Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Clarity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Private planner urges clearer language on stormwater, zoning applicability in Venice code edits
Summary
Jim Collins, a planner with the Boone Law Firm, told the commission he had "no major" objections but urged clarifications on planned‑zoning applicability, consistent comprehensive‑plan language, SWFWMD permit timing, and the vague term "adequate." Commission staff agreed to review his points with the city attorney.
Jim Collins, a planning consultant with the Boone Law Firm, spoke during the public-comment portion of the Venice Planning Commission meeting and flagged several technical and legal issues in the proposed decision‑criteria edits.
Collins said he did not see any "major" obstacles but recommended edits for clarity: add a qualifier so items that apply only to planned developments do not appear to apply to straight rezones; ensure consistent references to the comprehensive plan across sections; and reconsider whether a requirement that references SWFWMD permit compliance is appropriate at the zoning stage. "If the intent of this requirement is that an SWFWMD permit needs to be in place, then I think that's contrary to state law," Collins said, urging staff to be careful about imposing permitting expectations too early in the review process.
Collins also called the phrase about whether "general site arrangements, amenities, convenience, and appearance are adequate" too vague and suggested omitting or rewording it. Staff and commissioners responded that Collins' suggestions were reasonable and that staff would coordinate with the city attorney and make revisions before the item goes to City Council.
