White stain on front-side of Richards Building can stay

The white stain on the front-facing side of the historic Richards Building in downtown Fort Myers will not be required to be removed, following Wednesday’s city council meeting.

It’s a decision that comes after months of controversy.

Back in April, the city issued a stop-work order, after the building’s owners, Alessio Development, stained the front of the historic building white without permission from the Historic Preservation Commission.

Alessio Development continued carrying out the work, only asking for permission after it was already completed.

On Aug. 22, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) denied the after-the-fact request for approval from Alessio Development, recommending the required removal of the paint on the front side of the Richards Building using the “gentlest means possible.”

At that point, Alessio Development was given 30 days to appeal, and they did. That appeal was brought forth at Wednesday’s city council meeting.

“We weren’t here because there was a violation of any stop work order,” said Daniel Garza, the attorney representing Alessio Development after Wednesday’s meeting. “Obviously, there was no intention to do anything maliciously or against any rules. The decision that the council members made is what bears weight here, and that’s how we go moving forward.”

Ultimately, city council voted four to three in favor of granting Alessio Development’s appeal.

“I think these are tough decisions,” said Garza after the appeal was granted. “I think that’s not an easy one to make by the council members. I do think they got it right.”

But not everyone agrees.

Whitney Richards Kearns showed up in support of the Historic Preservation Commission’s decision. Her great-grandfather is the namesake of the building, and she hates to see the historic building change so drastically.

“As soon as I saw that paint go up, I knew it wasn’t coming down,” said Richards Kearns. “Honestly, what concerns me moving forward is the precedent it’s setting for the rest of the historic district because people moving forward, they know now that it’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to ask permission before the fact.”

However, Alessio Devlopment’s attorney argued at Wednesday’s meeting permission was never needed because the other three sides of the building had been previously painted.

But the HPC argued permission was needed, due to the front-facing side never being painted or stained before.

“The question before the HPC was whether the unpainted brick on the front façade had been painted, outside of this (instance), without approval by the commission,” said Nicole Vaughn, planning manager for the city of Fort Myers.

That is why in August, the Historic Preservation Commission denied Alessio Development’s after-the-fact approval to stain the building.

And though Alessio Development got that decision appealed Wednesday, it came with concerns from some council members.

“They need to put it back the way it was, and they also need to be fined for not complying to stop-work order,” said Councilperson Teresa Watkins-Brown, before she voted against the appeal. “If we allow this to go on, someone else will come along, do it, and ask for the same grace.”

Some councilmembers also voiced concerns about the ordinances being confusing and some terms, not well defined.

“There are a lot of revisits we need to do to some of our ordinances to clear this up for future, so that we don’t have to get back into this type of an issue, where it requires a hearing, and we’re talking about Webster’s Dictionary to define a word for goodness sakes,” said Councilperson Darla Bonk, before voting in favor of the appeal, referencing debate around the definition of the word “paint.”

Those concerns were echoed by Alessio Development’s attorney, as well as community members who spoke in favor of the Historic Preservation Commission’s original decision at the meeting.

“I think it’s something that needs to be talked about,” said Garza, Alessio Development’s attorney. “I think it’s something that should be looked into. Because, again, as they (council) mentioned when they were deliberating, they could see both sides, and you almost want to try to be black and white.”

“Things should be clarified,” agreed Richards Kearns, who spoke in favor of the HPC’s decision. “Lawyers are going to lawyer. They’re going to use any loopholes they can. They’re going to make things slant any which way they can in their favor, and that’s what happened today. So the more clear the city can make the code, the better it will be.”