Galvano contends plaintiffs do not have ‘standing’ to pursue legal recourse
The petition filed by Siesta Key residents seeking to overturn a Nov. 5, 2025 Sarasota County Commission vote entailing the conveyance of a county beach parcel to Siesta property owner and businessman Michael Holderness — and approval of his plans to construct a home on it — should be dismissed, an attorney for Holderness contends in a Dec. 19, 2025 filing in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court case.
The plaintiffs do not meet a judicial standard to bring such action, attorney Bill Galvano, of the Grimes Galvano firm in Bradenton, argued in his response to the petition filed by Lourdes Ramirez and John Phair, along with the nonprofit Protect Siesta Key, of which Ramirez is president. They have asked the court to overturn the Sarasota County Commission’s approval of a Coastal Setback Variance that Holderness had sought as part of a county settlement with him in regard to a federal lawsuit.
Because the home construction would be west of the county’s Gulf Beach Setback Line (GBSL), approval of the variance was necessary. The 1979 ordinance enacting the GBSL was designed to protect beach dunes and other natural habitat which, in turn, protect landward property from storm surge and other flooding events.
The plaintiffs also have underscored the fact that the parcel Holderness would receive — located at 162 Beach Road — was purchased by the county through its Neighborhood Parkland Program and that the applicable county policy does not provide any criteria for the county to give up the land to Holderness.
Ramirez, Phair and Protect Siesta Key “allege generalized disagreements with the County’s application of the Coastal Setback Code and Comprehensive Plan,” Galvano wrote in his motion, as well as with the county’s policy “concerning neighborhood parkland.” However, he continued, their petition does “not establish that any [of them] suffered (or even asserted at the [Nov. 5 hearing] a concrete, particularized injury to a legally protected interest.” Among the latter, he noted as examples, would be loss of access to part of Siesta Beach, “increased flooding or erosion, noise/light intrusion [and] impairment of use [of their homes].”
They “rely on generalized code-enforcement, environmental, and public-policy objections, rather than a concrete, individualized injury,” he continued.
Thus, Galvano wrote, their Petition for Writ of Certiorari “should be dismissed,” as they lacked “standing” to file the petition.
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, Galvano 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.”
Twelfth Judicial Circuit Judge Hunter W. Carroll had issued a Show Cause order on Dec. 18, directing the county and Siesta Beach Lots LLC — formally, the Nov. 5, 2025 applicant for the Coastal Setback Variance — to respond to Ramirez’s petition. Then, he added, Ramirez would have 20 days from the date that was filed to reply to it.
Holderness is the principal of Siesta Beach Lots.
In the meantime, on Dec. 15, Carroll set the case for trial during the period that will begin at 9 a.m. on Aug. 23, 2027, court records show. That trial period will last three weeks, the document says.
Alleged violation of the county’s Land Acquisition Program policy
As The Sarasota News Leader has reported, the commissioners voted 4-1 after the Nov. 5, 2025 hearing to approve the Coastal Setback Variance 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.
In exchange, Holderness agreed to turn over to the county four other parcels seaward of Beach Road.
However, as Ramirez pointed out during the 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).
Under the provisions of the county’s Unified Development Code (UDC) — which contains all of the county’s land-use and zoning regulations — she stressed to the board members, “The county may sell or repurpose only portions of property that do not meet the criteria for the [NPP].” Ramirez further emphasized, “This entire parcel met that criteria …” It had been ranked highly on the county’s purchase priority list, she added.
Conveying the property to Holderness, Ramirez told the commissioners, would “break the faith with the taxpayers” who voted in favor of what county staff calls the Land Acquisition and Management Program. The purpose of that program, she pointed out, is “to preserve the natural lands, not to see them developed.”
Commissioner Mark Smith, a long-time Siesta resident, cast the “No” vote after the hearing.
Holderness had alleged in his federal complaint that county signage and actions encouraged and even invited members of the public to use his private beach lots for recreational purposes. He also contended that county staff had interfered with his efforts to exclude the public from those parcels.
In a unanimous vote on Nov. 19, 2024 — during the very first County Commission meeting for newly elected board members Teresa Mast of District 1 and Tom Knight of District 3 — the commissioners agreed to the settlement with Siesta Beach Lots. Yet, County Attorney Joshua Moye did not mention the back story on the 162 Beach Road property before the vote.
Moye was not county attorney when county staff purchased the vacant lot. Yet, Deputy County Attorney David Pearce, who routinely represents the county in cases involving Coastal Setback Variance action, was a member of the Office of the County Attorney when the board members agreed in 2017 to add the parcel to the county’s parkland holdings.
The standing debate
In Galvano’s response to the Ramirez petition, he explained that the 1972 Renard decision he had cited “describes three general categories of standing in land-use cases”:
- “[S]uits to enforce a valid ordinance (which require a ‘special injury’;
- “[S]uits challenging a zoning action on its merits (which likewise require an adverse effect different from the community at large)”;
- “[S]uits attacking an ordinance or resolution as void due to procedural irregularities in enactment [of that ordinance],” such as the lack of required notice to the public.
That third category is broader than the first two, Galvano pointed out, as no special injury must be proved. Yet, standing in that third situation, he continued, “is limited to challenges to ‘how the resolution was enacted,’ not ‘what was enacted.’ ” He cited two judicial decisions to back up that assertion; the first dates to 1977.
In other words, Galvano wrote, the third standing category involves “ ‘only the procedural legality, rather than the wisdom of the municipal decision.’ ” He cited the 1991 ruling of the Florida Third District Court of Appeal in Miami Beach Homeowners Ass’n v. City of Miami Beach.
Moreover, Galvano contended, the determination of standing cannot be based on speculation. “Assertions amounting to a mere possibility of harm are insufficient to establish the requisite injury” for the party to prevail in litigation, he write, referencing the 2019 Florida Third District Court of Appeal ruling in Liebman v. City of Miami.
Further — referring to the nonprofit Protect Siesta Key — Galvano pointed out, “An organization asserting associational standing must show, at a minimum, that at least one identified member would have standing in his or her own right and that the member’s injury is presented in a manner the court may consider.”
The Ramirez petition makes it clear, he continued, that she and her co-plaintiffs “are not pursuing the limited, procedure-only theory Renard’s third category recognizes for enactment regularities. Instead, they challenge the Board’s … decision on the merits, asserting ‘substantive errors’ and alleging the County ‘departed from the essential requirements of law,’ which places their claim within Renard’s merits-review category and triggers the special injury/adverse-effect requirement …”
The standing issue, in the plaintiffs’ view
Representing Ramirez, Phair and Protect Siesta Key, attorney Jane Graham of Sunshine City Law in Safety Harbor argued in their petition 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.’ ” She cited the 1983 decision of the Florida Third District Court of Appeal in Carlos Estates, Inc. v. Dade Cnty.
Graham pointed out that Phair, vice president of the Terrace East Condominium Association, “owns property and lives part time directly across from [the 162 Beach Road parcel].” She added, “Ordinarily, abutting property owners have standing by virtue of their proximity to the proposed area of rezoning, citing the 1985 ruling of the Florida Second District Court of Appeal in Paragon Grp., Inc. v. Hoeksema.
“Such proximity generally establishes that property owners have an interest greater than ‘the general interest in community good share[d] in common with all citizens,’ ” Graham wrote, again citing the Paragon Group decision.
“Ramirez is 26-year property owner in Siesta Key and taxpayer in Sarasota County [who] provided written testimony and oral testimony [during the Nov. 5, 2025 hearing,] objecting to the Variance on the grounds that (1) the County cannot sell, give away, or repurpose land purchased as neighborhood parkland, and (2) the Variance does not meet the criteria for approval under the [county’s] Coastal Setback Code.” Graham referenced sections of the hearing transcript to back up the latter part of that argument.
Moreover, Graham contended, “Based on [Ramirez’s] ownership on Siesta Key in close vicinity to the Property as well as her commitment to participation in Protect Siesta Key which is dedicated to protecting Siesta Key’s environment and zoning, the impact of the Variance is different to her than to the community at large, and therefore she has standing.”
Again, Graham cited the Carlos Estates opinion.
Further, Ramirez “spoke on behalf of Protect Siesta Key” during the hearing, Graham pointed out, and “Protect Siesta Key submitted a letter in opposition” to the petition for the Coastal Setback Variance, which was made part of the hearing record.
Then, referring to the Renard tests for standing, as Holderness’ attorney had done in his response, Graham noted that the third test provides that “ ‘any affected resident, citizen or property owner of the governmental unit in question has standing to challenge’ ” a decision such as the approval of the Coastal Setback Variance. She cited not only the Renard decision itself but also the 2020 Florida First District Court of Appeal ruling in Parsons v. City of Jacksonville.