Title issue prompts amendment review involving Beach Road parkland parcel
By ChrisAnn Allen
Sarasota County commissioners are reconsidering a proposed settlement tied to a Siesta Key land swap involving public parkland after concerns prompted revisions to the agreement underlying the deal.
In an April 15 memorandum to the County Commission, County Attorney Joshua Moye outlined several options for board action regarding a proposed amendment to the settlement agreement with Siesta Beach Lots LLC. Those options include accepting the amendment, rejecting it, offering a counterproposal or directing staff to renegotiate the agreement. As of press time, the county planned to consider those options at its April 21 meeting.
The settlement stems from a federal lawsuit filed by Siesta Beach Lots, led by Michael Holderness, against the county. According to the memorandum, the lawsuit alleged the county encouraged continuous public use of privately owned parcels near Beach Access 3 and interfered with efforts to exclude the public, amounting to an inverse-condemnation claim under the Fifth Amendment.
The agreement approved by commissioners Nov. 5, 2025, included a property exchange in which Sarasota County would transfer a parcel at 162 Beach Road — purchased in 2017 for about $1.4 million through the voter-approved Neighborhood Parkland Program — in exchange for nearby parcels intended for public recreational use.
However, the April 15 memorandum states Siesta Beach Lots later learned title insurance could not be provided for one of the parcels the county would receive under the original settlement terms, Lot 26. In response, the company proposed an amendment requiring it to defend title and indemnify the county against adverse claims related to that parcel, with liability capped at $75,000.
Holderness said Lot 26 was intended as a donation to support shoreline access rather than as part of the negotiated exchange itself.
“I just donated that lot so the county would have access to the south — public access,” he said April 17.
He also addressed the title insurance issue referenced in the county attorney’s memo.
“I have good title to Lot 26. I haven’t owned it that long, so they can’t give title insurance on it. But again, it’s a donation,” he said.
County staff indicated the amendment affects the exchange of property central to the settlement and requires board direction before moving forward.
The proposed land swap has drawn public attention because the Beach Road parcel was acquired using Neighborhood Parkland Program funds, a voter-approved initiative supported by a dedicated tax intended to purchase land for public recreational use and open space.
A related court challenge to the project ended earlier this year when Circuit Judge Hunter W. Carroll dismissed a petition for writ of certiorari filed by Protect Siesta Key President Lourdes Ramirez and group member John Phair. The Feb. 20 order dismissed the petition with prejudice after the court heard arguments on a motion to dismiss filed by Siesta Beach Lots.
The petition sought review of a Sarasota County Commission decision approving a coastal setback variance required for construction of a single-family home on the Beach Road parcel as part of the settlement agreement.
Attorneys for Siesta Beach Lots argued the petitioners did not establish legal standing during the county’s quasi-judicial hearing process, a prerequisite for certiorari review. Protect Siesta Key has said the case ended on a procedural issue rather than a ruling on the merits of the variance itself.
Protect Siesta Key has continued to frame the dispute as a policy fight over public land rather than a settled legal matter. In an April 13 email update to supporters, Ramirez wrote, “the development issues haven’t changed” and said, “public parkland was meant to be protected in perpetuity — not traded away.”
Attorneys representing Siesta Beach Lots and Protect Siesta Key also exchanged correspondence in March concerning public statements about alleged property values involved in the proposed swap.
The coastal setback variance prompting the earlier court challenge remains tied to the broader settlement agreement. As part of the November 2025 vote, commissioners approved the variance allowing construction of a single-family home on the Beach Road parcel despite the site being seaward of the Gulf Beach Setback Line, a coastal development boundary established in 1979 because of storm surge and flooding risks.
According to the county attorney’s memorandum, the underlying federal lawsuit alleged Sarasota County invited and encouraged continuous public use of parcels adjacent to Beach Access 3 and interfered with the owner’s efforts to restrict access, leading to the inverse-condemnation claim the settlement was intended to resolve.
County commissioners previously approved elements of the settlement agreement tied to the variance, but the property exchange itself now depends on how the board responds to the proposed amendment and related title concerns.
In the meantime, Holderness said he hopes the county moves forward with the swap, saying it would help expand protected public shoreline access.
“Waterfront property is not becoming cheaper or less exclusive,” Holderness said April 17. “When a county acquires waterfront land, it is not just about one parcel. It is about protecting public access and unlocking the ability for people to experience and appreciate hundreds of acres of surrounding public resources.”
As of press time, commissioners were expected to consider whether to approve the amendment, reject it, propose changes or direct staff to renegotiate the settlement agreement at their April 21 meeting.
