Commissioner Smith in minority
This week, two Sarasota County commissioners — Teresa Mast and Ron Cutsinger — emphasized the need for the board to approve the latest rezoning petition for the development of Lakewood Ranch Southeast.
Cutsinger made the motion for such action on May 6.
Two other commissioners — Chair Joe Neunder and Tom Knight — made it clear that, while they were not happy about it, they felt their “Yes” votes were necessary because of actions of a previous set of commissioners.
The fifth current board member — Mark Smith — cast the sole “No” vote. He explained that, as he saw the issues, the rezoning proposal did not comply with county policies in the Comprehensive Plan, which guides growth in the community, and, specifically, with objectives in a 2022 amendment to the county’s 2050 Plan, which was adopted to guide development of areas of the county east of Interstate 75.
The specific amendment to which Smith referred created the Village Transition Zone. It allows for Lakewood Ranch Southeast to be built with less residential density than a 2050 Plan Village, but more density than a 2050 Plan Hamlet.
Upon completion, Lakewood Ranch Southeast is expected to have about 5,000 homes. In contrast, residents of the nearby Old Miakka community have emphasized that they live on 5- and 10-acre parcels in an area that celebrates open space and wildlife.
During the May 6 hearing, Knight reiterated a point that he has made in the past: The 2050 Plan has undergone a number of adjustments over the past 20 years. He characterized that as “a slow grind of tweaks.”
Knight expressed frustration that the current commissioners have to contend with the changes to that plan that prior board members approved: “This was handed to us.”
He also cautioned his colleagues that he and they need to be careful about changing county policies that will cause problems for their successors.
Before the vote, Commissioner Smith asked numerous questions of Todd Dary, manager of the county’s Planning Division. Among them, Smith inquired what would happen if the commissioners declined to rezone the 548-acre site for Project Area 2 and it retained its Open Use Rural zoning, which allows one dwelling per 10 acres.
Ultimately, Dary said, “You could not just add a bunch of homes [there] using Open Use Rural.”
Either the commissioners agreed to the rezoning, Dary added, or nothing could be built on the site, because of the language in the Master Development Order (MDO) that the commissioners seated in October 2022 approved with guidelines for the creation of Lakewood Ranch Southeast. The only other option, Dary noted, would be for the commissioners to change the MDO.
“Because we don’t have a choice,” Smith pointed out to Dary, he did not know why the rezoning was not just made part of a County Commission Consent Agenda, which usually comprises routine business matters.
Dary explained, “It’s still up to you to review the actual development plan and see if you feel it is in conformance [with the MDO].” The commission could call for “tweaks to the [Planned Unit Development],” Dary added.
Reading sections of the county staff report for the hearing, Smith told his colleagues that he feels the design of Project Area 2 “doesn’t match the words [in two of the objectives for the Village Transition Zone in the Comprehensive Plan] …”
Knight asked for confirmation from County Attorney Joshua Moye that if the commissioners did not approve the rezoning for Project Area 2, they would be “exposed to litigation.”
Moye told him that the commissioners would have to cite “findings of fact” to approve or deny the rezoning, but those findings are linked to the language in the MDO and the Village Transition Zone amendment.
Knight acknowledged later, “The likelihood of us prevailing in litigation is going to be low,” unless someone could convince him otherwise.
In making the motion to approve the rezoning, Commissioner Cutsinger called Schroeder-Manatee Ranch, the developer of Lakewood Ranch, “one of the finest developers in the state, if not the country. They have a proven record that’s excellent in every way. … Manatee County’s had all the fun,” he added, “so Sarasota County’s going to get some of it now.”
In seconding the motion, Commissioner Mast pointed out that she has “had the privilege of being [Lakewood Ranch’s] neighbor for many, many years.” She added that she believes that people from across the United States will seek out Lakewood Ranch Southeast for their new homes, given the reputation of its communities in Manatee County.
At one point during the hearing, Mast asked project team member and attorney Caleb Grimes, of the Grimes Galvano firm in Bradenton, whether she understood correctly that developing a new community under the 2050 Plan’s guidelines is a voluntary process. He confirmed that it is.
“When this [Village Transition Zone] was proposed and passed,” she continued, it had “very stringent boundaries of ‘do’s and don’ts’?” she also asked, for confirmation.
Grimes replied that that was true, as well.
During his remarks prior to the vote, Chair Joe Neunder said, “The thing that is glaringly and strikingly obvious in this case is that there is a Master Development Order. … We have to do what is required within the rule of law.” That MDO “pre-set the table,” Neunder added.
Nonetheless, Neunder did express his appreciation to Grimes for providing more details and answering questions that Neunder and his colleagues — and the general public, as Neunder noted — had in conjunction with the first hearing on Project Area 2, which was held on Feb. 25. That day, the majority of the board members voted to continue the hearing because of those and other concerns.
Taylor Morrison of Florida plans to construct up to 1,400 homes on the approximately 548.3 acres “generally located to the south of University Parkway extension and north of Fruitville Road, and to the east and north of Bourneside Boulevard extension,” as the formal application described the site.
Schroeder-Manatee Ranch (SMR) had joined Taylor Morrison in filing the application with county staff on April 8, 2024.
Rex Jensen, president and CEO of SMR, and former state Sen. Pat Neal of Neal Communities had appeared together before the commission seated in early 2022to explain that, to facilitate the expansion of Lakewood Ranch onto SMR property in the northeastern part of Sarasota County, Jensen needed a new designation for a 2050 development. They were the ones who called it the Village Transition Zone.
‘An opportunity to address some confusion’
During the afternoon of May 6, as the commissioners conducted their regular meeting in Venice, attorney Grimes of Bradenton stepped to the podium once again, representing SMR and Taylor Morrison, the latter of which he described as the “contract purchaser and developer” of the Project Area 2 land.
Addressing the Feb. 25 continuance, Grimes said he thought the goal of it was “to give us an opportunity to address some confusion on some issues.”
Jensen had sent the commissioners an email in an effort to “help clear up the facts causing the confusion,” Grimes continued. He hoped that they had read it, Grimes said, even though it was “fairly lengthy,” because it was “very, very well done.”
Moreover, Grimes pointed out, the focus of the hearing that day “is one relatively small project area within Lakewood Ranch Southeast …”
In fact, as Grimes’ related slide noted, the total number of project areas is seven.
On Jan. 28, Commissioners Knight and Smith voted against the rezoning for Project Areas 1, 3, 6 and 7. Those areas are expected to have 2,400 residential units, county staff reported.
Moreover, Grimes stressed, the only zoning option the developer has for the site is Residential Single-Family-2/Planned Unit Development (RSF-2/PUD). “It’s required in the Comprehensive Plan [amendment],” as well as in the MDO, he pointed out.
Dary, the county’s Planning Services manager, told the commissioners that the zoning would allow 2.6 homes per acre; 200 of the dwellings will be priced to be affordable to families making up to 120% of the Area Median Income of the North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). (The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] sets the income figures every year for each MSA.)
Further, Grimes reminded the commissioners, the Village Transition Zone Comprehensive Plan amendment survived a challenge that two county residents filed with the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH). Although the residents — Mike Hutchinson and Eileen Fitzgerald — appealed the DOAH decision to the Second District Court of Appeal, the court upheld the DOAH ruling, Grimes added. (In his email to the commissioners, Jensen of Schroeder-Manatee Ranch wrote, “This was a resounding victory as our position was upheld on every point on every stage of the proceedings.” He also noted that “county staff worked hand-in-hand with SMR to defend [the amendment].”
Additionally, Grimes reminded the commissioners that four other project areas had been rezoned for Lakewood Ranch Southeast. He showed the board members a graphic that illustrated those areas’ locations.
Project Area 2, he continued, “is surrounded on all sides, except the north,” by other project areas that already have been rezoned RSF-2/PUD.
“To the north,” he explained, “is the City of Sarasota’s [drinking water] wellfield. … It is a large open space” that will have no development on it. To the north of that wellfield, he noted, “is Manatee County.”
Grimes added that if the commissioners voted against the rezoning, the site of Project Area 2 “would be essentially a hole in the doughnut, contrary to the zoning around it …”
Jensen’s email
Grimes then ran through issues that Jensen of SMR had explained in his email to the commissioners.
Among them, the Lakewood Ranch Stewardship District would pay “100% of the costs” for the water, sewer and reclaimed water pipelines to serve Project Area 2.
On a related issue, which Grimes also addressed, Jensen wrote in his email the following: “During the [Feb. 25] hearing, there were various questions and comments stemming from emails received by one or more commissioners mischaracterizing a utility up-sizing agreement between SMR and the County as an agreement to reimburse SMR for its cost associated with extending utility lines necessary to serve the LWR SE project. This is woefully inaccurate. In fact, SMR (via the Lakewood Ranch Stewardship District) and Sarasota County entered into the Utility Upsizing Agreement (Contract No. 2025-261) on February 11, 2025. This Utility Upsizing Agreement is very different from a ‘reimbursement of developer project costs,’ as it in no way reimburses the developer of costs of lines needed to serve the development. Please consider the following facts.
“As it relates to Sanitary Sewer and Reclaimed Water,” Jensen explained, “we designed and agreed to build our own lines. In the design and permitting process, the County wisely requested a slight increase in the size of these pipes so that the County would not have to run parallel pipes for that long distance at a later date, at increased expense. Thus, we entered into an Upsizing Agreement for the Sanitary Sewer and Reclaimed Water on Fruitville Road and plan to do other such agreements for these lines in other road segments.
“The type of Upsizing Agreement used for the upsizing of Fruitville Road utilities has been frequently used over the years to SAVE THE COUNTY MONEY when a developer is building one or more pipelines to support its own project, but the County would prefer the line to be larger to serve a greater area more efficiently and economically. So … rather than later on building a duplicate set of lines AT THE SAME OR GREATER COST, the County wisely requests that the developer purchase a larger set of pipes and fittings than it would otherwise install. The County then agrees to reimburse the developer for the difference in cost between the larger pipe and fittings requested by the County and the smaller ones required by the development. As a result, the County gets a better, more efficient, less duplicative, and less costly system AT A FRACTION OF THE COST compared to what it would have expended by separately constructing the lines that it needs at a later time. This situation is very distinguishable from paying for a portion of a developer’s project cost. [emphasis in the email].”
Grimes also referenced a stormwater issue that arose during the Feb. 25 hearing. Below is how Jensen addressed that in his email:
Then Grimes turned to the fact that the SMR will construct a four-lane Bourneside Boulevard, which will run south from University Parkway “all the way down to Fruitville [Road].”
“We’re just awaiting final approval of the plans to start [on that],” Grimes noted.
Although the route was part of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, he explained, the road had to be shifted slightly to provide more clearance for the Bern Creek community to the west of Lakewood Ranch Southeast. Grimes reiterated a statement made during the previous board hearings on Lakewood Ranch project areas: Traffic studies showed that most of the Lakewood Ranch Southeast drivers will head toward University Parkway instead of toward Fruitville Road.
Then he stressed that SMR “is going to assist the county to get Fruitville widened in the stretch that is adjacent to [its] property …”
If Project Area 2 were approved that day, he continued, the SMR agreement with the county calls for SMR to pre-pay $4 million in Mobility Impact Fees “to get things started …”
Commissioner Smith sought a clarification of that remark in an exchange with Kwamena Sankah, the county’s interim transportation planning manager.
“What they are saying,” Sankah told Smith, “is that they will cough up that amount ahead of time to support the construction of Fruitville Road.”
Typically, Sankah explained, a developer pays the necessary Mobility fees at the time that the county issues a permit for the construction of a new community.
Grimes also had noted, “Right of way is always a very, very difficult proposition, as you know. [SMR] will work with the county because [it has] a lot of … land along Fruitville Road.” Thus, all of the property needed for the right of way in accord with the plans to widen Fruitville could come from SMR’s property holdings on the north side of Fruitville, alleviating concerns about county acquisition of any land to the south of Fruitville.
During a later exchange with Commissioner Mast, Grimes explained, “Generally, you take right of way off both sides.”
Moreover, Grimes pointed out, if it were the county’s desire, SMR would handle the construction of the extra lanes on that part of Fruitville Road.
Further, following the Feb. 25 hearing, he said, Taylor Morrison had agreed that no internal streetlights would be used in its development, in accord with a request of the Miakka Community Club to maintain the “dark sky” atmosphere at night. The company also had stipulated that it would allow only reclaimed water produced by the Advanced Wastewater Treatment process to go into the stormwater ponds on the site, which was another concern of residents in Old Miakka, Grimes noted.