Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Conflict topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies Lakewood Ranch Southeast area 2 rezone 3–2, then unanimously agrees to a 60–65 day continuance after public concern on traffic, infrastructure and乡
Summary
Commissioners initially voted 3–2 to deny the rezone for Lakewood Ranch Southeast project area 2, citing neighborhood compatibility and infrastructure concerns; the board then unanimously voted to continue the application and asked the developer to work with neighbors and staff for a return in roughly 60–65 days.
What happened: The Board of County Commissioners first voted down a motion to approve the RSF‑2 PUD rezoning for Lakewood Ranch Southeast project area 2 in a 3–2 vote after lengthy public testimony and commissioner debate about traffic, compatibility with the long-established Old Myakka neighborhood and timing for major county road improvements. Minutes later the board voted unanimously to continue the application for further work by the applicant and staff and set a target return within a 60–65 day window.
Why it mattered: Project area 2 is a large, 548.3‑acre piece of the Lakewood Ranch Southeast development area situated between previously approved project areas and public lands that include the city well fields to the north. The master development order for Lakewood Ranch Southeast anticipated a coordinated buildout; but neighbors and several commissioners said county road and utility capacity — and the sequence of infrastructure upgrades on Fruitville Road and other corridors — must be more certain before adding another sizable component of the VTZ (village transition zone).
Public comment and board concern: Several residents and speakers from the Myakka community, including longtime neighbors and the Myakka Community Club, commented against approval, citing concerns about traffic impacts on Fruitville Road and the wider road network, noise, light pollution, groundwater and wetland impacts and the scale of change to an established rural area. Staff and the applicant said the site will preserve wetlands, provide extensive open space, and use existing water and sewer service; they said the master development order contains infrastructure commitments for the overall VTZ. The developer’s representatives also asked for a continuance if the board preferred more outreach time.
Board action and next steps: The board first denied the rezoning motion (mover Cutzinger; second Mast) by a 3–2 vote. The applicant asked for time to work with neighbors and staff; the board then voted unanimously for a continuance and asked staff and the applicant to work with neighbors to address compatibility concerns. Commissioners asked staff to help applicants identify legally defensible stipulations that could be offered at return, and to advise the commission on the legal standards the board must meet when denying a rezoning. The board set a target to revisit the application within 60–65 days (staff noted actual meeting scheduling may produce a date close to that window).
