by SC Reporter Emilie Alfino
A year ago, the Sanibel City Council discussed creating a transfer of development rights (TDR) program to allow density to be sold from one location to another. At its August 11, 2026 meeting, the Sanibel Planning Commission reviewed city staff’s draft proposal.
TDR is a voluntary tool that lets landowners shift their legal right to build from a designated “sending area” (like a natural space) to a “receiving area” (like a resort), protecting the environment while allowing higher-density construction elsewhere.
TDR programs are typically established to remove development rights from lands where these rights exist, but the local municipality has determined that development in that location should be discouraged or prohibited, generally due to:
• the cost to provide adequate services (sewer, water, roads, schools, etc.)
• the vulnerability of the land to natural disasters (e.g., flooding), or
• in support of public goals such as:
◦ conservation of environmentally sensitive lands,
◦ preservation of agricultural lands, or
◦ preservation of an historic district or structure.
That area becomes a “sending zone” of development rights.
Prior to the August 11 meeting, Planning Commission and City Council discussed and provided direction for planning staff to take a broad approach (i.e. that may require approval by voter referendum) to develop TDR program concepts focused on the core question of whether such a program should further conservation, affordable housing, and resort redevelopment goals, while addressing the four basics of TDRs: public purpose, sending and receiving zones, voluntary or mandatory program, and fair compensation.
Staff evaluated options for allowing dwelling units to be transferred between willing property owners within the Resort Housing District. Following prior discussions in December 2025 and May 2026, the Planning Commission expressed informal majority support (5–2) for continued development of a potential framework centered on that issue.
Planning Commissioner Ken Coulter asked why a TDR program has to be limited to resort housing. “I’m interested in residential to residential,” he said. “I’m all about the tax base. We will never have 9,000 [units]; we’ll be lucky to get to 8,000. The island is only 72 percent back according to the Chamber. I think we’re out of our minds if we don’t accept the Planning Department’s proposal. Let’s try to preserve what we have today.”
Commissioner Lyman Welch said he was interested in more analysis regarding commercial properties.
City staff found that a formal transfer of development rights program is unnecessary for this issue. Traditional TDR programs compensate owners when development potential is restricted in designated “sending areas.”
Here, both owners would participate voluntarily, and the City would not remove or take development rights, so the core issue is how to address the transfer without a traditional TDR framework.
The contemplated transfer can therefore be addressed through targeted amendments to the Sanibel Plan and Land Development Code. Any framework should recognize that density under the Sanibel Plan is assigned parcel by parcel—not collectively across the Resort Housing District. Although most resort properties (98 percent) exceed current mapped density limits, the City Charter permits redevelopment up to the number of dwelling units existing on May 4, 2004.
Currently, there are 11 resorts, comprising 263 units, that have been demolished and have not submitted for permits to reconstruct. Commissioner Tiffany Burns said some things are lost forever, and that even if the need is not huge, some resorts may not be able to build back. She added that a bigger footprint might help them.
“Is it worth going through all this to benefit a small number of hotels?” asked Welch.
“We’re talking about a solution to a problem, but I don’t see the problem,” said Commissioner Larry Schopp. “I continue to believe there has not been a showing that this is really needed. We don’t have to adhere steadfastly to that number of units to accommodate a few.”
A transfer framework would require a clearly defined public purpose and controls ensuring that each increase in dwelling units on a receiving parcel is matched by an equal reduction on another parcel within the Resort Housing District, making the central issue one of balance and accountability.
Staff did not recommend extending the program to resort properties outside the Resort Housing District. Instead, staff recommended developing a narrowly tailored, voluntary density-transfer framework limited to properties already within the Resort Housing District, including:
• An amendment to the Sanibel Plan authorizing transfers between parcels within the existing Resort Housing District.
• Land Development Code amendments establishing eligibility, transfer, documentation, and enforcement requirements.
• A conditional-use approval process, including final approval by a supermajority vote of the City Council, comparable to the process used for below-market-rate housing increased density exceptions.
• Either a voter-approved Charter amendment establishing an express density-transfer exception or, if the Charter is not amended, voter approval of the Plan and Code ordinances as required for actions increasing parcel-level residential density.
“There are a lot of guardrails to be created,” said City Attorney John Agnew. “The devil is in the details, and we’re not there yet.”
At the Planning Commission meeting of May 26, 2026, the Chamber President, John Lai, spoke strongly in support of TDRs for the Resort Housing District.
Both property owners would be willing participants in the transfer of units, so there would be no “taking” of development potential or value by the city, and therefore no need to develop and provide a compensatory mechanism to transfer density (i.e. a TDR program). The core issue, City staff said in its Agenda Memorandum, is how to accomplish the transfer without creating a formal TDR program.
The discussion at the Planning Commission focused on how a resort housing developer could acquire additional density without requiring approval of the request by a vote of city residents, as currently required by the charter, plan, and code.
The justification put forth was that the transfer would be limited to ensure it did not exceed the overall number of units existing “on May 4, 2004” within the Resort Housing District, which was presented as the key limit of the proposal.
As previously discussed, density is neither regulated nor allocated by district or by the total citywide number of dwelling units. The plan and code allocate density on a parcel-specific basis, based on the Development Intensity Map adopted as part of the Sanibel Plan.
Only two of the 93 properties within the Resort Housing District are developed in compliance with the Development Intensity Map limitations; 98 percent exceed the Sanibel Plan’s density limitations. The charter already includes an exception which allows redevelopment of these properties in excess of the density limitations of the Sanibel Plan – to “permit redevelopment of existing parcels up to the number of existing dwelling units on May 4, 2004.”
At the conclusion of the discussion, the Planning Commission indicated majority support (4-2 with Chair Paul Nichols absent) to forward to City Council the staff’s proposal for the transfer of development rights from one property in the Resort Housing District to another within the Resort Housing District. Welch and Schopp were the “no” votes.
Regardless of any potential TDR program, Colter said Sanibel will never be Sanibel as we know it, and that the thought breaks his heart.