Venice council upholds planning commission, approves variance to allow metal multipurpose building at 240 Base Ave. E.

Venice City Council voted 5–2 to uphold a planning commission decision and approve a variance allowing a metal multipurpose building at 240 Base Avenue East, a parcel that had operated with nonconforming uses and which the applicant says is in severe disrepair.

The decision authorizes relief from the Venice Historical Precedent (VHP) architectural standards that apply in the Airport Avenue zoning district. The council’s action does not approve a site-development plan; staff and the applicant said any future site plan must still undergo separate review that will address landscaping, parking, buffers, lighting and noise.

The applicant, property owner Walt Catonis and his counsel Jeffrey Boone of the Boone Law Firm, told the planning commission and then the council that the parcel is underused and structurally degraded and that a single clear‑span metal building is required to host civic, educational and maker-space activities he seeks to offer to the community. In his council presentation Catonis described plans for community workshops, robotics/drone and maker activities and a small community garden. Counsel argued the property was purchased before the 2022 LDR change that added the VHP requirement and that the parcel therefore presents a hardship distinct from a mere inconvenience.

Opponents led by appellant Peter Zay — a neighbor — argued the variance improperly waived long‑adopted design standards that the city adopted to preserve the island’s architectural character. Zay told the council he and three others who signed the appeal “live within walking distance” and said the record did not show a hardship that would justify waiving the VHP standards. Other nearby residents told the council they supported cleaning up the property but asked that redevelopment meet the city’s architectural rules or otherwise be designed to limit noise and privacy impacts.

City senior planner Nicole Trumbly told council that the variance request is limited to architectural form — roofs, walls, windows and doors under the codified VHP rules — and that uses, setbacks and other development standards remain controlled by the zoning code and by a future site‑and‑development plan that would be subject to public review.

Boone told council the planning commission had found the variance met the statutory criteria for granting variances (unique physical conditions, minimum relief, no adverse effect to the public welfare) and pointed to case law distinguishing use‑variance cases cited by the appellants. “No harm to anybody,” Boone said of the proposed building; he added that the site‑development plan process would address traffic, lighting and noise.

After public comment and council questions, a motion to approve the variance passed by roll call 5–2. The council did not record individual yes/no votes in the minutes; the motion’s outcome was recorded as passing 5–2. Council members who spoke in favor emphasized the property’s current condition and the practical benefits of redevelopment; those opposed said the city’s design standards should not be waived without a higher showing of hardship.

Council members and staff repeatedly noted that approval of the variance does not authorize uses beyond those allowed in the Airport Avenue zoning district; any specific operations that raise noise, traffic or safety concerns must be resolved through the site‑and‑development plan and its public review process.

The property owner and his team said they will now prepare the required site plan materials for city review.

The council vote closes the appellate stage of the variance (pending any judicial appeal) and returns the matter to staff for next steps on site plan review.

For now, the city’s LDRs remain the controlling regulation for other nearby parcels; this action is a parcel‑specific variance from the architectural standard only and does not change the zoning map or the code.

Notes: The motion as recorded on the public record stated the variance petition number as 25‑22 VZ (relief from VHP architectural standards). The council’s recorded outcome was “approved” by 5‑2. No additional permits were issued at the meeting.