CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL

MINUTES CITY OF FORT MYERS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 1, 2025 CALL TO ORDER The City Council of the City of Fort Myers, Florida, met in special session at Oscar M. Corbin, Jr. City Hall, 2200 Second Street, its regular meeting place in the City of Fort Myers, Florida, on Monday, December 1, 2025 at 2:31 p.m. Present were Mayor Kevin B. Anderson, presiding, Council Members Teresa Watkins Brown, Diana Giraldo, Liston D. Bochette III (Arrived at 2:39), Fred Burson, and Darla Bonk. Also present were Marty Lawing, City Manager, Amanda Browning Richardson, Assistant City Attorney, and Lilliana Baker, Deputy City Clerk. Absent: Council Member Terolyn P. Watson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. OPENING REMARKS BY MAYOR KEVIN B. ANDERSON Mayor Anderson requested that all cell phones be silenced and that speakers use the microphone speak loudly and clearly to ensure the audience, online viewers, and Comcast Channel 98 viewers hear Lhe proceedings. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS Amanda Browning Richardson, Assistant City Attorney, gave public edification on the three opportunities available for citizens to provide public input. PROCEDURAL REMARKS BY CITY ATTORNEY GRANT W. ALLEY Amanda Browning Richardson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that this is an appeal of an August 28, 2025 decision of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), which denied a Certificate of Review for Application COR25-0170 filed by the Applicant , Raymond Schweitzer, requesting an after the fact approval to replace and enlarge the windows on the front facade of 3927 McKinley Avenue in the Seminole Park Historical District. Our City Code allows for an appeal of HPC decisions directly to City Council, and that is the reason for this special meeting. The appeal process is outlined in the Fort Myers City Code, Section 114-85. The HPC held a public hearing to consider the request and thereafter voted to deny their Certificate of Review. The City Code provides for an appeal process to come before the City Council, sitting in the quasi-judicial capacity. The City Council is now set to hear this appeal. The appeal has been timely filed. The City Council in reaching a decision must consider criteria as well as any other issues that are pertinent and reasonable as follows: Whether an appeal is of a nature properly brought for decision, or whether there is an established procedure for handling the request other than through the appeal process; the intent of this Chapter applied or

Minutes - City Council Special Meeting December 1, 2025 2 I Page interpreted; the effect the ruling will have when applied generally to this chapter; staff recommendations; the testimony of the appellant; and testimony of the general public must also be considered. Before granting any appeal, the City Council must find that an error was made in the order, requirement, decision, interpretation, determination, or action of the HPC. She explained that this is a quasi-judicial proceeding, and the procedure begins with the Chair or the City Attorney reading a statement at the beginning of the quasi-judicial proceeding which is what she is doing at this time. The Applicant, staff, and other participants requesting to present evidence at the hearing shall be collectively sworn by oath or affirmation. The presentation of the evidentiary hearing shall be as follows: The Applicant shall make its presentation, including offering any exhibits from the official file and introducing any witnesses as they desire. The Applicant has one hour to present their case. After the Applicant 's presentation, staff shall present a brief synopsis of the application, and they would also introduce any additional exhibits that they wish to assist a De Novo Proceeding so they are entitled to present any new evidence or witnesses that were not previously provided before the HPC. After the Applicant 's presentation, the City staff will also have one hour to make their presentation. Participants in opposition to or support of the application shall make their presentations in the order as determined by the Chair who is the Mayor. Public comments will be permitted for 30 minutes. City staff can cross-examine any witnesses and respond to any testimony presented as may be applicable. The Chair may choose to allow participants to respond to any testimony if the Chair deems the response to be necessary to ensure fairness and due process. Members of the decision-making body, through the Chair, may ask questions of the staff, Applicant s, and participants. Final arguments may be made by staff related solely to the evidence in the record. Final argument may also be made by the Applicant related solely to the evidence in the record. There's no intervener therefore, the intervener process will not be reviewed. 1. APPEAL HEARING 1. 1 App eal b y App licant , Ra y mond Schweizer , owner , of the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) den yin g the Certificate of Review a pp lication COR25- 01 70 to re p lace the original narrow arched windows with lar ger rectan gu lar windows at 3927 McKinley Avenue (Q uasi-Judicial ) (Ward 4) (Steven Belden , Communi ty Development ) Ex parte: Councilperson Watkins Brown - None; Councilperson Giraldo - None; Councilperson Bochette - (Arrived at 2:39) Emailed with the Applicant and told him to go to the Historical Preservation Commission (HPC) and be sure he follows the process, attended HPC meetings, is aware of the six month lag period between the Applicant before they called them in the six months when they showed up in August; Councilperson Burson - None; Councilperson Bonk- None; and Mayor Anderson - Met with Community Development Director Steven Belden and Raymond Schweizer on April 1, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in his office; Phone conversation with Robin Martin, Representing Raymond Schweizer this week. Deputy City Clerk Baker administered the oath to individuals who would give testimony during the quasi-judicial hearing.

Minutes - City Council Special Meeting December 1, 2025 3 I Page A pp licant Presentation Robin Martin, representing the Applicant, reported that the homeowner, Raymond Schweitzer, is a disabled resident, and the windows he installed fully comply with current building code and provide the safety he needs. This is an Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation; however, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC} is asking both staff and City Council to disregard safety requirements, federal ADA law, and the documented history of the home. City records from 1929 and 1930 show that the home did not have a second floor. A later owner, a licensed general contractor, removed the Solarium roof and built the second floor that exists today. Archives from the 1970s reflect roughly 1,000 fewer square feet, revealing a long standing computer or assessor data entry error although the homeowner was told that the City could only rely on that inaccurate information. The home received a badly executed roofing job. Photos clearly show the problems: batten strips, steep slopes covering nearly half the roof, thousands of linear feet of potential shear needs where no batten strips were installed, and seven drain-vent stack pipes protruding through the decking with zero required boots or caps. These unprotected vent stacks are a major source of leaks and are the reason code requires proper protection on each one. The previous windows were leaking and non-compliant and had to be removed and the new windows are appropriate, to code, and necessary for insurance and safety. Mr. Schweitzer cannot walk well, cannot see well, and is highly sensitive to glare and light, which is why the windows do not have grids. These windows are not a luxury; they are accommodation and a safety requirement. She mentioned that no one from the City returned Mr. Schweitzer's repeated calls and dozens of voicemails. Meanwhile, Mr. Schweitzer faced an insurance non-renewal emergency, and he was within five hours of losing coverage entirely . They are asking Council to approve the windows as they exist today. They are historically compatible, code-compliant, and necessary for ADA accommodation and for Mr. Schweitzer's basic safety and ability to remain insured in his home. Questions Mayor Anderson requested clarification that the original windows were not Code compliant, while the replacement windows are Code compliant. Ms. Martin confirmed this and stated that the replacement windows are similar in size to the originals but were required because the original windows did not meet current code requirements. Nicole De Vaughn, Planning Manager, explained that the Florida Building Code includes provisions specific to historic structures that allow existing historic features to remain even when they do not meet current building code standards, in order to support historic preservation. Brent Brewster, City Building Official, stated that the existing Building Code allows replacement windows in historic structures to match the original size or be reduced by up to five percent. In this case, the property owner proposed that windows larger than the originals. While the replacement windows meet current code requirements, the original windows were only required to meet the code in effect at the time of installation and were not required to be upgraded unless replaced.

Minutes - City Council Special Meeting December 1, 2025 41 Page Councilperson Giraldo asked whether the home is an individually designated historic structure or part of a historic district. Ms. Devaughn replied that the home is a contributing structure within the Seminole Park Historic District, reflecting the district's historic period of the 1920s-1930s. Councilperson Watkins Brown asked about the history of the second floor. Ms. Devaughn stated that property appraiser records indicate both floors were constructed in the 1930s and that no documentation had been submitted to demonstrate otherwise. Ms. Martin stated that the second story was added later by a prior owner and that the solarium roof was rebuilt without historic review at that time. She further stated that the windows are not larger but do not include grids. Ms. De Vaughn reported that the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the window changes at its August 28, 2025 meeting and unanimously determined that the changes negatively impact the historic character of the home. The Commission cited the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation, including Standards 2, 5, and 9, and found that altering the original arched window openings to larger rectangular openings diminishes the historic integrity of the structure. Councilperson Burson asked whether staff had recommended approval of the windows prior to the Historic Preservation Commission vote. Ms. Devaughn stated that the windows had already been installed and permitted prior to the Commission's review. Staff recommended not requiring replacement due to the work being completed; however, the Commission rejected that recommendation and determined ine windows should be restored to their historic appearance. Councilperson Bonk clarified that the Council's consideration is limited to the window issue and does not include roofing matters. Ms. Devaughn confirmed this. Ms. Martin stated that the roofing issues were related to Hurricane Ian. Staff Presentation Ms. Devaughn reported that the ADA accommodation was never mentioned or requested in the Applicant 's window change application. Staff had discussed the windows with the Applicant and the window company in the spring, but ADA considerations were not part of the formal application. The HPC reviewed the case at a public hearing on August 28, 2025. They found that replacing the original narrow, arched windows with larger rectangular windows altered and diminished the historic character of the building. Although the total opening remained roughly the same, the change removed the historic stucco divider and the distinct window casing, key features of the structure's historic design. Staff had recommended approval because the permit had already been issued, but the Historic Preservation Commission unanimously voted to require restoration of the windows to their original configuration. Q uestions Councilperson Bonk asked how the window issue came before the (HPC) after the permit had already been issued.

Minutes - City Council Special Meeting December 1, 2025 5 I Page Ms. Devaughn replied that The permit was issued to help the homeowner address an urgent insurance issue, but the property, as a contributing structure in a historic district, still required HPC review for changes to windows. The permitting process for historic districts automatically triggers a historic review . . Staff evaluated each application under Chapter 114 to determine whether it can be approved administratively or requires a public hearing. Exact like-for-like window replacements could potentially be approved administratively, but changing the style or size of windows in a contributing structure requires HPC approval. Mr. Brewster replied that the homeowner was informed at the time of permit issuance that there was a possibility HPC might not approve the installed windows, but the permit was issued to address the immediate insurance needs . Councilperson Bochette clarified that the process is HBC, and then the permit gets issued depending on that vote. Ms. De Vaughn replied yes that is the standard operating procedure, however, in this case, staff were trying to assist the residents with his insurance issues. Councilperson Giraldo asked how ADA accommodations factors into the Applicant 's needs in relation to Historic Preservation. Ms. Devaughn explained that the Secretary of the Interior provides guidance on accommodating ADA modifications in historic structures. There are examples and methods, ranging from subtle additions to less impactful changes, that can meet accessibility needs while preserving historic character. In this case, staff noted that ADA accommodation was never formally brought to their attention, so specific solutions were not explored. Councilperson Giraldo inquired whether the window replacements were required specifically for insurance purposes and whether they are related to the size or impact of the windows. Mr. Brewster replied that the roof was the primary insurance concern, not the windows themselves. However, the new windows had to be installed before completing the roof flashing, which was necessary to finalize the roof work and maintain insurance coverage. Councilperson Bonk asked what would happen if the Historic Preservation Commission's (HPC) determination were upheld and the Applicant could not afford to restore the windows. Ms. Devaughn replied that economic considerations are part of Chapter 114, and historic preservation decisions often weigh cost and practicality. Staff try to address these issues in advance to avoid forcing homeowners into costly retrofits. One suggested compromise could be a decorative solution, such as adding a board cutout or stucco to mimic the original arches above the windows, allowing the historic appearance to be maintained without fully replacing the windows. Mr. Brewster clarified that windows can be special ordered to match the original size, and residential ADA requirements are limited to emergency escape provisions for bedrooms. The current windows do not meet that emergency escape requirement, but the existing building code allows like-for-like window replacements without having to upgrade to current code standards when simply replacing windows. Councilperson Giraldo asked about the financial impact on the homeowner if the windows were required to be restored to their historic appearance. Councilperson Bochette noted that there is also a compromise option staff mentioned previously, altering the exterior appearance with stucco or trim to mimic the original design, without replacing the windows, which could reduce costs.

Minutes - City Council Special Meeting December 1, 2025 6 I Page A pp licant Presentation (Continued) Raymond Schweizer, Applicant, requested that his house be approved as it currently exists, noting that all work meets current building code and safety standards. He emphasized that, as a disabled individual with optic migraines triggered by artificial lights, the absence of window grids is an American Disability Act (ADA) accommodation. Historical context: The house was originally built in 1930, with no second floor, and only a solarium on the north side of the fireplace . A later owner added the second floor and over 1,000 square feet, including modifications to the solarium . He mentioned that a neighbor, the late Nancy Clark, Fort Myers Historic Society founder, provided historical insight confirming these changes. Structural elements of the second floor reflect post-World War II construction techniques, differing from the original first-floor materials. Roofing and code concerns: A previous roofing job was poorly executed, lacking required batten strips and boots/caps on drain vents, leaving the home vulnerable to leaks. Despite repeated calls to the City over a year and a half, staff never returned his calls, which contributed to an insurance emergency. He was within five hours of losing coverage, requiring immediate replacement of the upstairs windows. Regarding the windows: The new windows slightly differ from the original arched design due to time constraints and insurance urgency. The decorative arches from the 1980s- 1990s cannot feasibly be restored, but they were not original historic features. Mr. Schweitzer asked the Council to consider the full context of his disability, safety, insurance requirements, code compliance, and historic records when making the decision. Questions Councilperson Giraldo asked about the estimated cost to restore the windows to their previous configuration. Mr. Schweitzer replied that the previous windows, installed in the 1980s, were not historic and do not comply with current buildings or fire codes. Specifically, the original windows were too narrow to provide a safe egress from an upstairs room in the event of a fire. Because of code requirements, it is not legally possible to reinstall those windows, so there is no feasible cost estimate. Councilperson Bonk asked for clarification regarding second-story windows, fire code compliance, and available options. Mr. Brewster replied that under the existing building code, replacement windows can be installed size-for-size without being required to meet the current code for emergency egress. While the new windows as installed do not meet modern egress requirements, this is allowed because they are replacements, and the code does not require retroactive upgrades when simply replacing existing windows. If a brand-new house were built today, the installed windows would not comply with the current building code . However, under the existing building code, when replacing windows in an existing structure, like-for-like replacements are allowed to remain the same size without having to meet current code standards. PUBLIC INPUT

Minutes - City Council Special Meeting December 1, 2025 71 Page Gina Sabiston opposed granting the appeal and stated that the issue is not about a single house but about protecting the property rights, design standards, and historic character that all Seminole Park Historic District homeowners rely on to preserve neighborhood integrity and value. She emphasized that the homeowner proceeded without proper approvals and that altering historic front-facing window openings violates preservation standards, undermines community trust, and harms the district's architectural rhythm. FINAL ARGUMENTS A pp licant Final Ar gu ment Mr. Schweizer explained that Reese Windows, the company hired to install the windows, was responsible for handling the historic permit process, however, the company failed to file the proper paperwork, and their staff that were assisting him left the company creating significant delays in which he intervened directly to get the application submitted. He emphasized that the original house did not have a second floor; the second story was added in the 1980s. The previous upstairs windows were structurally unsafe and extremely narrow, making them non-compliant with the current code and a serious egress hazard therefore the window company refused to reinstall the old windows due to liability concerns. Given the insurance emergency less than five hours before losing coverage, he had to replace the windows immediately to secure insurance and prevent foreclosure. He had to coordinate all related work, including roofing, stucco, painting, and sealing, under extreme time pressure. Staff Final Ar gu ment Ms . DeVaughn explained that the historic information provided was based on Property Appraiser records, which indicate the house was built in the 1930s . No documentation was available to suggest otherwise. Staff acknowledged the expense and challenges involved in restoring the historic features and suggested an economical alternative, such as using plywood or stucco, to replicate the historic character of the windows and maintain the visual mirroring between the first and second floors . CITY COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND RULING Amanda Browing Richardson, Assistant City Attorney, asked whether either the Applicant or the City if they have any procedural objections to the hearing process today. Mr. Schweitzer and Ms. Devaughn both replied no. Councilperson Bochette suggested, for consideration, tabling the matter to allow the homeowner to resolve any ongoing legal or financial disputes, such as potential claims against the roofing contractor, before the Council makes a final decision. Councilperson Bonk suggested entertaining the alternative option proposed by staff which involves using panels or other exterior modifications to replicate the historic appearance of the windows without fully replacing them. Councilperson Burson felt that the alternative option is a safety issue to escape the second floor. Councilperson Bonk mentioned that this is an unfortunate situation but recognized that staff, HPC, and the homeowner were all acting in good faith under challenging

Minutes - City Council Special Meeting December 1, 2025 8 I Page circumstances. She urged that any work or permits go before the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) before work begins, ensuring proper historic review. MOTION: Councilperson Burson moved to approve granting the appeal requested by Applicant , Raymond Schweizer, owner, of the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPCJ denying the Certificate of Review application COR.25-0170 to replace the original narrow arched windows with larger rectangular windows at 3927 McKinley Avenue; seconded by Councilperson Bonk; A roll call vote was taken: Councilperson Watkins Brown - Yes; Councilperson Giraldo - Yes; Councilperson Bochette - No; Councilperson Burson - Yes; Councilperson Bonk - Yes; and Mayor Anderson - Yes; motion carried: 5-1. Councilperson Bochette opposed. ADJOURNMENT: 3:32 p.m. AITEST: 7) /2 MaryHa /m ~ City Clerk