Board members talk about ‘Yes in God’s Backyard’ aspect of plans for Fruitville Road development
With a unanimous vote, the Sarasota County commissioners directed County Attorney Joshua Moye and his staff to negotiate further on a proposed settlement offered by attorneys for one of the applicants for Live Local Act projects that have filed complaints against the county in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court in Sarasota.
During the board members’ regular meeting on Aug. 25, conducted in Sarasota, Moye summarized a memorandum that he had provided them, as part of the agenda’s backup materials. The plaintiffs, Yeshua’s Love Biblical Fellowship of Sarasota, which owns a 23.67-acre parcel located at 8893 Fruitville Road, in the eastern part of the county, and Curco Land Holdings LLC, the developer — which would purchase the site — filed their lawsuit in mid-May. The Florida Division of Corporations says Robert C. Benedict of Englewood is the registered agent for Curco.
The plaintiffs have made the basis of their complaint the County Commission’s unanimous April 7 vote directing county staff not to process Live Local Act applications involving projects slated for property zoned for open use, rural or residential purposes.
The Yeshua’s site is zoned Open Use Estate.
The Live Local Act was approved in 2023, but it has been amended three times since then. The most recent change, which went into effect on July 1, after Gov. Ron DeSantis signed it, clarified excludes areas that “are intended to retain the open character of land, including, but not limited to, open space districts, open space recreation districts, open use estate districts, open use rural districts, and park and open space districts.”
The county’s motion to dismiss the Yeshua’s complaint argued, in part, that the Legislature’s latest amendment was a clarification of the original intent of the law.
Further, the Live Local Act calls for administrative approval of projects. In other words, the appropriate local government staff members decide whether an application complies with the facets of the state law and the local government factors detailed in the law, with no vote by the local government’s elected officials.
Part of the Yeshua’s-Curco proposed settlement offer, Moye reported, calls for 100% of the planned 352 multi-family dwelling units to be priced at 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI), which the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sets annually for each Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in the United States. Sarasota is in an MSA with North Port and Bradenton. The following are HUD AMI figures for that MSA for 2026:
Originally, the application called for 40% of the Yeshua’s units to be “reserved as affordable for at least 30 years,” as the memo from the Office of the County Attorney pointed out.
Moreover, the plaintiffs asked that their application be processed under the Yes, in God’s Backyard (YIGBY) portion of the live Local Act, which is contained in Subsection 7 of the state law.
That section says, “A municipality must authorize multifamily and mixed-use residential as allowable uses in any area zoned for commercial, industrial, or mixed use on property owned by a county, municipality, or school district; and on property that is more than 3 acres in size and owned by a religious institution, as defined in [Florida Statute] 170.201(2), which has contained a house of public worship for at least 10 years before the proposed development, regardless of the underlying zoning …”
Another section of the 2026 version of the state law says, “A proposed development on property owned by a religious institution must be applied for by both the applicant and the religious institution, and the house of public worship must continue to operate on the property after the proposed development is constructed.”
However, the memo provided by the Office of the County Attorney further explained that while the Yeshua’s property “is not eligible for administrative approval for religious institutions under [Subsection 7 of the state law],” but it “may … be eligible for consideration under subsection (6).”
The memo included Subsection 6, with emphasis on part of the language: “[T]he board of county commissioners may approve the development of housing that is affordable as defined in [Florida Statute 420.0004], including, but not limited to, a mixed-use residential development on any parcel zoned for commercial or industrial use, or any parcel including any contiguous parcel connected thereto, which is owned by a religious institution as defined in [Florida Statue 120.201(2) which contains a house of public worship regardless of underlying zoning, so long as at least 10 percent of the units included in the project are for housing that is affordable.”
Then the memo explained that, unlike Subsection 7, Subsection 6 “does not create a ministerial entitlement to administrative approval,” as with other Live Local Act proposals. “Accordingly,” the memo said, “any approval under [Subsection 6] would remain a discretionary … decision of the Board.”
Further, the memo noted, Yeshua’s and Curco sought a waiver of county impact fees, the scheduling of “approval of TEFRA bond financing if the project met applicable requirements and bond capacity was available,” and the issuance of “a zoning verification letter confirming the [plaintiffs’ property’s] eligibility under the Live Local Act for purposes of the housing finance application,” the OCA memo noted.
In regard to TEFRA, JDSupra explains on its website, “The Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, permits states and their political subdivisions to issue tax-exempt bonds to finance certain projects that benefit for-profit and non-profit entities. These projects include airports and docks, affordable housing, solid waste disposal facilities, small manufacturing facilities and property used by 501(c)(3) organizations to further their charitable purposes.”
Still awaiting a judge’s ruling in the Yeshua’s case
During his Aug. 25 remarks, Moye explained that, on June 30, 12th Circuit Judge Hunter W. Carroll conducted oral arguments on the county’s Motion to Dismiss the Yeshua’s/Curco complaint, and the judge’s order is pending.
At the end of the hearing, Carroll told the parties that he had a number of other rulings to issue, so he would get to theirs as soon as possible.
Carroll’s order remained pending as of the deadline for this issue of The Sarasota News Leader.
Moye noted during his Aug. 25 exchange with the commissioners that they could await the judge’s ruling or direct the Office of the County Attorney (OCA) to work “on an updated, proposed settlement” with attorneys representing the church and Curco, which — he pointed out — wouldn’t be binding. “It would come back to you guys before it was actually approved,” he said.
Commissioner Mark Smith asked whether “it would be good to wait for the court’s order before we vote on this?”
“Yes, you could wait if you wanted to,” Moye replied. However, he cautioned, the party that lost “would have less leverage.”
Commissioner Tom Knight did note that the Yeshua’s-Curco Live Local Act case is different from the other three filed against the county, since it involves “a house of worship.” Knight also pointed to the proposal for all of the units to be priced at 80% of the AMI.
Nonetheless, he continued, “What precedent [do] we set if we do settle with this one?” How would that affect the other Live Local Act lawsuits against the county, for example?
“I would say we pause and be well thought-out on it,” he added. “We may lose a little leverage; we may not.”
Knight then indicated that he wanted to wait on the judge’s ruling.
After his comments, Mast told her colleagues, “I have a completely different thought on this …” Her preference, she added would be to direct Moye and his staff to go back to the attorneys with the Grimes Galvano firm in Bradenton, who are representing the plaintiffs, pursue further negotiations and then bring back the results for the commission’s consideration.
She also noted her desire for more information about the fact that the Yeshua’s/Curco project would be one crafted under the “Yes, in God’s backyard” provisions of the state law.
“I would agree with that,” Knight said, indicating the desire for more information. In the meantime, he added, if Judge Carroll issues his ruling, the commissioners would have that to consider.
“I want to know what’s the give and take,” Mast told her colleagues.
Moye did caution the commissioners that if they approved a renegotiated settlement, then the developer could go directly to what is called the “site and development process.” That means the project team would work with the relevant county staff members on the necessary steps that would lay the groundwork for construction.
Moye added that he and his staff could consult with “a lot of people … ahead of time to see what that looks like.”
Commissioner Joe Neunder told his colleagues, “I do think it’s prudent to continue negotiations,” though he talked of his desire to allow Judge Carroll first to issue the ruling on the county’s policy decision about the types of zoning districts that should be excluded from Live Local Act development consideration.
“I think we let it play out in the court system and let a judge make a ruling” at the same time that Moye and his team “have an open dialogue [with the plaintiffs’ attorneys],” Neunder added.
Mast ended up making the motion that called for Moye and his staff to negotiate further with the Yeshua’s/Curco attorneys “on an updated settlement agreement.”
Knight seconded it. “I think [the motion] falls in line with everything we’re looking for. We want more information … but we’re not settling. We’re trying to include the courts to some degree.” He added, “It’s kind of a win all around …”