Wilson said at its core, the case is about protecting property rights.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn 1974, we were allowed to do this, and either we\u2019re still allowed to do it now, or we want to be compensated for the government changing their position,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
Davolt said he also sees it as an issue of fairness and trust in government.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s unfair to us, and we have to fight for our rights just like any citizens would have to do, so that\u2019s what we\u2019re doing,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Orange County spokeswoman Ezzy Castro Nemzin declined to comment on pending litigation.<\/p>\n
The landowners applied to the county May 9, 2025 for a vested rights certificate, which the Planning Division, in consultation with the county attorney\u2019s office, denied Aug. 4, 2025. The issue then went before the Development Review Committee for administrative proceedings and was denied Aug. 4, 2025. On Jan. 30 they appealed the denial to the county commission. On Jan. 30 they appealed to the county commission. On April 7, commissioners unanimously supported a motion upholding the denial offered by Commissioner Kelly Martinez Semrad<\/a>, who represents District 5, where the land is located.<\/p>\n During the hour-long hearing on the issue, Semrad said there\u2019s no evidence of any community engagement on the issue in 1974. But she said the county has received more than 300 recent letters opposing plans for the land from communities around it \u2014 as well as from the environmental group Sierra Club<\/a> and rural settlements across the county.<\/p>\n Semrad said when the current owners purchased the property, there was a discrepancy between the future land-use map, which has it as A-2 (farmland rural), and its zoning. She said such inconsistencies should be resolved through the county\u2019s regular process for aligning FLU designations with zoning.<\/p>\n \u201cYou can\u2019t use it in 2026 and say I want to use everything that was used in 1974; you have to go through the process,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n When contacted Friday, Semrad said she stood behind comments she made during the hearing.<\/p>\n The minutes of the March 26, 1974, meeting of county commissioners state that they approved the PD, and the approval included land-use and preliminary development plans consisting of eight exhibits: a PD narrative, location map, topography, soils, tree cover, land use, zoning and typical cluster layout. The development program for the PD has remained unchanged since then.<\/p>\n The lawsuit argues that from 1988 through 2025, records show the county consistently recognized and acted upon the PD\u2019s approved entitlements \u2014 including approving a change determination request in 1988, denying an inconsistent use request in 1989 and issuing multiple written confirmations of its validity.<\/p>\n In addition, in January 2025, the county offered to buy the property based on an appraisal that assumed Shadow Pines was developable, according to the suit. To this day, the county\u2019s own comprehensive plan designates the property as \u201cCommitted Land,\u201d a classification that presumes the PD is valid, it said.<\/p>\n Matthew Pritchett, assistant county attorney, told commissioners during the April hearing that the issue is whether the applicant had demonstrated entitlement to the certificate.<\/p>\n \u201cThe record here does not establish receipt by July 1, 1992 of a complete development plan application or approval of such application; therefore, the Planning Division\u2019s denial and the DRC\u2019s January 28, 2026 decision upholding that denial are, therefore, consistent with County Code,\u201d Pritchett said.<\/p>\n He said the applicant had an approved land-use plan, but as required under county code, no development plan or development plan application was submitted or approved by that date.<\/p>\n But Wilson told commissioners there was not only an approved land-use plan, there was a preliminary development plan \u2014\u00a0 approved in 1974 \u2014 including a typical cluster.<\/p>\n \u201cFor over 50 years the county\u2019s consistently treated the Shadow Pines PD as valid through its actions,\u201d she said. \u201cMy client and investors have relied in good faith on the county\u2019s words and made significant financial commitments accordingly.\u201d<\/p>\n Wilson told commissioners her clients purchased the entities that owned the property in 2021, and in February 2023 the Planning Division told them \u201cA PD rezoning doesn\u2019t expire, and it predated the comprehensive plan, so technically it\u2019s still valid. Meaning someone could develop a mobile home park on the site without rezoning.\u201d<\/p>\n She also pointed out how the county\u2019s existing comprehensive plan identifies the property as \u201ccommitted land,\u201d which it defines as PDs \u201cthat have approved development remaining to be built.\u201d Comprehensive plan policy provides that properties with vested rights under applicable case law \u201cshall be presumed to have vested development rights.\u201d<\/p>\n In reliance on the county\u2019s consistent assurances, Wilson said plaintiffs retained consultants and legal counsel, and incurred over $100,000 in development expenditures and had a letter of intent for $11 million from a prospective buyer. Under state law, vested rights run with the land, and all good-faith expenditures by prior owners must be considered, she said.<\/p>\n The lawsuit argues that under state law, the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be invoked against a governmental body when a property owner, relying in good faith upon some act or omission of government, has made such a substantial change in position or incurred such extensive obligations and expenses that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to destroy the rights the owner has acquired.<\/p>\n Real estate broker Maury L. Carter & Associates<\/a> has been marketing Honey Bee Ranch<\/a> for the last year as the largest waterfront development property available in Central Florida, with over five miles of water frontage on a series of man-made deepwater lakes.<\/p>\n Firm President Daryl Carter told GrowthSpotter that neither he nor his company are a party to the litigation and could not comment on it. He did say the property is still for sale and has garnered tremendous interest.<\/p>\n Honey Bee Ranch is located down the road from The Grow<\/a>, a 1,185-acre agrihood project between Lake Pickett Road and State Road 50 west of Bithlo. The mixed-use development is approved for 2,078 residential lots, 165,000 square feet of commercial space, and a 9-acre working farm. Pulte<\/a> held a first-plantings ceremony<\/a> April 2 in place of a traditional groundbreaking event.<\/p>\n Brian Bell can be reached at\u00a0bbell@orlandosentinel.com<\/a>. Have a tip about Central Florida development? Email Newsroom@GrowthSpotter.com<\/a>. Follow GrowthSpotter on\u00a0Facebook<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0LinkedIn<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The owners of almost 75 acres of land east of Bithlo have sued Orange County, saying officials are…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":285227,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[558,28,114,1335,11477,139,141,140,480,11478,11479,109],"class_list":["post-285226","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-orlando","tag-business","tag-florida","tag-latest-headlines","tag-orange-county","tag-orange-county-developments","tag-orlando","tag-orlando-headlines","tag-orlando-news","tag-real-estate","tag-residential-developments","tag-single-family-residential","tag-social"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/285226","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=285226"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/285226\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/285227"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=285226"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=285226"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=285226"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"An](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/TGS-L-shadow-pines-cluster-01.jpg\")
An image of a cluster layout from the case file of the lawsuit recently filed against Orange County by owners of about 74 acres of land along East Colonial Drive east of Bithlo. The owners argue the county is denying them development rights granted more than 50 years ago and reaffirmed multiple times over the years. (Image from Lowndes Law Firm)<\/p>\n