Session to be conducted in person and via Zoom
On Tuesday, Feb. 17, at 9:15 a.m., a 12th Judicial Circuit Judge Hunter W. Carroll is to conduct oral arguments in a case that a Siesta Key nonprofit organization launched in December 2025 to try to halt a Sarasota County Commission transfer of a Beach Road parcel to Siesta Key property owner and manager Michael Holderness.
The session will be held in Courtroom 6-C of the Judge Silvertooth Judicial Center, which stands at 2002 Ringling Blvd. in downtown Sarasota. It will be available on Zoom, the formal notice points out.
One hour has been set aside for the proceeding.
Holderness’ limited liability company, Siesta Beach Lots, and Sarasota County have asked Carroll to dismiss the formal Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which Protect Siesta Key and two Siesta residents — Lourdes Ramirez, who is president of the nonprofit, and John Phair, vice president of the Terrace East Condominium Association — filed on Dec. 5, 2025. The county and Holderness contend that none of the plaintiffs has standing to bring the action. “Standing” refers to the ability of a person or entity, based on specific legal factors, to seek judicial recourse.
On Jan. 20, Deputy County Attorney David Pearce formally filed the county’s motion that joined Siesta Beach Lots in seeking dismissal of the case.
In response to the Protect Siesta Key petition, Holderness’ attorney — Bill Galvano of the Bradenton firm Grimes Galvano — cited the 2015 ruling of the Florida Third District Court of Appeal in Solares v. City of Miami in explaining that, to establish “standing” to file a complaint, a person or entity “must show a ‘legally recognizable interest that has been adversely affected’ ” by the challenged action. Further, he pointed out, the 1972 Florida Supreme Court decision in Renard v. Dade County makes it clear that, “[i]n zoning and variance challenges brought by non-applicants,” the Renard ruling and others that have followed its precedent “require an adverse effect different from that of the community at large.”
As The Sarasota News Leader has reported, the commissioners voted 4-1 after the Nov. 5, 2025 public hearing to approve a Coastal Setback Variance that Holderness needs to construct a single-family home with 4,190 square feet of living area on the property located at 162 Beach Road on Siesta Key.
The hearing was a facet of a County Commission-approved settlement of a federal lawsuit that Holderness had filed, alleging that county actions had enticed the public to enjoy recreation on private beach parcels that he owns seaward of Beach Road on Siesta Key.
In exchange, Holderness agreed to turn over to the county four other parcels seaward of Beach Road.
However, as Ramirez pointed out during the 2025 hearing, the county had purchased the 162 Beach Road parcel in 2017, using voter-approved funds set aside for the county’s Neighborhood Parkland Acquisition Program (NPP). She maintained that the transfer of the property to Holderness would violate provisions of the Unified Development Code (UDC), which contains all of the county’s land-use and zoning regulations.
Commissioner Tom Knight has pointed out that he had no knowledge of the background of the parcel before County Attorney Joshua Moye asked the board members to vote in November 2024 on the proposed settlement. (The commission action came during the first meeting that Knight and Commissioner Teresa Mast participated in after their November 2024 election to the board.) None of the current commissioners was on the board in November 2017 when their predecessors agreed that the county should purchase the 162 Beach Road parcel.
Moreover, Moye was not the county attorney at that time.
An erroneous characterization
In the plaintiffs’ Jan. 19 response to Siesta Beach Lots’ call for dismissal of the case over the standing issue, the attorney for Protect Siesta Key — Jane Graham of Sunshine City Law in Land O’Lakes — contended that Holderness’ attorney, Galvano, failed “to apply and distinguish the correct rule and standard” in his motion to dismiss the case.
In noting that Galvano relied largely on the 1972 Florida Supreme Court ruling in Renard v. Dade County, she asserted that his motion incorrectly characterized the claims of the petition “within the Renard category 2 test …”
Galvano wrote that the plaintiffs’ filing “is, in substance and in the relief requested, a Renard category 2 challenge [to the Nov. 5, 2025 vote of the County Commission].” However, to prevail, he continued, the “Petitioners must allege and ultimately establish a concrete adverse effect to a legally protected interest that differs from that suffered by the public generally.”
Galvano pointed out that Protect Siesta Key, Ramirez and Phail contend in their petition that “the County departed from the essential requirements of law by failing to apply the plain and unambiguous language of several ordinances, the Neighborhood Parkland Acquisition Ordinance, Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinances, Coastal Setback Variance criteria, and failing to follow clearly established law defining ‘hardship’ in variances”; and that the variance “was not supported by Competent Substantial Evidence …”
“Hardship” is a point in state law regarding landowners’ right to make use of their property.
The phrase “Competent Substantial Evidence” references the fact that the hearing conducted last year was a quasi-judicial proceeding, meaning that it mirrored court hearings in that the commissioners were required to base their decisions on evidence and testimony, not on their opinions.
Galvano also pointed out in his brief that the petition for the writ violated procedural due process by providing a deficient notice of the hearing.
Yet, Protect Siesta Key attorney Graham continued in her response, her clients’ claims of “ ‘departures from essential requirements of law’ and ‘procedural due process/notice violation’ ” should be viewed in light of the third Renard test. That test explains, “ ‘Any affected resident, citizen or property owner of the governmental unit in question has standing to challenge an ordinance that is void as improperly enacted.’ ”
She first cited the 1983 Florida Third District Court of Appeal ruling in Miami v. Save Brickell Ave., Inc. That decision found, Graham wrote with emphasis, that “[a]n affected citizen … has standing … on the ground that [the local government decision] is void or invalid by reason of departure from any essential procedure preceding its enactment.”
(The petitioners contend that the notice of the hearing mailed to nearby property owners was defective because it referenced only the parcel located at 162 Beach Road. In fact, Graham pointed out, the hearing also involved Lot 16, Block 7, within the same Siesta subdivision. That parcel had to be combined with the property located at 162 Beach Road so Holderness would have sufficient land to conform with the necessary county building standards regarding impervious lot coverage and building footprint requirements for the size of residence he had proposed.)
Graham asserted that both Phair and Ramirez “are affected property owners and residents within Siesta Key in Sarasota County, thus satisfying this [Renard] test.”
“Further,” she wrote, “Florida courts recognize standing for citizen groups” to challenge ordinances under Renard’s third test. To bolster that argument, she cited a 1977 Florida Third District Court of Appeal ruling in Upper Keys Citizens Ass’n, Inc. v. Wedel, as well as a 1971 opinion of the same court in Rhodes v. City of Homestead.
Moreover, Graham continued, in general terms in regard to a zoning issue, the petition’s second claim, which challenged the approval of the variance on the basis of lack of competent substantial evidence, would fall under Renard’s second category. “However,” she added, “Florida law specifically carves out an exception for variance challenges to not require a showing of special injury, thereby nullifying the special injury requirement” of Renard’s category 2 test.
Graham cited the 1983 Florida Third District Court of Appeal decision in Carlos Estates, Inc. v. Dade Cnty for that contention, as that court said that “[a] person challenging a variance or special exception in their immediate neighborhood need not show an impact unique to their property or ‘special damage.’ ”
The 1999 Florida Second District Court of Appeal ruling in City of St. Petersburg, Bd. of Adjustment v. Marelli also supported her assertion, Graham pointed out.
Siesta Beach Lots’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ petition “ignores this important distinction relating to standing in variance challenges,” Graham added.
Then she delved into details about all three of the plaintiffs in arguing that each has standing.
Ultimately, Graham contended, “Petitioners have a recognized, legitimate, and protected property interest in preserving the character of [their] neighborhood against improper actions of a local government.”
Thus, Graham wrote, the petitioners “respectfully request” that the court deny Siesta Beach Lots’ motion to dismiss the case.