Complaint contends commissioners violated Neighborhood Parkland Program ordinance
Since the Sarasota County staff first announced that a proposed settlement of a federal lawsuit with Siesta Key property owner and businessman Michael Holderness would include the transfer of the county’s 162 Beach Road parcel to his limited liability company, Siesta Beach Lots, the president of a nonprofit Siesta organization called Protect Siesta Key has protested the idea.
Last week, before the County Commission took what was considered a final vote on the plans, Lourdes Ramirez of Protect Siesta Key again urged them to reconsider the action. She has stressed that the County Commission seated in 2017 voted to purchase the 162 Beach Road land through the county’s Neighborhood Parkland Program (NPP). The latter is part of what county staff a couple of years ago began calling the Land Acquisition and Management Program. It operates with funding generated by a 0.25 mil tax imposed on county property owners. (One mil represents $1,000 of the value of a parcel.)
During the formal, Sept. 22 public hearing on the proposed settlement — which had been amended after a July board discussion with Holderness and his attorney, former Florida Senate President Bill Galvano, of the Grimes Galvano law firm in Bradenton — Ramirez pointed to numerous reasons that the inclusion of the 162 Beach Road parcel would violate the governing principles of the Land Acquisition and Management Program.
She also emphasized that the County Commission voted to place two referenda on the Nov. 3 General Election ballot, asking voters to approve the extension of the program through 2049 and to allow the issuance of bonds for use in purchasing land; the bonds would be paid back by the resulting revenue from the annual tax.
On March 22, 2023, the commissioners seated at that time called for the 2026 referenda. Then-board member Mike Moran expressed concerns during a discussion of what still was being called the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Protection Program that the revenue would be gone before the program expired in 2029. Thus, he contended, if he and his colleagues agreed to a November 2026 vote, and that failed, the county would have one more opportunity to save the program with a 2028 referendum.
During the same discussion, Nicole Rissler, then the director of the county’s Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Department (PRNR), explained that the first voter referendum held on creating a publicly financed county Lands Acquisition Program won approval in 1999. Although the vote authorized that program for 20 years — through 2019 — county leaders agreed to conduct a second referendum in 2005 to ensure that the county could continue to tax property owners 0.25 mills each year. That referendum also proved successful, Rissler noted.
However, for that second referendum, instead of keeping the focus solely on the need to buy environmentally sensitive lands, Rissler explained, the decision was made to dedicate 40% of the revenue generated each year for the purchase of new parkland, through what would be called the Neighborhood Parkland Program (NPP).
During the Sept. 22 County Commission public hearing on the Holderness settlement, Ramirez of Protect Siesta Key stressed that the transfer of land bought through the NPP to Holderness would deter support of the Nov. 3 referenda.
“The NPP ordinance,” she pointed out, “provides the process for disposing [of] only those portions of land that the county determined did not qualify for the program. But,” she continued, “the entire 162 Beach [Road] property was specifically determined to quality when the county purchased it.”
Before the 2017 commissioners agreed to buy the land, she told the current board members, a county staff report cited the dune habitat and “rare vegetation” on the property. Staff, Ramirez noted, had recommended the county buy the land “for conservation and public recreation …’ ”
The only commissioner to vote “No” on the settlement on Sept. 22 was Mark Smith, who is a long-time Siesta resident.
On Sept. 29, Protect Siesta Key and four Siesta residents formally filed suit against both the county and Holderness’ company, Siesta Beach Lots, seeking to stop the county transfer of the 162 Beach Road property to Holderness.
The verified complaint argues that the county would be conveying the 162 Beach Road property “to a private developer for private development, extinguishing [the land’s] present character as protected public open space and natural coastal buffer.”
Moreover, it says, “A county may exercise only such authority over the disposition of public property as is conferred by law, and may not dispose of property held for a dedicated public purpose in a manner
inconsistent with that purpose or with the terms on which the enabling funds were approved by the electorate.”
The complaint adds, “Section 90-68 of the Sarasota County Code confirms the restricted character of Neighborhood Parkland: it permits disposition only of incidental acreage not meeting parkland criteria, and even then only for ‘not less than the original acquisition cost with all proceeds being deposited in the fund used for the original purchase.’ ”
Further, the complaint points out that “County staff found that the development the exchange enables would destroy nearly all of [the 162 Beach Road parcel’s] shoreline-stability dune habitat [even though] the parcel presently performs flood-protection and open-space functions for the surrounding community …”
Filed by Robert Hartsell, of the Pompano Beach firm Hartsell Ozery, the complaint asks the court to declare that the conveyance of the parcel to Holderness, in exchange for three parcels he owns on Siesta Beach, plus a $400,000 payment, is “beyond the County’s lawful authority” and void; to “[t]emporarily and permanently” keep the county and Holderness from closing on the transfer of the 162 Beach Road property to Holderness and paying him the $400,000; and award the plaintiffs “their costs and, to the extent authorized by law, attorney’s fees.”
The complaint makes it clear that the plaintiffs are not seeking monetary damages.
“In the event any conveyance occurs before final judgment,” the complaint adds, Protect Siesta Key and the four residents ask the court to “impose a protective trust upon the County Parcel and order its reconveyance.”
The four Siesta residents joining Protect Siesta Key in the litigation are John Phair, vice president of the Terrace East Association, which represents the owners of the condominium units located at 5300 Ocean Blvd., near Siesta Beach; Mary Smarelli and her husband, John Doherty, who also live in Terrace East; and Ramirez, who founded Protect Siesta Key.
In the beginning …
The complaint explains that, on March 20, 2024, Siesta Beach Lots filed its federal lawsuit against the county in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, in Tampa, alleging that the county “effected a taking” of three of three of Holderness’ lots in the Mira Mar Beach subdivision on the Gulf’s shore “by allegedly inviting the public to use those lots in connection with the County-maintained Beach Access #3.”
As Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute explains, “A taking occurs when a government ‘seizes private property for public use. It may be a physical taking, where the government occupies or acquires the property,” the Institute adds, “or a regulatory taking, where government restrictions limit property use so severely that it becomes the equivalent of a physical seizure.”
The complaint further explains that the county sought dismissal of the case, taking the following positions, among others:
- That Siesta Beach Lots is not the owner of the three parcels at the heart of its lawsuit “because those lots were submerged for a period longer than a tidal epoch, and that the true owner of part of the accreted land associated with Lots 16 and 17 is a third party, J.B. Development of Sarasota, LLC, an entity that is not a party to this action and whose rights, if any, are not adjudicated herein”;
- That the private lots “are subject to the public trust doctrine and that the public has the right to use the area seaward of the mean high-water line”;
- That, because of “their low elevation, susceptibility to inundation, and proximity to the Gulf of Mexico, the Private Lots ‘are not realistically ones which could be developed,’ and that development would likely constitute a harmful or noxious use subject to regulation without Compensation”;
- That the county’s “own appraisals valued the Private Lots at approximately $30,000 each”; and
- That the “inverse-condemnation claim is barred by the statute of limitations.”
Another section of the complaint characterizes the exchange of those three private lots from Holderness to the county for the 162 Beach Road land purchased for $1.4 million as “grossly disproportionate.”
It complaint contends that the county “has not obtained valid, current appraisal of the Private Lots as required by Section 125.355 [of the County Code] as a predicate to their acquisition under the Settlement.” The complaint also notes that county staff “has represented that the only appraisals it obtained for the Private Lots were prepared in 2022 and are stale.”
It proceeds to lay out the timeline over which the settlement won County Commission approval, starting on Nov. 19, 2024, when the board members first agreed to the terms that County Attorney Joshua Moye explained to them. The regular meeting during which that discussion took place was the first for Commissioners Tom Knight and Teresa Mast, who had been elected just weeks earlier. Knight has pointed out since then that county staff did not inform the board members of the background of the county’s purchase of the 162 Beach Road property before the vote that day.
The settlement included a provision that the County Commission would conduct a public hearing on a Coastal Setback Variance that Holderness needed to construct a two-story-over-parking, single-family residence on the 162 Beach Road land. Since all of the property is seaward of the county’s Gulf Beach Setback Line, no home could be built on the site without the variance.
The Gulf Beach Setback Line was established in 1979 to protect dunes and other beach habitat, which, in turn, protect landward structures from storm surge and other flooding events.
The settlement would become void if the commissioners denied the variance, County Attorney Moye told them on Nov. 19, 2024. They ended up voting 4-1 in November 2025 to grant the variance. Again, Commissioner Smith was in the minority.
Earlier this year, the complaint continues, county staff learned that the title to a fourth parcel that Holderness had planned to include in the land exchange could not be insured, because of a title issue. Thus, a revised agreement was proposed. That entailed a reduction in the county’s payment from $500,000 to $425,000.
However, Commissioner Mast won Holderness’ agreement to make the figure an even $400,000.
Then, the complaint notes, the board members voted 4-1 on July 7, to approve the amended agreement. Again, Smith was in the minority.
Although the commissioners had been expected to formally address the land exchange during their regular meeting on Aug. 25, problems that the attorneys for Protect Siesta Key pointed to in the legal notices for the public hearing led to a delay until the Sept. 22 meeting. Then, property transfer won approval on the 4-1 vote following the public hearing.
The Neighborhood Parkland issues
In its section about the county’s acquisition of the 162 Beach Road property, the complaint notes that that transaction was completed on Dec. 28, 2017, “for the recorded consideration” of $1.4 million, with the funds coming out of the revenue dedicated to the Neighborhood Parkland Program.
“The County’s acquisition documents identify the purposes for which the County Parcel was acquired,” the complaint adds. The land “provided an opportunity for ‘additional public and expanded beach access,’ with funds beyond the purchase price allocated for due diligence and initial site improvements, including public access,” the complaint says.
A Feb. 14, 2018 county document depicted “five new shell parking spaces” on the 162 Beach Road site, along with improvements to nearby Beach Access 4, “including conversion of existing unpaved parking to [U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act]-compliant parking,” the complaint notes.
By Sept. 30, 2020, the complaint points out, “County parks staff internally regarded [the 162 Beach Road land] as part of the County’s public beach-access inventory,” with a county employee having proposed in writing “that the parcel be designated the ‘Siesta Key Beach Access 4 Addition’ …” That document explained that, “although the property was not directly adjacent” to Beach Access 4, the latter “was the closest access point and that designation was preferable to the street address.”
The complaint goes on to discuss the establishment of the Neighborhood Parkland Acquisition Program (NPP) before noting that county staff has maintained the 162 Beach Road parcel “as public open space.”