Bill to gut Seminole County rural boundary could apply outside of Central Florida

A proposed amendment to a Florida Senate bill giving developers near-automatic rights to develop in Seminole and Orange County’s rural boundary could apply outside of Central Florida as well. Record requests reveal a developer behind years of efforts to repeal development limits wants the county commission to support it.

The developer, Chris Dorworth, has been messaging Seminole County commissioners and asking them to support the amendment, according to records obtained by Oviedo Community News. Dorworth unsuccessfully sued the county in 2018 for the right to build higher-density residential projects beyond Seminole County’s rural boundary.

“Let me put it this way: The action of this amendment has Dorworth’s fingerprints all over it,” said Seminole County Commissioner Lee Constantine. “If he didn’t do it, he certainly supported it strongly.”

Senate Bill 208 would limit local government restrictions on growth by limiting development fees, among other things. Local governments could no longer charge a percentage of construction value to cover costs associated with different-sized projects, instead being limited to charging a flat fee. Last week, Sen. Jonathan Martin – who represents Lee County and the Fort Myers area – filed a late amendment to the bill that could alter the eastern Seminole and Orange County landscape. 

It declares that rural boundaries, like those enacted by voters in Orange and Seminole counties, are legally a “taking” of a property owner’s right to develop. It also sets up an automatic method where property owners can apply to get paid by the county for the difference in value for their land if it were developed to the highest density of immediate neighbors, or 75% of the density of properties up to a mile away. 

County officials have argued that could lead to a scenario where rural boundaries are eroded mile-by-mile inward. 

“A rural boundary designation that restricts the use and development of private property below the density and intensity available to adjacent properties, and that requires a supermajority or heightened voting threshold for modification or removal, constitutes a permanent deprivation of the property owner’s reasonable, investment-backed expectations,” the amendment reads. “Property owners affected by such designations are bearing permanently a disproportionate share of a burden imposed for the good of the general public.”

The amendment was ultimately withdrawn, but backers say it is expected to come up when the full Florida Senate votes on the bill later this session, possibly as soon as this Friday. The bill is on the Senate’s calendar for a floor vote on Friday, March 6. 

The final day of the 2026 Legislative Session is March 13. 

The ‘very powerful’ amendment could impact outside Seminole, Orange counties

A closer reading of the complicated bill shows it could also impact Miami-Dade and Sarasota counties. 

The amendment defines a rural boundary as one like in Orange and Seminole counties, which were passed into law after a vote by residents. But it also includes any rural designation adopted by “charter amendment, county ordinance, or comprehensive plan amendment.” 

It also specifically targets any rural designation that restricts density, intensity and type of development and “requires a supermajority vote of the governing body of the county, or any heightened voting threshold beyond a simple majority, to remove land from the designation, to increase the density or intensity of use within the designated area, or to approve a comprehensive plan amendment affecting property within the designated area.”

That means it could also apply to Sarasota County on the West Coast, and potentially Miami-Dade County as well. 

“It’s very interesting and very powerful,” said Paul Boudreaux, a professor at Stetson University’s Law School who teaches courses on land use law. 

Boudreaux said typically legislators can’t just interpret a state’s constitution. The state is looking to undo federal and state case law stemming from a landmark Supreme Court case involving plans to develop at Grand Central Station in New York City. Florida lawmakers passed a law giving property owners rights above and beyond that federal case in 1995, known as the Bert Harris Act. 

Boudreaux said it’s reasonable to read the most recent amendment as applying to comprehensive plans across the state that require more than a majority vote to change them. 

Usually amendments to bills are minor changes in law, but, as Boudreaux said, “This amendment is more significant than the bill it would amend.” 

Oviedo Community News contacted every member of Seminole County’s elected representatives in the Florida House and Senate. Florida Senator Jason Brodeur put his support behind the amendment last week, but he voiced his support for the rural boundary at the same time.

“I’m worried that the Attorney General’s opinion regarding the new super majority requirement constitutes a taking, which could result in the entire line being removed,” Brodeur wrote in a text message to Oviedo Community News, referring to the rural boundary line. “I’m trying to save the line, even if that means providing a mechanism for the aggrieved.”

Brodeur, the second-in-command in the Florida Senate, is up for re-election in November. He currently does not have an opponent filed to run against him. 

“The line is politically popular but constitutional rights are more important,” Brodeur wrote. “I’m seeking more guidance.”

State Rep. David Smith, who represents Winter Springs and cannot run for reelection in the Florida House, voted against House Bill 399, the house’s closest companion to Senate Bill 208. State Rep. Rachel Plakon also voted against HB 399, but did not respond to requests for comment. 

Smith said he’s been a strong supporter of the rural boundary while in office. 

“I’m aggressively working to have the House reject the Senate amendment language that would nullify our rural boundary and create other major problems for other areas of our state,” Smith wrote. “The recent … letter to legislative leaders outlines the flawed legal basis of the Attorney General’s opinion on the matter and makes clear the potential catastrophic negative impacts to Seminole County. Additionally, I’m educating House leadership and fellow members on the significance of the rural boundary to Seminole County constituents.”

Representatives Doug Bankson and Susan Plasencia did not respond to a request for comment. Both Bankson and Plasencia voted against the House version, which did not include the controversial amendment.

Developer Chris Dorworth responds to controversy

Chris Dorworth, a former state representative, has tried to develop two properties beyond Seminole County’s rural boundary and could possibly benefit from changes to state law. 

In 2018, he tried to develop Hi Oaks ranch into a 670-acre project called the River Cross Development.

And Dorworth made two separate attempts to build on the former Pappy’s Patch in Oviedo. He first talked to the county about the development in 2021, and in 2024 he sent a letter to the county asking for 67 acres to be removed from the rural boundary.

Dorworth told county leaders that his company, Strawberry Lane LLC, wanted to build what it called Valhalla Harvest Market, with plans for a 45-acre residential subdivision including 81 homes and a 22-acre “agri-tourism” area. His proposal called for a working farm, butterfly garden and event center. 

But Dorworth has never actually submitted an application to remove the 67-acre property from the rural boundary. Oviedo Community News called and texted Dorworth for comment. 

“Everyone’s insistence on dragging me into this is getting annoying,” Dorworth responded to Oviedo Community News by text message. “There is an attorney general’s letter saying this is a taking, a violation of property owner’s constitutional rights. The fact that you don’t care about that tells me this is a sham that I want nothing to do with it.”

Dorworth did not respond to further requests for comment, except to threaten a lawsuit. 

“If you write about me please be 100% correct about what you write or litigation against you and your publication is a certainty,” Dorworth continued. 

Dorworth has messaged multiple county commissioners recently, according to records obtained by Oviedo Community News. 

Amy Lockhart, one of those commissioners, received the following from Dorworth: “Your county attorney issued a memo that is flagrantly and obviously wrong.” 

Lockhart responded, referencing meetings she had with Dorworth after he told county officials he wanted to develop the former Pappy’s Patch into an agritourism hub with housing in 2024. 

“Chris, if this is all about Pappy’s Patch, why don’t you just submit an application and go through the process?” Lockhart asked. 

“Amy, that’s a ridiculous response,” Dorworth wrote back. “It’s your job to look out for those people’s property rights.” 

In a followup email, Dorworth included a screenshot of an exhibit from a lawsuit with quotes from commissioners in support of the rural boundary. 

“It is unbelievable to me that Seminole County is using taxpayer money to lobby against taxpayers being fairly compensated for their land being stolen by Seminole County,” Dorworth wrote. “It is an abomination and the lowest thing I’ve ever seen done in county government. The very moment you learned your constituents were being constitutionally deprived you should have stood up for them.”

The developer has also recently text messaged County Commissioner Jay Zembower, according to messages obtained through a public records request. 

“Finally some common sense language to bring relief to your constituent landowners in district two,” Dorworth wrote. 

“Certainly will be interesting how the legislature deals with future land use, zoning and comp plan law,” Zembower replied.  

Dorworth said that it’s basically impossible to have land removed from the rural boundary. Voters in 2004 first codified the rural boundary in the County Charter, the equivalent of a local constitution. 

The boundary makes it so that the rural designation would continue even if a property were to be annexed into a city, a common move by developers. The boundary has survived three lawsuits already. 

“Any effort to withdraw land from the rural boundary is totally futile,” Dorworth wrote to Zembower. “You’re all on the record saying as much. I personally tried. Couldn’t get anything out of anyone. The answer is just no.”

Dorworth also questioned Seminole County’s attorney, who wrote a response to the attorney general letter that sparked the possible law. 

“And jay (sic) what you do with this stuff is wrong,” Dorworth wrote. “Might be right for your neighborhood because you don’t like the traffic but it is straight wrong to do that to your constituents. Asking the government for permission to do things on your land is communal decision making, not property rights based decision making. And a forever ban…. man that’s just cold to do to your own people.”

Dorworth also texted Commissioner Bob Dallari, who represents Oviedo, saying simply he hoped Dallari would support the amendment. 

“Hi Bob, hope you’re well,” Dorworth wrote. “The language the Senate came up with is very good. Hope you support it.”

Dallari did not respond.

How we got here

State Senator Jonathan Martin asked the Florida attorney general’s office to weigh in on the constitutionality of rural boundaries last year. 

In November, the attorney general’s office said the rural boundaries with a supermajority requirement to get out of the rural area could be a constitutional problem. 

“The blanket property restrictions on rural land owners in Seminole and Orange counties could very well constitute a regulatory taking under the federal and Florida constitutions,” the opinion reads. “Seminole and Orange counties’ charter amendments likely constitute an ‘inordinate burden’ and therefore violate the [Bert Harris Act].”

You can read the attorney general’s opinion here.

Seminole and Orange counties have also drafted a memo for lawmakers in response to the opinion. 

“Seminole County has never and does not currently prohibit development within the Rural Boundary,” Seminole County’s response letter reads, which you can download here. “The future land use designations and zoning districts within Seminole County’s Rural Boundary allow for development within this area and have been in place since 1991 and 1992. Properties within the Rural Boundary can be developed under their current future land use and zoning designations without a vote of the County Commissioners.”

One commissioner who didn’t hear from Dorworth was Lee Constantine, who previously served in the Florida House and the Florida Senate. 

“I would fall on my sword to fight this,” Constantine said. “Because that’s what the people of Seminole County want.”  

Constantine said there could be political consequences for the amendment and how lawmakers vote. 

“I’ve been in politics a long time,” Constantine said. “To me this is a disastrous move. Politically, it’s a disastrous move. But (Brodeur) is doing it for his buddy. And those of his like.”

If the Florida Senate votes for the bill with the amendment, the Florida House would have to approve a similar version in conference. Ultimately, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis would also have to approve the final version before it became law. 

Want to weigh in to your elected leaders? Find Seminole County elected leaders’ contact information here. Local state-level elected leaders mentioned in this article are below: 

Sen. Jason Brodeur, Senate District 10

Rep. Rachel Plakon, House District 36

Rep. David Smith, House District 38

Have a news tip or opinion to share with OCN? Do that here.

Abe Aboraya is a Report for America corps member.