By Coral Gables Gazette staff
Conservation and development would seem to make strange bedfellows, especially in the City of Coral Gables where the latter is often seen as out of control, while the former — in the form of greenspace and natural habitat — is viewed as dwindling. So when the Planning and Zoning Board took up an item on November 19 that combined the two, granting conservation transfer of development rights (TDR) from environmentally sensitive parcels and preserving them through permanent conservation easements to be redirected to areas that can accommodate additional density, it stands to reason that there would be lively discussion.
The board didn’t disappoint. Some members expressed doubt and concern, while others saw optimism in a program that could move potential development away from residential areas and into denser commercial districts, all in the name of ecological conservation. In the end, the board recommended the new process — but by the thinnest of margins, 4–3. The City Commission will take up the program next at its December 9 meeting.
At the heart of the debate was the ordinance’s central purpose: to create a conservation-based TDR program that incentivizes landowners to permanently protect native habitat, mature tree canopy and ecologically valuable lands, in exchange for development rights that can be sold and used elsewhere.
Staff: A structural change to how the city preserves land
Planning Official Craig Southern opened the discussion by underscoring the ordinance’s intent.
“This program proposes to incentivize permanent preservation of native and natural habitats,” he said, explaining that owners of designated “sending sites” could voluntarily transfer development rights to “approved receiving sites.” Ecologically significant parcels – such as hardwood hammocks near Old Cutler, large lots in Cocoplum or Hammock Oaks with thick canopy, or mangrove-lined canal frontage – could qualify for bonuses based on their conservation value.
Southern also noted that TDR programs of various types exist across the country, including agricultural and ecological models. “We do feel like it would be a healthy addition to our current transfer of development rights, which is predominantly within the historical component,” he said.
But the complexity of the process quickly collided with board members’ questions.
Uncertainty, skepticism, and the fear of a ‘bottomless well’
Board member Felix Pardo struggled with the proposal’s structure, comparing it unfavorably to the city’s historic TDR program. “This becomes the well that will never go dry — then where do you dump those TDRs?”
He argued that historic TDRs were based on predictable calculations tied to building envelopes, whereas conservation parcels could vary wildly, challenging any consistent valuation.
Others worried about how many properties might qualify, and whether that could flood the market with new TDRs. The city attorney reminded the board that the number of truly eligible ecological parcels was likely very small. Pardo nevertheless requested a full assessment from staff, although there was a question of how such an assessment could be provided.
Chair Robert Behar questioned whether landowners could simply designate portions of a residential lot for conservation. Planning Director Jennifer Garcia clarified firmly: “You can’t have your side yard be conveyed and get TDRs. That’s not an option… What’s being proposed today is a property that’s zoned single family, but the entire property would have to be conveyed. You cannot carve out a backyard.”
Garcia also explained that valuable single-family lots were unlikely to pursue TDRs anyway – the economics would not make sense.
New board member Gonzalo Sanabria emerged as the most vocal opponent. “The motive is good… but the language is obtuse,” he said. He argued that TDRs have “very little value” and that requiring two appraisals and a recorded maintenance agreement “puts a very high economic burden on the owners.” He also cited existing code giving TDRs a two-year lifespan, surprising staff and highlighting gaps in code updates.
Behar pushed back: “This is voluntary. If you don’t want to, you’re putting your own self-imposed hardship. The city’s not mandating it.”
Others see a targeted, limited program
Board member Alice Bravo asked staff to clarify the approval process, which Southern explained would go through DRC review, Beautification and Greenspace reviews, and ultimately the City Commission.
Board members Alex Bucelo and Nestor Menéndez supported the ordinance, calling it specific and reasonable. “We’re just getting into the weeds,” Menéndez said, emphasizing that qualifying ecological parcels were limited and that the ordinance included clear criteria.
Menéndez added that enforcement of illegal tree removal should be strengthened, but that such concerns were separate from the ordinance itself.
After initially suggesting a deferral, Behar shifted toward supporting the measure once Garcia explained the limited applicability. Still, unresolved questions – particularly about the two-year TDR expiration – lingered. Garcia promised to verify whether that provision still applied, acknowledging, “Sometimes our code is not always updated.”
