by SC Reporter Emilie Alfino
Two years ago, City Council directed the Planning Commission and City staff to review and provide recommendations for the definition of “open body of water.” The intent of the review is to ensure definitions are clear and the references to these definitions in the Land Development Code are also understandable. Hurricane Ian caused the delay in this review, and work has now resumed.
Sanibel Planning Commissioners discuss the definition of open body of water at its Tuesday, March 12 meeting.
“Defining ‘open body of water’ is an important aspect of land development on Sanibel,” said City Principal Planner Kim Ruiz. The presence and size of an open body of water within a parcel may affect the development intensity (i.e., number of allowed dwelling units) and site design (i.e., setbacks and developed area). For example, for development intensity, you must subtract the water from the parcel size before calculating the number of dwellings allowed. For site design, a 20-foot setback is subtracted from parcel size before calculating the maximum impermeable cover and vegetation removal in the developed area.
Therefore, how an open body of water is determined affects whether a lot is developable and to what extent. Amending the definition to clarify how to identify the limits of an open body of water will provide a consistent, quantitative application of the Sanibel Code.
The open body of water definition encompasses both natural and human-made features mainly influenced either by the tidal cycle of the gulf, or the groundwater elevation for interior areas of the island. Lakes, ponds, rivers, creeks, bayous, bays, gulfs, inlets, and canals are commonly referred to as bodies of water. Marshes, sloughs, and swamps are familiar to the public as wetland areas. These types of wetlands also typically hold standing water above the ground for three or more months in southwest Florida and therefore provide valuable environmental benefits including flood attenuation, water table aquifer recharge, water quality treatment, and wildlife habitat.
The Planning Department is recommending amendments to the Sanibel Code for a consistent and quantitative means of identifying and delineating the location of an open body of water.
The proposed amendment reads in part: An open body of water means any natural or artificial area that is inundated with water at least three months of an average calendar year. Such bodies include, but are not limited to, lakes, ponds, rivers, creeks, marshes, sloughs, ditches, canals, bays, inlets, lagoons, swamps, bayous, passes, cuts, gulfs, and retention ponds.
In an effort to clarify the boundary of an open body of water for interior areas of the island, City staff decided to use the average high groundwater elevation of 1.3 feet NAVD-88 as a benchmark for field verifying whether an open body of water is present. (NAVD stands for North American Vertical Datum, 1988, which replaces National Geodetic Vertical Datum, 1929.)
Florida Senate Bill 250 prohibits municipalities from proposing or adopting more restrictive or burdensome amendments to its comprehensive plan. The proposed amendments to the City of Sanibel’s Land Development Code contained within this report are not more restrictive than the development regulations existing prior to Hurricane Ian. The proposed amendments are intended to clarify the methods of identifying and delineating an open body of water based upon existing standards in the Sanibel Code and simplifying the review process. “We are proposing adding provisions that allow more flexibility in applying the code,” Ruiz said. “We do not believe this is more restrictive.”
The groundwater data being used to make determinations is from the 1970s. Ruiz explained it’s rare to have this much data and the city is very fortunate to have it. It would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to collect the data anew, and more than five years before it would be useable. “It’s been in the Code since the beginning of the Code,” Ruiz said. Planning Director Paula McMichael added, “The data has not expired, it’s good data. And the data is better than anybody else has.”
Director of Natural Resources Holly Milbrandt said the 1.3 feet number is conservative. “It gives us an opportunity to look at properties across the board, to look for the presence of wetlands, etc.,” Milbrandt said. “That’s the goal, is to be protective of these wetland areas.”
Another proposed revision involves cases that may require an Environmental Assessment Report. Under the revision, the City Manager or his designee would determine whether such a report is necessary to properly evaluate a proposed development site plan, instead of the current requirement that staff submit a request to the Planning Commission. This revision would allow the requirement for an Environmental Assessment Report to be identified during a pre-application meeting when a site design is in a preliminary state, instead of after receiving a permit application with detailed engineering plans, saving the applicant time and money. In cases where an agreement between staff and applicant on a site plan and mitigation plan cannot be made, the proposed site plan and mitigation plan will be brought forward to the Planning Commission as a long-form development permit.
After more discussion, the Planning Commissioners determined that City staff would re-visit the Code language, find the points of concern, add further clarification, and bring it back to the Commission’s Land Development Code Review Subcommittee, and from there to the Planning Commission to vote on the ordinance language.
In other Planning Commission news, the suggestion to add citizens to the Planning Commission subcommittees and to expand the duties of the subcommittees was discarded due to concern over City staff time. Even the option of workshops was dismissed, as staff would have to attend workshops, which would be noticed to the public. Director McMichael recommended retaining subcommittees the way they are now. “Workshops would take more energy and time from staff, and some things are already scheduled for this year. The subcommittee process is a good one to follow.”
The Commission voted to form the subcommittees and chairs for this year as follows (note the Planning Commission consists of Commissioners Ken Colter, Laura DeBruce, Roger Grogman, Paul Nichols, Eric Pfeifer, Erika Steiner, and Lyman Welch):
• Below Market Rate Housing Review, all commissioners except Commissioner Colter; Commissioner Pfeifer elected Chair
• Capital Improvements Review, all commissioners except Commissioners DeBruce and Pfeifer; Commissioner Steiner elected Chair
• Land Development Code Review, all commissioners; Commissioner Nichols elected Chair
• Permitting Process Review, all commissioners except Commissioner Welch; Commissioner Colter elected Chair
The next Planning Commission meeting is March 26, at 9 a.m. at BIG ARTS.
Leave a Comment