The owners of almost 75 acres of land east of Bithlo have sued Orange County, saying officials are denying them development rights granted more than 50 years ago and reaffirmed multiple times since then.
A lawsuit filed May 6 in Ninth Judicial Circuit Court seeks to overturn an April 7 decision by Orange County commissioners to uphold denials of the landowners’ request for a vested rights certificate. The certificate formally recognizes their development rights, even though county land-use rules have changed since the certificate was originally approved.
In 1974, county commissioners approved the Shadow Pines Planned Development (PD) with a land-use plan (LUP) consisting of 450 mobile home lots and a 1.83-acre commercial site in the southwest corner of the 1,100-acre Honey Bee Ranch. The remaining 1,050 acres are zoned agricultural, which allows one residential unit per 10 acres.
Last year, when the landowners went to the county for the vested rights certificate, they were repeatedly denied it.
Colonial Farms LLC, Eastpark Ranch LLC, 19161 LLC and Honey Bee Holdings LLC each own a portion of the land spread across six parcels. The four entities are all tied to Michael A. Davolt, the managing member, along with Michael W. Jones and Don Matthew Jones. Vic McCall is tied only to 19161 LLC.
Rebecca Wilson, an attorney with Orlando-based Lowndes representing the landowners, and Davolt talked with GrowthSpotter on Friday about the lawsuit.
Wilson said at its core, the case is about protecting property rights.
“In 1974, we were allowed to do this, and either we’re still allowed to do it now, or we want to be compensated for the government changing their position,” she said.
Davolt said he also sees it as an issue of fairness and trust in government.
“It’s unfair to us, and we have to fight for our rights just like any citizens would have to do, so that’s what we’re doing,” he said.
Orange County spokeswoman Ezzy Castro Nemzin declined to comment on pending litigation.
The landowners applied to the county May 9, 2025 for a vested rights certificate, which the Planning Division, in consultation with the county attorney’s office, denied Aug. 4, 2025. The issue then went before the Development Review Committee for administrative proceedings and was also denied Jan. 28. They appealed to the county commission and on April 7 they unanimously supported a motion upholding the denial offered by Commissioner Kelly Martinez Semrad, who represents District 5, where the land is located.
During the hour-long hearing on the issue, Semrad said there’s 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 — as well as from the environmental group Sierra Club and rural settlements across the county.
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’s regular process for aligning FLU designations with zoning.
“You can’t use it in 2026 and say I want to use everything that was used in 1974; you have to go through the process,” she said.
When contacted Friday, Semrad said she stood behind comments she made during the hearing.
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.
The lawsuit argues that from 1988 through 2025, records show the county consistently recognized and acted upon the PD’s approved entitlements — including approving a change determination request in 1988, denying an inconsistent use request in 1989 and issuing multiple written confirmations of its validity.
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’s own comprehensive plan designates the property as “Committed Land,” a classification that presumes the PD is valid, it said.
Matthew Pritchett, assistant county attorney, told commissioners during the April hearing that the issue is whether the applicant had demonstrated entitlement to the certificate.
“The 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’s denial and the DRC’s January 28, 2026 decision upholding that denial are, therefore, consistent with County Code,” Pritchett said.
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.
But Wilson told commissioners there was not only an approved land-use plan, there was a preliminary development plan — approved in 1974 — including a typical cluster.
“For over 50 years the county’s consistently treated the Shadow Pines PD as valid through its actions,” she said. “My client and investors have relied in good faith on the county’s words and made significant financial commitments accordingly.”
Wilson told commissioners her clients purchased the entities that owned the property in 2021, and in February 2023 the Planning Division told them “A PD rezoning doesn’t expire, and it predated the comprehensive plan, so technically it’s still valid. Meaning someone could develop a mobile home park on the site without rezoning.”
She also pointed out how the county’s existing comprehensive plan identifies the property as “committed land,” which it defines as PDs “that have approved development remaining to be built.” Comprehensive plan policy provides that properties with vested rights under applicable case law “shall be presumed to have vested development rights.”
In reliance on the county’s 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.
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.
Real estate broker Maury L. Carter & Associates has been marketing Honey Bee Ranch 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.
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.
Honey Bee Ranch is located down the road from The Grow, 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 held a first-plantings ceremony April 2 in place of a traditional groundbreaking event.
Brian Bell can be reached at bbell@orlandosentinel.com. Have a tip about Central Florida development? Email Newsroom@GrowthSpotter.com. Follow GrowthSpotter on Facebook and LinkedIn.
