State Senator Backs Amendment Critics Say Could Weaken Seminole Voter-Approved Rural Boundary

Sen. Jason Brodeur’s public backing of a late-filed amendment has local preservation groups and Seminole County officials alarmed because the change would allow landowners to argue for the same development density as adjacent built-up parcels inside the county’s voter-approved rural boundary. The filing, advanced by Sen. Jonathan Martin, R-Fort Myers, would treat a county denial or 60-day failure to act as a taking that could require payment of the fair-market-value difference to landowners.

The amendment was submitted earlier in the week as an attachment to a larger land-use bill and, as described by proponents and critics, would let property owners inside or near the rural boundary request treatment at the density of neighboring developed parcels - in some cases up to a mile beyond the existing line. Even if a county pays compensation under the amendment’s procedure, owners could still pursue court challenges seeking to lift the rural designation altogether.

Sen. Martin requested a Florida Attorney General opinion in November 2025 about rural boundaries, and the opinion cited by supporters concluded those boundaries raise constitutional takings concerns and may be likely unconstitutional. On the Senate floor, Sen. Brodeur framed the issue as protecting private rights, saying, “We could very easily be here with an amendment that says rural boundaries are hereby outlawed. That’s what the AG letter said - it is a per se infringement, a taking.” Brodeur also said he would back the amendment because it “does not wipe them out, but only acknowledges property owners’ rights.”

Seminole County’s rural boundary dates to a 2004 voter-approved charter amendment and covers much of the county’s eastern third generally east of the Econlockhatchee River and Lake Jesup. Portions of the boundary restrict development to one home per five acres and other sections to one home per 10 acres. Supporters of the boundary point to state and federal court victories upholding those protections, including litigation identified in county land-use history.

Local critics including Save Rural Seminole, conservation groups and neighborhood activists say the late amendment process short-circuits public input, sidesteps the existing case law that upheld the boundary, and would speed development in areas voters chose to protect. A local commenter asked pointedly about motive and jurisdiction, saying, “I’ve got to believe there are smart minds in Tallahassee that will go, ‘Oh my goodness, this is a major train wreck for the state if we put this forward,’” and asking, “What does a senator in [Lee] County give a rat’s ass about Orange and Seminole counties?”

Legislative calendars now set the stage for a Senate floor debate next week over the amendment and the broader land-use bill. If the amendment is adopted as drafted, Seminole County faces two immediate questions: how many property requests will follow and what fiscal exposure will taxpayers shoulder if denials are treated as takings that trigger fair-market-value payouts.