Cases could be set for trial in late summer of 2027
Twelfth Judicial Circuit Judge Hunter W. Carroll has denied Sarasota County’s motions to dismiss the Live Local Act complaints filed against the county earlier this year by three sets of applicants for such projects.
The rulings, dated Sept. 17, mean that the cases could proceed to trial next year, based on a schedule that already has been proposed.
The orders pertained to the lawsuits filed by Yeshua’s Love Biblical Fellowship of Sarasota Florida Inc. and Curco Land Holdings LLC, whose registered agent is Robert C. Benedict of Englewood; SITC; and New Pope Holdco III LLC. They did not address the complaint filed by D.R. Horton and the Smith family in regard to a Live Local Act project proposed on the Smiths’ property next to the Celery Fields Regional Stormwater Project.
Carroll did give the county 20 days to respond to the ruling in the Yeshua’s/Curco case. He also gave the plaintiffs in the SITC and New Pope lawsuits 20 days to amend the claims he allowed them leave to pursue, as the Office of the County Attorney explained in a Sept. 22 memo to the County Commission, a copy of which The Sarasota News Leader received through a public records request.
Two other Live Local Act cases are slated for trial in the same period as the three on which Carroll ruled last week, the judge further explained. The trial period will begin on Aug. 23, 2027, he noted. Both those lawsuits were filed on Aug. 31.
The plaintiffs in those cases are Sara de Cota Development LLC and 1900 Land Holdings LLC.
The registered agent of Sara de Cota Development is David Meinhardt, whose address is listed in Florida Division of Corporations records as 1342 Main St., Suite 705-708, in Sarasota. Meinhardt’s LinkedIn account says he is a real estate broker/builder/developer and general contractor. He owns Florida Construction and Roofing LLC, the account adds.
The registered agent of 1900 Land Holdings is Coreup Development LLC, located in Tampa, Florida Division of Corporations records show.
After searching through state records for yet another limited liability company listed as the registered agent for Coreup Development — Soko Cre LLC — the News Leader found that the registered agent is Matthew Sokolowski, who has an office on East Zack Street in Tampa.
Sokolowski’s bio on the Soko Cre website lists him as founder and principal of that company. It also says that he “started his career at NorthMarq Capital, the country’s largest private provider of Multifamily Debt and Equity.”
The bio adds that during his tenure with NorthMarq Capital, Sokolowski “specialized in financing for ground up developments.”
In his Sept. 17 rulings, Carroll did agree to dismiss, with prejudice, the claims that SITC and New Pope Holdco III LLC had filed against the county commissioners in both their official and personal capacities. The phrase “with prejudice” means that the companies could not file amended versions of their complaints with different tactics targeting the commissioners.
Carroll explained his decision regarding the board members thus: “An official-capacity claim against an individual commissioner is, in substance, a claim against the County itself, and is therefore redundant.” He cited the 2018 Florida Second District Court of Appeal order in Strickland v. Pinellas County as the basis for that part of his ruling. The same immunity grounds apply to the claims against the commissioners in their personal capacities, Carroll added.
The lawsuits were filed in response to the County Commission’s unanimous vote on April 7 to assert that they do not believe that property with Open Use, Residential Estate or any other residential zoning was envisioned by the Legislature as an area where a Live Local Act project could be built.
Therefore, staff was not to process any applications that would entail developments on such parcels.
County Attorney Joshua Moye did caution the commissioners that if the county lost any litigation filed in response to their action, the county would be liable up to $250,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs per case.
The ‘Court must accept all well-pled allegations in the light most favorable’ to the plaintiffs
In his motion to dismiss the Yeshua’s/Curco complaint, Judge Carroll wrote that the county contended, “among other things, that the Plaintiffs misread the Live Local Act. The County makes a substantial interpretative argument between the varying and changing provisions” of the state affordable housing law in regard to the provisions of the County Code, he added.
The County also contended that the Plaintiffs “failed to state a cause of action,” Carroll noted.
For example, he pointed out, the county argued that the plaintiffs did not submit a completed application “that demonstrated compliance” with the applicable portions of the County Code that the state allowed to be considered in the context of Live Local Act developments.
“The Court disagrees,” Carroll wrote. “At the motion to dismiss stage,” he continued, “the Court must accept all well-pled allegations in the light most favorable” to the plaintiffs. “Here,” he continued, “the Plaintiffs allege their participation in the [Live Local Act application] process,” the county staff’s assignation of a number to the project, “attendance at various meetings were feedback was provided,” the project’s proceeding to Step 3 of the process — which, under the county guidelines — gave staff the authority to proceed with a more detailed review of the proposal to ensure that it satisfied the facets of the state law and all applicable elements of the county’s policies and regulations; and confirmation to the plaintiffs of their reaching that point in the process.
“Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that … they applied for a Live Local Act development project to survive the County’s motion to dismiss,” Carroll explained.
“The County continues with its failure to plead a clear legal right contention based on the merits of the interpretation of the Live Local Act,” he added, noting that the parties maintained what he described as “competing constructions” of the Live Local Act, meaning that their readings of the state law conflicted.
Moreover, Carroll noted “the County Attorney’s own memorandum acknowledged ‘two competing, non-frivolous interpretations’ ” of whether properties zoned Open Use Estate and Real Estate qualify for Live Local Act developments. “The question is genuinely disputed, and the Court is electing not to resolve the merits question on a motion to dismiss,” choosing, instead, to hear “complete framing of the issues” in court “before resolving the issue.”
Carroll added, “The Court understands that the County has made additional arguments as to why the Plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action. The Court has considered each under the standard for evaluating a motion to dismiss and rejects each.”
‘Central merits’ left unresolved
In the Sept. 22 memorandum to the commissioners, County Attorney Moye wrote, “The Court’s orders do not resolve the central merits question presented in these cases: whether [Open Use Estate] and {Residential Estate] zoning districts fall within the LLA’s [Live Local Act’s] reference to areas ‘zoned for commercial, industrial, or mixed use.’
Instead,” Moye continued, “the Court determined that the competing interpretations of the LLA should be addressed at a later stage of the litigation after the pleadings and record are more fully developed. In both the SITC and New Pope orders,” Moye pointed out, “the Court expressly stated that the County may continue to advance its statutory interpretation arguments as the cases proceed.”
During the oral arguments that Judge Carroll conducted in the Yeshua’s/Curco case, on June 30, Deputy County Attorney David Pearce explained that the 2025 version of the Live Local Act provides for affordable housing developments to be built on property zoned for commercial, industrial or mixed-use purposes, “which is ordinarily what you would assume to be within the urban area.”
Contrary to the assertion of the plaintiffs’ lead attorney — Chad Manausa of the Grimes Galvano firm in Bradenton — Pearce stressed that the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the Live Local Act to meant that “any for-profit business [is] a commercial use or an industrial use eviscerates all the protections associated with the Eucludian Zoning System.”
The Boston University School of Law explains that the 1926 Supreme Court ruling in Village of Euclid — an Ohio municipality — v. Ambler Realty Co., was the basis for the understanding that local government bodies “have the right to zone by dividing the town or community into areas in which specific uses of land are permitted. [That] is considered the traditional and most common form of zoning in the United States.”
County Attorney Moye concluded his memo thus: “Litigation will continue. These are only the first rulings in what may be protracted litigation. Unless directed otherwise by the Board, the Office of the County Attorney will continue to defend the County in these matters and advance the County’s interpretation of the LLA.”
The development plans
In the Yeshua’s/Curco case, Judge Carroll explained that the church “owns approximately 23.69 acres of property fronting Fruitville Road” that is zoned Open Use Estate. “Plaintiff Curco holds a binding purchase and sale contract for the Property,” he continued, “which is contingent upon [county staff’s] processing and approval of a Live Local Act development application impacting the property.”
Yeshua’s and Curco alleged that, in July 2025, “they submitted a preliminary preapplication conference narrative, concept plan, and presubmittal materials for the Property,” and county staff assigned it a project number in the Accela system that county staff uses for all land-development applications.
Their goal, the complaint continued, was to build about 352 multi-family rental units within apartment buildings, with 40% — “approximately 141 of the 352 units” — “reserved as affordable housing for households earning at or below 120% of the area median income for a period of at least 30 years …”
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sets the area median income each year for every Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in the United States. Sarasota is part of the MSA that includes Bradenton and North Port.
Below are HUD’s 2026 household income levels for that MSA:
In the SITC case, Carroll explained that that company — whose principal is John “Jack” Cox III, the president of Halfacre Construction Co. in Sarasota — owns about 43.42 acres located at 2000 Lorraine Road and adjoining parcels in the eastern part of the county. That land, too, is zoned Open Use Estate.
SITC submitted its preapplication to the county staff on Dec. 4, 2025, Carroll noted.
In regard to Count 6 of the SITC complaint, which alleged that the County Commission vote on April 7 was a Sunshine Law violation, since no public notice was given of the topic on the agenda for that meeting, Carroll wrote, “Florida courts hold that reasonable notice of a public meeting is mandatory but reject any requirement under [Section 286.011 of the Florida Statutes] that specific subject-matter items be listed on an agenda.” He cited the 1996 decision of the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal in Law & Info. Servs., Inc. v. City of Riviera Beach.
The New Pope Holdco III LLC case involves a proposed Live Local Act development on approximately 206.5 acres located at 421 Tatum Road in Sarasota, Caroll explained in his order in that case. It is zoned Residential Estate-1.
The property “is the site of a golf course developed under a recorded special exception,” he added.
The company plans a 2,250-unit multi-family project; the preapplication was submitted to county staff on Sept. 15, 2025.
The principal of New Pope Holdco III, the News Leader discovered by tracing companies on the website of the Florida Division of Corporations, is developer Eldon E. Johnson Jr. of Sarasota.