Siesta resident Ramirez talks of potential, new litigation, with county having bought the property through its Land Acquisition Program
This week, the Sarasota County Commission voted 4-1 to approve a Coastal Setback Variance that will permit construction of a two-story-over-parking, single-family home with 4,190 square feet of living area on the property located at 162 Beach Road on Siesta Key.
In taking that action, the board settled a federal lawsuit that Siesta business owner Michael Holderness had filed against the county.
However, the commissioners may face new litigation over allowing the home to be built on that site, as the county purchased the property in 2017 for $1.4 million through its Neighborhood Parkland Acquisition Program (NPP).
Siesta resident Lourdes Ramirez, president of a nonprofit organization called Protect Siesta Key, told the commissioners during the Nov. 5 public hearing that she and other leaders of that nonprofit had begun talking about litigation, in the event that the board approved the variance and conveyed the property to Holderness, as proposed in the 2024 agreement. She pointed out that she had hired a court reporter to attend the hearing in preparation for the potential litigation.
Under the provisions of the county’s Unified Development Code (UDC), “The county may sell or repurpose only portions of property that do not meet the criteria for the [NPP],” Ramirez told the board members. Yet, she stressed, “This entire parcel met that criteria …” It had been ranked highly on the county’s purchase priority list, she said.
Conveying the property to Holderness, Ramirez added, 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 initiative, she pointed out, is “to preserve the natural lands, not to see them developed.”
The Nov. 14, 2027 vote to buy the property followed prior commissions’ denials — on four occasions — of Coastal Setback Variance (CSV) petitions seeking to construct homes on the site.
Carolyn N. Brown, then-director of the county’s Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Department (PRNR), explained during the 2017 board discussion that the purchase would enable county staff to clear the exotic vegetation from the land and perhaps create a walkway to the shore and erect signage for visitors. However, she said, the primary purpose of the transaction would be to protect the native beach vegetation.
As The Sarasota News Leader has reported, on Nov. 19, 2024, the commissioners voted unanimously to approve the settlement. Formally, the complainant was Siesta Beach Lots LLC, of which Holderness is the principal.
The settlement called for the exchange of beach property between the company and the county, as well as plans for Siesta Beach Lots to seek county approval for construction on the solitary lot that it would receive, which is located at 162 Beach Road. If the necessary Coastal Setback Variance for building seaward of the county’s Gulf Beach Setback Line (GBSL) were denied, however — as explained in a memo from the Office of the County Attorney — Siesta Beach Lots likely would declare the settlement “null and void.”
Established in 1979, the GBSL was implemented to safeguard native beach habitat, including dunes, whose existence protects landward structures from storm events, including significant flooding.
Last fall, Commissioner Mark Smith, a longtime Siesta architect, made the motion to approve the settlement. This week, he cast the lone “No” vote on approval of the variance, citing the need to protect dunes and native beach habitat, as provided for in county Comprehensive Plan policies.
The county staff report for the Nov. 5 hearing noted, “The project will disturb nearly all of the 7,667 square feet of dune vegetation on the property, either through direct impacts associated with the construction activities or during the proposed nuisance/invasive removal efforts of the [proffered] mitigation plan.”
Further, the staff report pointed out, “[A]pproximately 960 square feet of dune within the Beach Road Right-of-Way (between the pavement and platted lot line) will also be impacted. Little to no existing native dune vegetation will remain intact through the construction activities.”
The staff report said that the house and accessory structures would be located a maximum of 262.2 feet seaward of the GBSL, with a planned fence at that distance and the house at 212.1 feet.
“Street enforcement of the Gulf Beach Setback Line would render this property unusable,” former Florida Senate President Bill Galvano, a Bradenton attorney, pointed out to the commissioners as the agent representing Holderness on Nov. 5.
The construction would be 479 feet landward of the Mean High Water Line, he added. Given the accretion of the beach in that area, Galvano noted, “There is significant barrier, in our opinion, to the coastal system.”
Yet, Chair Joe Neunder and Commissioners Ron Cutsinger and Tom Knight expressed conflicting emotions about their decisions to approve the variance.
Facets of the lawsuit
In November 2024, County Attorney Joshua Moye explained to the board members that Siesta Beach Lots’ contention in its federal complaint was that the county owed it compensation for the “taking” of property the company owns near Beach Access 3 on the northern part of Siesta Key.
A memo that the Office of the County Attorney had provided the commissioners about the litigation pointed out “Siesta Beach Lots specifically contends ‘the County has engaged in various acts and omission [by] promoting, encouraging, inviting and authorizing the general public to continuously and permanently enter into the Lots for recreational purposes without Siesta Beach Lots’ permission” and that the county had interfered with Siesta Beach Lots’ “ ‘efforts to exclude the public from the Lots.’ ”
Among those alleged county efforts, the memo said, was the fact that “the County advertises to the general public the beach accesses on its official website … Additionally,” that memo noted, “Siesta Beach Lots takes issue with a sign which states, ‘Enjoy Your Park.’ ”
During the Nov. 5 discussion following the hearing, Commissioner Knight alluded to the fact that the Nov. 19, 2024 vote to approve the settlement came as part of his first meeting since his election to the board that month. Nonetheless, he also noted his familiarity with Holderness’ allegations about county interference with the use of Holderness’ land on the Siesta beach.
Knight served three terms as sheriff before stepping down in 2020.
The portent of going back to ‘Square 1’
During the Nov. 5 public hearing, attorney Galvano, reminded the board members that the settlement they approved called for the county to assume ownership of Lots 15, 16 and 17 in Block 7 of the Mira Mar Beach subdivision and Lot 26 in Block 8, in exchange for turning over Lot 12 in Block 8 — the parcel with the 162 Beach Road address — to Siesta Beach Lots.
However, the county staff report on the variance application noted that Lot 16 was included in the variance request, as Lot 12 alone did not have sufficient square footage to comply with all of the county land-use regulations necessary to allow a home the size that Holderness plans to build. Those regulations related to “impervious lot coverage and building footprint requirements” in the Siesta Key Overlay District (SKOD), the staff report explained.
“The proposed building footprint represents 45.25% of the total land area of Lot 12,” the staff report added, while the SKOD maximum is 35%. “In addition,” the report continued, “the proposed impervious lot coverage is 5,169 square feet, which represents more than 67% of impervious lot coverage for Lot 12, exceeding the maximum impervious lot coverage of 50% in the SKOD.”
However, as the Siesta Beach Lots application notes — and attorney Galvano told the county commissioners this week — Siesta Beach Lots would “execute and record a Conservation Easement over Lot 16 immediately prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the single-family residence,” if they approved the variance.
Further, the county will have to erect a kiosk at Beach Access 3 that includes “memorial language” for Judith Ann Holderness, as pointed out in the settlement, and the county has to pay Siesta Beach Lots $500,000 when it gives Holderness the title to Lot 12, as noted in the county staff report.
Galvano called the settlement agreement “quite fair for both sides,” adding, “Taxpayers are getting four white, sandy beach lots.”
Although the settlement included language saying that the board did not have to approve the variance, Galvano pointed out that a denial would mean “We go back to ‘Square 1’ and the litigation that is pending.”
The commission debate
After the close of the hearing, Commissioner Teresa Mast did ask County Attorney Moye and Nicole Rissler, director of the county’s Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Department (PRNR), questions related to the issues that Ramirez had raised about selling the property located at 162 Beach Road.
Moye pointed out that the county would be getting several other beach parcels in exchange for that one.
Rissler added that those lots are “open beach that can [be] and is utilized quite a lot for public use. … If we were to own them,” she added, “they would be available for public use.”
Then Mast told her colleagues, “When I worked for the county several years ago, there was quite an outcry” from members of the public who wanted access to the parcels Holderness would turn over the county. They could not have that access, she pointed out, because the land “was privately held. So I just thought it was very interesting this came forward, and now we have the opportunity as a county to have another section of public beach access that we didn’t have before.”
Then Commissioner Smith noted his longstanding opposition to voting in favor of applications for “Gulf Beach setback variances on dunes, and this is 100% on dune system.”
Looking at a graphic showing the lots that Holderness would give the county, Smith continued, “We’ve got four unbuildable lots, and we’re going to get the opportunity to swap for another unbuildable lot” and get yet one more unbuildable lot with a conservation easement over it. … I don’t think we should be building on the dune system.”
Smith pointed out, “The dune system is there to protect the folks that are behind the dune system. And as we all experienced in that last hurricane, [the dune system] did its best job, but it didn’t quite make it for those of us who got flooded.” He was referring to Hurricane Milton’s coming ashore at Big Sarasota Pass off the northern part of Siesta Key on Oct. 9, 2024, with a storm surge that was several feet high.
Smith said he would like for the county to find another way to purchase the lots designated for the swap.
Commissioner Knight said he had reviewed the materials included in the Nov. 19, 2024 agenda package, in regard to the proposed settlement, and found nothing indicating that the property located at 162 Beach Road had been purchased through the Land Acquisition and Management Program. He also had reviewed the video of the settlement discussion that day, he added; again, he found nothing relevant to how the land was bought. “And that’s disappointing, because that’s about trust.”
On Nov. 19, 2024, Knight continued, he was focused on resolving the lawsuit. He said he was not certain that he would have voted in favor of the settlement if he had known about the county’s purchase of the land.
While he still would like to see the litigation resolved, Knight told his colleagues, he was concerned about county taxpayers putting their trust in the commissioners in the future in regard to how the county spends their money.
Knight did express his agreement with Commissioner Smith about the value of the 162 Beach Road land for storm protection purposes. “We’re giving up certain things that can’t be replaced.”
“I’m conflicted,” he said.
“I’m torn, as well,” Commissioner Cutsinger added. He, too, referenced the county land acquisition criteria. Nonetheless, the lots that the county would receive in exchange for approving the variance are “very valuable, I think,” Cutsinger said.
When he took his turn in the discussion, Chair Neunder asked County Attorney Moye for more details about the facets of the Neighborhood Parkland Acquisition Program.
Moye explained that if a seller will not allow the county to buy a piece of land that the county wants without buying associated property or structures, the county can proceed with the purchase and then sell what it does not need; the resulting proceeds would go back into the Land Acquisition Program fund.
The lots the county would receive through the exchange with Holderness would meet the NPP criteria, as well, he noted.
Moye did remind the commissioners that approving the variance would settle Holderness’ federal complaint.
Neunder pointed out that the county always is looking for more waterfront property that it can acquire, given the public demand for such land. However, noting slides that Howard Berna, the manager of the county’s Environmental Permitting Division, had shown the board, Neunder said the lots the county would be getting could end up underwater in the future.
“It’s a very difficult decision,” Neunder said. Finally, he added, “I’m willing to take a chance.”
Commissioner Mast ended up making the motion to approve the variance, and Commissioner Cutsinger seconded it. The vote was 4-1 in favor of the motion.