Sarasota Audubon president offers to help with fundraising to fill any gap between what county could pay for property and what family would accept
This week, Sarasota County Commissioner Teresa Mast won full support of her colleagues in calling for the Office of the County Attorney and county administrative staff to try to negotiate the purchase of the Smith family property next to the 300-acre Celery Fields Regional Stormwater Management Project.
The Smiths’ land has been the focus of development proposed by Texas-based company D.R. Horton.
The decision came on Oct. 6 after the board members also voted unanimously against accepting a proposed lawsuit settlement that D.R. Horton and the Smiths had provided to the Office of the County Attorney regarding the commission’s Feb. 12, 2025 unanimous denial of a 126-home plan for the nearly 51 acres that the Smiths own.
During the discussion this week, County Attorney Joshua Moye reported that Deputy County Attorney David Pearce had informed him that D.R. Horton rejected a county offer to negotiate a purchase price when the parties were engaged in what is known as the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act (FLUEDRA) process under the provisions of a state law, Section 70.51 of the Florida Statutes.
However, Moye told the commissioners, “That was about a year ago.”
Pearce represented the county in the FLUEDRA mediation, and he is handling the two lawsuits that the Smiths and D.R. Horton have filed against the county. The first of those, dating to April, seeks to persuade the 12th Judicial Circuit Court to overturn the County Commission’s Feb. 12, 2025 denial of the D.R. Horton-Smith family rezoning application for the development adjacent to the Celery Fields.
The second involves an application that D.R. Horton submitted to county staff in late May in an effort to use the state’s Live Local Act law’s provisions to construct 864 units on the same Smith family land; 408 of those units would comprise less than 750 square feet, with each counting as one-half of a unit for density purposes under the terms of a county ordinance that was approved several years ago in an effort to encourage construction of affordable homes.
Thus, that Live Local Act application called for a total of 660 dwellings, as noted in the application.
Forty percent of those Live Local Act units would be priced at no more than 120% of the Area Median Income for the North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) for 30 years, the application said.
The 120% level is the maximum allowed by the Live Local Act.
As County Attorney Moye pointed out in presenting the proposed settlement, the 126-home development “would be significantly less dense than their [project in their] Live Local Act application …”
In proposing the negotiations regarding the county’s potential acquisition of the land, Commissioner Mast said she “greatly appreciated the president of the [Sarasota] Audubon Society” that morning suggesting “perhaps … a public-private partnership” with the county on such an endeavor. “So I think we should pursue looking into that and asking our [Office of the County Attorney] to see what opportunities might be available in those negotiations.”
During the Open to the Public comment period that morning, Sara Reisinger, president of the Sarasota Audubon Society, told the commissioners, “I know, in negotiations, you guys can only pay a certain amount for properties.” If the county could not afford what the Smith family would accept, Reisinger continued, Sarasota Audubon would “turn on [its] fundraising engines and help you guys bridge the gap so that the settlement could occur.”
(Most of the property slated for the D.R. Horton development is owned by the Cindy L. Smith Revocable Living Trust, the Sarasota County Property Appraiser’s Office records show.)
Reisinger added that she and the other leaders of Sarasota Audubon had “spent the better part of three years thinking about this [D.R. Horton] project.” The county’s purchase of the land, Reisinger said, “is the only path forward where everybody wins.”
Reisinger also noted that Sarasota Audubon had “invested nearly $20,000 helping the county defend its position on both the Live Local Act and the rezone [cases].” (Twelfth Judicial Circuit Judge Hunter W. Carroll allowed the nonprofit to intervene formally in the two lawsuits.)
“Studies indicate that incorporating [the Smiths’] land [into the Celery Fields] would add crucial stormwater capacity and provide much-needed flood protection for surrounding areas,” Reisinger continued.
If the county can buy the land, she said, “D.R. Horton can exit the project without a loss, the property owners receive a fair market value, and the residents of Sarasota County are protected.”
Commissioner Joe Neunder ended up making the formal motion to deny the proposed settlement from D.R. Horton and the Smith family; Mast seconded it.
“It’s a great opportunity,” Neunder said of the potential purchase of the land.
That motion passed 5-0.
Then Mast made a second motion, calling for staff to go back to the D.R. Horton-Smith family legal team “and negotiate a fair market price” for the property.
“And I also want to reiterate the incredible generosity from the Audubon Society,” Mast added.
Commissioner Tom Knight seconded the motion.
It took only about 7 minutes for that agenda item, prompting Chair Ron Cutsinger to say, “It was a lot quicker than I thought it was going to be.”
He had called for the board members to take their lunch break that day before County Attorney Moye addressed the settlement offer.
An appropriate price
During the board discussion, Commissioner Mark Smith told his colleagues, “I agree with Commissioner Mast” about buying the land. Nonetheless, he added, “I just [offer] caution [about] the purchase price. Let’s get real appraisals …”
He was referring to his opposition to the recent county settlement of a federal lawsuit that Siesta Key property owner and businessman Michael Holderness had filed against the county in 2024. That agreement called for the county’s transfer of its land standing at 162 Beach Road to Holderness, in exchange for property Holderness owns on the Siesta shoreline off North Beach Road. Holderness’ attorney had provided the county appraisals for the three Siesta Beach parcels that put their total value at $18 million, while appraisals done on behalf of the county showed the lots were worth about $30,000 each.
Smith added on Oct. 6 that he also agreed with pursuing the purchase of the Smiths’ land “because of the value it has to our stormwater system, not to mention to the birds.”
As multiple speakers have pointed out during public hearings over the years regarding applications for development next to or near the Celery Fields, the county’s decades-old stormwater project has become one of the top bird-watching destinations in Florida because of the hundreds of avian species documented on the property during the winter season. Sarasota Audubon volunteers have documented not only visitors from across the United States, but also from overseas.
An observation about the county’s stance in the Live Local Act litigation
A second county resident who discussed the proposed settlement during the Open to the Public period on Oct. 6, attorney Susan Schoettle, told the board members that Sarasota Audubon Society leaders believe that only the current Open Use Rural zoning of the Smith property provides low enough residential density to protect the Celery Fields.
The Open Use Rural zoning district allows 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres.
With its rezoning application, D.R. Horton had proposed a density of 4.8 dwelling units per acre, citing the Future Land Use Map designation of the site in the county’s Comprehensive Plan as Moderate Density Residential ,which allows up to 4.99 dwelling units per acre.
As for the Live Local Act application that the Smiths and D.R. Horton submitted to county staff, Schoettle said, “It is not as clear… the [Live Local Act] statute should be interpreted as the petitioners … are saying.”
Then she referenced a letter that Deputy Florida Deputy Attorney General Greg Slemp had provided to county staff about facets of the Live Local Act, stressing that it was not a formal opinion of the Attorney General’s Office.
Slemp’s interpretation of the law differs from those of the project applicants who have filed complaints against the county, Schoettle pointed out. “Rather than clearing up issues, I believe the attorney general opinion sort of made it murkier …”
She added, “The county has very strong arguments that support the board’s policy decisions.”
Schoettle was referring to the board members’ vote on April 7 that it was their position that the Live Local Act was not meant to apply to land zoned for open and rural uses or residential uses.
Among those arguments, she continued, is the county’s focus on the state’s Community Planning Act, detailed in Section 163.3211 of the Florida Statutes. It “resolves any statutory conflicts in favor of Chapter 163,” Schoettle said.
“It’s actually a very strong argument that you can’t comply with Live Local and be in compliance with your Comprehensive Plan and the Community Planning Act,” she told the commissioners.
Nonetheless, Schoettle said that she believes the county’s purchase of the Smiths’ land “would be the best solution and would benefit everybody …”