Bonita Springs zoning board backs Rivanna Lakes rezoning, 5–2, forwarding annexation and comp‑plan changes

The Bonita Springs Zoning Board voted 5–2 to recommend approval of the Rivanna Lakes Mixed‑Use Plan Development rezoning, sending a package that includes annexation and a comprehensive plan amendment to the City Council for a joint hearing in January.

Alexis Crespo, the land‑use planner for the applicant, told the board the proposal would rezone about 204 acres along Bonita Beach Road to a mixed‑use plan development allowing a maximum of 299 dwelling units (about 1.4 units per acre) and roughly 100,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses. Crespo said the applicant, Seagate Development, has agreed to more than 30 staff conditions and seeks eight deviations — including allowing two existing deep mining lakes to remain at 40 feet, permitting model homes for up to five years and reducing parking requirements for a private amenity center.

City staff and the applicant emphasized the project’s environmental and infrastructure commitments. David Brown, a certified professional geologist for the applicant, said historic hydrologic changes and mining left the site highly disturbed and that the project’s stormwater lakes and an enhanced lake management plan, combined with an Environmental Resource Permit issued by the South Florida Water Management District, are intended to improve on‑site water quality and recharge. "When the Kiel Canal was put in ... it severed that surface water flow," Brown said, describing how the canal and past mining altered the property’s hydrology.

Transportation analysis and mitigation were central to the discussion. TR Transportation consultant Yuri Baca said the applicant reduced the unit count from 388 to 299 since 2024 and that the traffic study—based on city counts and vested trips—found adjacent Bonita Beach Road would still operate at acceptable levels of service with the project. The applicant said an eastern driveway adjacent to the commercial tract would be the likeliest location for a traffic signal once a warrant analysis shows it is needed. "You have to do a warrant analysis…if you don't meet the warrant, then you would have to enter into a development or signalization agreement so that when you hit that number of trips, the signal goes in," said Neil Montgomery, the applicant’s land‑use counsel.

Fiscal benefits and tradeoffs were also cited. The applicant said the project will generate local impact fees—estimated at roughly $5,000,000 for road impacts and more than $6,500,000 in total impact fees—to the city and that the developer will pay for required turn lanes and signalization when triggered. Opponents and some board members flagged concerns about ‘‘sprawl’’ and long‑term impacts on nearby resources; public commenter Teresa Hahn, a resident across from the site, said she supports local services but sought clarity on how and when the signal would be installed.

Staff recommended approval, noting the rezoning would allow the city to apply its higher standards for stormwater, buffering and architecture and that many of the requested deviations are narrowly scoped and tied to site conditions. The motion to approve the rezoning (PD‑25‑1236) passed on a roll call vote: Hershinson, Waterhouse, Wynne, Roscoe and Benson voted yes; Galloway and Gambrell voted no.

The board’s recommendation does not itself grant building permits or local development orders; those are separate processes. The annexation, comprehensive plan amendment and the zoning ordinance will be considered together by City Council at the jointly scheduled final hearing in January.

What’s next: City Council will hold a joint hearing on the annexation, comp‑plan amendment and rezoning; if the council approves, the applicant must still obtain development orders, complete design reviews, and meet all conditions in the staff report and the ERP before construction begins.