understand we can’t build back “the way it was” so please don’t insult us. And resident DO “want something to happen”, again, please don’t insult us. And your last comment about residents “forgets who provides a lot of your towns revenue” is too stupid to even comment on.

  15. For selfish reasons, I’m okay without EIBC because I suddenly have a gulf view I didn’t have before. From a ‘for the good of the island’ perspective, 1) we’ve got to accelerate the rebuilding of our island; and 2) I don’t know how you can tell EIBC no to 10 stories when Seagate has been given the go ahead to pursue 17 stories.

  16. Agree V.
    The residents don’t want these huge buildings. The height is ridiculous and all redevelopment needs to present plans within height restrictions.. period…

    If they all started to design within restrictions there would be fewer denials and building would begin.

  17. So why not tell the people what their looking for and why they denied it. The way this is going it’s going to take more years than necessary to build the Island back. Once you’ve been denied you have to wait a year to submit something new

  18. Over and over again … they all keep coming back with plans that include heights over and above what FMB incorporated for! These buildings are too high, from 3 stories to 10? C’mon guys what don’t you understand?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here