This comes after planned-development residents sue Pat Neal and the city over shopping center.
By Ramon Lopez
Original Air Date: July 10, 2024
Host: After it allowed Pat Neal to build a shopping center and neighbors sued, the Venice City Council is now hoping to forge a compromise between developer and resident interests in how it applies the code. Ramon Lopez reports.
Ramon Lopez: First, some needed background — a year ago, the Venice City Council voted 5–2 to approve a controversial rezoning that would allow wealthy real estate magnate Pat Neal to build a shopping center in North Venice at the southwest corner of Laurel Road and Jacaranda Blvd. The vote changed the land-use designation of ten acres in the Neal-built community of Milano, from open-space and wetland to commercial for Pat Neal’s Village at Laurel and Jacaranda.
Opposition to the proposed shopping center was extensive and vocal. Local neighbors filed a lawsuit. In recent weeks, Twelfth Circuit Court Judge Danielle Brewer denied an appeal that challenged the rezoning of the planned shopping center. The defendant in the case was the City of Venice and Border & Jacaranda Holdings, a Pat Neal company. The opponents haven’t decided whether to appeal Brewer’s decision. Related to the lawsuit was whether the Venice City Council had a procedure in place for amending a so-called PUD, specifically addressing whose consent is required for a real estate rezoning to take place. The opponents say both the developer and affected neighbors should have a say.
The Venice city leaders this week considered what, if anything, to do about the land development code in question. Last April, they authorized hiring a land-use consultant to offer options for changing the code. Attorney Alison Yurko presented her report to the Venice council members this week. She suggested a number of ways the interest of developers and neighboring property owners could be protected when a PUD amendment is sought. We hear from Alison Yurko.
Alison Yurko: My take on your ordinance is that it does absolutely need to be amended. I think maybe it was done quickly, or whatever. I can tell you candidly, since the time of the letter, I’ve reviewed about a dozen ordinances, none of them really work 100% in my opinion. I’ve had a chance to put together something that I think may strike a balance for you all to consider. You do have to provide some kind of a path for a developer at some point in the process to be able to ask the question, “Can I get a rezoning in a PD or a change to a PD?” I think that can have some very severe limitations and restrictions on it based upon what I’ve looked at from different places in the state, to sort of strike that balance. But I do think you have to keep that door open.
RL: Affected homeowner Ruth Cordner was not happy with Yurko’s suggestions.
Ruth Cordner: I was very distraught when I saw the attorney’s recommendation. That attorney brought us back to square one, and that is not where I think you guys wanted to go. It’s not where we wanted to go. I know personally, I wanted to be fair with developers and residents. And I thought we were on track to get that, but I totally do not agree.
RL: The public hearing was never meant to settle the PUD amendment matter this week, but Vice Mayor Jim Boldt said the report will help matters.
Jim Boldt: And I think we’re a lot closer today than we were the last time we met on this issue. I feel like, I think everybody else does, is there’s got to be a way to get things done, but yet protect the owners that are already there. Will we find it a little bit? And I think we’re going to be in better shape. We’ll do our best to get this right. But I suspect that down the road, we’re going to have to tweak it a few times because we can’t think of everything.
RL: Pat Neal’s attorney, Jeff Boone, thought the hearing went well.
Jeff Boone: If the city would adopt a reasonable PUD amendment process that fairly balances the rights of all property owners in a PUD, as well as the developer’s property rights, that would certainly lessen the chances of any challenge to the ordinance you adopt as being more burdensome or restrictive. The devil’s in the details here.
RL: Council Member Ron Smith said both the developer and local landowners need to be protected.
Ron Smith: We should have a principle that lot buyers need to be protected as much as people who build on a lot. They have bought the lot with a plan to build, and they bought the lot based on a master plan showing them what they have bought into.
RL: In the end, the Council voted 7–0 to have staff continue working with the outside consultant on proposed revisions to the land use code. Affected neighbor Olen Thomas told the council members that he sees ‘light at the end of the tunnel’.
Olen Thomas: I feel like we’re in a much different place. The goal is to balance the right of both the developer and the residents of the PUD. It seems like today’s presentation are much more in line with what I felt you were asking for back in April. And I’m much more optimistic that what we will end up with, after another iteration or two, is something that defines unified control appropriately, and protects the resident as well as the homeowner with neither party having an advantage.
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.