Planning Commission approves design alternative to retain invasive vegetation at Curry Lane townhomes

The City of Venice Planning Commission on Oct. 7 voted 7-0 to approve design alternative petition 25-37DA, allowing existing nonnative invasive landscape species to remain on a roughly 10.18-acre parcel at 2905 Curry Lane as part of the proposed Curry Lane townhomes project.

Britney Smith, planner for the City of Venice, explained the request was limited to a design alternative under LDC Section 3.70.288 to retain existing exotic plant material in a roughly 40-foot segment along the southern parcel line and to relocate required Type 2 buffer plantings to the south end of a proposed on-site dog-park amenity. Smith said the parcel's future land use is moderate-density residential and its existing zoning is RMF-1; the parcel sits in the Pine Brook neighborhood, with Sarasota Memorial Hospital to the north and single-family and multifamily residential to the south and west.

Three Waterford residents spoke in support of the design alternative. Richard Rock said residents' purpose in monitoring the area was to "minimize any sound or sight intrusions" and asked the commission to approve continuation of the invasive-species border in order to preserve the existing visual buffer. Rock said: "We do support that and we would like very much to respectfully request that you approve it." Jim Nolan, another Waterford resident, said the existing vegetation provides a view-and-sound barrier and that his neighbors "fully support the developer's request to relocate the proposed fence and, in addition to that, relocate the buffer plantings and retain as much vegetation as possible, including non native vegetation along the southern border of the property." Nancy Vigiano added, "So we're fully in favor of leaving the vegetation that's there now." All three indicated they had coordinated with the developer on additional plantings to fill gaps.

Smith noted the comprehensive plan includes a strategy addressing nonnative invasive species (strategy OS1.404) and said that while the strategy promotes removal of invasives over time, the design alternative process in the land development code allows retention in limited circumstances when justified in the record. The planning staff and the technical review committee determined the design-alternative application met procedural requirements; staff's analysis and findings were included in the agenda packet.

During deliberations Commissioner Hale voiced caution about precedent, saying the comprehensive plan expressly calls for reducing invasive species over time and that approvals should remain exceptions rather than the rule. The motion to approve the petitioner's design alternative included the staff findings and passed 7-0.

The approval authorizes the specific design alternative as described in the applicant's submittal and in the staff report; any future site-development submittal must be consistent with the approved alternative and applicable code standards.