Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies small-area comp plan amendment for East Venice Avenue amid traffic and infrastructure concerns
Summary
After a lengthy hearing with developer and dozens of residents and faith leaders, the Sarasota County Commission unanimously denied a small-area comprehensive plan amendment and associated rezoning proposed for East Venice Avenue, citing infrastructure, traffic and compatibility concerns.
The Sarasota County Commission on Jan. 15 voted unanimously to deny a proposed small-area comprehensive plan amendment that would have changed a five‑acre parcel on East Venice Avenue from low‑density residential to office‑multifamily residential and allowed a 64‑unit multifamily development.
The applicant, represented by Brian Lichterman, said the project would implement the East Venice Avenue overlay and provide compact multifamily housing near a planned major employment center and a future fire station. The project team said it would provide 43% open space, adequate utility capacity and design features consistent with the overlay plan.
Residents, the Unity Church of Venice leadership, and multiple nearby homeowners urged denial, citing current roadway safety at the North Jackson/East Venice intersection, lack of funded East Venice Avenue improvements in the county’s five‑year CIP, potential impacts to neighborhood hydrology and wells, and that the area remains near rural and five‑acre estates. Unity Church leaders said a proposed cross‑access through church property would disrupt sacred gardens and parking.
Commissioners said they were not prepared to approve a future higher‑density change without infrastructure assurances and affordable‑housing commitments. Commissioner Knight said the project “doesn’t seem like the right fit” because East Venice Avenue improvements were not funded in the near term. Commissioner Smith cited comprehensive‑plan housing goals and a desire to see an inclusion of affordable units in larger projects.
The motion to deny the comp plan amendment (39a) passed unanimously; because the amendment failed, the subsequent rezoning (39b) was not taken up. Staff and applicant representatives said the project could be revised and brought back for future consideration following outreach and infrastructure planning.
