Planning commission recommends denial of Fox Cove comprehensive plan and zoning changes after residents raise stormwater and traffic concerns

The City of Venice Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend denial of two related Fox Cove petitions: comprehensive plan future‑land‑use amendment petition 24-60CP and zoning map amendment petition 24-61RZ. The applicant sought to change about 10.74 acres at the northeast corner of Auburn and Border Road from low‑density residential to moderate‑density residential and to rezone the property from Sarasota County "OUR" to the City's RMF‑2 zoning to allow single‑family attached units.

Planning staff presented the requests, explaining the change would allow 5.1 to 9 dwelling units per acre and that the applicant had proffered a stipulation limiting the project to 70 units. Britney Smith, planner for the City of Venice, said staff’s review found sufficient information on the record for the commission to consider the petitions and described required transportation and concurrency review processes.

Josh Slaw of Morris Engineering, agent for the applicant, said the moderate‑density designation was requested primarily because it would allow single‑family attached units and that the team proposed enhanced buffering and a cap at 70 units "because it was on the lower end of what we were allowed," he said. Morris Engineering and the applicant presented conceptual plans showing a preserved wetland on the southeast portion of the property, proposed stormwater basins and a potential sound wall along I‑75.

Multiple residents and community representatives spoke against approving the changes. Jim Perry, a Sawgrass resident, urged caution on stormwater and said, "Any additional water runoff will go into housing developments. This is not mere speculation," noting Curry Creek and local stormwater limits. Ron Fazilero, representing the Waterford community, told the commission, "Waterford has 3 major concerns. Stormwater management is number 1," and raised similar concerns about Curry Creek capacity, density and the proposed site access on Border Road.

Commission discussion focused on density, traffic and stormwater risk. Commissioners noted that surrounding developments generally have densities under 5 units per acre; one commissioner pointed out that while compatibility matrices presume compatibility in some cases, "presumed compatible does not mean 100% compatible," and said changes that push density well above neighbors’ levels reduce presumed compatibility. Several commissioners explicitly cited stormwater and traffic as decisive factors. The applicant and engineers said detailed stormwater and traffic analyses would be completed at preliminary plat and permitting stages, and the engineering team noted they design stormwater systems to 500‑year standards and must demonstrate no net increase in peak discharge to downstream systems as part of permitting.

After discussion, the commission first debated a motion to recommend approval, but following public comment and commissioner concern a substitute motion to recommend denial carried unanimously. The commission’s stated basis for the recommendation was that the requested increased density was inappropriate for the area and should be held to a maximum of 5 units per acre.

Actions taken: Comprehensive plan amendment petition 24-60CP — Planning Commission recommends denial to City Council (7-0). Zoning map amendment petition 24-61RZ — Planning Commission recommends denial to City Council (7-0).

The applicant indicated it would proceed with the quasi‑judicial rezone hearing despite the recommendation; the Planning Commission’s votes are advisory recommendations to City Council on legislative matters (comprehensive plan) and formal recommendations for zoning. Further technical analyses (preliminary plat, traffic impact study, and required stormwater permitting) were identified as necessary steps should the project move forward.

Sources: Staff presentation by Britney Smith; agent presentation by Josh Slaw and Matt Morris; comments by Jim Perry and Ron Fazilero; Planning Commission motions and votes.