Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board continues Lakewood Ranch Southeast Project Area 2 rezoning for neighborhood and staff follow‑up

Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners · February 25, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board declined to approve a 448‑acre RSF‑2 PUD for Lakewood Ranch Southeast Project Area 2 and instead voted to continue the item to allow the applicant, staff and neighboring residents to work on compatibility, traffic and other stipulations. The board set a 60‑day return date for further submittal.

Sarasota County commissioners continued action on a contested rezoning for Project Area 2 of Lakewood Ranch Southeast after lengthy public testimony and debate about compatibility, traffic and infrastructure needs.

The applicant sought an RSF‑2 PUD for 448 acres to allow about 1,400 dwelling units (roughly 2.6 du/acre), including a mix of single‑family and multi‑family products and 200 incentivized community housing units. Ria Hunter (RVI Planning) and legal counsel Caleb Grimes outlined preservation commitments, internal trail connections, wetlands protection and compatibility with the master development order that governs Lakewood Ranch Southeast.

Neighbors and community representatives pressed several concerns: lighting and dark‑sky impacts, lake design and water quality (treated reclaimed water), traffic impacts on Fruitville Road and right‑of‑way timing, stormwater and flood risk, and whether the development would be compatible with long‑standing rural neighborhoods. Commissioners debated whether the proposal met the comprehensive plan and UDC findings required for approval.

An initial motion to approve failed. The board then voted unanimously to continue the item and directed the applicant to work with staff and neighborhood representatives; the board set a date‑certain return in roughly 60 days so the parties can refine stipulations and submit a revised package. Staff and the applicant agreed to use the continuance to address compatibility and infrastructure questions and to provide clearly drafted stipulations that would be legally defensible if returned for action.

Next steps: Applicant and staff will meet with neighborhood representatives and prepare a revised submittal and proposed stipulations; the board expects a return meeting within approximately 60 days.