Commissioners approve Lakewood Ranch Southeast rezone for Project Area 2 amid resident objections

The Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners approved Rezone Petition 24‑10 (Lakewood Ranch Southeast, Project Area 2) on May 5, 2025 by a 4–1 vote following a detailed staff presentation, an applicant briefing and extensive public comment.

Planning staff and the applicant framed the request as implementation of a 2022 Village Transition Zone (VTZ) and a related master development order (MDO). County staff said the VTZ/RMA established the implementing zone (RSF‑2 with a PUD binding plan) and set project‑area rules, including an overall 5,000‑unit cap for Lakewood Ranch Southeast and a minimum of 43% open space at the master level. The applicant and the stewardship district said the district will finance utility extensions (applicant asserted the district will pay 100% of water/sewer/reuse extensions and most on‑site infrastructure) and proffered two additional stipulations for the ordinance: (1) advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) reclaimed water for on‑site reuse with street signage to indicate reuse, and (2) a prohibition on internal street lighting to reduce light impacts.

Residents and community representatives (Burn Creek neighbors, Myakka-area groups and environmental advocates) testified in opposition, raising several concerns: that ponds and engineered lakes were being counted toward the 43% open‑space requirement, that lot sizes proposed (45–62 feet) represent urban densities incompatible with the surrounding rural/hamlet context, that long‑term stewardship assessments could affect the affordability of pledged affordable units, and that the project would direct traffic north rather than onto Fruitville Road unless Fruitville is widened. The applicant and county staff responded with engineering, wetland and traffic analyses and noted prior judicial review and administrative approval of the VTZ and MDO.

During deliberations commissioners expressed differing views about how the VTZ's stated purpose (a transition from villages to hamlets) aligned with the project design. Several commissioners said the county is bound by the previously adopted VTZ/MDO and by the findings those actions generated; others expressed concern about compatibility and said the project highlights why comprehensive‑plan choices have long-term consequences. After discussion, the motion to approve the rezoning (RSF‑2/PUD with five stipulations and three requested modifications) passed 4–1 (Commissioner Smith opposed). The board directed continued public engagement and noted staff will enforce stipulations and conditions through the PUD process.