‘Standing’ issue cited as reason for ruling
Following an approximately hour-long hearing on Feb. 17, 12th Judicial Circuit Judge Hunter W. Carroll dismissed a petition that two Siesta Key residents and a Siesta nonprofit organization filed last year, challenging the County Commission’s approval of a Coastal Setback Variance so Siesta Beach Lots LLC could construct a two-story-over-parking house and accessory structures at 162 Beach Road.
Mike Holderness is the principal of that limited liability company.
The 4-1 County Commission vote on Nov. 5, 2025 was the final action necessary for the county to settle a federal lawsuit with Siesta Beach Lots. The Beach Road parcel was to become property of Siesta Beach Lots if the board voted in favor of the ordinance. In turn, Siesta Beach Lots was to transfer three other Gulf-front parcels on the Key to the county and place a conservation easement over a fourth.
Commissioner Mark Smith, a long-time Siesta Key resident, cast the “No” vote, citing the need to protect dunes and native beach habitat, as provided for in county Comprehensive Plan policies.
After the Feb. 17 oral arguments, Carroll explained that he had to rely on a 1972 ruling of the Florida Supreme Court in determining that none of the plaintiffs had “standing” to pursue their Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
“Standing” is a legal term regarding plaintiffs’ ability to prove that they will be harmed more than the rest of the general population by a specific action.
Lourdes Ramirez, president of Protect Siesta Key; John Phair, vice president of the Terrace East Condominium Association; and Protect Siesta Key were the three plaintiffs who filed the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in December 2025. They contended that no county regulation or policy allowed the commissioners to turn over the 162 Beach Road parcel to Holderness, because that land was purchased by the county through its Neighborhood Parkland Acquisition Program (NPP). Ramirez had testified to that effect during the Nov. 5, 2025 hearing.
The county bought the property in 2017 for $1.4 million.
Ramirez warned the commissioners during the public hearing that she and the other leaders of Protect Siesta Key were considering the pursuit of litigation if the board members approved the variance.
Although the plaintiffs’ attorney — Jane Graham of Sunshine Law in Land O’Lakes — asserted in the petition for the writ that Ramirez, Phair and Protect Siesta Key had standing in accord with the third category of the 1972 Supreme Court ruling in Renard v. Dade County, Carroll said he believes the second category applied in this case.
As Siesta Beach Lots attorney Bill Galvano, of the Grimes Galvano firm in Bradenton, wrote in his response to the plaintiffs’ petition, that category involves “suits challenging a zoning action on its merits (which likewise require an adverse effect different from the community at large) …”
In his Dec. 19, 2025 motion, Galvano pointed out that Ramirez, Phair and Protect Siesta Key “[alleged] generalized disagreements with the County’s application of the Coastal Setback Code and Comprehensive Plan,” as well as with the county’s policy “concerning neighborhood parkland.” However, he continued, their petition did “not establish that any [of them] suffered (or even asserted at the [Nov. 5, 2025 hearing] a concrete, particularized injury to a legally protected interest.” Among the latter, Galvano 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 relied “on generalized code-enforcement, environmental, and public-policy objections, rather than a concrete, individualized injury,” he continued.
Carroll noted after the Feb. 17 hearing, “Ramirez does not live close by [the 162 Beach Road parcel],” and in her letters to the County Commission in advance of the hearing, in which she opposed the granting of the variance, she did not demonstrate “a special injury,” as the Florida Supreme Court requires in such cases.
Likewise, Protect Siesta Key cannot demonstrate a special injury, Carroll said.
He asked more questions of the plaintiffs’ attorney about Phair’s assertion of standing, Carroll pointed out, because of Terrace East’s proximity to the 162 Beach Road parcel. However, Carroll continued, he could not find any clear indication in copies of letters that Phair had sent the County Commission that Phair met the criteria for being granted standing.
“The only possible thing” that he had seen that might be construed as an element demonstrating standing for Phair was the fact that if Holderness built the house as planned, and a storm damaged it, the potential existed that Terrace East could suffer from materials surging from the beach site onto the condominium complex’s property.
Yet, Carroll stressed, “It is just too speculative here … for a … legal standing finding.”
The county’s Coastal Setback Code explains the following findings of fact related to Carroll’s comment:
Along with Galvano, a former Florida Senate president, David Smolker of Smolker Mathews in Tampa represented Siesta Beach Lots.
The Office of the County Attorney had joined Galvano in arguing that the court had to dismiss the case because the plaintiffs could not meet the necessary standing criteria. Deputy County Attorney David Pearce represented the county in the litigation.
‘A public beach forever’
Holderness of Siesta Beach Lots provided the following statement to The Sarasota News Leader after the Feb. 17 hearing:
“Yet another example of unnecessary interference in matters that don’t concern her,” Holderness wrote, referring to plaintiff Ramirez. “This pattern has become predictable: identify an issue, attach it to an association or unsuspecting property owners, amplify it as a crisis, and casts herself as the defender. Manufactured outrage may be effective for attention — and perhaps fundraising — but it does little to serve the broader community. There’s always a villain in the narrative. That may be a strategy, but it isn’t constructive leadership, which likely explains why many elected officials distance themselves from it.
“To be fair,” Holderness continued, “Lourdes did have one major win opposing all-new mega-hotels — and the entire island supported that effort, me included. I spent months preparing a detailed report that ultimately aligned with the foundation of her lawsuit. That victory wasn’t the work of one person; it was a united community effort, with many contributing time, research, and resources. Credit should be shared accurately — and that we remember collaboration, not self-promotion, is what made that success possible.”
Holderness added, “Now, we can have a public beach forever; complete with [parks and recreation] rules our great deputies can use to enforce lawlessness. On public importance, a county’s acquisition of waterfront property isn’t about the single parcel itself — it’s about unlocking access to hundreds, even thousands, of acres for public recreation. People don’t protect what they don’t know. They don’t love what they can’t experience. If we want long-term environmental stewardship, we must give people the opportunity to enjoy these places firsthand. Waterfront property is only becoming more scarce and more expensive. Public ownership ensures this beach remains accessible, not exclusive — and that’s an investment that pays dividends for generations. Citizens and tourist alike to enjoy for generations to come.”
In response to a News Leader request, Ramirez provided the following statement to the publication late in the afternoon of Feb. 17:
“Today the Court dismissed our Writ of Certiorari challenging Sarasota County’s approval of a Coastal Setback Variance and its use of the Neighborhood Parkland Program. The dismissal was based solely on standing, not on the merits of the case.
“We are disappointed in the ruling, particularly because we believe our attorney presented strong legal arguments demonstrating that we did, in fact, have standing based on our participation in the public hearing and the proximity of the site to our homes.
“Importantly, the Court did not rule that the County complied with its Coastal Setback Code or Neighborhood Parkland regulations. The decision turned on a procedural issue — whether specific personal impacts were articulated within the public hearing record — which the Judge stated was needed for standing.
“We continue to believe the approvals conflict with the County’s own regulations, including the granting to a developer of approximately $1.4 million in taxpayer funded parkland in exchange for unbuildable property that is appraised at a fraction of that amount. We are currently consulting with counsel to evaluate our next legal options.
“Our commitment remains the same: ensuring that Sarasota County follows its Comprehensive Plan and land development codes, and that taxpayer-funded programs are administered lawfully and fairly,” the statement concluded.