Planning Commission OKs After-the-Fact Variance for BMRH

by SC Reporter Emilie Alfino

Riverview I behind 7-Eleven on Periwinkle Way. SC photo by Shannen Hayes

An application for a seventh variance on behalf of the Below Market Rate Housing Rental Program came before the Sanibel Planning Commission on May 12, 2026. The application is for the Riverview I housing unit (15 units) at 1517 Periwinkle Way. Riverview I is commonly identified by being behind 7-Eleven.

This application is for an after-the-fact variance request, as the building is already under construction. The request is for a variance to allow a multifamily building to be constructed with more than two dwelling units vertically, for the redevelopment of multifamily housing.

Section 86-164 of the Land Development Code now reads, “Except in the resort housing district, no building shall be designed and constructed so that there are more than two units, vertically, at any point in the building,” Planning Commissioner Larry Schopp pointed out.

Planning Commission may grant variances necessary to accommodate Below Market Rate Housing developments. City staff found the proposed variance necessary and without conflict with the Sanibel Plan or other adjacent uses. Further, they found that the number of dwelling units was previously approved by ordinance, and that the structure’s height, limited to 45 feet, is not being increased with this request.

For these reasons, City Planning staff recommended approval of the requested variance from Sec. 86-164, cited above.

“The white elephant in the room is, if we don’t approve this, what happens to the building?” asked Planning Commissioner Ken Colter.

“The building is practically constructed, and we don’t have a practical choice,” said Schopp.

“They should have brought this variance request at the beginning and not waited until now,” added Commissioner Lyman Welch. “This appears to have been a staff oversight, and I’m inclined to approve this variance.”

Planning Director Paula McMichael added, “I think in this case it was a staff error. The heights are the same, the units are the same.”

The Planning Commission voted unanimously 6-0 (Vice Chair Erika Steiner recused herself, as she is president of the board of Community Housing & Resources) to grant the requested variance.

Comments (6)

  1. what happened to the comments? there were two, both negative and both asking legitimate questions, why were the scrubbed? please answer, don’t leave me thinking the worst! jim weyant

    • why do my comments not appear on your comment section. thanks, jim weyant

    • WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO GIVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHO ARE APPOINTED OFFICIALS, THE RIGHT TO ISSUE VARIANCES THAT OVERRIDE CODES PUT PLACE BY POPULAR VOTE.
      WHY IS IT THAT NO ONE SEEMS TO WANT TO ANWSER THIS QUESTION.
      JIM WEYANT

  2. 7 variances to move this along. why not tear up the sanibel plan altogether. the variance to fix their fasst tracking the project and construction almost immediately and then finding that lee county was possibly filing a lawsuit over it.
    all this for a project that though the majority of residents are okay with but do not want a 45 foot, 4 story, high density building on periwinkle way. they just it at a more suitable location that would not detract from sanibel’s ambiance and be a better, quieter spot for its future tenants. in addition many felt that instead of 1 bedroom units they should be family friendly 2 bedroom units..
    . . .and this along with an, inappropriate for sanibel, miniature golf course with parking and lighting issues and a fast food restaurant at the causeway exit/entrance that will harbor 6 arcade games. i ask why are letting them slowly turn this beautiful pristine sanctuary island into disney world? why?
    thanks , jim weyant

  3. thank you island reporter, jim weyant

  4. just a question, who has the right to override codes and who gave it to them, especially the 4 codes in place by popular vote. no one ever seems to be able to give a straight answer on this.
    THE 2004 CODES
    1. no increased density
    2. no stop lights
    3. no 4 lane roads
    4. no high rises
    the new CHR project clear ignores #1, and being a 45 foot 4 story structures, it certainly it seems to blatantly ignore
    the intent of #4.
    thanks, jim weyant

Leave a Comment

We are interested in articulate, well-informed remarks that are relevant to the article. We welcome your advice, your criticism and your unique insights into the issues of the day. To be approved for publication, your comments should be civil and avoid name-calling. It may take up to 24 hours for your comment to appear, if it is approved.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.