Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comp Plan Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies East Venice small-area comp plan change after infrastructure and affordability concerns
Summary
The commission denied a proposed small-area future-land-use map amendment and associated rezoning for a 5‑acre site on East Venice Avenue after hearing staff analysis, the developer’s plan for 64 apartments and sustained resident opposition citing insufficient road and infrastructure capacity and lack of guaranteed affordable units.
The Sarasota County Commission voted unanimously Jan. 15 to deny a proposed small‑area comprehensive plan amendment that would have changed a five‑acre East Venice Avenue parcel from low‑density residential to office/multifamily residential; a related rezoning petition was not considered after the denial.
Applicant Brian Lichterman of Vision Planning presented a plan for a 64‑unit multifamily development (three apartment buildings, a clubhouse and pool) on a 5‑acre parcel east of U.S. 41, saying the site sits inside the urban service area, has sewer and water access and sits across the street from a major employment center where higher density could be appropriate.
Planning staff, represented by Brooke Fleming, said the parcel is inside the East Venice Avenue overlay district and can support higher-density development if it complies with EVA block‑area planning. The planning commission recommended approval 5‑2; staff also noted proposed stipulations and the applicant’s voluntary binding development concept plan.
Residents from adjacent neighborhoods and organized groups such as SAND (Supporters for Action Now on Dredging) urged denial. Speakers, many of whom described repeated flooding in nearby neighborhoods from recent storms, raised two central objections: poor existing road and drainage infrastructure at the Jackson Road/East Venice Avenue intersection; and the absence of any guaranteed affordable housing component in the developer’s proposal.
‘‘We are way ahead of the infrastructure that we should have in place,’’ Commissioner Jonathan Smith said on the dais during debate and said he would not support the amendment without an affordable‑housing commitment. Commissioner Randall Knight and others echoed concern that East Venice Avenue is not funded in the county’s near‑term capital improvement plans and would not support the traffic and access changes the petition would generate.
When the board voted on the small‑area plan amendment (39A), the motion to deny passed unanimously; with the plan amendment denied, the related rezoning (39B) was not taken up.
Ending: The denial preserves the parcel’s low‑density residential future‑land‑use designation; the applicant can seek other options including a future comp plan amendment with infrastructure commitments or an adjusted site plan, but the commission majority signaled it will require affordable‑housing provisions or clearer infrastructure funding before approving comparable density increases.
