Developed Areas, Fill Question Going To Planning Commission

by SC Reporter Emilie Alfino

At a Sanibel Planning Commission meeting late last year, there was a discussion about how fill is regulated and included in calculating developed area. Commissioner Ken Colter cited a concern that garages on some newly constructed homes were “going under water.” This item ended up on the list of priority amendments for 2025, and Sanibel City Council said the issue should be resolved as quickly as possible, putting it on the agenda for the Joint Workshop on February 18.

Placement of fill is regulated by the city. It impacts stormwater management and drainage and, therefore, water quality. It relates to preservation of native vegetation and wildlife habitat and the sanctuary quality of the island, among other things.

Planning Director Paula McMichael, with the assistance of other city staff, went through a 45-page PowerPoint presentation explaining the current policy regarding fill. How much fill, if any, is appropriate to allow for stormwater management (drainage), to maintain as much native vegetation as possible, and to maintain storge capacity (water quality)? Fill counts as development and is included when calculating developed area. The policy has been not to include fill that is used to bring the house pad up to predevelopment grade. The footprint of the house itself always counts towards developed area, as does the driveway. The policy provides an exception from the developed area calculation for areas between the perimeter of the structure to toe of slope, as necessary to meet predevelopment grade. Stormwater management berms are not counted towards developed area.

On January 17, 2025, city staff met with builders and consultants to discuss the matter. One of the things the builders claim is that the problem with building to predevelopment grade is that garages may flood during “normal” rain events. They said that slab on-grade with eight to 12 inches of fill over predevelopment grade is the most cost-effective and resilient way to build.

Councilmember Holly Smith, who attended the January 17 meeting, commented, “These were builders for decades with institutional knowledge that understand our codes and have been building by our codes. It was a very difficult meeting. We don’t have a policy. Something has changed, and it has become more restrictive somehow.” Smith said she is not ready to look at any of the city’s recommendations, considering that these builders are so familiar with the codes and perhaps have even written some of the code. “Builders are looking for eight to 10 inches above the crown of the road. That’s a discussion we need to have. What are the tweaks we can make to be a better, more resilient island? I would like to hear from some experts before we make a recommendation. We are not there yet.”

Planning Commissioner Ken Coulter said a policy had been followed for 47 years pre-Ian that said you could have eight to 10 inches of fill above the crown of the road with a berm capped at 12 inches. “It worked for many years, and I don’t know what happened to it. The policy seems to have just disappeared,” Colter said. “This clearly is not excess fill. We’re wasting a whole lot of time on this when we have a whole lot of island to look forward to. I’m having a whole lot of trouble with this dog-and- pony show that doesn’t change a thing except put a garage under water with 3-1/2 feet of rain. We had a policy that worked. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. What the hell are we doing? If we can’t have the 3:1 slope, then you can’t elevate eight to 10 inches. I’m proposing we go back to where we were pre-Ian because it worked.”

The city said there is no written policy that states that was the case, nothing that shows what was happening.

After much discussion, it was decided to send this matter back to the Planning Commission. “This is an issue that requires a lot more thinking, planning, and brainstorming about how to accomplish the task as opposed to why we can’t do something,” said Councilmember Henshaw.

Planning Commission Chair Paul Nichols explained that the Planning Commission hasn’t had a chance to discuss this issue. It was scheduled but got overtaken by the joint workshop. “I did find the [city’s] presentations to be a little bit defensive in terms of ‘why not’ rather than ‘how can we’. Let’s start every question with ‘how can we do this to help recovery’? Let’s try to find more constructive solutions rather than people going to the city to feel fear. I would like to hear from builders, and we can do that at the Planning Commission.”

Henshaw agreed that he heard a lot of “why we can’t” as opposed to “how we can.” “Think about how we can as opposed to why we can’t,” he added.

“This is best worked about at the Planning Commission level where we can get into the nitty gritty of the code,” said Planning Commissioner Lyman Welch.

City Manager Dana Souza, defending the staff’s presentation, said that it was factual, not defensive. “If there was never a policy, all we have to go back to is the code. It needs to go to the policymakers to make a change,” he explained

The pre-Ian policy involved different answers from planner to planner, said City Attorney John Agnew. “We need consistency. It’s important that there be a policy, at least a written one, than what there was before. We’re talking about two different things – fill above the crown of the road, and predevelopment grade.”

When this goes back to the Planning Commission, it will be on an expedited basis and will be on the agenda at the next meeting, then go to City Council for any policy actions.

More SC coverage from the joint Sanibel City Council and Planning Commission workshop on Feb. 18: 
• Sanibel Council, Plan Commission Hold Joint Workshop
• Public Has Much to Say at City Workshop
• Dealing With Distressed and Dangerous Properties