The Tippecanoe County Board of Commissioners approved ordinance 2025‑38 CM on Nov. 3, 2025, rezoning a portion of a south Lafayette parcel from R1/PDRS to R1B for a residential subdivision proposed by Lennar Homes of Indiana. The vote was 3–0 after the board amended the petitioner’s earlier density commitment to cap the project at 103 lots.

The rezoning petition initially described 32.419 acres in the legal description; staff said the legal description was reduced to 30.975 acres before the hearing. County staff recommended approval, citing available utilities and adjacent zoning patterns; the Area Plan Commission had recommended the change at its meeting.

Ryan Munnon, attorney with RTS Law representing Lennar Homes of Indiana, told commissioners the company provided a traffic study, held a public information meeting, revised the site plan and agreed to buffer and density commitments beyond what zoning requires. "They've agreed to less density along the western boundary of their project to create a transition from the R1B to the R1 next door," Munnon said.

Neighbors at the hearing urged commissioners to delay or return the petition to the Area Plan Commission. Steven Riggs, a neighboring resident, raised a procedural objection, saying the version presented at the hearing differed from the APC filing and asking that the matter be tabled. "This proceeding is proceeding, going forward unlawfully," Riggs said, noting his view that the public had not had adequate opportunity to review the revised materials.

Other residents pressed traffic and buffer concerns. Van Sherry warned that allowing an exit onto County Road 430 South would create a traffic hazard on an already congested residential road, and Jan Albertson asked Lennar to commit in writing to a substantial buffer — including mounding and tree lines — to protect adjacent R1 homeowners’ privacy and property values.

Petitioner representatives said the proposal already included additional transition measures. Staff and the petitioner described a western boundary with larger (63.5‑foot) lots and a landscaped buffer; a project handout indicated staggered plantings of roughly four trees per lot along that boundary. The petitioner provided a traffic study that recommends entrance improvements and said subdivision‑level review will address road access during the next stage of approvals.

Commissioners debated an earlier density cap offered to the Area Plan Commission. The petition included different lot counts in various site‑plan versions; staff said a by‑right R1 project on the site would yield roughly 83 lots, while the petitioner's updated site plan showed about 102 lots. At the meeting a motion to amend the previously discussed cap was made and passed, limiting the project to 103 lots by commitment before final subdivision review.

After debate and the amended commitment, the board adopted ordinance 2025‑38 CM by voice vote, recorded as 3–0 in favor. The board did not approve a requirement for a specific 300‑foot buffer; multiple speakers asked for such a buffer but the recorded action was the density cap and the site‑plan commitments presented by the petitioner.

Copies of the petitioner’s submittals, the staff report and the site‑plan materials were requested by residents and are part of the public record at the commissioners’ office.