Board approves demolition of contributing home at 210 Harvey Street amid concerns about realtor disclosure

The Punta Gorda City Historic Preservation Advisory Board voted May 28 to approve a certificate of appropriateness allowing the demolition of the contributing residence at 210 Harvey Street, concluding that the applicant had followed the required process but sparking debate over how the property was marketed prior to the board review.

The applicant, Victoria Nascll, told the board she had made an offer on the house with the intent to demolish when the seller accepted: “when I did purchase the property, I knew that the demolition was that was the intent was to demo the property. . . the seller even confirmed with me. They're like, ‘We can't accept your offer unless we know your intention is to demo,’” Nascll said. She said she later discovered interior damage she had not anticipated and plans to build a replacement that reflects historic styles.

Board members pressed staff about the timeline: the deed was signed April 29 and recorded May 1; the applicant obtained an engineering inspection May 7, according to comments in the meeting. Several members said the real-estate listing dated to October 2025 and had at some point described or marketed the property as a “tear down” before the certificate of appropriateness (CA) had been considered by the board, raising concerns about buyer notice and marketing accuracy.

Members argued the pattern is widespread in the historic district and said the city should require clearer seller or broker disclosures. A board member summarized the practical problem: sellers or agents are advertising a property as a tear down and prospective buyers may rely on that advertising without knowing that demolition requires HPAB review and a certificate.

City attorney Stephen Levich described the legal review and enforcement path, saying his office can review proposed ordinance language and that civil liability for misrepresentation or breach of fiduciary duty would be separate from any local enforcement action. Levich said substantive legal changes would be returned to the board for review before council consideration.

The motion to approve the CA carried by the board (the chair announced the certificate was approved after the vote). Two members recorded votes against approval, citing concern about disclosure and the way the property was marketed; the meeting record shows discussion of ordinance options and examples from other cities but no final ordinance yet.

The board asked staff to pursue a disclosure approach and to research model forms used by other municipalities; members referenced examples in Columbus and Mount Dora as models and asked the city attorney to prepare draft ordinance language and next steps. Staff said the proposal will be routed through legal review and, if substantive edits are required, returned to the board before forwarding to council.

Next steps: the board expects a draft disclosure or ordinance to be brought back for review at an upcoming special meeting and then forwarded to city council for formal consideration.