Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transfer Of Development Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sanibel planning panel forwards framework to allow density transfers inside resort housing district
Summary
The Sanibel Planning Commission voted 4–2 to send a staff-drafted framework to City Council that would allow private transfers of development density within the Resort Housing District via conditional-use permits, while commissioners and conservation stakeholders debated environmental guardrails and workload implications.
The Sanibel Planning Commission voted 4–2 on Aug. 11 to recommend that City Council consider a framework allowing transfers of development density within the city’s Resort Housing District.
Paula McMichael, Sanibel planning director, told the commission the city “does not need a TDR program” in the traditional sense to enable transfers; staff instead proposed amending the Sanibel Plan and the land development code so transfers would occur through a conditional‑use permit process that would come first to the planning commission and then to city council. “We don't need to establish a sending zone. We're not taking away anyone's development rights,” McMichael said in her presentation.
Supporters of the proposal said a narrowly targeted program could help rebuild resort housing and support the local economy after Hurricane Ian by making some redevelopment projects more financially feasible. Opponents said the commission had not seen sufficient evidence of demand, emphasized limits tied to parcel‑specific allocations, and warned about staff time and taxpayer expense. One commissioner called the proposal “a solution in search of a problem.”
Under the staff approach, any code and plan amendments that would increase density would ultimately go to a voter referendum because of charter language governing density changes; McMichael also cited state restrictions on regulating short‑term rentals that limit how the city can change certain rules.
Attorney Agnew summarized the procedural question ahead of the vote: “What the vote is conceptually is the planning commission in favor of moving this from you to city council for discussion,” and commissioners then voted to forward the framework with a recommendation that council proceed along those lines. The motion passed 4–2 with Chair Cherry Nichols absent.
The commission's action does not adopt a final ordinance; it refers the framework to City Council for further drafting and public hearings. The decision directs staff and council to refine objective conditional‑use criteria and the public‑purpose statement that would accompany any referendum measure.
