by SC Reporter Emilie Alfino
The Sanibel City Council unanimously denied an appeal by the White Caps South Condominium Association of the city’s rejection of its proposed buildback project.
White Caps South Condominium Association owns property located at 2907 West Gulf Drive. There were nine individually owned condominium units at the property before Hurricane Ian; all were subsequently damaged and demolished.
The respective owners, through the association, seek to reconstruct those units (four duplexes and one single-family unit) under the city’s buildback provisions.
Nothing remains of the former structures, so the proposed development will be new construction. Appellant’s covenants and restrictions allow seven-day rentals, and such short-term rentals were typical for pre-Ian units and are expected with the proposed new units.
Certain handicapped accessibility requirements were included in the building permits, as well as specific fire sprinkler requirements.
In October 2025, the association submitted proposed revisions to the permits, seeking to eliminate the accessibility requirements and the fire sprinkler requirements.
Craig Mole’, Sanibel’s Chief Building Official, rejected those proposed revisions, while the Fire Marshall (through the Chief Building Official) rejected the proposal to eliminate the fire sprinkler requirements.
According to a letter from City Attorney John Agnew, the appellant focused solely on compliance with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); however, Florida has its own accessibility requirements detailed in the Florida Building Code, which meet or exceed the ADA’s requirements.
“Specifically, Building Official Craig Mole’ rendered his determination that Whitecaps is required to adhere to vertical accessibility requirements for its new units,” Agnew’s letter stated.
“Whitecaps is within the City’s Resort Housing District, which allows seven-day rentals, and prior to Hurricane Ian, the units were routinely rented for durations of less than 30 days,” Agnew continued.
“It is the city’s understanding that the intended use of the redeveloped units is the same as it was pre-Ian,” his letter stated.
As such, Agnew continued, the individual units within White Caps are “resort condominiums,” a category of “places of public accommodation” as defined by the Florida Building Code Accessibility Code, which are required to be accessible to individuals with disabilities.
Among those accessibility requirements is having “accessible means of egress” from the units, as defined by the Florida Building Code Accessibility Code. For an elevated building, this includes vertical access.
FBC Accessibility Code shall comply with various pertinent provisions, including vertical accessibility to a place of public accommodation, as well as required components of accessibility routes for a place of public accommodation (and others subject to the FBC Accessibility Code).
Accessible routes shall consist of one or more of the following components: walking surfaces with a running slope not steeper than 1:20, doorways, ramps, curb ramps excluding flared sides, elevators, and platform lifts. All components of an accessible route shall comply with the applicable requirements of the FBC Accessibility Code.
The Florida Building Code, which supersedes the Federal ADA rules, requires the accommodations set forth by the city’s representatives.
“This is a tough one, it really is,” said Vice Mayor Holly Smith.
Several Council members expressed sympathy for the Whitecaps owners, saying the codes seem unfair and outdated and are causing them hardship.
“You came to us looking for relief, and I’m sorry we were not able to give it to you,” said Council member Richard Johnson, referring to the fact that the Council has to adhere to the law as it is and not as it possibly should be. “But there is a path forward. It’s not that we’re not compassionate to your situation.”
“I’m really sorry you’re going through this and feel bad for you,” added Council Member Laura DeBruce.
White Caps has the right to appeal the decision.
This is a total travesty, and once again Sanibel has no intent to getting to YES, rather deny, deflect, but don’t come up with a solution to help out people trying to rebuild.
It sure seems like the good old buddy network, with no care to helping out people who lost everything during IAN. “4 +years ago!”
The Building Director makes mistakes, admits it, with no accountability what so ever. From my research, he did the same thing in Naples, FL. Hmm, how did he end up in Sanibel and why does good old buddy network continually blindly back him?
City Council, try getting to YES, rather than continually making it harder for Sanibel owners.
PS: Why was this article so long? Sure looks like they are trying to justify saying no, while sweeping the Building Directors wrong interpretations under the rug.
Just nonsense. This is just another reason Sanibel is falling further and further behind. 5 years in and these owners are jumping through hoop after hoop. I have been coming for 40 years and the city response to Ian is just bizarre.
The question I would hope council members will prioritize to ask the city and the city attorney, is what are other places requiring small single family cottages and duplexes do? Can the Florida Law be interpreted another way? Not that the interpretation by the city is “in error”, but is there another way? Our Sanibel Plan speaks very clearly to the fact that reconstruction after a disaster should not put undue burden on owners. Commercial elevators are extremely expensive as are other ADA interior requirements. Is every community in Florida interpreting the law this way for single family units or duplexes? Or could there be another acceptable path that would allow these owners to build back, and be able to have what they owned before, without adding additional expense and delays to their rebuild? The article doesn’t mention one of the points the White Cap attorney made, which is there can be legal allowance for exceptions when strict interpretation has an outcome that seems extreme ….like requiring all units to be ADA compliant which is even more stringent than hotels.