Lawsuit over a Pat Neal development in Venice draws to a close.
By Ramon Lopez
Original Air Date: July 12, 2024
Host: Neighbors of a Pat Neal project in Venice sued the city and a company owned by the developer. A judge ruled against them, and now they decided not to appeal. Ramon Lopez has that story, and another one related to construction on the barrier islands.
Ramon Lopez: There were two important developments this week regarding perceived real estate over-development in Sarasota County. And in baseball parlance, the double header ended up with one victory, and one defeat in the win-loss column for opponents of new commercial and residential developments in both Venice and the barrier islands.
The Venice City Council voted 5–2 to approve a rezoning that would allow real estate developer Pat Neal to build a shopping center in North Venice at the southwest corner of Laurel Road and Jacaranda Blvd. The council vote changed the land-use designation of ten acres from open-space and wetland to commercial.
Local neighbors filed a lawsuit. On June 12, Twelfth Circuit Court Judge Danielle Brewer denied North Venice Neighborhood Alliance’s appeal that challenged the rezoning. It was a victory for the defendant, the City of Venice, and Border & Jacaranda Holdings, a Pat Neal company.
The neighborhood alliance had until today to challenge Brewer’s ruling. But the opponents reluctantly decided not to appeal Judge Brewer’s ruling, thus ending their court challenge. NVNA’s Rick Cordner said the group was “very disappointed” but has no regrets for launching the legal squabble. He said no appeal will be lodged for three reasons: First, lawyers consulted said their chances of prevailing were not promising. Second, the appeal would cost an estimated 20 grand. And third, they believe ‘insider politics’ would rule, given Pat Neal’s political resume. They said “It seems wrong, but it’s a fact we must recognize.”
But he said the battle against the “outsized and incompatible commercial center” is not over. There remains decisions by the Venice Planning Commission as to what kind and size of commercial development will be permitted. And the planning commission had previously recommended against the rezoning. A site plan hearing is tentatively set for September 3rd. The group will scrutinize Neal’s blueprint for the grocery-store anchored shopping center for traffic, noise, access and lighting compatibility with surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Meanwhile, there was a Sarasota County Commission public hearing on July 9th. Before the county commissioners was a request from a real estate developer to revise decades-old regulations in the Comprehensive Plan designed to protect all barrier islands. It involved so-called nonconforming lots of record on Siesta Key, Casey Key and Manasota. Before adoption of 1975 zoning regulations, several areas of the barrier islands were platted with small residential lots, some with a width of only 25 feet. In 1989, the county said homes on such non-conforming lots can continue to exist. Property owners can rebuild on those tiny lots, as platted, but can’t change the lot lines. The goal is to have these small lots cease to exist, and all lots since 1975 must meet minimum lot size requirements of their districts. The proposed change would allow developers to build multiple new homes on the tiny lots.
Attorney Steve Rees of Icard Merrill said the amendment to the county’s Unified Development Code would not lead to a glut of housing on the barrier islands. But Protect Siesta Key, which has successfully litigated against county-approval of hotels on Siesta Key, says otherwise. We hear from Shari Thornton.
Shari Thornton: The proposed change in ordinance will violate the comprehensive plan. Protect Siesta Key urges you to deny the proposal as it clearly violates our comprehensive plan.
RL: In the end, the county commissioners handily rejected the amendment request by a 4–1 vote, with only Ron Cutsinger voting in favor, calling it a property rights issue. He said he saw it coming.
Ron Cutsinger: For me, it’s a simple property rights question. Anywhere else in the county you could do this. I know I’ve done it. And the density question is very simple to me. Of course, the density was the density that existed when it was originally done. And those four lots represent four buildable sites. And so that density is the density. And so if they were to take those four and build two instead of four, I certainly wouldn’t have a problem with that. So I would support it, but it doesn’t look like it. It’s going to go anywhere, but that’s my thinking.
RL: Commissioner Mark Smith, a Siesta Key resident, saw things differently.
Mark Smith: Because of the history of the recent lawsuits and the whole questioning of density and intensity on Siesta Key, I’m very sensitive to it, obviously. I can’t support the motion. I can see, we need to find a way to reduce the density. And this I’m seeing as a way of increasing it. Because the property values keep going up out there and every inch is valuable. So I mean, I just believe that the prudent thing to do is not go forward with it.
RL: This is Ramon Lopez for WSLR News.
WSLR News aims to keep the local community informed with our 1/2 hour local news show, quarterly newspaper and social media feeds. The local news broadcast airs on Wednesdays and Fridays at 6pm.