Protect FMB Responds to Seagate Filing

Earlier this month we reported that Seagate and the Town of Fort Myers Beach responded to the court challenge filed by 10 residents who live near the former Red Coconut property and have challenged the Town Council’s decision to approve the Seagate development. The development includes two buildings that could go as high as 17 stories and several other tall buildings. Fort Myers Beach broke away from Lee County in the mid 1990’s to prevent tall buildings from being built on the island. Of course that was many years before Hurricane Ian.

The 10 residents are part of a larger group called Protect FMB that has raised tens of thousands of dollars to fight the development’s approval by the town in court. Fort Myers Beach resident Tom Brady, a member of Proect FMB, spoke at the last Town Council meeting to voice his disappointment with the filing and how harsh it was toward residents.

The town is partnering with Seagate to defend the decision to approve the project. The Town Council vote to approve was 3-2 in favor, after the LPA recommended denial. Council members Jim Atterholt, John King and Karen Woodson voted to approve the project in December of 2024. Protect FMB wants a judge to rule in their favor and send the issue back to the Town Council for reconsideration. It’s important to note that even if a judge rules that the town must take another look at the project, the same thing could happen. They could vote to approve. One thing that is different now is that there has been a lot more backlash from the community after the vote than there was leading up to it.

Protect FMB has written a lengthy response to the Town and Seagate’s filing. In their rebuttal Protect FMB says Seagate’s response to the Writ of Certiorari was “predictable, weak, deceptive, and repetitive. It disregards the overwhelming number of residents who voiced their opposition to this 17-story monstrosity proposed in the quiet center of Fort Myers Beach. What is even more concerning is that the Town of Fort Myers Beach joined in Seagate’s response 100%, adopting its arguments wholesale. It begs the question—did anyone in Town Hall even read what they were signing onto?”

Here’s the entire rebuttal being passed around by Proect FMB, which as a group is not part of the court case.
1. Comp Plan and Height Restrictions
Seagate selectively cherry-picks favorable language from the Land Development Code (LDC) while ignoring the clear, unambiguous guidance of the Comprehensive Plan.

• Comp Plan Policy 4-25 states:
  “A height limit similar to the 1997 interim change will be maintained, but an opportunity will be provided to owners of existing parcels that are so surrounded by tall buildings that it would be grossly unfair to apply the new height limit.”

This language is not open to interpretation. The Red Coconut property is not surrounded by tall buildings—therefore, no exception applies.

• Additionally, Comp Plan Page 3-8 describes a vision for the Red Coconut–Gulfview Colony area as:
  “a complete neighborhood with an internal circulation system making it possible to walk or ride bikes to school, recreation areas, and shopping without using Estero Boulevard.”
  Not a 17-story gated community built for profit.

2. False Claims of Reduced Intensity
Seagate falsely claims their project reduces intensity by exaggerating the former use of the Red Coconut RV Park.

• Residents state otherwise: The RVs were low-impact and often stayed for months at a time. They were welcomed by neighbors.

• Seagate leans on the widow of the former owner—who wasn’t involved in day-to-day operations—for anecdotal claims of high intensity, unsupported by data.

• At one time, she even said publicly: “There will never be towers on this property.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0eCg8kSrfU_

Seagate also threatened to build a hotel with even greater intensity—a hollow threat considering they lack hotel development and management experience. Multiple neighbors have expressed a preference for 3- or 4-story buildings with slightly higher coverage instead of 17-story towers.

3. Disregard for the Comp Plan
Seagate argues it’s impossible to build according to the Comp Plan due to state and federal elevation requirements. While it’s true that buildings must be elevated, this is no excuse to toss aside the Comp Plan. The Plan should be updated to reflect elevation needs, not ignored entirely. You fix the plan, then you develop—not the other way around.

4. Misleading “View Corridor” Claims
Seagate overstates the public benefit of its “view corridors,” which fall far short of reality:

1. North Gulf-side corridor: Claimed to be 120’, but usable view is only ~80’ due to existing easements and a pie-shaped parcel.

2. Obstruction by Pool: An elevated pool and lounge chairs will block views of the Gulf.

3. Misrepresentation of Requirements: Developer claims 105’ of view corridor while only 55’ is truly additional beyond the 50’ Village District requirement.

There is no view to the bay from this property—it backs up to Matanzas Pass Preserve.

5. Misleading Narrative About Public Process
Seagate claims the project moved forward because of consensus between staff and the developer. This is misleading. Development can proceed without consensus—it’s up to the LPA and Town Council to approve or deny.

• The Developer held public meetings and published contact information but dismissed concerns.

• Seagate’s own description of the public hearing? A “shit show”—on the record. Does that sound like someone who values public input?

  6. Public Hearing Manipulation
  Seagate claims credit for 3 public hearings as a benefit. In reality, the third hearing occurred only because the Town failed to properly notice a previous meeting. At the hearings, residents were given 3 minutes to speak—only to be told their comments “don’t meet legal standards.” It is impossible to meet legal thresholds in 180 seconds.

7. Comp Plan Interpretation Games
Seagate argues that a period placement in a sentence changes the legal definition of height restrictions. This is absurd. Two former mayors—Anita Cereceda and Ray Murphy—who were directly involved in drafting this language, have testified that this was never the intent.

8. Flawed Financial Testimony
Seagate’s financial defense relied on Jim Dunlap, who was introduced as a banker. However, he was not presented as a municipal finance expert. No credible financial data was provided to support the argument that this development is economically essential.

Conclusion
This development is not just out of scale—it is out of alignment with the vision, voice, and values of Fort Myers Beach residents. The Seagate response is full of manipulations, exaggerations, and selective interpretations that do not hold up to scrutiny.

The people of this island deserve better than a rubber-stamped approval process and a 17-story monument to overdevelopment.

Dependable, Accurate, Investigative Journalism take time. To support our work, become a BTR Monthly Member HERE.