Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Unsafe Building Demolition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Officials press for quick demolition of unsafe Island Shores Club; dispute remains over retroactive fine and escrow
Summary
At a Fort Myers Beach code enforcement hearing, the property owner agreed to demolish the unsafe Island Shores Club at 131133 Estero Boulevard, but disagreements remain over timing, a requested retroactive fine of about $14,000 and an escrow of roughly $15,000 to guarantee demolition.
At a Fort Myers Beach code enforcement hearing, property owner representatives agreed to demolish the unsafe building at 131133 Estero Boulevard (Island Shores Club), but disagreed with the town over timing, whether a retroactive fine should be imposed now, and whether an escrow should be required to guarantee demolition.
Noel Davies, attorney for the property owner, told the hearing his client is “committed to demolishing the structure” and has an executed demolition contract. Davies proposed a schedule: apply for a demolition permit within 15 days and complete demolition within 30 days after the town issues the demolition permit. He argued the town should first find a violation, set a compliance date and allow the owner an opportunity to cure; any fines, he said, should accrue only after noncompliance.
Town Attorney Nancy Stupart and code enforcement staff urged a faster schedule. Town staff said the town would prioritize the demolition permit and that the property has been an unresolved safety issue since Hurricane Ian; staff described prior notices dating to April 2023 and an unsafe-building process beginning in June 2024. The town presented testimony from Bill Wychulis, president of Pink Shell Beach Resort and Marina, who said the condemned structure is an ongoing public-safety and nuisance problem for nearby hotels and that the visible ruin discourages bookings. “We have been suffering with this condemned structure for over 2 years now…Someone is gonna get hurt,” Wychulis said, urging a timetable shorter than 45 days.
On sanctions, the town reported a calculation of roughly $14,000 tied to days of alleged noncompliance (town described this as based on about 56 days) and asked the hearing officer to require escrow of the estimated demolition cost (the town cited roughly $15,000). Davies objected to any retroactive fine or escrow and said the town already has statutory recourse (daily fines, liens and foreclosure rights) if the owner fails to meet a court-ordered compliance date.
The hearing officer outlined the likely approach: enter a final order finding a violation, set a compliance date, and impose a daily fine if the owner fails to achieve compliance. The officer said he would consider whether a one-time retroactive fine (statutorily available under chapter 162) is appropriate and asked parties to submit supporting briefs or memoranda by Friday so he could review statutory authority and case law. The parties also requested that the clerk incorporate the unsafe-building record into the property-maintenance file for context.
The parties agreed that demolition would cure both the property-maintenance enforcement case and the pending appeal of the building official’s determination; the owner will dismiss the appeal once demolition occurs under the stipulation discussed.
Ending: The hearing officer will draft an order after reviewing the parties’ submissions. The primary dispute to be resolved in that order is the compliance timeline and whether the town may impose a retroactive fine or require escrow; the record shows commitment by the owner to demolish and urgency from neighboring businesses and town staff.
