A dispute over development rights at a local golf course has led to a lawsuit seeking millions in compensation and court intervention after city officials denied a request to build new homes on the property. The complaint was filed by Florin Golf Investors, LLC in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County on March 25, 2026, naming the City of Largo as defendant.
According to the filing, Florin Golf Investors owns the East Bay Golf Club property at 702 Country Club Drive in Largo. The company alleges that it holds vested rights to develop up to 193 residential units on portions of its approximately 127-acre property. These rights, according to the plaintiff, were established through a series of ordinances and legal agreements with the city dating back to 1988.
The complaint outlines that in 1988, the City of Largo adopted an ordinance amending the land use classification for what is known as the Overall Development Property from Recreation/Open Space to Low-Density Residential. This change allowed for up to 2.93 residential units per acre and vested a total of 475 residential units across several parcels within the property. The city joined in recorded declarations acknowledging these development rights and permitted future modifications regarding how those units could be distributed among different parcels.
Subsequent ordinances in 1996 further adjusted how these units could be clustered within specific parcels, transferring development density between areas with city approval. By July 2007, when Florin Golf Investors acquired their portion of the land—specifically Parcels B, C, and E—the company claims that about 193 residential units remained available for allocation under these long-standing agreements.
In January 2025, Florin Golf Investors submitted an application requesting an amendment to the city’s Future Land Use Map for approximately 1.6 acres within their property. This amendment would have changed part of their land from Recreation/Open Space to Residential Medium use and allowed them to cluster some of their remaining vested units within this area. According to court documents, this parcel currently contains a clubhouse, restaurant/bar/event space, maintenance building, and parking lot.
The company’s application underwent review by Largo’s planning and development staff—described as professional planners and engineers—who reportedly determined that all legal requirements were met for approval under both local codes and state law. The planning board also reviewed the proposal and unanimously recommended approval by a vote of five to zero.
Despite these recommendations from both staff and planning board members, the City Commission voted on April 1, 2025 to deny Florin Golf Investors’ plan amendment application. The plaintiff states that this denial came after years spent working with city staff on finding an appropriate location for residential development while preserving much of the golf course’s character.
Florin Golf Investors argues that this decision imposes an “inordinate burden” on its property rights under Florida’s Bert J. Harris Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act (Florida Statutes §70.001). They claim they are now unable to realize reasonable investment-backed expectations for their land due to being permanently blocked from developing these previously acknowledged residential units.
The lawsuit seeks $7,060,000 in compensation—the amount plaintiffs say reflects lost fair market value resulting from denial—as well as prejudgment interest and recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs under Florida law. In support of their claim for damages under Section 70.001, they state they presented written notice along with an appraisal demonstrating losses to city officials in November 2025 but did not receive relief.
Alternatively or additionally, Florin Golf Investors requests declaratory judgment from the court stating that denial of their plan amendment was unlawful or invalid because it allegedly did not bear substantial relation to public health or welfare but instead reflected arbitrary action by commissioners responding more to resident preferences than established plans or codes.
The complaint further asserts that extensive reliance on repeated confirmations from city officials about vested rights justifies invoking equitable estoppel—a legal doctrine preventing parties from going back on prior commitments—to require approval of their application or award other appropriate relief such as permanent injunctions compelling action by city authorities.
Plaintiff is represented by attorney Shane T. Costello of Hill Ward & Henderson P.A., who signed and filed the complaint seeking trial by jury where applicable. The case is identified as number 26-001864-CI.
Source: 26001864CI_Florin_Golf_v_City_of_Largo_Complaint_Pinellas_County_Florida.pdf
