Residents urge Groveland to void Palisades lot split, allege conflicts; council to meet with petitioners

Groveland — Several residents raised formal objections during public comment on Jan. 5, asking the City Council to direct staff to correct what they described as an improper minor lot split of land they say is designated conservation and to issue a written determination about an alleged nonconforming structure.

Susan Ducey said the group had repeatedly raised procedural problems dating to August 2025 and that administrative action taken by the city left unresolved legal concerns. She told the council she and others had prepared an appeal and asked officials to take corrective steps by Jan. 9 so petitioners could preserve rights to seek judicial relief; she concluded, "We were right," referring to prior objections by the group.

Gregory Ducey and attorney and community member Alan Joyce expanded the legal argument, asserting the property had been designated conservation on the city’s Future Land Use Map and that a recent minor lot split and subsequent actions were inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Joyce summarized precedent cited by speakers, arguing that economic loss or resale problems do not create development rights and urging the council to avoid costly litigation. "Loss of development profit or resale value is not compensation‑triggering under Florida law," Joyce said.

Speakers asked the council to direct the City Manager to void the lot split and to have the City Manager and City Attorney issue a written determination about abandonment of the nonconforming Palisades structure by Jan. 9, 2026. They also warned they might file complaints with the Florida Commission on Ethics and state environmental regulators if the city did not act.

Council response: Mayor Keith Keogh asked City Manager Michael Hein and City Attorney Anita Geraci‑Carver to meet with the petitioners to review the claims and "figure out what's who’s on first." Council members agreed to pursue a meeting to vet the legal issues and to provide a clear explanation to the petitioners whether corrective action is required.

Why it matters: Petitioners say the matter affects conservation land, procedural transparency, and potential conflicts of interest in advisory roles. The group has requested specific corrective actions and a short timetable in order to preserve administrative‑appeal deadlines.

Next steps: City Manager Hein and City Attorney Geraci‑Carver will coordinate a meeting with the petitioners; if claims are verified, council indicated it will consider corrective action; petitioners have reserved the right to pursue appeals or ethics complaints if unsatisfied.