![JMA – Ninja & Deep Jandu [Official MV] Kaptaan](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-dsfIh319s0/maxresdefault.jpg "JMA – Ninja & Deep Jandu [Official MV] Kaptaan")
Sarasota County officials have rejected a proposed settlement that would have permitted a 126-home subdivision beside the Celery Fields, opting instead to explore purchasing the disputed property for conservation and stormwater management. The decision, reported by Sarasota Magazine on October 8, 2026, follows a prolonged legal battle involving homebuilder D.R. Horton, the property owners and the county over development rights on approximately 51 acres along Raymond Road. The move leaves the litigation unresolved but opens the possibility of protecting the land through public ownership rather than residential construction.
County considers acquisition after rejecting settlement
At an October 6 meeting, county commissioners voted unanimously against the settlement and separately directed county administration and the county attorney’s office to negotiate with D.R. Horton and the Smith Farm property owners over a potential purchase.The decision does not commit the county to buying the property. Officials have yet to establish a purchase price, identify funding or set a timetable for negotiations. Any acquisition would depend on the parties agreeing to acceptable terms.Commissioners stressed that the property’s value extends beyond its development potential. Located next to the Celery Fields, the land could contribute to stormwater management while helping preserve habitat in an area known for its birdlife and outdoor recreation. Commissioner Teresa Mast backed exploring an acquisition, while Commissioner Mark Smith emphasised the need for a realistic appraisal to ensure the county pays a fair price.
From 126 homes to a proposal for 864 apartments
The dispute dates back to D.R. Horton’s plans to build a single-family subdivision on the property. The homebuilder initially proposed approximately 170 homes before reducing the plan to 126. County commissioners rejected the revised proposal in February 2025, prompting the developer and property owners to challenge the rezoning decision in court.A separate development proposal subsequently raised the stakes. The parties pursued a plan for 864 apartments in buildings up to 65 feet tall under Florida’s Live Local Act, which is designed to encourage affordable housing development. Whether the property’s Open Use Rural zoning makes it eligible for that proposal has become part of the legal dispute.The latest settlement would have resolved the pending litigation by allowing the 126-home subdivision to proceed. Commissioners declined that option, choosing to investigate whether purchasing the land could offer a longer-term alternative.
Sarasota Audubon offers fundraising support
Sarasota Audubon Society has backed the county’s efforts to protect the property, citing its potential contribution to wildlife conservation and flood management. During public comment, the organisation’s president, Sara Reisinger, urged commissioners to acquire the land and integrate it into the Celery Fields’ stormwater system. She also said the society had spent nearly $20,000 supporting the county’s position in the rezoning and Live Local Act disputes.Reisinger offered to help raise additional money if needed to close a funding gap in a potential purchase, opening the door to a public-private partnership. However, commissioners have not established how much additional stormwater capacity an acquisition would provide, nor have they determined the financial terms required to secure the land.
What happens next?
The county will now explore a fair-market purchase with the developer and property owners. County Attorney Joshua Moye told commissioners that buying the property had been discussed during an earlier dispute-resolution process, but D.R. Horton had rejected the idea at that time. No fresh acquisition negotiations had taken place in response to the latest settlement offer.For now, the future of the 51-acre property remains uncertain. The county’s decision signals a preference for examining conservation and infrastructure benefits before agreeing to residential development, but neither a purchase nor a final resolution of the legal dispute is guaranteed.
