Residents urge denial of Fort Myers Beach food‑truck court and beer garden, citing noise, parking and safety

Public commenters at a Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency meeting urged denial of a proposed food‑truck court, paid parking and an adjacent beer garden on Estero Boulevard, saying the project would bring amplified music, alcohol service and traffic harms to nearby residences.

The comments centered on compliance with existing town regulations and the potential local impacts of the developer’s requested deviations. A public commenter told the agency, “what’s right for the town is everything that fits squarely within what’s in in the current regulations,” and said the applicant had offered few binding guarantees on hours, music or the number of vendors.

Neighbors described direct, neighborhood-level effects they said would follow if the proposal were approved. Susan Von Bigley, a year‑round resident who said she lives “about a hundred feet from this proposed paid parking lot,” told the panel she had posted photos and videos showing current impacts from an existing food truck and said nearby businesses already operate under town limits. “The parking lot can only operate sunrise to sunset, and moms can’t operate past 4PM nor have any outdoor music,” she said, noting those restrictions had reduced neighborhood impacts at nearby commercial sites.

Von Bigley said paid parking will attract drivers who may then use narrow neighborhood streets to look for free spaces, creating cut‑through traffic on Cottage Avenue and Chapel Street and sometimes blocking driveways. She said residents already experience illegal roadway parking during food‑truck service and recounted that her husband had to honk a car blocking their driveway at 7:25 a.m.

Steven Weyhead, a nearby homeowner, described the neighborhood as “a nice quaint little neighborhood” and said he could not imagine living beside continuous truck traffic, restroom odors and the noise associated with a food‑truck court. “Put yourself in our shoes and would you wanna live like that?” he asked.

Speakers also raised noise concerns tied specifically to live, amplified music. Gary Fields, who identified himself as a resident and professional musician, said he had measured sound near a live performance at roughly 75 decibels and used standard acoustics formulas to estimate that properties within 20–45 yards of the site would still experience levels he deemed unacceptable. “Forget about trying to enjoy your own entertainment. You’re at the whim of the entertainer of the day,” Fields said, and warned that frequent complaints would fall to town and county law enforcement if live music were allowed.

A public commenter also flagged design details they said invite loitering and vagrancy, citing a “foot washing station” and moveable benches near the beach and expressing concern a comfort station without strict operational guarantees could be used at night. The commenter said the applicant seeks “over 20” deviations from zoning or code standards and argued that breadth of variances indicates the proposal is not well suited to the parcel. The commenter concluded, “for that reason, I would ask that you deny this application.”

No formal vote or action on the application is recorded in the provided transcript excerpts. Several commenters said the applicant had presented a persuasive, family‑oriented concept but that the promised restrictions lacked enforceable guarantees. The record does not show whether the applicant offered written, signed conditions or whether the Local Planning Agency will impose, require or accept specific limitations on music, hours, vendor counts, parking hours, or enforcement mechanisms.

The public comment period continued after these remarks. The Local Planning Agency’s next steps — whether to delay, request additional conditions, hold further hearings or take a decision — were not specified in the excerpted transcript.