Last Tuesday, London Bay CEO Mark Wilson asked the Local Planning Agency for a continuance for his proposal on the old Outrigger property. That request came nearly two years after he pulled the project from an LPA agenda in August of 2024.
Wilson is clearly trying to tweak his plans enough to get them approved but not so much that his $38.2 million (including the Charlie’s property across the street) investment doesn’t pay off. Last week, the LPA agreed to hold a special meeting for London Bay on May 8th and yesterday the Town Council announced two special meetings on June 3rd and June 24th. The town does not hold any meetings in July. Town Council member Rebecca Link said yesterday, “I have heartburn about holding special meetings for one applicant. This is out of the ordinary.” The special London Bay meetings are in addition to 2 regular meetings.
Town Manager Will McKannay posted on our Facebook page: “The special Town Council meetings scheduled for June were established to ensure that other priority projects and essential operational decisions could receive adequate time and consideration. They were not intended to provide any preference or advantage to one applicant over others.”
After a 7 hour LPA meeting last week, with the only agenda item being London Bay, no decision was made because Wilson asked for a continuance when LPA members said they wanted him to reduce his highest building from 177 feet to 158. The 158 feet number was chosen because that is how tall the highest condo building is down the Boulevard.
There are 6 items Wilson wants LPA and the Town Council to approve, the most important item is a text amendment change to the town’s Comprehensive Plan that would create an Outrigger district. What London Bay wants to build on that 3.55 acres of property is not allowed within the town’s current rules, including height, density, and floor area ratio (also known as FAR). The 6 requests including 12 deviations, would allow London Bay to build their project. Town staff says the proposal does not meet the criteria of the LDC and attached 25 conditions to the proposal if the LPA considers approving.
The current proposal is for a total of 196 units (150 hotel/condominium and 46 multifamily) and 46,000 square feet of commercial use (private 26,000 SF and public 20,000 SF), and 340 parking spaces. The maximum proposed height is 195. It includes five buildings that range from 15 stories (including 2 stories of parking) to a residential condo and hotel/condominium ranging from 12 stories (with rooftop restaurant), 11, 9 and 3 stories, all including parking. The site plan also includes private club restaurants, a private beach club, an amenity area, and an open deck area.
Wilson’s sales pitch to the LPA is that Fort Myers Beach is in dire financial straits and a project of this magnitude is needed, especially on the south end where there are limited options to dine out or watch the sunset at a public restaurant on the beach. Wilson says part of the public benefit he’s offering is bringing back The Outrigger bar on the sand which would be open to the public.
Several members of the LPA seem to be fine with disregarding the island’s maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) max of 2.5. Wilson says his calculations bring the F.A.R. to a 3, although there’s a question as to whether they way he’s calculated it the way the town has made other properties calculate it. The bottom line is however it’s calculated it’s not 2.5. If the town allows London Bay to create its own “Outrigger” district, the calculation becomes meaningless.
Being that the tallest building is London Bay’s condo building, Wilson appeared to want some extra time to go back and see where he can make up that lost revenue from 8 condo units. Those two floors would have most likely have been his best selling condos. He may want to convert those 8 condo units to 24 more hotel rooms. He could do that based on the town’s multiplier from condo units to hotel rooms. The town code allows a property owner to convert one unit to 3 hotel rooms.
Wilson would also have to decide where to add the two floors he’s losing from the tallest building. The other 4 proposed buildings are all less than the 158 feet some LPA members are indicating they are ok with.
Another reason Wilson asked for the continuance was that LPA member Doug Eckman had to leave the meeting at 3PM. It appeared Eckman was leaning toward a YES vote on the project and Wilson doesn’t want to lose that vote. With Eckman out of the room, a vote was looking more like a 3-3 tie. A tied vote is a failed vote. Of course, Wilson can also decide he doesn’t like that the LPA lopped off 2 floors and go directly to the Town Council with his original plan. That’s exactly what Seagate did for the Red Coconut property and it passed 3-2.
The elephant in the room, and what some believe is driving the push for special meetings, is the November election. Three town council seats are on the ballot: John King’s seat, Rebecca Link’s seat, and John McLean’s seat. The going theory is that, after the recall over Seagate in which Karen Woodson and John King were recalled, those seats will be filled by people opposed to larger developments.
Dependable, Accurate, Investigative Journalism take time. To support our work, become a BTR Monthly Member HERE.
Any developer seeking deviations for a hotel, which includes public amenities such as a bar and a restaurant, should provide a 25% discount to those facilities for all Fort Myers Beach residents just as Margaritaville did. That would be a public benefit.
Yeah, let’s sell out for 25% off a drink and a piece of pizza. Let’s hope our council can negotiate for more or simply say F off. And our island is worth more than 25% off food. Your comment is funny.
To quote Tom Brady, “The LB financial justification is pure bunk, shows a complete lack of understanding about how revenues come into the town and current and future financial status.”
On Tuesday April 14,2026, London Bay CEO Mark Wilson presented the slide below as one of the reasons his project should be approved by the town of Fort Myers Beach. As you can see, the slide states Fort Myers Beach has lost $1.9 Billion of its taxable value since 2022.
According to property appraiser Matt Caldwell: Before Hurricane Ian, the taxable value of all the properties on Fort Myers Beach was approximately $4.5 Billion.
In 2023, with mass devastation everywhere on the island, that number dropped to $2.6 Billion.
In 2024, that number jumped up drastically to $4.2 Billion.
In 2025 it bumped to $4.3 Billion.
And, in 2026 the number is at about $4.5 Billion, nearly identical to where the number was before Hurricane Ian and with hundreds, maybe thousands of residential homes still to be built.
They need to follow the rules that are set for a reason. The “dire straits” warning is a tell. We have survived the last 31/2 years & will continue to if our standards are upheld. Margaritaville is the benchmark FMB needs to adhere to.
Agreed!!!! nobody told them to buy that property in the first place. So they buy the property and then make their return on their investment, the Town’s problem???? interesting strategy!
Ed, is there a list of LPA members email addresses so that we can email them with our questions and concerns?
If you listen to Mark’s spiel he says that the south end needs more restaurants, I agree but his time line is after he sells enough condos to make the project profitable then and only then will a shovel go in the ground. His estimated time line would be 2030 or later. I would hope by that time, it would not even matter that the Outrigger is back. I would hope by that time, there will be so many stand alone restaurants that it will be nice that the Outrigger is back, but no one will really care
Once again I will point out, there are no public bathrooms after Newton Park, if and when they get them. The Gulf provides the only source of “public relief” on a Long Beach day. London Bay does NOT have to provide or pay for public bathrooms, or beach access, or public parking, or restaurants, or even a beach bar. They can build a hotel than makes FAR a moot point. They can build condo’s that sell for a lot of cash and completely close off that whole section to the public. Plus in all of this, everyone forgets that the Town owes $11.2 million and to date we have to pay it back in 2033. To date it is not forgiven and we have no guarantees it will be. The tax base cannot expand fast enough to cover that debt load without some of these projects getting started. London Bay has committed to a timetable. As someone who has spent decades on this portion of the beach, I look at this plan and support it. It returns what was lost by Ian and creates another reason for visitors to return to the beach. Many other options available to London Bay, do not. And we have to keep that in mind.
If we need a public bathroom on the beach – then lets focus on that. Do we have that many people that do not come to the beach because there is no public restroom? Are you talking day trippers or residents? Never seen someone pee or poop on the beach (seen plenty of dogs do that). What exactly is the impact even if there is no public restroom? Town Manager and Town Financial financial manager don’t seem to be too worried about the loan forgiveness, even so if LB buildout is not slated till 2033 anyway – too late. Please calculate the INCREMENTAL ongoing ad valorem taxes from LB development (what we would see for a 12 story over vs 4 story), when they could be expected and how much. Residents / voters I have spoken to said they would rather pay more in property taxes if that meant we could keep massive developments off the island
Tom,
With all due respect, I have spent countless hours on the beach over theist 40 years and can tell you the Gulf has been used by thousands during high season. Residents living on the beach have their own restrooms. I didn’t ask those in question where they were from. Outrigger and Wyndham took a lot of numbers out of the Gulf but did not prevent it. We had about two weeks this March resembling a fraction of what visited here pre Ian. After Covid it was solid people Jan. through March. I too am looking forward to seeing exactly how we intent to pay back the loan if it is not forgiven. And the repayment starts in 2033. By the way, pre Ian ad veloriam taxes paid by the just 15 the properties from the Outrigger to the Wyndham represented over 6 % of the ad velorium taxes collected by the Town. The largest two were destroyed, one remains shut down and for sale, three are in various stages of repair, and the balance have recovered and opened. Still a long way off to pree Ian taxes.
This project is a jewel! Screw this one up and you might never see another developer look at Ft. Myers Beach again.
Again and again and again! Make Margaritaville the benchmark for future development, both in terms of scope and public benefit. Margaritaville is both profitable AND an asset to the community. This proposal is miles away from the benchmark and if I was sitting on that council and they rolled out this, “The island is in dire straits and you need us.” nonsense, I’d tell them that if they said that again, I wouldn’t listen to a word they said going forward.
So sit on the empty land. I’m sure most residents including myself would prefer the empty land over this BS you’re trying to scam us with.
So, turns out this outfit isn’t so special after all. Just another huckster peddling myth.
‘Give us all these things we’re not allowed to have and save paradise. Deny us and all that sun, sand and sea turns dark.’
And more than half of your planning agency seems to have bought it.
And what is the thought of this council in all this “negotiating.”
Will they remove the veil of secrecy and tell us what’s being said in those private chats with the plunderers or will will they continue denying the light of transparency they so love boasting of?
I agree with you.
Numerous developers have misused the phrase linear park. In this instance it is not a park. A park is used for recreation. A garden along a sidewalk or in front of a structure/fence etc. is not a park
Thanks to BTR for the clear synopsis of the facts surrounding the London Bay Development. I’d like to add a few points for consideration.
Regarding public benefit, the proposed tiki bar may never be built, as it falls within the Coastal Construction Control Line. Even if it is constructed, it would be owned and operated independently of the town, meaning there is no guarantee it would remain in business—it would be entirely at the discretion of the property owner at any given time.
The proposed 30-foot “linear park” appears to function primarily as beach access. From my understanding, it incorporates an existing 5-foot access along with a required setback. That raises the question: what is actually being given to the town? While permanent use may be offered, ownership is not—the property owner retains the asset.
London Bay has also stated they do not intend to operate a water taxi in the canal behind their property. However, this remains a legally permissible use. Any such commitment should be formally codified as a binding, perpetual agreement to ensure that use is not developed in the future.
In the end, the town may be left with a public bathroom as the primary tradeoff for an additional 12–14 stories of height and the increased stress on public infrastructure that goes with it.
The LB financial justification is pure bunk, shows a complete lack of understanding about how revenues come into the town and current and future financial status.