by SC Reporter Emilie Alfino
The Planning Commission at its May 26, 2026, meeting considered a potential program the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for the following three public purposes:
1. To support Below Market Rate Housing
2. To support conservation of environmentally sensitive lands
3. To support redevelopment in the Resort Housing District
Transferring density would need to be consistent with the City Charter, the Sanibel Plan, and the Sanibel Code of Ordinances. To the extent such a process is not currently enabled by the charter, plan, or code, amendments to all three would be required. The program would also require a referendum.
Planning Commissioner quickly remarked, “Leave the Charter alone. Change the Sanibel Plan.”
Residential development density is not governed by a single blanket rule; instead, it is allocated on a site-specific basis via the Development Intensity Map within the Sanibel Plan. The 9,000-Unit Cap is Not Regulatory. While an overall cap of 9,000 units is often discussed, this figure is strictly an estimate used for theoretical build-out projections, not a regulatory or legally binding limit.
On the Development Intensity Map, the assigned numbers represent the permitted units per acre for that specific location. Areas designated as “OS” stand for “open space” and are completely excluded from density allocations, meaning no residential units are assigned to them.
As discussed previously, the Charter, Plan, and Code, already provide a process by which increased densities may be approved without voter referendum to support the Below Market Rate Housing (BMRH) program. Given that this process and exemption from the voter referendum requirement already exist, a TDR program to support the BMRH program is not necessary.
City Staff initially estimated a maximum potential transfer of 176 dwelling units from vacant conservation lands, though this is likely inflated due to real-world site conditions and ownership histories.
Sanibel has successfully achieved conservation goals without TDRs in the past. Their 1987 funded acquisition program successfully bought and preserved 400 acres of environmentally sensitive land, valued between $1 million and $1.5 million.
The resort housing program is the one causing the most concern. The assumption is that a resort cannot survive just building back what it had before – it needs the TDR to be able to build back with more density.
President of the Sanibel & Captiva Chambers of Commerce John Lai said, “We have been talking about this for three years. From my perspective, I think it’s absolutely imperative. We have lost resort housing to private homes. The cost doesn’t make sense to build a resort. If resort housing is important to this community, we have to have TDR.”
Commissioner Tiffany Burns added, “We are not creating density. But we have lost so much density. We’re not even going to get close to what we had before.”
An analysis of vacant properties within the Resort Housing District was presented to Planning Commission in December. Since December, one additional resort (Gulf Beach, containing 14 units) has submitted a permit to “build back.” There remain 11 properties, comprising 263 units, that have been demolished and have not submitted for permits to reconstruct. Below is an updated resort housing inventory:
• Seaside Inn, 541 East Gulf Drive – 31 units
• Surfrider Beach Club Assoc., 555 East Gulf Drive – 31 units
• Clamshell Condo Assoc., 1801 Olde Middle Gulf Drive – 6 units
• Hutchings Ventures II LLC, 1081 Shell Basket Lane – 15 units
• Hutchings Ventures II LLC, 1104 Shell Basket Lane – 2 units
• James Kilchenman & Leslie Kilchenman, 1105 Shell Basket Lane – 1 unit
• James Kilchenman & Leslie Kilchenman, 1113 Shell Basket Lane – 1 unit
• John & Jodi Miller, 1121 Shell Basket Lane – 1 unit
• Caribe Beach Resort, 2669 Wesst Gulf Drive – 26 units
• Sanibel Beach Owner LLC – 3287 West Gulf Drive – 45 units
• West Wind, 3345 West Gulf Drive – 104 units
For a total of 263 units.
Planning Commissioner Lyman Welch said, “Eleven vacant properties that could be developed in the Resort Housing District – I’m not in favor of increasing density at all on our island. I would like to be respectful of the business community, but conservation is very important. I’m very nervous about not wanting to increase density, so it would have to be very carefully developed.”
“When the Sanibel Plan was adopted in 1975, density was determined by the carrying capacity of the beaches,” Commissioner Larry Schopp said. “In the 1970s, resorts vastly overbuilt. The city allowed them to build back at their excessive density. Even if we lose some, it’s not a bad thing if it helps maintain the carrying capacity of the beaches. I’m not sure this is what we should be doing.”
Existing pre-Hurricane Ian number of units in the Resort Housing District is over that allowed per the Development Intensity Map by 1,685 units (91% over).
• Sundial Resort (254.19)
• Loggerhead Cay (116)
• Blind Pass Condo (91.15)
• Mariner Pointe (72.8)
• Sanibel Island Beach Resort (75.4)
• Sanibel Moorings (70.95)
• West Wind Inn (69.6)
Existing Occupancy in the Resort Housing District is 7,753 individuals over maximum occupancy per Development Intensity map.
• Sundial Resort (1,055.07)
• Loggerhead Cay (473.60)
• Pointe Santo (367.02)
In addition, 88.6 percent of resort units in the Resort Housing District are restored and occupied .
• Sundial (407)
• Loggerhead Cay (168)
• Sanibel Moorings (122)
• Sanibel Arms West (104)
• Mariner Pointe (100)
A total of 398 Resort Housing District resort units remain vacant or under construction; 121 units are under construction or permit review. West Wind Inn (104 ) accounts for one-third of the remaining unrestored resort units.
There are approximately 833 properties that are either:
• Adjacent to public or nonprofit conservation lands (553)
• Located predominately in D-1 Lowland Wetlands Zone (242)
• Within 200 feet of the Sanibel River (117)
• Located predominately in E-1 Blind Pass Zone (97)
Density within these areas total approximately 921 dwelling units.
However, only 108/833 properties are currently vacant. Density of vacant lands within these areas total approximately 176 dwelling units.
• Sanibel Community Church 25 du
• Clamshell Condo 8 du
• Sanibel United Congregational Church: 6 du
“I still haven’t heard any compelling reason to change anything for the Resort Housing District,” Schopp said. “I don’t think we ought to pursue it. I think it needs changes to the Plan and the Charter, and I don’t see any reason to do that.”
City staff’s conclusion from the agenda memorandum dated December 1, 2025, stated that “Increased densities in the Resort Housing District to aid redevelopment, as a public policy purpose for a TDR program, is not supported by available evidence. The Plan does allow existing hotels, motels, and resort condominiums in the Resort Housing District to maintain existing nonconforming development intensity through redevelopment, provided there is continuation of short-term occupancy, however the provision does not recommend increasing or transferring densities.
Furthermore, Sanibel Plan policies restrict increased development intensity both in the resort housing district and at vulnerable coastal areas. If a public policy purpose is substantiated by available evidence, a text amendment to the Plan is necessary to consider adoption of a Resort Housing District TDR program.”
Establishing a TDR program requires a Charter amendment (subject to voter referendum). The city would likely need to request an attorney general opinion before moving forward with a charter amendment affecting a charter provision that, if it were enacted today, would be contrary to state law (“deemed null and void and of no legal force and effect”).
Commissioner Kate Sergeant said, “I think it will be a lot of work for very little benefit. On the other hand, I am loathe to stand in the way of progress. Still, I’m inclined to say no.”
Commission Chair Paul Nichols added, “I am also skeptical. I don’t know as it would work but believe it could use more discussion.”
The Commission voted 6-1 (with Schopp voting no) to forward the Resort Housing District matter to City Council, and 7-0 to forward the Conservation District matter to City Council.