[Music] my [Music] that's [Music] [Music] spe [Music] oh my God me out [Music] nothing than I can't shut it [Music] off e e e e we'll call the meeting to order this is City Commission meeting uh Monday March 25th 2024 it's 5:30 p.m. would you please rise for the invocation and the pledge Heavenly Father we ask that you watch over this group tonight that you give us the wisdom to make good decisions for the city of lesburg we do this in your name amen I pledge alance to the flag of the United States of America and to theic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all all [Music] right have a good crowd here tonight uh just a couple of announcements uh we are going to have a first reading uh of the Sunnyside property tonight uh the Pud at which time we're going to have Dan come up and explain that PUD to us we are not going to have any public comment for that reading tonight okay but later on in the meeting there will be a discussion of the magistrates uh rendering and at that point we will have public comment so we will be able to talk about it we just don't want to talk about it twice okay all right so uh item two is proclamations we have none item three is presentations we have none item four is public comments this section is reserved for members of the public to bring up matters of concern or opportunity ities for praise issues brought up will not be discussed in detail at this meeting issues will either be referred to the proper staff or will be scheduled for consideration at a future city commission meeting comments are limited to three minutes would you please give your name and your address when you come to the DSL any comments good evening Dr Erica Jasper 2110 John's Avenue leberg Florida I'm here just to bring public awareness to our annual spring cleaning cleanup on April the 6th on a Saturday we'll be at Barry Park um J JL Johnson Park Susan Street Park as well so we're soliciting all visit uh all volunteers and anyone that need any community service hours during this time so thank you any other public comment uh Murray Tucker um loo Cemetery Board of Trustees I'm sorry I'm a little late uh for this my schedule's been a little bit hectic but uh the rest of the board and I would just like to thank the city of leeburg for their participation in Sergeant Hall's Funeral uh at L NOA a while back um all the agencies just did phenomenal soie the commissioner showed up um just that flag when you pulled in under that firet truck was just breathtaking um this was an absolutely once of a-lifetime event and I think yall made the city look really really good so on behalf of the board thank you for all that and the city ought to be very proud thank you Mar any other public comment move now to the consent agenda item five routine items are placed on the consent agenda to expedite the meeting if the commission or staff wish to discuss any item the procedure is as follows one pull the item or items from the consent agenda two vote on remaining items with one roll call vote three discuss each pulled item and vote by roll call are there any items anyone would like to pull all right can I get a motion to approve the consent agenda make a motion to approve all items on the consent agenda yeah second roll call commissioner conell yes commissioner reesman yes commissioner Peterson yes commissioner Barry yes mayor bur yes we'll move on to uh public he and non- routine items uh second reading of ordinances we have none uh we'll go to uh 6b1 which is first reading of ordinances would someone please introduce 6b1 I'll introduce ask be read by title only an ordinance of the city of lesburg Florida in accordance with the special magistrates recommendation pursuant to the Sunnyside Lake Landing holding LLC and Seno Ventures Florida LLC verse city of lebur dated January 15th 2024 resoning approximately 120.5 plus minus Acres from P to PUD planned unit development to allow for 150 detached single family residential dwelling units on a property located south of US Highway 441 and west of Sunnyside Drive as legally described in sections 29 and 32 Township 19 South Range 25 East Lake County Florida and providing an effective Ive date this is a first reading so Dan would you please come up and give us a little information Mr Mayor if I may uh I'll go ahead and get everybody sorn in for the ordinances and non- routine items before Mr Miller get started sure all right uh everybody in the audience including City staff you would please stand and raise your right hand if you plan to provide any testimony on any of the ordinances or non-routine items resolution this evening please stand and raise your right hand now as your time to be sworn in to speak tonight all right nobody else plans to speak this evening of course okay uh do you plan uh do you swear or affirm that all testimony you'll give tonight will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth all right thank you all thank you Dan thank you Mr Mayor Dan Miller Planning and Zoning uh this is the first reading for the Pud as um recommended by the Magistrate uh this is a request for an ordinance to reone approximately 120 Acres which is generally located south of US Highway 441 West of Sunnyside Drive the project as it sits now contains 150 units on 120 acres for a gross density of 1.25 units per acre um again you will recall this is proposed PUD as the result of the special Magistrate's recommendation of settlement which is also on tonight's agenda under item 6 C1 this PUD differs from the Pud application submitted to the city originally in the following areas number one the total acreage on the project has been lowered from 139 acres to 120 Acres this is due to the land to the east of Sunnyside drw Drive has been dropped from the plan the total number of units under consideration was reduced from 159 units to 150 units and then dropping the total number of units did increase the size of a few of the open space buffer areas meaning adjacent to the nearest properties with existing residences I don't have those exact numbers but increased a little bit all other requirements of the Pud as was previous previously presented have been maintained that includes the requirement for 50 70 and 80 foot Lots design and Architectural standards for the houses the 25 ft planted buffers around the perimeter of the property there's also requirement for the boulevard entrance sidewalks and upgrading the roadway adjacent to the property as well as preservation of the wetlands and recreational requirements that remain as well thank you Mr Mayor any questions for Dan right as this is the first reading it will come back to us on April the 8th for the second reading yes sir and public and the public hearing yes okay so some someone please introduce 6b2 I'll introduce 6b2 to be read by title only an ordinance of the city of leeburg Florida adding a PDO plan development overlay with a waiver from section 25- 282 parentheses a parentheses 1 PDO 5 acre minimum to the existing R3 high density residential zoning on approximately 0.22 plus minus acres to allow for an office retail and classroom usage for a property generally located south of East Main Street and West of Mike Street lying in section 25 Township 19 South Range 24 East Lake County Florida and providing an effective date thank you Andy yes sir Dan thank you sir this is first reading for this CDC Mike Street office plan development overlay it's a request from the Community Development Corporation for a plan development overlay to allow for office retail and classroom uses property is generally um located on. 22 Acres on the west side of Mike Street and south of Main Street it's about halfway down Mike street from um East Main on the right side the lot goes all the way through from Mike street over to Child street so it makes it a double Frontage lot um just some background pdos plan development overlays are similar to puds uh but are simply an overlay to add for additional uses or conditions for or design for uses not found in the underlying zoning District in this case this is very similar to the one that was done down on the corner right here uh PDO done there for CDC for the same thing property zoned R3 high density residential and the proposed uses are office retail and classrooms and this is the looking for pastor Christian thank you sir this is the office uh former office of James Duran who was uh one of the first or I believe the first African-American attorney in the city thank you sir just a question for you Dan on the uh the overlap it seems that uh there's a house that's kind of on both sides of the line the only way to determine that for 100% is to have a a specific survey a new survey done on we find that happens quite a bit when you scale the maps in and out and sometimes it looks like it's a little bit over and it's not in this case I couldn't guarantee that it is or is not but we do find that um scaling the maps in and out makes it a little difficult and is that what's the plan for the house uh uh the building will stay they're not planning to they're not planning to do anything other than renovate the building it's kind of a historic historically significant building for sure I have a question for yes I have a question so the original building that we seeing that's the original attorney's office correct so we'll be extending beyond that uh at this time there's no plans to extend the building they could potentially in the future right now what they just want to do is refurbish the building and make it into some additional uses for the office retail classrooms for CDC is there any way possible I could request more information for the actual Pine Street project and itself as a whole I understand that um this is this is the second overlay yes ma'am okay will we be anticipating more coming forward it it depends it's really very individualized situation uh a PUD generally encompasses a plan unit development generally encompasses a larger area and includes all of the Zoning for that area a PDO is just an overlay to add to something to that area to make it more useful and could it be changed again later on any of these zonings yes ma'am could be that's correct thank you does anyone have questions for the petitioner I yes I would like to add please I'm Pastor Christian good evening I just want to make sure that I'm understanding and if if any way possible I can get further information to be clear to with understanding so that when the pdos come up and available I can be um my vote could be true to what's going on I know I've been invited to a meeting and which I plan to attend and I'm hoping that I could get all information so that I can know each time a PDO is coming up or planning on what the actual goals are set for shortterm and longterm for the Pine Street project yes ma'am and um um this is John Christian 903 County Road 468 lebur Florida uh the reason actually for the PDO is um this building is actually active we've had um people renting the building um my newest tenant um she's actually involved with the state of Florida with um Medicare and they needed to an office although it was an attorney office is own residential um as you would um unfortunately in this neighborhood um we found that although many of these buildings were used for commercial zoning commercial uses um they have residential zoning so that is the reason for the PD um this building particular has already been remodeled it's already been actively used um by several tenants they just didn't need State approval the newest tenant needed State approval um needed um Zoning for commercial and that's why we had to engage with the city to get that zoning so um if we didn't need state approved we probably wouldn't be here ask for a p but unfortunately although it's Mr der's law office it was Zone residential so that's kind of why and we'll do an update and we'll give to the commission on on the plans we have several business that are there and we'll give a a proper um introduction all the business on Pine stre to the city commission so everyone can have that plans of the CDC thank you thank you thank you Mr Mayor commission appreciate your your consideration any other questions no gr do we need public comment on this uh you can ask for public comment in case anybody has any is there any public comment on this project all right any other commission comments all right this will lay over uh and be heard again on April the 8th someone please introduce item three please introduce n be read by title only an ordinance of the city of leasburg Florida amending the city code of ordinances amending Article 4 chapter 9 elections providing for five single member commissioner districts providing for severability providing for conflicts and providing an effective date comments Grant maybe you could just kind of give the public a reason for this sir yes sir I'll be happy to do that that so basically this is uh sort of a house cleaning type ordinance here uh when the charter was amended uh to account for districts four and five uh no longer being floating seats um the city code was not updated so really this is just to make sure that the city code is consistent with the charter Amendment the charter Amendment would govern anyways uh but really just to make sure the code and the charter are all consistent with one another thank you grant yes sir any public comment on that this again will lay over until April the 8th uh would someone please introduce item four n be read by title only an ordinance of the City lebur Florida amending the boundary lines of the village community development District Number 14 pursuant to chapter 190 Florida Statutes and providing an effective date comment any public comment on this Dan do you want to give us an overview thank you Mr Mayor this is a request for an amendment to the overall boundaries of the area which encompasses Community Development District Number 14 within the Villages of West Lake um I think everyone's pretty familiar with cdds by now they are provided under chapter 190 Florida Statutes as a method of creating and funding special purpose special purpose districts to manage finance and deliver basic community services such as water Wastewater roads Bridges security Etc um there are limited to specific areas and cannot encumber debt to the local governments and have no zoning or police Powers um in exhibit one basically what they're doing here is they would like to amend these acreage is to eliminate 1372 Acres out of the current 2385 Acres so you'll end up with a district of 13 acres that 13 acres basically consists of the area of 470 can you come down a little bit Anna please I mean I'm sorry the other down thank you so we they want to keep the is that zip it one okay they want to keep the 470 area in here as the those that's where the houses are currently constructed the remainder of that if we go to the next exhibit please I think there's an exhibit two and three following that there we go so this will be the area that they're that they're keeping this area over here is what they want to get rid of which is um south of 470 and north of the turnpike and then down here in the old Renaissance Trails area so those are the areas they want to eliminate this is the area that was proposed at this point for the uh people who work in The Villages but are not 55 years old so they'll eventually get their own cdds we anticipate at this time um beyond that the city has about six or seven other cdds in and we anticipate a number more coming as the city develops over time thank you any questions for Dan any public comment all right this will actually we don't have a a date for this in May but yeah we may have to submit for yeah okay so we don't have a date certain for you but we believe at one of the two meetings in May will be a second reading on this this point will somebody please introduce item 6 C1 6 C1 to be right by title only resolution of the city Commission of the city of lburg Florida accepting the settlement agreement with Sunnyside Lake Landing holding LLC and Seno Ventures LLC and providing an effective date so uh Al you want to give us just a quick uh brief staff report on that um the city of leeburg has been considering the Sunnyside Lake landh holding situation now uh for a couple of years uh let me just recap where we're at and uh the purpose of the resolution this evening um just to summarize essentially the city commission turned down the petition to rezone and land use this property um the units and acreages and uses were all outlined by Dan earlier under the um the Pud which was on first reading just moments ago um the city annexed some of these proper properties but then we did not move forward with zoning and land use of these areas when we did the city buy it basically a two to2 vote did not land use did not Grant the requested land uses which were similar to what Dan outlined um and that triggered a filing a petition I believe was a r sari against the city which is asking the court to provide a legal interpretation on the actions that the city took which was to deny the requ for a PUD um the vote was 2 to2 which is a denial a vote of that case would require a majority vote of the commission which would be three um so even though it was a TI vote It Is by all all means considered a denial uh when filing a petition against a municipal Corporation there's a uh steps are outlined in statutes on how that proceeds and it's essentially for for ease of delivery a three-step process a mediators is required to be hired both sides uh picked the mediator uh both sides agreed and we picked a a land use attorney who's done several cases before and he was an experienced land use attorney by the name of Carlos Alvarez and he served as our special magistrate um we then commenced the first step which was a a um a mediation uh at the mediation both sides met uh um the commission prior to that mediation and subsequent to don't hold me to the exact number I think you had two or three shade meetings maybe maybe four um all posted correctly all records were kept all records of all of the shade meetings will be made public when the matter is settled um so everything that was discussed reviewed and and um considered uh will become a matter of the public record at settlement time um So based on mediation um I'll summarize it very succinctly um there was no movement by either sides with direction from the commission to enforce the Sunnyside Land Development resolution or I don't the formal name of the the Sunnyside Accords if you will um which laid out which was developed in the early 2000s uh laid out a series of lessening densities from 441 South to the tip of Sunny side where the tip of Sunny Side would be a I believe it was one to three uh units per acre um it was the commission's decision that this development infringed upon that task force recommendation um so essentially the rough numbers were at that time I believe the petitioner wanted a PUD approved for about 159 units and the city commission wanted to see a development in the neighborhood of 40 or 30 Lots so obviously a a a big a big disparity um the mediation actually was very short I think we met that morning for about 3 hours with the distance in the in the sides um there was really looked like there was no uh reasonable way to solve this issue so we moved into step two spe two step two of the the specified process is to have a rehearing of the case and the hearing was conducted by the city by the special Magistrate who served as the quas judicial uh parliamentarian if you would of the proceedings and both sides uh the city represented by bionas and bionas and the petitioner side represented by Mr Spain made their cases to the schedual magistrate each side was then requested based on the testimony heard by Mr Alvarez uh to provide a recommended order our recommended order was to ensure that the Sunnyside uh Accords if will were were approved and implemented and the the petitioner side was to approve the Pud um in short the special magistrates recommendation came back in January it's been made part of this proceedings this evening the special magistrates report was made public it is in the uh agenda package in two locations it was under the first reading of the ordinance adopting the Pud and it is also made part of this resolution essentially and in short there was the 40-page recommendation but essentially Mr Alvarez completely ruled in favor of the petitioner let me repeat that Mr Alvarez's recommendation was completely in favor of the petitioner um not yielding one iota of the city's argument with that um we held another shade meeting and it was a consensus and direction of the commission that it was probably now in the best interests of the city to consider a settlement agreement after that shade meeting we instructed our attorneys Bonas and Bonos to go to uh Mr Spain and work out a settlement agreement at this stage there's really there's a third phase of of this dispute which would be which I will describe but there's really two now phases left um or two options left for the city one is to approve the settlement agreement which is before you tonight that settlement agreement ends the dispute and it agrees to implement the order that's recommended by this by the special magistrate which is the Pud that Dan spoke to this evening on first reading should you approve the resolution that that ends the settlement you will then have one more step which is to approve the Pud I think it's important to part point out tonight that even though the Pud Was Heard On First reading that is not approval of the Pud that is first reading of an ordinance that's the process to adopt a PUD by ordinance the final product of the Pud would then be heard um on April 8th where public hearings will be conducted and the public will have opportunity to speak let me Sidetrack a little bit here uh just for procedural information it was determined by all attorneys involved that starting the Pud from inception which would be Inception would be the petitioner petitions the planning and zoning department with the proper City application forms those are processed by staff those go before the Planning and Zoning Board then that comes before the city Commission in two readings one reading of which we would take a break and issue the the recommendations to the state because it's a large scale modification in the back to the state all of that we determined is not necessary it is not necessary because the petitioner went through this all before so therefore repeating the processes is is not required statutorily was the was the ruling by our attorneys so you are left with the process of if you settle you then have to approve a PUD if you do not settle you you then would go to the third phase of the process which would be to uh hear the rter curari before the circuit cirk before the Circuit Court excuse me um that is an option to you our staff recommendation to you this evening is to settle the matter based on the special magistrates report I think it's important to point out that part of the reder sari kept all cost to associated with the litigation and the matter to each side so in English that means the petitioner pays for their attorneys and we pay for our attorneys um I think that's an important consideration and I also than the recommendation and the information that was provided in the the special magistrates report is very important so for that um that would conclude the staff recommend the staff proposal and our recommendation which is to settle the matter and and move forward with adoption of the Pud on April 8th for clarification can you give the dates of the different hearings no but I can I can get that to you if if you need a chronology of that that can be provided at at this time I think uh before we have uh discussion among the Commissioners let's allow for public comment on this uh so those that uh want to make public comment please [Music] come I'm a bit confused the puds have a second reading I was under the impression that the settlement this was first reading the settlement would not happen until a second reading am I incorrect about that because our team was going was going to defer until the next reading yes you're incorrect about that the this the process is two-phased you have to approve a settlement agreement and you H and and pending which way you go in that process um would require the adoption of a PUD since the settlement agreement issues the petitioner their planned unit development you then would have to approve a PUD if for example we would not have if the the recommended order per se say as an example uh would have been in the city's favor and the petitioner uh would not have you know the petitioner may not have wanted to move forward with their PUD then you did not have the Pud issue to deal with so one way or another uh the city will have to deal with the Pud if it's determined that the city in turning down the Pud was incorrect so whether we settled the matter um and have the recommended order which say we if the if this body agrees with the recommended order you have to do a PUD if we go back to court I will assume the same as well a PUD or court order would then be issued to the city that would adopt the Pud so a PUD has to be adopted in some sort of fashion um I don't I don't the process really isn't germine on you know which comes first the chicken or the egg the Pud is adopted by ordinance two readings of the ordinance have been set up now the second reading potentially for April 8th um and the settlement matter by resolution because the settlement is an agreement not a PUD we adopt agreements by resolution okay all all all the puds this agreement have all been duly advertised understand just um not the way it was presented to me how I known that we would have had a full team here I don't know that I agree with how this is going to go down because we our team's not going to have a chance to present so we would move for a continuous considering that we got the notice on the was only sent out on March 12th and I believe your testimony was you had the agreement I'm Dave Coffin that you had the agreement back in January and uh as a party to the the uh application or applying the Sunnyside agreement we should have gotten notice of it we did not get notice and in fact one of your Commissioners didn't get notice until last Friday I believe so we would ask for additional time this has gone on for years and now to take a position that may Prejudice us because of a notice that went out March 12th and I think a number of people did not even get the notice who lived within the the uh guidelines so we would ask that that occur and and submit that because it has taken years and years for y'all to get to this point it would not Prejudice the city right Mr cine I'm you know I respect your legal opinion at the end of the day the commission knew about the proceedings the public I think knew about the proceedings our resolution to adopt a settlement agreement was publicly advertised and duy followed the correct process it would be up to this body if they want to continue it there are some time parameters associated with the continuance that the petitioner would probably have to agree to our council is in the back nodding at what I'm saying so I would if I would just advise you that if you think that that's grounds for action in the future I would respect your opinion sir as as an additional Point can you tell me who the applicants are the applicant is sunnide land Holdings Sunny Sunnyside Lake landh holding LLC and sine what's s Ventures LLC represented by Mr BR B okay and I would point out that siso Ventures is not a valid Florida Corporation it was lapsed and so that's you can't proceed because of the lapse in the corporate entity it was dissolved duly noted [Music] okay Mark prion is for the record so with that information as our attorney on this item do we need to pause no I I think you have everything that you need in front of you as a matter of fact the special magistrates order had a certain time period in which this commission would have to act um the petitioner did agree to extend that time period to today um and so that's why you have the settlement agreement in front of you today what it's worth here chose the corporation is dissolved laed and you're asking the commission to vote on it today that's correct that's pursuant to the magistrate's order unless the petitioner again agrees to extend the time period which which they are here I'm not sure if he wants to speak or not but he is here [Music] [Music] good evening for the record Bren Spain theak and Spain 1809 Edgewater Drive Orlando Florida on behalf of the iers in this matter before you this evening uh I'll just briefly one on the Division of Corporations information that's been handed out the entity is actually a Delaware Corporation so that's why the the information from Florida sunbiz is not accurate that's actually a a different entity then is the property owner of the subject site so that was actually corrected in the settlement agreement that's attached and you'll actually see when my client uh signed it they actually write through the Florida limited liability company and they hand initial it that it's a Delaware limited liability or actually a Texas my bad Texas limited liability company so that's why the information that the gentleman handed out is not accurate with a respect to continuing it at the end of the day that's a matter within your old's discretion and purview I would say this that I don't think anybody in this room is surprised that the matter is on the agenda this evening it's been covered by the local newspaper uh Mr Tucker attended the special magistrate hearing um I'm sure he's been actively following the matter with the city either through email Communications or public records requests so I'm not I'm a bit surprised by the suggestion that somehow they're prejudiced by this as a l use attorney with 24 years of practice that seemed like trying to put a argument on the record so they can potentially challenge it down the line and say oh look we are prejudiced you know the reality is they're going to have a full and fair opportunity to present at the second hearing um which on that point this is the first time I've heard that it was scheduled for April 8th so I would like to go on the record I'm actually in Massachusetts on April 8th looking at a school for my child for my son so I'd actually asked that that second reading be on April 22nd which I think is the following meeting um which certainly would provide the individuals an additional two weeks to be prepared in advance of that second and final reading um with that said I don't want to belabor things that the city manager indicated I do want to clarify a few things so the record's clear the annex it because a few the Commissioners were not on the board in March of 2022 when this matter was denied 22 which is a technical denial there were only four members present uh the annexation was denied the annexation involved the 18 and a half acres on the on the east side of sunyside Drive the future land use was also denied for that 18 and a half acres so that reverted the PD proposal back in March of 2022 to the Original Parent track which is the 120 acre parcel that the city had annexed in 2005 they had actually rezoned it to PUD in 2005 and they assigned a future land use to the 120 acres in 2006 of estate residential we're not here before you this evening on any comprehensive plan Amendment there's no annexation there's no l use change it's simply as our has occurred a first reading on a proposed modified PUD and then the proposed resolution approving this settlement agreement before you which as the city manager indicated the settlement agreement's purpose is to implement the special magistrates recommendation which followed an all day evidentiary hearing so unlike the hearings you all see in this I think commissioner bur or mayor bur attended the magistrate hearing but there is full cross-examination of the witnesses you can introduce evidence it's very much like a mini trial it's more formal than your regular zoning hearing it went all day there was a 40 page order entered as the city manager indicated in favor of my client on all the issues that were raised and the magistrate recommend an approval of a modified plan and in that modified plan as touched upon my client had reduced the number of total units we increased the buffers and open space near the closest residential units and we intend to do a full presentation at the second reading so that the record is clear um but the main issue which clearly was the main issue two years ago I was counseled two years ago was the applicability of the Sunnyside task report and I don't want to bore you with details in the magistrates order but he did not just gloss over that issue he thoroughly considered that issue and he explained in detail his reasons for rejecting that both from a factual standpoint of the history of this property and from a legal standpoint that that task uh study was never implemented in the city's comprehensive plan and Land Development code and in fact I think one of his the one part I did want to quote was and I'm quoting from page six of his order quote there is no land use regulation in Florida and likely in any state that is that is enforcable or valid under such circumstances such a scenario is the definition of unreasonable and arbitrary and certainly unfairly burdens the use of the property and he goes on in the actual body of the order to discuss why that's the case so again we my client has been trying very diligently to be receptive to the city's concerns the residents concerns and also cognizant of the land use rights that were granted back in 2005 and 2006 with the future land use on the property the prior PUD which the magistrate also indicates never technically expired on the property and we would ask you respectfully for your support of the settlement agreement that comes before you this evening with staff support as well as my client support in fact my client has already executed the settlement agreement and again at the end of the day you will have a second and full reading on the Pud ordinance and Mr Tucker and them are fully able to make a full presentation there and in theory if they don't like the ultimate decision if that PD is approved on second reading they have the right to retain councel and try to challenge that approval in court but the matter before you this evening is consideration of the settlement agreement whether you all decide to defer the settlement agreement to the second reading which I would ask be on April 22nd that's a matter within your discretion if that's a perview of this board I'm not going to sit up here and kick and SC and object to it our client is just as eager as I hope the city is to resolve this matter amicably as indicated it's been going on actually for more than two years I think I first got involved in 2019 2020 um because I I recall appearing before this board with a mask so I know it was in the middle of Co so again we appreciate your support I'm here to answer any questions about the modified PE the site plan I have our planner here but again we weren't intending to make any presentation we have no PowerPoint thises this s just an administrative hurdle that needs to be crossed in order to get to the second and final reading so any questions for Mr Spain hang on one second any questions for Mr Spain just for clarification are you a city manager referenced the there was a deadline for for to approve this are you granting us till Fe till April 22nd May 22nd May 2 April 22 April and I I'm I'm don't bring bring it up because we got to discuss it anyway I just soon hear it all at one time I don't want to hear it two different times but but I I need your blessing on that yeah get so the deadline is under the statute there you all have 45 days to consider a recommendation from the date it's issued so the recommendation was issued on January 15th so to get to this date my client had to extend it to March 25th which we did in light of the settlement agreement that had been clarification you answered my question there I me and so at the end of the day to more be more specific if at the end of the day a majority of you says we're inclined and we prefer to defer both things to April 22nd I'm not going to object to that I don't think there are legal grounds raised by Mr Tucker to do that because he's here this evening just like I am and I'm not doing a presentation either and he'll have the full opportunity to do that at the second reading but I'll leave that to you all if you vote for that I don't object to extending it to April 2 second okay thank you for that clarification any other questions we have another comment yes sir we're not asking to really delay anything we're asking that nothing be prejudicial today and I can tell you that several calls were made to City Hall to find out what the procedure was and it kind of reminds me of when Sunnyside homeowners association met with the city of lebur several years ago and we entered into an agreement it's been posted on the map for this uh the county in the city the agreement was with the city and the county and Sunnyside and all of a sudden we learn that somebody's position is it doesn't it doesn't apply to us but the resolution is still on the books it has not been vacated and we just want an opportunity to come back before the board without being prejudiced by not having our whole group here today and it's it's the same same procedure we were told that the last time and the last time we didn't have a big group on day one but we did on day two and we intend to and we do have counil who was not able to come today and told us don't worry about it and there's no Prejudice to the city thank you I didn't swear in but I feel like relevant do we need to swear do we need to [Music] swear you swear or affirm that the evidence that you will give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you my name is Wendy barager and I own the 14 acres that shares an actual boundary with this I've owned it since September of 21 and the notice that I received about this this meeting was the absolute first that I have received in regards to this when I bought the property which is supposed to be a family compound for my retirement future whatnot that we've saved and scraped and whatever and bought we did not intend to have a neighborhood on the side of us we are leaving a neighborhood to come to a rural area all of the language speaks about existing residences well we plan I mean it's zoned R2 I can put up multiple structures for my family on that piece of property which I fully intend to do and we're and I called the city to ask for a plot of this development Dan I believe I spoke with he didn't give me anything he told me he would get back with me I told him I had never been told about all of this and he said I'm going to find out I'm going to find out about that I never heard back from him I showed up here thinking that this was not a decision-making night my husband's not present we never had the option to get legal council of our own to fight this I do not want 150 homes on my dream property I just don't I mean you can speak the night's language all you want but if this was happening on your dream property you wouldn't lay down for it I mean it's it's very upsetting that this is the first we're seeing and I've read the city's comp comprehensive plan I wasn't involved with the Pud and all that I didn't own in the property but I can't see how that this PUD fits into the comprehensive plan with the road with our supposed commitment to the ecological preservation there's not much space like this left the gopher tortoises I mean there's just tons of reasons not to put another planned unit development in the middle of beautiful Lake County we have enough and I mean and I feel like they're just being greedy there is no reason to put 150 homes on I mean what is it 120 Acres where how many of those are already deemed Wetlands conservation wraps the side of my property that comes up to it there are cypress trees that are who knows how old I just I don't understand how this is happening and how we weren't even notified that this was happening or given the information to and I'm not saying everyone wasn't no I'm saying I was not notified under testimony whatever I was not notified thank you ma'am 15 are there any think do we have any more questions for Mr Spain well if I could just briefly respond to that and this is what I was trying to avoid this evening but again if you look at the settlement agreement nothing actually is getting finally approved this evening you're approving a settlement agreement which under paragraph three then allows provides unless my client agrees to an extension for 30 days from that that effective date to approve the modified PUD which 30 days from today would still fall within the April 22nd uh date if the city were to fail to do that within the 30 days or my client doesn't extend that 30 days or the city were to decide that you're going to deny that modified PUD for one reason or another paragraph three says this agreement shall be null and void and the party shall retain all the rights to continue with the litigation which is the pending Circuit Court proceeding that Council alluded to which under this agreement ultimately would get dismissed all parties would bear their own fees and cost and all parties do a mutual release as to any claims with respect to this matter but again that the suggestion that something is being fully and finally approved this evening is not completely accurate what you're approving is a settlement agreement by which you agree that you're going to implement the special magistrates recommendation which then requires a public hearing process by which the first reading of that ordinance you did this evening a sort of administrative matter there's then a second and final reading by which the neighbors just like any other zoning hearing can come forth and try to present evidence to you all they can try to convince you I suppose that somehow the special magistrate got it wrong after an all day evident hearing even though they had every opportunity to speak at that hearing and not one resident of those in attendance introduced any exhibits or spoke in opposition so so again I will defer to you all if you want to bump both these matters to April 22nd I'm not going to object but again nothing is actually getting fully and finally approved this evening this is simply a step in the process to get us to the second and final hearing how many Commissioners have everybody has read it m multiple times and when did you receive uh that would have been last Wednesday in the packet about a week ago we we've been briefed on it but I did not read it till probably a week ago right when I asked you for one we didn't have one avilable to us nobody said that it was going to be voted on tonight comment if it doesn't get us in legal trouble and if the Mr Spain is okay it wouldn't out of respect to the Sunnyside residents I would look at it all on April 22nd um I'm a little confused you know say we you know the final we approve a settlement today um to me we've approved a settlement we're Bound by it um I don't see a lot changing um but I mean I'll throw that out for discussion if other Commissioners want to move it back if you want to vote on it tonight that's fine too I'm not going to sit and argue and debate it we've been I I was involved in the original you know most of y'all were not here I was here I voted no um but I was here uh actually was mayor when this came before us and it was a it's been a long ride other comments with regard to putting it off till the 22nd is there any I don't to our legal and they so it does seem strange in that um what Mr Spain stated is is that you have terms in this agreement that really make it null and void if you decide after when you have a second reading not to approve even if you approve the settlement agreement tonight the way Mr Spain stated the language in paragraph three says if you do not proceed or if you do not approve the Pud after the second reading it's Nolan boid in the litigation continues so there's really no harm in proceeding But ultimately it's up to you again if you choose to um read advertise and and have this at the same time you have the Pud that's fine as well he's agreed to that um so really it's up to you I'm sorry I didn't see you sitting over there I would have turned to you and asked sorry um but uh sounds like the final approval is on the 22nd anyway but whatever the commission's pleasure is yeah so we we we do want to re announce that the hearing uh will be at 5:30 p.m. April 22nd here at City Hall okay so yeah just to clarify just to clarify that's going to be the second reading the the zoning and land use second reading and public hearing just the Zone okay the zoning hearing for the Pud for Sunnyside let me get the let me get the name right sunyside land Lake Land sunnide Lake holding Sunnyside Lake Landing holding LLC will be conducted here at City Hall in the commission Chambers at 5:30 p.m. on Monday April 22nd okay now that's this that's the hearing on the Pud before this body is still the resolution to to consider the settlement agreement so in considering the settlement agreement a suggestion has been made to put that off until the 22nd and we need to decide would we need a motion in order to do that uh no you would need a motion to table until a date certain which is what's been requested by Mr Spain and which has been suggested by Mr cine so a motion to table it to April 22nd would be appropriate there you go so do we have a motion to table settlement agreement April 22nd I'm looking at Council and if Council says it doesn't create any legal liability for me I would I would make the motion you can make the motion okay I would make the motion we extend it to April 22nd and deal with the resolution and the second reading approval of the Pud at the same time do we have a [Music] second lacking a second lacking a second the motion still stands to consider the the settlement agreement this evening right right so we need to call a roll [Music] up unless you want to debate or yeah that's what he said well go ahead we're going to we're going to decide tonight because we didn't get a second okay so so now so the motion to table failed correct and now we're back to consideration of the resolution I believe the resolution to settle the agreement had a a motion a second yes so we're back into that process so you can continue your debate continue to take comments from the public it did not have explanation we didn't have a motion okay so we don't so so there's no motion on the floor correct so you went right into to public we let you explain it and then we went to public so let's introduce would someone please introduce 61 I'll introduce ask be read by title only resolution of the city Commission of the city of leeburg Florida accepting the the settlement agreement with Sunnyside Lake Landing holding LLC and Seno Ventures LLC and providing an effective date for approval okay discussion I will say we have heard we need a second we need a second we did no we we got it okay J second okay all right so uh we have heard from The Sunny Side property owners that they'd like to push this off until the 22nd Mr Spain has agreed that we can do that Council said we can do that we had a motion that did not get a second to do that so discussion on the issue of the resolutions between the Commissioners how you feel we want to go on record or you just want to vote we can I mean we can I mean because I was involved in the original one I uh you know it's been a tough process um I'm since to the people that live nearby um you know I I don't think it fits in the area I voted no I don't think it fits in the the density is too high the roads are completely inadequate um but you know based on the process we've been through you know doesn't leave me many options you know it has not been a fun fun process other comment no well I do want to go on the record I was uh completely uh against this project based uh solely on the fact uh well not solely the roads are terrible but every traffic study says they're fine so we all know what that means uh the uh the city came to an agreement a long time ago and the city said you know we won't do this and then the city did not Implement that into our comprehensive plan so when the petitioner purchased the property they purchased the property under the assumption that they could do what they're suggesting they can do property owners have rights we have fought this we have lost and it's a fact and I cannot side with spending more of our taxpayers money to fight something that we have lost although I know it's it's not the right thing in the world of right and wrong you know we should have introduce this into our comprehensive plan a lesson for everyone we're redoing our comp plan right now so it's a good idea for everybody in the room to be a part of those kind of things so you know what to expect because our comp plan says he can build what he wants to build and it's in the city there's we have no no room so and if I may add that was way before our time so I don't want people to think that that mistake was on our watch it was on 2018 years ago so I mean I wasn't on the commission no one was here I just want I don't want people think we dropped the ball in the last year or two on this so is not to mislead the council this may not eliminate attorney's fees that you're so [Music] concerned I'm worried about taxpayers money going for something that the special magistrate has told us we are not going to win I am not an attorney I rely on those attorneys to give me advice and that's what the advice uh you know I can read the recommendation to you into the record if you'd like to you know like to hear Mr Mayor I mean I think we've had discussion and everything else there a motion on the floor I think we you call roll call yeah any other comments roll call commissioner rean yes commissioner Peterson yes commissioner Barry yes commissioner conell yes mayor bur yes all right move on to item seven informational reports there are none City attorney [Music] items yes sir Mr Mayor briefly um and maybe I'll give everybody a chance here um but as the commission knows we're sort of in the midst of the transaction with the parcel across from the airport the 10 10 acres or so uh so we're kind of in the middle of the due diligence government approval portion of that can we pause for a second yeah yeah and I'll I'll just hold on till everybody gets [Music] out all right so uh just as I was uh getting into so the city's under contract with that parcel across from the airport right now about 10 acres or so uh the buyer is in the midst of their government approval due process period with that uh they sent us a couple of documents that need to be signed with the city still being the underlying property owner uh for things permitting you know F dot drainage connections just some fairly mundane fairly routine uh items but I just wanted to bring that to the commission's attention that I brought this documents this evening for the mayor to sign uh does anybody have any questions about where we stand with that transaction or anything relating to that okay all right very good that's all I've got this evening uh thank you all thank you city manager Adam I have no matters for you this evening roll call commissioner Barry um nothing at this time commissioner canel no ma' commissioner rean couple things uh I want to give a huge thanks to uh the special events Department I went out to the blooms and Bruise over the weekend that was a great time downtown and then also uh Sergeant Shannon Walsh with the LPD and her team put on roll with Patrol last night at Skate World that was a fun time even though I had an accident but it's okay um lastly on April 6 is Jag which is the Junior Athletic games that the LPD puts on for all of our um elementary students here in leeburg so I encourage you to come out to the high school and watch that and then lastly um at the next meeting can we get a bike fest update where we're at yes thank you that'll be it for me thank you commission Peterson nothing tonight mayor Burnie nothing tonight motion to adjourn so second we're done