After a presentation took several hours during the LPA meeting Tuesday, the new Pink Shell 40-unit resort proposal was tabled until December. The reason for the delay was to give staff more time to review late arriving documents that were not in the Pink Shell’s original proposal.
Owners of The Pink Shell are requesting that the town rezone their property and include a piece of land on the Bay side of Estero that The Pink Shell owns. That land is on the Bowditch Beach Park side of the much-talked-about dilapidated home on Estero (The Pink Shell does not own that house). The property The Pink Shell does own had tennis courts on the property and is located directly across the street from Vacation Villas. It’s on that piece of property that The Pink Shell would like to build a 40-unit resort.
The problem is that The Pink Shell, the way their properties are zoned today, does not have the density it needs to build a 40-unit 6-story resort on the Bay side of Estero Boulevard. Years ago, they gave up density on the Bay side of Estero (where the employee parking lot is today) to build a bigger Pink Shell resort on the beach side of Estero. This is why they are asking for a rezone.
The town code allows for an equivalency factor. It ranges from 1 to 2.5 depending on where a property is located on the island. A good example of the equivalency factor is the discussion about the Red Coconut property. Seagate is building condo units and is allowed to build about 150 units. If they applied a 2.5 equivalency factor from the town code they could build about 375 hotel units. 
The Pink Shell wants to rezone the entirety of its property, including the new .43 acre lot and then use the multiplier to add the 40-unit resort. And that’s where the meeting came to a halt. Either new documents were submitted about the multiplier or something changed from the original proposal that did not allow town staff to give a full recommendation to the LPA based on all the documentation presented.
Several members of Vacation Villas across the street from the new proposed building spoke against the project. One resident said the building will take up the entire small lot for a huge building and eliminate the view they’ve had of the Bay for 50 years.
Staff recommended denial of the proposal. That recommendation might changed based on the new late information provided after the original proposal was submitted.
The LPA will take back up the proposal on December 2nd at 9AM.
Local journalism is hard work. If you appreciate the most in-depth reporting on Fort Myers Beach, please support what we do HERE by Venmo, Zell or PayPal. Thank you.
Aside from the density issue which is paramount for FMB, their claim to want to be good neighbors falls flat. Look at the Pink Shell property map. Why not build anywhere on the bay across from Pink Shell? Could it be that it will compromise the bay views of the current Pink Shell units? Instead, lets take this small parcel and box in Vacation Villas and Bowditch… not very neighborly.
So true, Susan! Not to mention that they are proposing to FILL that lot from end to end. They’re requesting variances to allow only 10-foot side setbacks — on a lot width of 130+ feet! Plus a height variance to allow 60 feet above BFE (19.5 feet at that location) to develop a building 79.5 feet tall. This is 23 feet wider and 14.5 feet taller than the building across the street. I wish developers didn’t have to pave every last inch of paradise.
So if they set a precedent, then I guess the house next to their property will end up being a tall condo as well.
They gave up their rights to build on the property in exchange for what they have now. They were given increased height for agreeing not to develop the proposed property in “perpetuity”.
I guess that means only until a hurricane comes or competition gets to build more.
Been on this island for over 30 years and now we can’t survive without massive resorts.
Good Bye Ft Myers Beach you will be missed.
They are trying an end around on their agreement by rezoning the entire property and acquiring extra units. Maybe legal but not in residents interests only Boykins.