Another obstacle has landed in front of the long-debated Beach Road land swap, but Michael Holderness says it is a detour, not a derailment.

Sarasota County commissioners had been scheduled Aug. 25 to consider a resolution needed to carry out the revised settlement between the county and Siesta Beach Lots LLC, headed by Holderness, involving the county-owned property at 162 Beach Road. The item was postponed and is now expected to return Sept. 22 after questions were raised about the county’s published notice.

Holderness said the delay was taken out of caution so the county could satisfy procedural requirements governing the exchange of public property rather than provide opponents with another potential basis for challenging the transaction.

“It’s just to check one box,” he said Sept. 14.

The exchange is the latest stage of a settlement that grew from federal litigation brought by Siesta Beach Lots over public use of privately owned beachfront near Beach Access 3. Under the revised agreement commissioners approved 4-1 on July 7, Sarasota County would transfer its approximately 0.17-acre parcel at 162 Beach Road and pay Siesta Beach Lots $400,000. In return, the county would receive approximately 0.69 acres consisting of Lots 15, 16 and 17 near Beach Access 3 for public recreational use. 

The July agreement reduced an earlier $500,000 payment and removed another parcel after title concerns arose. Commissioner Mark Smith cast the dissenting vote.

Holderness argues the trade gives the public substantially more usable beachfront while resolving years of litigation near Beach Access 3. He has repeatedly emphasized that the county parcel at 162 Beach Road is only about 50 feet wide, is bordered by private property and does not itself provide direct beach access.

The parcels going to the county, he contends, would instead become part of a public beach area connected to an existing access point. He rejected renewed criticism that the county is simply giving away parkland, saying there is a required process for disposing of public property and that, in this case, the county is exchanging the Beach Road parcel for land it intends to use for recreation.

The 162 Beach Road property has nevertheless remained at the center of opposition because Sarasota County purchased it in 2017 for approximately $1.4 million using Neighborhood Parkland Acquisition Program funds. The parcel previously had been the subject of unsuccessful efforts to obtain coastal setback variances for development.

As part of the settlement, commissioners voted 4-1 in November 2025 to approve a coastal setback variance allowing construction of a single-family home on the property once transferred. The county’s public hearing notice confirms the variance involved construction of a new single-family residence and accessory structures at 162 Beach Road. 

That decision also prompted a court challenge by Protect Siesta Key President Lourdes Ramirez and John Phair. The petition was dismissed with prejudice in February after Circuit Judge Hunter W. Carroll found the petitioners had not established the legal standing required to seek review of the commission’s quasi-judicial decision. The court did not rule on the merits of the underlying variance arguments, but the dismissal ended that challenge and left the commission’s approval in place.

The current delay involves a different issue.

Protect Siesta Key identified an error in the county’s original notice, which listed the wrong location for the Aug. 25 commission meeting. PSK attorney Robert Hartsell argued in an Aug. 20 letter that the notice problem required postponement and also contended that the published notice failed to disclose the proposed waiver of certain mineral and petroleum interests normally reserved when government property is conveyed.

Hartsell further argues the exchange conflicts with the county ordinance governing Neighborhood Parkland and that commissioners cannot make the findings required under state law for the disposal and acquisition of the properties.

PSK has said the broader concern is whether property purchased with voter-approved parkland funds can later be transferred to private ownership. Hartsell’s letter warns the organization intends to seek declaratory and injunctive relief if commissioners approve the resolution despite its objections, asking the county either to reject the transaction or complete what PSK contends are the required notice and parkland review procedures before proceeding.

Holderness disputes that interpretation and said postponing the item eliminates the immediate notice issue without changing the underlying agreement. He said the parties saw little value in proceeding while leaving open another potential procedural challenge when the matter could instead be readvertised and brought back.

“By the abundance of caution, we’re just checking all the boxes,” Holderness said.

The land swap has already undergone several revisions. When title insurance could not be obtained for one of the properties originally included in the deal, the agreement returned to commissioners and then to negotiations. The July 7 revision eliminated that parcel, reduced the cash payment and retained Lots 15, 16 and 17 as the property the county would acquire.

County Attorney Joshua Moye has previously advised commissioners that Florida law provides counties authority to exchange property and has maintained that the county could defend the transaction if challenged. Sarasota County identifies exchanges as one of the methods available for disposing of county property. 

Holderness said he remains focused on completing the settlement rather than prolonging the fight. He believes the outcome — private development on 162 Beach Road coupled with county control of a larger beachfront area — should be viewed in terms of the public access gained rather than the property surrendered.

If the resolution clears its latest procedural hurdle Sept. 22, Holderness hopes the yearslong dispute can finally move toward its conclusion. The county’s calendar confirms a commission meeting is scheduled for that date. 

“We’re getting a public beach,” he said.