All right. Good evening. Welcome members of the public, my colleagues. The time is 6:30 p.m. I'm calling this special call meeting of the ML Town Council to order. Madame Clerk, please call the role. >> Good evening. Council member Fernandez,
>> present. Council member Cuadra Garcia, >> present. >> Council member Garcia, >> present. >> Council member Hzburg, >> present. >> Council member Sanchez, >> present. >> Vice Mayor Moretta,
>> Mayor Diegas, >> here. >> Mayor, you have quorum. >> Excellent. Thank you very much. All please rise uh for the invocation to be led by the vice mayor. >> Thank you, mayor. As we gather here today, we pray for your blessing. We pray for your guidance. We pray for the
safe voyage of those going on the Aremis 2 mission. And we pray that we always keep our ears open to the voice of the public and that we make decisions in the best interest of our town. Amen. >> Thank you. Please remain standing for the pledge of allegiance to be led by Councilman Fernandez.
>> I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Thank you. You may be seated. Members, we are now on the order of business. Um, I would propose that we move um in this order items 8 C, 8A, and
8B to after public comments and also at the request of the attorneys to add a attorney's report just before we uh reach the public hearing portion of tonight's agenda. Um, as the new item uh I guess uh right before ordinances on first reading before item seven.
>> So move second. >> It's been moved uh by the vice mayor, seconded by Councilman Fernandez. All those in favor say I. I. All oppose, no. >> The eyes have it. And the agenda is a is amended as stated. With that, madame clerk, please uh we're now in public
comments. Please go ahead and read uh the rules to the audience. >> Yes. Good evening. And just remember that as I always state, we will begin the meeting and public comments. Each speaker will be afforded three minutes to speak. All comments and questions
from the public shall be always directed to the mayor in a courageous tone and please no clapping, no applauding, no heckling or verbal outburst. I welcome as well the public attending remotely and I just want to remind everyone if
you are participating on remote public comments the only thing you need to do is just unmute your the microphone and please click on the reactions icon and select raise hand. it will allow you to speak and as well if what you would wish
is to call via phone the only thing you need to do is raise your hand by pressing number99 and you may call in with a lot of options that we provide of phones and just always remember to enter the ID welcome and if you're here in
council chambers again welcome just approach the podium state your name and address for the record and we will allow you to speak for three minutes. >> Any uh speakers in chamber that would like to go first. Now I got you. David Bennett, 15830
Northwest 83rd Place right here in sunny Miami Lakes. Good evening, council. Obviously, we're here because uh voting uh change in our strategic plan. Um couple of things I want to note. Zoning changes uh are legislative discretion.
That means you have discretion, which is why you have to vote on it. It isn't granted and guaranteed to any property owner. Property ownership. They have possession. They have use of the existing zoning and they transfer sale. That's what a the land owner has. Okay.
Now the question is if you were to refuse, would that be considered a taking? No, it would not. It would not be considered a taking because under these circumstances, the land is already zoned and is already um in in a situation where they can profit from it.
Now, what has concerned me is it's been several years since the um agreement about putting the senior center. Um, I have seen no good faith attempt to locate another sponsor. There was the one and then it's been multiple years, I
think six to nine, I'm not quite sure exactly how long they've been looking without a good faith effort to find a sponsor. You shouldn't just throw the strategic plan away. It should be there. the the issues that I'm concerned about,
okay, is that we have a parcel of land that was profered uh as a senior center in order to gain other considerations and ordinance so that the town the previous town councils would allow certain things to move forward in lie of
that profit land and now it's being taken away. Now ladies and gentlemen or I should say gentlemen. I don't have any ladies anymore. You are representatives of the people. You are not lawyers. You are representatives of the people.
And as such you need to represent the people in this. Failing to do that means you fail in your task as elected members of this council. Um there's really not much more I want to discuss now. I've kind of set it out. I want to listen to
what the arguments are because that determines what my next step will be. Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you very much. And I've been asked by the attorneys just to mention that in public comments that will not be considered for purposes of the application. So if you want your
comments to be included as part of the record on the public hearing, uh to wait for that item to come up or you can speak both times, whichever you prefer. So, I can be long-winded, I guess. No, I'm sorry. I apologize. I I attempt I will attempt not to be.
Um, good evening, Mr. Mayor, council members, Mr. Manager, um, town attorney. My name is Hilda Fernandez, and my address is withheld according to public records law. I'm here speaking on behalf of agenda item 7A and 7B relating to the requested resoning of parcels for the
redevelopment of housing, a wonderful thing and something we need. I will focus my comments, however, on on two items. I worked in government for 22 years at both the county and municipal levels. This also included time as the communications director for Miami Day
County. So I am incredibly familiar with the burden of having to provide public records. It's not really a burden. It's public records. People are entitled to see them. And I had to respond to that not just to citizens but to the media. Imagine that. When I was here last time, I spoke
specifically about the concern about transparency. It's very concerning for me that there was a public records request submitted by several citizens I did not of this community specifically for a document and executed copy of a restricted covenant. Now in the public records
world if you do do not have a document that is responsive to a public records then that is your answer. We do not have a document responsive to that. I think the rest of us could have figured out that that meant, oh my gosh, there is no executed restricted covenant. We would
have been able to figure that out. The fact that unfortunately that has not been communicated to those residents who took their time to request a public record is disappointing. Disappointing because what that does is create doubt about the transparency of the issue and
the process. doubt not just about whoever is doing or requesting whatever but about you the council the people here that represent us on this day. The second issue yes I am concerned about is something that was promised when the original um parcel was allocated and I'm
going to run out of time so I'm going to do it very fast and that has to do with the promise of a senior center. Now you know what lots of things have changed since that was promised. Number one there's been a change of a desire to not do that for many reasons economic reasons partnership whatever it is. Okay, that's a change. There's been a
change in that now they want to incorporate two other parcels in the project. Now do 541 or something like that units lower than the density been permitted. Okay, that is a change. But the biggest change is the fact that in this newly revised plan that now includes even more land than before, all
of a sudden that promise senior center has disappeared. Now I hear many reasons why that happened. It's not compatible to our new use. A community center isn't compatible. It doesn't have to be the senior center. We could have relocated the senior center Mary Collins and made that just another community center. The concept of profering to pay off what
would have been the value of that is not acceptable in my opinion. First of all, because that would mean either expanding an existing uh center which would reduce our park space. Oh, let's make Mary Collins bigger. Well, that means there's less land there or let's add a second center at Roberto Alonzo Park. Not acceptable. What would be acceptable is
that we hold people to the promises they're made because that is the only change that's happened. that someone is no longer keeping their promise and we expect you to act on our behalf to make sure that happens. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. Next speaker. >> Hi. >> Hi. I'm Rosario Navaru. I am the elderly
affair chair for Miami Leagues. I do their bingos. I do their parties. I help them out whenever they need anything. I don't understand how we or the Grahams whoever promised that we were going to have a shell building. We don't have it today. I would like to have one before I
die. We seen daddy. It was promised to her. She's not, you know, participating in a lot of things anymore. But if they promised us something and the money's there, we should do it. I mean, you should vote on it and you
should make the people that promise something fulfill their promise. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Any other speakers in chambers? Good evening, Mr. Mayor, uh, Vice Mayor, Mr. Manager, Mr. Attorney, Madame Clerk.
My name is Abel Fernandez, and I spent my career in public service, as you know, and uh, duty and word meant everything. Tonight, I'm looking at this council to see if those values still hold weight in
Miami Lakes. We aren't just debating a land use change. were debating the integrity of the promises made to this community. Let's look at the history. In 2017, a town council granted a change from
industrial use for a specific purpose to provide an age in place complex in a senior center. We were told that residents needed a place to grow old with dignity within their own town. That that was always their vision. Then in
2019, an extension was granted because it was stated that they liked a health care provider. And we heard of the famous covenant that wasn't recorded, wasn't signed. Maybe it was. Staff members say that they've seen it. Other people tell me that they
haven't. Public records say they don't have it. It is now 2026, nine years later. Nine years have passed. We have no age in place housing. We have no senior center. After nearly a decade of
waiting, the developer isn't here to fulfill that vision that they said was always part of their dream. They're here to bury it. They want to swap a community necessity for standard apartments. They've traded our seniors future for a
higher profit margin in my opinion. Now, we are being told we must submit to this because of the live local act. We're told it's a sword of damicles that if we don't give them these apartments, they'll just build a thousand units
instead because they can because Tallahassee granted it the same politicians that you all have voted for in Tallahassee. And you know who they are. I when I see you in pictures with them, I'll remind you of it. Since when the Since when did the town of Miami
Lake start legislating out of fear? If we fold every time a developer threatens us with live local, we have effectively s surrendered our zoning authority. A senior center and an age and place complex were sold to us as a low impact, high benefits project.
Standard apartments, however, mean more cars on our already failing roads and more pressures on our school. We cannot allow density by intimidation to become the new standard of for how we grow. Council members, you were elected
to represent the people sitting in these chairs, not the Graham companies. Nine years of extensions is enough. A promise made should be a promise kept unless it never was. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Any other speakers
in chambers? Okay, seeing none in chambers. Madame clerk, is are there any online participants? >> Yes, there are. And I'm going to start calling them as I see them in my screen. Amy, if you want to participate in public comments, please just unmute
yourself and state your full name and address for the record. Amy, welcome. Okay, I'm going to call L Paris number four. Welcome. We see you.
If you wish to speak there, yes. No, we cannot hear you yet. We do see you. No, unmute yourself so that we can hear you. L Paris number four.
Hello. We see Hello. >> Can we try maybe one of the other speakers to see if we're having the same issue just to ascertain whether it's an issue with her computer or with our system? Let me see. The next speaker
that I see in screen is Miss Susana Era. Welcome Miss Era. If you would like to speak, just unmute yourself. I think she just did. Welcome. >> Yes. Welcome. We hear you. >> You may proceed. >> You Yes, you may proceed, Miss Era. We
hear you. >> Hi. I'm sorry I couldn't be there in person. I'm traveling as we speak sitting at the airport, but I thought it was important to come before the council. First of all, thanks for all the efforts that you guys put put forth and representing the residents of
Miami Lakes. We do appreciate that. And the second thing I want to discuss is I'm gonna when you I did I I try to perform my due diligence by requesting information. And I like to speak educatedly about
whatever subject we're bringing to the table. I found that I was roadblock at at circumstances and it did give me a nice warm feeling. But with what I received, I try to to to summarize
the the progression of the folios in in that are sitting before you. The one thing that I think it's a travesty is to see how everything that was promised is now completely off the table with
this new proposal. And it's such a disregard in such a disrespectful um statement, a loud statement from the Graham Company to the residents of Miami Lakes. And I cannot understand why a a
town council would um even contemplate this, but you know, uh I I hope that you guys put that into merit because it's just I I I can't speak of how disappointing that is. That being said,
I ask that you vote no on 7A and 7B and push back. Push back because you can. push back because you have a tool. Push back because we cannot fear of an if. We will defend the if. But if you look
at the the the spreadsheet that I sent, so Graham want more than double what they originally had with a negative to the residents of Miami Lakes. Should never work that way. Negotiation should never go that way. If they want
something from us, then they have to give us something. And don't even touch money because I can't stand the money. I want the I want the principle and the promise to the town residents, especially those that are going into their senior years that were looking
forward to having a place to stay and aging place. Thank you. I have to go catch my plane. Uh God bless all of you. Happy Easter. And uh may may God lead you into the right decision. I'm going
to pray for that and for all of you. >> Thank you very much. Happy Easter and we'll see you when you get back. Madam clerk, next speaker. >> Yes, I I still see the lady by the name L. Paris number four. Um I don't see your hand raised, but if you wish to
speak, we welcome your comments. We're here to listen. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes, we can hear you now. Welcome. >> Oh, thank you so much. Hi uh Lisa Perez from 8365 Mentius Terrace. Um you know as a lifelong resident of Miami Lakes, I
have deep concern and frustration regarding the ongoing trend of approving new development without adequate consideration for the well-being of the residents. Many of us chose Miami Lakes as a permanent home and plan to retire here. Unfortunately, it feels as though the
voices of the residents are being drowned out by developers and land owners with profit as their primary motivation. While growth can be positive, the pace and manner in which development is occurring at Miami Lakes is rapidly eroding our quality of life. The Graham
companies who own much of Miami Lakes are once again seeking to build another residential project, which is one too many. Currently, we are already facing significant congestion, especially Mamlex Drive, the solemn exit for the west side of our of our town. All
traffic is funneled on to one road, creating daily bottlenecks. Unlike neighboring cities such as Pemrook Pines, which prioritize expanding road in infrastructure before approving new housing, Miami Lakes has not kept up with the infra infrastructure needs. To
make matters worse, additional projects planned for the east side will only compound these problems. Before any further development is considered, we demand a comprehensive and transparent traffic impact analysis. Residents deserve to see clear data on how much
additional traffic will be generated and what specific measures, if any, the Graham Company's plan to implement to address potential traffic jams. In addition, the unique road layout near the proposed development, including
sharp curves and dangerous blind spots, raises serious safety concerns for all these additional residents are that are going to be built. Have the developers considered the increased risk of accidents and potential lawsuits due to
poor visibility and road design? What plans exist to improve road safety, add new exits, or otherwise prepare the area for more vehicles? It is vital that the town's leadership remembers its responsibility to current and future generations of Miami Lakes
residents. The choices you make today will define the character and livability of our community for years to come. We are tired of decisions that prioritize short-term financial gain from developers at the expense of the natural beauty, safety, and well-being of those
who live here. Enough is enough. The council mayor must do their job and protect the quality of life for all Miami Lakes residents. The development in question was initially approved for a 55 and over community, but changes now appear to be aimed solely at increasing
profit with residents left to bear the burden. We insist on a full traffic impact report and demand a pause on further approvals until the meaningful solutions are put forward. What justification can the zoning committee possibly have for
more developing such a congested area? Our community deserve real solutions, not just construction. Council and mayor, please do your jobs. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Next speaker,
>> Miss Amy, I still see you online. If you can if you can unmute yourself and welcome to the meeting, Miss Amy. And this is >> Can you hear me? >> Yes, we do. Welcome to the meeting. >> Thank you. I just wanted to clarify one point.
>> And I'm so sorry. Please just name your state and state your name and address for the record. >> Amy Libson Morales, 6944 Bottle Brush Drive. >> We good? >> Yes. Thank you. Yes. Okay,
>> we hear you. >> So, I just wanted to clarify one point. The requirement of an assisted living facility wasn't optional. It was a condition of the approval of the 2019 resolution. The covenant was simply the mechanism to formalize and enforce that
condition. If the covenant was never recorded, whether that responsibility fell on the applicant or the town, it doesn't under erase the underlying condition. If anything, it means that the conditions of that approval were never fully satisfied. not that they no
longer apply. I would just ask that the original intent of the council to ensure this community receives an assisted living use or appropriate alternative be honored tonight because this is what you were elected to do to represent us to
represent the town not Graham special interest not growing this place like Dural. We don't want that. We keep saying we don't want that. So let's keep it small and let's keep our promises. That's what I'm asking. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you for listening to me and I hope you guys do the right thing. >> Thank you very much. Are there any of the speakers, Madam Clerk? >> Yes, I do see County Commissioner Miss Rael. >> That is for the next item. >> I know it is, but we want to recognize
and acknowledge that I see you. Um, so welcome. If you want to speak later, right? Not now. Okay, perfect. So I do have mayor and council members to acknowledge the written public comments we've received. >> Okay.
>> Written public comments received that as I always do state for the record their names. I have one received and I'm going to and I call them I state the names not in alphabetical order but as my office received them. So the first one received
was a few weeks ago from Miss Georgina Luces and the subject matter or the subject line is that she opposes the reszoning and the residential in opposition to both items. Okay.
Second written public comments is from Miss Esther Coen as well in opposition of items 7A and 7B. Miss Hope Reos, she sent a public
comment that she is in a in opposition of the new business item C, autism awareness month. and she submitted a lot of um emails from other residents, but I believe that
was her only public written public comment. A written public comment from Miss Susan Era in opposition to item 7A and 7B of tonight's agenda.
Written public comments from Miss Diana Z Gonzalez in opposition to 7A and 7B both ordinances. Written public comments from Miss Bony Cron
basically stating that she does not want the two proposals by the Grams to go forward. Written public comments for Miss Maria Bisceno. entitle
opposition to items 7A and 7B. Written public comment from Mr. Eduardo Bettin Court in opposition to items 7A and 7B. And the last one received was from Miss
Marimar Lopez in opposition to items 7A and 7B. Let the record reflect. Thank you, Madam Clerk. With that, public comments is now closed, and we are moving on to item 8C, Autism Awareness Month. Uh, but before I go
ahead and introduce my item, I'd like to welcome County Commissioner Raquel Regalado, uh, who is joining us via Zoom and, uh, whose chief of staff reached out to me specifically on this item. Uh, County Commissioner Regalo, welcome. And, uh, the floor is yours, ma'am.
Oh, I believe you're muted. I apologize. >> Yes, you. There we go. >> There we go. Thank you so much. It's such a pleasure to be with you all. Sorry I couldn't be there in person. I'm actually on my way to another city. Uh and thank you for bringing this item. As many of you know, I am the proud parent
of two neurode divergent adults. U I started at the school board in 2010 when my daughter Isabella was diagnosed with autism and soon after my son was also diagnosed. uh and I've really worked hard over the last decade um to talk
about inclusion. So even though when we talk about autism now acceptance instead of awareness um tomorrow and the rest of the month we focus on that neurodeiversity is actually a much broader spectrum and one of the things that I like to explain to folks is that
autism and downs and ADHD dyslexia epilepsy these are all u neurodeiversity and it's a neuro it's a neurological delay so they they can be behind or they can never get to that point. But
on the other side of neurodeiversity is Alzheimer's and dementia. And one of the first um key kind of triggers for people who are diagnosed with those neurological uh declines is sensory issues, which is
why I've spent so much time on sensory friendly events. Really talking about how we can all be a little bit more thoughtful when we provide services to neurode divergent adults, whether they be children, adults, or the elderly that suffers from dementia or Alzheimer's. Um
so um tomorrow I'm launching my my neuroincclusion toolkit with all the work that we've done at the county. We've done uh police training, we've done fire training, we've done social stories at our libraries. Uh we've even done uh neuroinclusive uh service days
for IDs uh and so that they can have better access to county departments uh as adults and with their caregivers. And I'm asking all the cities uh to please consider flying uh the autism acceptance flag. Uh we have lots of cities that are
doing this. Uh and I would love to have Miami Lakes uh do it also and participate with us as we have a statewide conversation about what Miami Dade and its different municipalities are doing in terms of
neurodeiversity and focusing on inclusion. This doesn't lower the bar in any way. Um, these are just individuals that think differently. Um, I can tell you that while when my children were first diagnosed, I would have given anything for them to be neurotypical,
now that they are 22 and almost 21 respectively, I wouldn't change a thing. They are wonderful human beings. They have taught me so much. They just see the world in a different way. Uh, and this is just about ADA accommodations. If our children were diabetic, we would
easily accommodate them. if they had a physical disability, we would easily accommodate them. So, what I'm asking folks to consider is intellectual disabilities and how we should, you know, move forward as a community to
accommodate them because uh one out of five um adults in the state of Florida is neurode divergent. They're already here and government should not turn their back on them and on their families. So, I know that you all have been very active, you know, in terms of
providing um services and spaces uh for your autistic uh families. So, I want to thank you for that. And I'm here for any questions you may have about the toolkit or the roll out or the flag or just in general uh on how I can be a
>> Thank you, Commissioner. Um colleagues, do you have any questions for the commissioner >> through the chair? Uh, Councilman Ray Garcia, >> thank you so much for uh fighting for for a neurode divergent population. I also have a son who has autism as well and certain things are just the right thing to do and I this is the right
thing to do. Um, is there anything we can do as a town to help you and I know the mayor is is really pushing and and and always supports uh our our town's neurode divergent population. Anything we can do as a town to help you with this neurode divergent toolkit, get it out there? what what do we need to do as a town to help you get that message
across? >> Thank you so much. So, we're going to send it out to you tomorrow and it's actually broken down into, you know, public safety and training. We did our training with MNSU card. I didn't create any new systems. I just used existing
systems and brought in the people who were the experts in this field. So, training is really important. Uh we also did uh one very easy one. I'm like looking for it here. Uh if you haven't seen it, we did um our when we finished
our police training, we also did our decal which is available countywide. So if parents, you know, caregivers are interested, you can register. Our sheriff has actually expanded this decal so that when we first launched it um two
years ago, u you would register it and it would go to your home. This year, the sheriff expanded it so that it's also for your car registration. It's completely voluntary, but all of our uh police officers at the county level have been trained uh to deal with
neurodeiverse adults and for deescalation. So, we want to prevent baker acts. We want to prevent unnecessary arrests and this is an important first step. The same thing with our firefighters. They've all been trained. So, if they go to your door and they see this or they pull up the address and they see that a neurode
divergent person lives there, they can have all the information from the caregiver. So if your child is non-verbal, you can also give deescalation tips. It really is a life-changing resource. The same thing with our libraries and the social stories. Tomorrow we're going to be at
the airport. We have MIA air. We also have the sunflower lanyard uh which we give out at our events and we trained our transit folks. Uh this gives everyone kind of the heads up in a very respectful way that this person might need a little extra help. Uh, and then
I'm happy to come and help you with whatever you guys are doing. Whether you want to do adult services, whether you want to do more intervention, the toolkit breaks down all the different things and literally just like pick where you want to start and and let me
know and we can work on it together. >> Thank you so much. >> Any other colleagues of mine? Uh, Vice Mayor Moretta. >> Thank you, Mayor. So, I'm going to start this off by saying I I'm a big supporter
of our special needs community and uh autism awareness in general. Um, one of the committee appointees that I'm most proudest of happens to be Miss Vivian Levy who is the chair of the special needs advisory board and she's done a phenomenal job with that. Um, I I still
have the same concern that I raised when Councilman Sanchez raised this item originally. uh which is when when we fly a flag um and and I I'm reading through the NB
the NBI itself and I'm seeing that our attorney has reviewed it and has determined that uh the state's designation of autism awareness month constitutes a formal state recognition. I'm I'm just a little uneasy. Um only
because it it's we do a great job of representing everyone with the American flag, the state of Florida flag, and the and the town flag. Um I think that that covers
every person um that is subject to our jurisdiction. and going beyond that only creates a a pathway towards future expansion. >> I I don't mean to cut you off, but I haven't yet made the motion yet. So, we're not in discussion. We're we're in
question, right? Questions to the county commissioner at this point. >> Sure. Uh I mean, no real questions for the commissioner. I I do appreciate that to be crystal clear with her. I appreciate the item and I do support uh some of the other items that she mentioned. I I I'm willing to include
resources on our website. I'm willing to include uh material out in the table outside where we have other pamphlets and other uh literature. I'm willing to do a ton of the things that she's proposing. The flag I I think carries with it uh a bit of a different
consideration the rest of the item. >> Thank you. But questions for the county commissioner. Are there any questions on uh or or I'll go ahead and present the item. Okay. Seeing no you had a question. If you do you want me to explain like the origin of the flag? I'm
happy to do that if that'll help. >> Uh yeah. Uh perhaps that that that would go uh a long way to explain, you know, how it's not viewpoint discrimination or endorsing a viewpoint. >> Yes. Yes, definitely. Um so this flag was actually created in Corey Gables by
Crystal Academy. Um and a lovely autistic adult called Haley Moss. Haley Moss uh was uh diagnosed with autism at a very young age and she ended up becoming an attorney and is now a a self- advocate and one of the reasons
that we highlight her is because we all aspire that our children will have the opportunity to become self- advocates and we try to transition from parent advocacy um to adult advocacy so that they could those that can can do it for themselves. So this was actually a flag
that was made by them. Uh and so it was the students at Crystal Academy and Haley and there was at a moment where we were transitioning from the puzzle piece. Uh we are not fans of the puzzle piece. Um our children are not broken. They don't nothing is missing. There's
no puzzle. There's no mystery. Um we did not pick the parents did not pick the infinity sign. Um autistic children have picked the infinity sign. Um, and the idea is that there's an infinite ways that people can think and that they can
function and that we should embrace that. Um, the handprints are of actual autistic children. Uh, and we've replicated it as it was created for Cory Gables. We started several years ago in Cory Gables. Last year, uh, we did it at
Palmetto Bay and, uh, this year we asked all of our municipalities uh, to join us. Um what's the final number on how many municipalities? >> 27. >> So far we have 27 municipalities that are going to be flying it um tomorrow.
We also have the Beacon Council, the airport, Miami Dade County, uh the sheriff's office, the tax collector's office. So um it's just a moment so that people can see that this is something that's important to us. For a very long
time, autism has been a dirty word. When my daughter was first diagnosed, um people wouldn't even say that their children were in the spectrum. Unfortunately, some parents still fear that stigma. And this is one of the many attempts that we um are uh taking to
take away the stigma so that people feel comfortable talking about autism and talking about neurodeiversity. Uh it's nothing to be ashamed of. I understand the the concerns, but um it it has been very wellreceived and and I don't think
it it opens the door as your attorney stated, it has been uh vetted by the state and it's not included in any of the of the DEI issues. For example, even the the bill that passed in Tallahassee um this year um did not include
disabilities and anything to do uh with autism. Um those were other matters. So, this was not in there. >> Thank you, Commissioner. And uh with that, I'll go ahead and present the item. Obviously, I agree with the point the vice mayor made, and I think none of
us would disagree on this point that once we get that autism awareness kit that we're likely going to be supportive of any efforts to go ahead and implement it to the best that we can. Now, I see some of my friends in the audience that were laughing a little bit, and I know why, you know, and I'm sure some people
think that I'm, you know, going to twist myself into a pretzel regarding past uh flag controversies is what we'll say. Um, what? Oh, uh, well, I I don't Okay, so something else. Okay, just wanted to make sure. But I just want to be very
clear where I view the prior uh matters that have come before us related to flag controversies and why I view this as being different. All right. Number one, as the commissioner mentioned, this is about raising awareness. It's not making a statement. If you look at the past controversies that we've had on this,
it's been about avoiding uh you it's not about avoiding raising awareness about issues, which we do all the time, right? It's rather about avoiding endorsing a political viewpoint. This has nothing to do with that, right? That is the door that we do not want to open up. And that is the door that I have actively tried
to avoid. And you can go back to all my statements, you know, from 2020 as well when we had the first uh flight controversy when I was on the council. And I don't believe that by us uh endorsing uh having this sign, this uh flag to go ahead and raise awareness throughout the month of autism
awareness, right, or designated for autism awareness. I don't believe that we are crossing that boundary or opening up that door, right? Um and and so that is where I draw a legal distinction with prior controversies and why um I view this as being different than my past opposition to opening up that door.
Again, this is not making a political statement. It is we're raising awareness and acceptance, right? Um additionally, uh as the commissioner also mentioned in Tallahassee, obviously they recently had a bill concerning which flags were would be appropriate on a statewide basis.
They specifically exempted these for those two reasons. That is why um I wanted to go ahead and present the item. Obviously, I was out sick at the last uh at the March meeting. Uh so I was not able to participate in that deliberation. But at this time, just to get us in the proper posture, I would go
ahead and move that we uh for the month of of April go ahead and fly the autism uh awareness flag that has been uh acceptance flag, pardon me, that has been um you know, requested of us. And again, those are the legal points as why I view it as being different.
>> Thank you. It's been seconded by Councilman Garcia for discussion. Therefore, we will start with him. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, and again, all the points that you you just made. Uh, we're just making people aware. I think it's uh it's just the right thing to do. Um, and I'm all for it. And I think anything
we can do to help, you know, continue the awareness. We're very lucky that our town has uh so many advocates for for this and our and our committees are doing an amazing job for years. And so, we've been a leader in this, right? And I think this is just the next step to make sure that awareness is out there
and thank you commissioner for for getting so many municipalities to to go along with this. It's just the right thing to do. So I'm 100% for it. >> Thank you. We'll go to Councilman uh Council Member Hersburg. But one other thing I wanted to say is that another reason why I felt comfortable bringing
this is because of the rich connection between the town and the special the broader special needs uh uh community. Whether it's been past proclamations that we presented to Gigi's Playhouse, right, and others that um that raise acceptance for kids with Down Syndrome,
or whether it's the mayor's gala that constantly funds our special needs advisory board that provides programming and and other enrichment support services to the broader neuro divergent community. Um there is also a historic connection with that particular
community that exists within the town. We started a special needs advisory board before it was cool where I we before it was even cool to talk about these issues. Miami Lakes was leading the way. So, you know, and by the way, commissioner, I want to extend to the next mayor's gala an invite to you. Again, all the proceeds that we raise at
that gala goes to our special needs advisory board and it is their only source of funding. We do not fund them as part of our regular general fund. Um, so any support you can help us when we get to that later this fall would be great. Um, but with that, Councilman Hersburg, I know you wanted to speak.
Thank you, mayor, and and thank you for the commissioner for bringing, you know, the awareness and and bringing this to forefront. And I know this is important, especially Councilman Sanchez, Councilman Garcia. Um, you know, let me share something about myself. I'm dyslexic.
From third to sixth grade, I went to school for children's learning disabilities down in Kendall. So, I understand awareness is important. The irony is, you know, last week, was it last week, uh, President Trump said people with dyslexia are low IQ and are
disqualified to lead. So, I get it. Okay. I get the need to spread awareness. We do that here. We don't need a flag to prove it. And I don't believe that we should end a 25 year history of being
neut neutral on our flag pole. It's a great cause. I get it. But there's a lot of other great great causes out there. Some people may agree with some we don't. Our our job as as you know elected officials is to be proactive and support those causes, but
it's not the town's job. Uh and we've been really good in staying away from that. And the other problem I have is that this bill that we're using to provide us cover is a bill we don't like. At least I hate it. Vice Mayor Maria talked about it. He hates it. So
now a bill that we discussed how much we dislike that bill and this we have to look at our resolutions and proclamations now to determine if it masses if it passes the bill. I think that's insane and I hope that this bill gets struck down one day.
Uh but I'm not going to then allow this bill to be covered to allow us to then start flying different flags when we never done it. We have we are a model committee in my opinion on inclusion for special needs. Our special needs advisory board is phenomenal.
I I I am a supporter of the cause. I we should spread awareness. Uh it is just a matter of changing 25 years of history. My understanding is that we've never done it before and I just don't I'm just not
okay with doing it because of what the flag represents. Not that the what a flag pole represents and and the issue of potentially opening it up, but now we're protected by a state law that not all not all causes get the opportunity
because as Tallahassee says we can't do one cause over the other, which again I think if municipalities want to have flags, that's fine. That's their prerogative. We just never done it. So I just don't believe we should should make the change. We should do anything else. Get the get the awareness kit. have the
the commissioner meet with our special needs advisory boards and and get awareness out. I just it's just the flag issue, right? And it's just something that I I just haven't changed the position. We discussed this in our first not the not the town's flag, but we've been discussing flags. Our very first
meeting as a as a new council was we had a flag issue. It's just something I I believe in contact neutral regulation as much as possible. I just don't believe it's the town's responsibility as a government, but it is our responsibility, right, to promote those
causes. So, I'll I'll be a no on the flag. Anything else? I'll be a yes, but on the flag, I just can't do it. >> Thank you, Councilman Hsburg. Uh, >> Mr. Mayor, >> Council Guaria, and then Vice Mayor Mora, >> can we open the floor for a resident to
make one more comment? Is it possible? A well, are you going to make a motion? >> I'd like to make the motion. >> Okay. Is there a >> to have the the floor open for a resident to make a comment they would like to make? >> Well, there's a motion to reopen public comment which will be open to everybody.
It's been seconded by >> discussion. >> Okay. There there but it's been seconded by Councilman Ray Garcia for the clerk's benefit and uh a discussion on the motion. Uh Vice Mayor Mora >> through the chair to the council. I'm
assuming that this is probably a message he received from a resident who's here. Uh we asked whether it's related to this issue or the the development issues or something like that because if it is not
related to the autism issue I would rather table it until we finish this discussion not bring it up in the middle of our discussion. >> Mr. Mr. Vice Mayor it is related to this uh item. >> Okay. In that case I'll support it. >> Okay. Any other discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. I.
>> All oppose, no. The eyes have it. Public comment is now open. >> Thank you, uh, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Councilman Garcia, for sponsoring speak. Look at your, uh, codes here in the town, specifically uh, division 9.4.
you speak uh about what goes on the flag and it's and the exceptions. This is not an exception and uh Commissioner Regalado is also uh a good friend and I appreciate what she's doing. My point is
here is we heard comments that when the Grahams had the pride flag on their street, we heard tons of people screaming, "Oh, we're turning this into a gay town, and if such and such a politician gets elected, they're going
to have gay pride flags all over the place." Well, in this case, how are you going to fly the autism flag? What about if the autistic person is gay? Do you fly a gay do you fly a pride autism flag? I'm I
support all flags, but the point is you have your own code. On top of that, the the state has made the word DEI a negative one. And and I in the end is inclusivity and showing compassion and
accepting individuals that have on the spectrum neurode divergent and so forth on either end. Alzheimer's and was spoken of is something that we should be a kindler a kind kinder and gentler community. So
yes, I would support the flag, but separating one flag over another, Mr. Mayor, is wrong and this is nothing against Commissioner Regalo. And again, your own code 9.4 specifically says what
you can fly on the flag here in the town. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. All right. Um, well, you you can address it after we close public comment again. Okay. Please, please, please proceed.
>> I'm sorry. Uh, David Bennett, once again, selective DEI. Um, you're opening yourself up to a major lawsuit with the ACLU. You know, it's either all or none. Um, autism. Yes. I have countless patients
that I have treated that have had autism and we have to make special considerations and we do that because they're human beings. But to fly one flag and not another flag just isn't what America is about. Now, I understand the political situation that we're in
today. I get it. But you have to make that decision. You can't exclude one and have another. And with all demi due uh respect to the commissioner, I I I applaud her, too. We all do. We're not saying anything's wrong with what she's doing is commendable. But if you're
going to go ahead, we can have those flags flown everywhere around the city, but not on the not on the town's flag pole. I will take one, put it right in front of my house. I will put one on my car. I will be happy to do all that. I'd be proud to, but you can't make that decision
for the town. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next speaker, >> I just uh Hilda Fernandez, for the record, um Adders exempt under state law. I have to say thank you. I'm I'm so excited we're having a conversation about DEI because guess what? That is
exactly what we're talking about, the I in DEI, diversity, exclusion, and in and inclusion rather. Um and that I have to say thank you. Thank you because months ago I was sitting at home watching this meeting and someone came up here and
thanked you thanked you all for getting rid of DEI in our community. The same board that appoints people to a special needs committee has a veterans committee has an elderly committee because this town, thank heavens, understands that inclusion includes the elderly, includes
the veterans, includes people who are neurody divergent. So, we're having a great conversation here about DEI, and I have to thank you for acknowledging that DEI is not a four-letter word, that it includes our parents, our children, our
whoever it is that has a unique need in this community. And you are recognizing that when you continue to appoint people to those committees that ensure every resident of Miami Lakes is represented. I love Commissioner Regalado. What she's doing. I know there's this controversy about the flag. I just want to say take
this moment while you're talking about something about this issue to thank you for recognizing that DEI is not a four-letter word. >> Thank you. Next speaker. >> Good evening, Mayor Bel Baldin. Um I just want to say that it's appalling
that this conversation is taking place. The commissioner explained very specifically how this particular flag does not uh belong in any of the conversations you've had including as the DEI statements that were just made. This is different and 23 cities how different
are we and how special from 23 other city that have done so. So I'm just going to say that I am appalled at this conversation that this will not be something that the town would do when reatter is doing and we all recognize the needs of this particular sector in our community. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Any other speakers >> through the mayor? >> No, we're in public comments. So, with that, public comments now closed. With that, Mr. Attorney, I believe, or deputy attorney, I believe you wanted to come up here and address something and then
we'll go back to the council discussion. >> Not really. I just land this plain. >> Chapter 9 doesn't exist in our code. We don't have a chapter 9. >> You said nine something. >> We don't have a >> Well, regard gentlemen. Gentlemen, >> I I'll sidebar. >> Yeah, please. So, regardless, I do want
to note that regardless of what the code says, obviously by our action as a body, that is a waiver of that code. So, that's the easiest way to to explain that one. Number two, what I want to point out in in response to Mr. Fernandez and and I'll I'll reiterate it later is that if we have a gay
individual who is also on the spectrum, the reality is that they're covered by this flag that they're proposing. Right? Just like the American flag covers all Americans regardless of abilities, regardless of of you know orientation etc etc. This flag would also cover all of them as well or you know uh that
population and that subop. So um you know again I to me the problem that we have seen in in the debate around DEI and everything is how DEI in some way in many ways has been used as a political weapon. Right? That's where I think the the controversy comes from on both
sides. Right? So I think this is why at the beginning I wanted to specify that this is my view is different. It's about raising awareness right it's not about making a statement right a statement in a political statement to be more precise right um and but again it's not just
that it's covered by the state statute right it's that that that was just the icing or the cherry on top of the cake right but for me it was about the fact that this is not just like we've lit up town hall blue for for these things to me They're they're basically equivalent
and this this flag in particular is different. That's just my view. But with that, okay, Councilman Quadro Garcia, you're recognized to finish your remarks, but let's land this plane soon because we have a lot of work ahead still. >> I was going to say that uh basically I just wanted to hear what the attorney uh
states about this about this issue. I wanted to ask him. >> Mr. Korea, please approach the podium. So the question is um what what do you what does the law say or how is how do
you feel about this issue that they're bringing up about the about uh you know flying the flag the the autism flag I I don't feel one way or the other >> from a legal perspective >> from a legal perspective from a legal
perspective respond to correct but from legal perspective. I know that's correct. >> Um I used to have actually a law professor says lawyers really not we don't care what you feel. It's what is the law, >> right? Um that's correct. There's nothing I can find in our in our code. There may have been a resolution maybe passed at some point or something, but there's nothing in our code really that
restricts what you can fly as far as and any flag pole. Um it is really a policy decision for you to make uh to decide how you want to treat this particular matter. Uh there is a state statute. what's going to happen with that state
statute as uh Councilman Herszburg said it is it may I'm not going to give my opinion on it right now there's a state statute on point uh that states what flags are are permissible or not uh this seems to fall within what that state statute says um
so if you decide to pass it I'm perfectly believe that the resolution that's before you uh meets legal muster >> so the conclusion is that your opinion is that the state statute authorizes a flight of this nature >> it allows it yes >> thank Okay. Uh, anything else? Okay. Vice Mayor Moretta and then Councilman
JC Fernandez. >> Thank you, Mayor. Once again, just to be very clear, I'm a big supporter of the special needs community and uh those with autism. Um, matter of fact, I think I'm the only one on the council that has
a flag pole outside their their house. I'm happy. You have a flag pole, >> gentlemen. Let's move. He does not have a flag pole. That is a politician's lie. Uh, no, the the I'm talking about the
big flat flag pole. Um, in any case, I'm happy to uh uh fly the autism flag at my house, but those are two very different things. Uh to piggy back off of what Councilman Hersburg said, um
number one, my my position on this is actually has very little to do with Senate Bill 1134. It's not law. I don't care what it has to say. Uh it it's what has been the long-standing position of the town of there are three flags that go out there, the American, the state,
and the town. None others. Now, if you told me that what's under consideration, because let me know if I should just stop where I'm at and vote in favor of this. If what we're talking about is like what we do with the Florida Panthers flag at the window, that is a very different story and I'm totally
okay with that. But those three flag poles are official government flags and I don't think that they should be sharing the space with anything else. Uh it's that simple. It has nothing to do with 1134, which I do frankly think is
atrocious. Um, I think that it's a uh stretch of the term DEI. Um, and again, our town, as as Councilman Hsburg pointed out, does a lot already for uh
the special needs community. Just next Friday, we have art without limits. If you step out into our hallway right now, you're going to see a bunch of very nice, brightly painted paintings and artworks in our hallway. Those are all painted by people with special needs.
Again, we have no problem with that. Sharing space on the flag pole is where I start developing a problem. Um, I when when this item came up, uh, when Councilman Sanchez brought it up, I did recommend lighting the the exterior of
town hall, the the lightish blue color that is, uh, customary for autism awareness and giving like like Councilman Hersburg said, everything except that one thing. And I don't understand why it's so
intolerant of us to accept everything except one thing. That's my two cents. >> Thank you, Councilman Fernandez. >> Thank you, Mayor. So, I I'm struggling with this for sure. I came in thinking no. I I was almost convinced yes. But
here here's what I'm thinking. I think the importance of of our the American flag, the state flag, and and the flag of our town, I think almost will be diminished if if we allow for other flags. Um, I also I I want for
the record I think your son is amazing and and and so is Councilman Garcia. This isn't a slide. I think we can do everything and it doesn't mean that we're that we don't support all of the neodyivergence, but I think that we are
aren't going to be true to what we've stood for over the last 25 years if we if we change things. So, I'm going to be no. Well, um, again, I can count votes. And it seems as if there's been a a proper amendment that would get us where we need to be. And and I think, uh, what
I'm going to go go ahead is move, uh, Vice Mayor Moreda's, uh, uh, suggested change, which is to just do what the Panthers flag have in the lobby. I think that still accomplishes the goal that the commissioner uh, had and others. And we do get a lot of uh, a lot of foot
traffic there in the lobby. So, it's going to and it being by the glass, the cars are still going to see it and I think it accomplishes the visibility goal that myself and the commissioner had. So, it's been moved, seconded. Any discussion on the amendment? >> Just really quick, uh, Councilman >> Garcia, >> sometimes
it I'm going to use vernacular for my kids. It's not that deep, guys. It's not that deep. It's the right thing to do. We're not advocating for anything. It's it's more education. And I mean guys, we're overthinking this to the point that I guess we're, you know, we're wrong, but the other 27 or
municipalities and other are right. And I mean, are are, you know, I don't know. I just think it's not that deep. This is not something I understand what you're saying. We can debate this over and over and over again, but again, we're just advocating, you know, for helping
education wise. The, you know, this this uh thing that we always do, we're very good at it. It's not that deep. I ask my colleagues really if you're on the fence, trust me, this is not going to cause any stress for you uh with with residents. Some of them are going to say
I disagree, some agree, but tomorrow is going to be another day. Uh and they're not even going to bring it up again. So, I would consider I would ask my my my colleagues to reconsider this guys. It's not that deep. Let's just say yes and move on. >> A brief comment on the amendment. just
to say no, I don't think any of the people who have voiced opposition or support for this uh amended version believe that we're going to have heartburn or issues coming out of flying the autism awareness flag. It's about what happens
after. It's about the other applicants that come because I'm sorry, but I don't buy the we're we're just raising awareness, not making a political statement. That is not a real distinction in my eyes. There's no difference between I'm raising awareness
for autism awareness and I am raising awareness for the fact that we just opened up a church of Satan down the road and that we want to and so for that purpose we want to fly the the the Satan flag because we both know or we all know that has happened in this town in the
past. And so we have a history of issues with with flags. Why mess it up? as as uh Hzburg said, we could fly the flag because there it's our decision as a personal choice and and it's not there
with the government flags. That's it. >> Wonderful. And reasonable minds can disagree and I know and I just want to know you did gloss over one of my other points, but I'm not going to get there with that. Madam clerk, please call the role on the amendment. >> The amendment to display the autism flag in the lobby like we do with the Florida
Panthers flag. Council member Cuadra Garcia, >> that is a no. >> Council member Fernandez, >> yes. >> Council member Hsburg, >> no. >> Council member Garcia, >> no.
>> Council member Sanchez, >> yes. >> Coun, Vice Mayor Mora, >> yes. >> Mayor Diegas, >> yes. >> The mot the amended motion passes. >> Excellent. Back on the the main motion as amended. Councilman Sanchz, we're we're taking a vote
>> with that. Madam, any further discussion on the on on this? Seeing none, ma madam clerk, please call the role on the main motion. >> So, the main motion as amended. Council member Garcia, >> yes. >> Council member Sanchez, >> yes. >> Council member Hzburg,
>> no. >> Council member Guadra Garcia, >> no. >> Council member Fernandez, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Moretta, >> yes. >> Mayor Diegas, >> yes. The motion, the main motion as amended, passes. >> Thank you. And I want to specifically
thank uh Commissioner Regalado again for your time and for uh listening to our discussion. And uh Would you like to say anything else before you go? >> Um thank you for having this conversation. I'm always here as a resource. You'll be getting the toolkit tomorrow. I hope to meet with you all
individually. you have a wonderful special needs committee and I would love for you all to consider uh doing even more with the rest of us. So, it's always a pleasure. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner. We hope to see you at the mayor's gala coming this fall. Thank you. >> I'll be there.
>> Thank you. >> All righty, council. We are now on item 8A, changes to the recording of covenants. I'll make this quick. So this is not uh initially when there was some confusion as well on our part as to you know the recordation of the covenant then whether it was executed or not that
that's what prompted me to bring this but it wasn't just that right you may be familiar with our discussions on what we term colloquially as the wild west right that part of the town that uh you know is still on septic etc etc and some of the issues that we've had with some of
the uh the the the zoning and and other land use issues there as a result of a failure failure to record certain documents covenants or otherwise. So this is simply mandating that in the future the town would be the the party responsible whenever something is required to be recorded that we would
have the responsibility responsibility for recording it at the cost of the applicant but but we would be the ones now in charge of making sure it gets recorded and that way the bug stops with us and there's no more confusion. So that that would be my motion. Is there a second?
>> I'll second. >> It's been seconded. Any any discussion on this? Okay, seeing none, all those in favor say I. I. >> All oppose, no. >> The eyes have it. 8A passes. We are now on 8B, public land a part public art
land development code requirement. Um, so this item was inspired with um conversations that I've had with other attorney friends of mine uh that work within the land use space and and it and looking at other codes that exist related to uh moving forward requiring
art uh you know public art in development approvals and whatnot. So again I I hope you all read the materials I and I uh I'm moving quickly. Um, but we also, or rather I also attach some examples of what public art can look like. It can range from everything
to medallions and sidewalks. It can range from actual uh structures, you know, like a sculpture of some kind. Um, but the point is just, you know, to have something else that would beautify the town and live up to our motto of growing beautifully. Is there a second? That that's my motion. Is there a second?
Second. >> It's been seconded. Uh, any discussion, Vice Mayor Moro? Well, it's just a clarification and it actually applies to the last item as well. We're just directing staff to come back to us with a resolution or or with the ordinance. >> This would be a change to or in addition
to the ordinance. So, it would have to come for first and second reading. This is simply an MBI. >> And just so I don't have to bring it up later that does that also apply to AA is that resolution or an ordinance? >> Oh, with with ADA? Yes. So, >> because we need something in writing.
>> I would say it applies already. It's as as a motion here from the days. >> I think it's more of a resolution. I don't think >> but it would be if we had to formalize it, it'd be a resolution. >> Okay. >> There's if I may, mayor, there is a Mr. Attorney. >> Thank you. Thank you for recognizing me. Um Mr. Mayor, um there is um with
regards to we're discussing the the public a >> Oh, sorry. >> No, no. He was just asking whether the where his question on 8B also applies to 8A, which is that it's coming back for first and second reading. The answer that I gave him was for 8B, yes, it's a
change to the land development code. Therefore, it would have to come back first and second reading. Whereas 8A can be accomplished through a resolution just as a new policy uh to and directed to the administration. >> Understood, mayor. Thank you. >> But to be clear, did your motion on AA include that directive to staff to bring
this back a resolution? >> It did not. >> Okay. >> Okay. Any other discussion on AB? >> Seeing none, all those in favor say I. I. I. >> All oppose? No. The eyes have it. Item 8B passes. Point of >> order. A Vice Mayor Moredo.
>> Mayor, uh, I'd like uh, permission to very briefly reopen 8A and just make aside Germaine motion to direct staff. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Okay. It's been seconded by by uh, Council Member Garcia. All those in favor say I. >> I. All those opposed? No.
>> The eyes have it and the motion carries. Okay. Um, we the item is reopen for I guess an an additional motion. >> Thank you. Just to direct staff to come back to us uh either at the April or a future council meeting with a proposed
resolution on this. I just think that this uh covenant issue has come back to bite us several times. I want something in writing creating an affirmative duty on our staff to go and make sure that these covenants are executed and
recorded. That's it. Wait, more than just a motion being made on an open dis. That's it. >> Yeah. Well, it again, a resolution is not always simply an urging uh to do something. It can also be a directive to implement the policy, right? So, you know, and and so I guess what I'm trying
to say is that that already is kind of included in there, but if the directions is for staff to come back with the formal resolution, I'm more than happy to to join in that. So, Mr. Manager, you have enough there on that? >> Yeah, no issues. We'll bring it back. >> Thank you. Okay. With that, uh, let's move on now.
>> You need a vote. >> No, you were given direction, right? >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. So, yeah. So, they're understood. They're they understand to come back. Okay. With that, we are now on the attorney's report that we put just before we be we open up uh the public
hearing. So, Mr. Attorney, I don't where is Mr. Castessi? Was he going to present or were you were you going to present? >> I I'll be presenting. >> Okay. Excellent. Go ahead. The floor is yours. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, Mr. Mayor, just I I wanted before we go into these
uh next few items uh which are not uh you know we're we're kind of lucky I guess or if you can call it that that we don't have a lot of development items that really come to you that often. Um so I wanted to just put us in kind of the proper posture where we are with
this particular uh item uh before we open the floor. Um so this all this particular item and and just to give a little bit of a history and uh put this in context uh began in 2017 uh when the the applicant the Grahams uh came to us
uh with three items right at at the time uh where they uh desired to do this uh senior village uh it was comprised of an ALF, a residential and a and a senior center as well. uh the residential uh
portion of it uh as it existed in 2017 as the laws exist in 2017 required a resoning of part of the parcel. So in order to be able to resone the first thing that the council had to consider was to change what is called its future land use map. Future land use map is
part of our comprehensive plan. It's basically where we uh put in different colors. you know, it's it's a color-coded map where it shows the different areas that are residential, that are industrial, that are commercial. So, this area that was industrial, we were now going to allow
it to be uh residential. Uh the next part that was considered was the actual reasonzoning of that particular residence. Uh and the uh zoning that was given was RM36. RM36 means that the maximum um uh the maximum density of
that area could be 36 units to an acre. So uh at that uh time when this plan was presented the package was presented to the council uh there were several components in that packet. uh one of
them was a 55 and older covenant that was enclosed uh and it was profered by the applicant. There was also the senior center and how that was going to be the shell and and the land uh was was going to be uh provided. Uh it also stated
that Miami Jewish was going to be the operator of that ALF. It also stated uh that everything would be built together as one unit and also provided for a certain period of time for this site plan to be consummated.
So, we fast forward two years. Now, it's 2019 and the uh applicant informed the town that the deal with Miami Jewish was not going to happen, that the deal had fallen through. And so, they asked for
us to consider the town council a decoupling. Decoupling means that the plan and could the ALF could be built at at a different time than the residential component. uh this would allow them to go ahead and get better financing and be able to sell sell the project. And a
second consideration was to remove Miami Jewish as as the applicant. And so that was presented and that's that's all that was in the packet. So I want you to understand what the packet you guys have a have a uh a packet before you which is your agenda. So in the agenda packet what was considered was that that was
the resolution. So what happens in 2019? Well in 2019 so everything is remaining the same. They're not the council's not dealing with the resoning. Reszoning already happened. 55 and older covenant. Uh although it had not been recorded and there's many reasons as to why it wasn't
recorded. Uh I' I'd also like to let the council know that at that particular time we had separate uh council outside council that was dealing with planning and zoning matters and there were several reasons why they didn't uh record it and one of them has to do with whether it needed to be done at the time
of construction or at the time that the site plan was actually being consummated. uh moving forward. Um but in either case, it was part of the the application and so it is our position that it's it's still a covenant that that's valid. So I just wanted to make that as an aside. But in 2019 when this
is being brought forward uh and this decoupling is being discussed up on the deis the council and the applicant had a conversation about well what's going to happen to the ALF portion if you uh don't build the ALF portion at the same time that you build build the
residential and we have concerns as to what's going to happen with that ALF. We want to make sure what it's being used for and we want to make sure that the land is going to be uh presented uh preserved. And so the applicant stated that as a condition for approval that
they would provide a covenant, but that covenant was never part of the packet. It was never presented. It was a condition that was profered by the applicant. That's why there's no covenant that exists. That's why there's no covenant that's ever been recorded because again, it was something that was
profered. Now, there was certain negotiation back and forth with then Councilman Jeffrey Rodriguez and the reason being that the council, he was the one that was negotiating back and forth with the Grahams from the council from the deas from here. Um, and so it was told by the council, hey, you go
ahead and carry on those conversations. Conversations never really went much than some documents that were redlined. Uh, nothing was ever finalized and at the end the the Grams the applicant never moved forward with that site application. And so it's it's a nonity.
It just it's not something that was actually uh moved forward. It was a site plan that was conditioned. That condition was never met. So therefore, that site plan is not what we're dealing with. We are dealing with though with this issue of this 2017. So what happens
with the 2017? Well, time passes. And so one of the provisions in the actual uh site plan approval uh and in the resoning uh more so the resoning was that after a period of time if they
were not able to build fulfill that site plan that the town council would consider the reversion of that re uh residential portion to industrial. Now, town council did consider that and after consideration decided that they
did not want the indust the residential to revert back to industrial. So, it did not revert back to industrial. And so, today what you have before you is the fact that you have a site plan that was never fulfilled. Uh you have a certain
um covenant for for resident senior living that uh apparently cannot be fulfilled either. and that's going to be considered at the next uh meeting. And so the applicant, what they desire to do now is for the other segments that are industrial and that were never reszoned
back in 2017 to reszone them all to residential. Now something that has been voluntarily voluntarily profered by the and uh and actually it's part of the application. It's not even a proper it's part of the application itself is that
the RM36 property will be downzoned voluntarily to RM30 which means 30 units to an acre and the other areas should this council allow it for the resoning uh would also
be RM30. So that's 30 units to an acre. Now tonight the applicant will show you the site plan. where they're going to show you pictures of what they intend to build. They're going to have different things that they they want to discuss with you and that's all fine and and and
you guys the council, sorry for saying you guys uh can consider can can not consider can listen to all that, but really what you're considering tonight is just really the the resoning and the flume. And let me talk about that for a minute. So the flume, as I mentioned, is that future land use map. When you're
discussing that future land use map, you're discussing it as a as an ordinance. It's a public hearing, but it's it's it's an ordinance that you're passing. It's not a quasi judicial matter. Okay? So, the standard is is different. It's what's called fairly debatable. Once you get into the actual quasi judicial matter, which is the
zoning, then that is going to be a zoning hearing. And there you're supposed to take in all types of of evidence things that you hear the the actual application staff plans uh and then based on substantial competent evidence make weigh the the factors and
and and make your decision tonight. Um I just I wanted to kind of lay the groundwork as to where why we're here tonight, what's happened. Uh there's been conversations about uh 2019 covenant and and I hate to say it, it doesn't exist because it it really never
really existed. Uh it wasn't part of that application. It wasn't part of what was it it was something that came about during the conversation at the hearing. Uh and it was something that would be created prior to them actually getting a breaking ground and moving forward on that site plan. But they never move
forward on the site plan. the um covenant was never uh fully fully structured, fully executed. It just didn't happen. Um so I with that I I just want to open it up if you have any questions before we move actually
into the two items. Um and thank you for for for listening to me. >> Well, if they have any questions first. >> Okay. And then and I just want to reiterate for my colleagues, we're not on the item yet. So this is a and and this is this is just simply very generic
questions about the timeline. This is not to opine on the project or anything else. This is just a very you know any questions directed at uh to the attorney based on what he just said strictly that Councilman Herszburg. >> Thank you. Mayor Town, I just want to
clear up when you say it was not part of the application. I understand the covenant. I understand it wasn't part of the application when they when they provided it. Correct. But then they profered it at the hearing. >> So what happened is, and that's why I wanted to draw the distinction between the 55 and older covenant and this
covenant that that we're talking about. The 55 and older covenant was part of the the application was included, the actual document in the uh documents that were considered by the council. All the details of that covenant were actually incorporated and embedded into the
actual site plan. Uh so it was something that was fully considered and fully vetted, right? So, it's part of the development order when we're talking about the 2019 and I can read straight from it. It's it's it's different. So, um
just make sure that I I have it up and Okay. So, when you read the 2019, it says, and I'm just going to read verbatim, during the December 10th, 2019 town council meeting, the town council conditionally approved the applicant site plan requested, provided that the
applicant provide the town with a covenant ensuring that the area previously approved for Miami Jewish Health System will be developed for an assisted living care type facility. Whereas in addition to the covenant, the applicant agreed to provide construction personnel supervision at the cost of the buildout for the senior center. If after
completion of construction, the applicant is unable to attract secure business partner to build the ALF, the applicant shall allow the ALF dedicated portion to be used as a passive park and shall allow improvements will include but not limited to walkable paths, trees, and benches. The town council now desires to conditionally approve the
applicant site plan amendment request. So this amendment request was conditioned upon this covenant being fulfilled. It was never fulfilled. Condition wasn't met. Site plan doesn't is wasn't amended. >> Anything else, Councilman Hersburg? >> No. Thank you.
>> Okay. No, no other comments on the timeline or or clarifications before we get into it. All right. With that, uh, Mr. Attorney, go ahead and read the ordinance into the record, please. Uh, both of them. The first matter that is for
consideration tonight is the flume. Uh this is matter uh 20260000007. Um and the resolution is Apologize. >> Yeah, remember it says you need to read the title into the record.
>> I apologize. Okay. An ordinance of the town of Miami Lakes, Florida, amending the future land use map of the town comprehensive plan redesating red designating 12.75 acres plus or minus properties with folio numbers 3220270010
32202680020 and 32202680030. located on the west side of Commerce Way and Northwest 146th Street as more particularly described at attachment A from industrial and office category to minimum density residential category
providing for incorporation of recitals providing for findings for direction uh to the administrative official providing for repeal of laws in conflict providing for severability providing for exclusion from the code and providing for an effective date. >> Thank you. Now, um, we're going to, just
for my colleagues, we're going to vote on them separately, but we're going to take them up together. Um, so with that, Mr. Attorney, go ahead and read the required language. Um, >> Mr. Mayor, one item is legislative, the other one is quas judicial. >> So, so you your advice is to take them up separate instead of discuss them together.
>> You can discuss them together, but you will, the problem is for the quasi judicial, you do need to go through the quas judicial clear record. I I understand. Okay. So, with that, we're on 7A council. Um and again just uh to reiterate uh this one is not qu uh 7A is
not quite as judicial. So here we are acting with our legislator hats right uh and then discussing based on policy. Um so I guess the now we'll turn over to Mr. Javier Vasquez uh from from Schutz
to go ahead and begin his presentation. >> Oh whoops. I am so sorry. Don't don't don't kill me. Gunster. Gunster. Gunster. Sorry, your mic. >> Is the mic on at the base? Is the light on at the base? >> There you go. >> And my apologies. >> No problem. I'll start again. Good
evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. My name is Jav Vasquez. I'm with the Gunster Law Firm located at 600 Bickl Avenue. And I'm here on tonight on behalf of the Graham Companies. Tonight, uh joining me are Mr. Lewis Martinez, Mr. for Mike Martinez, Stu Wy, and a couple of other family members who I do
not want to leave out, but just for the sake of brevity, we'll keep going here. Um, our hope and our intention with all of this is to clean up exactly all that mess that was just talked about. We're hoping that by the time we're out of
here in this process later this month, all of that has been corrected for the record with a complete refresh button having been pressed, a deletion of all the old conditions and covenants and all the new elements of
these approvals incorporated here. So the subject property as you know and by the way I will be making one presentation for purposes of keeping it simple and if you all need me to incorporate my presentation by reference later happy to do that. >> Yeah we'll ask you at that time.
>> So the property you all know it very well. It's a 22 uh acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Oak Lane and Northwest 146th Street comprised of four folios. The uh slide on the screen right now shows you the property and the
portfolios. And as it has been mentioned, there are three applications associated with the proposed development which we have named Lakeside. And they are one the Flume amendment for three of the folios from industrial and
office to medium density residential. a reszoning or a downzoning of all four folios from IU and RM36 to RM30 and a site plan approval application for the proposed development.
The Flume amendment and the resoning applications will travel as ordinances requiring two readings before the town council and the site plan application will travel as a resolution requiring one reading at the time that these ordinances return on second reading.
And I wish I had a TV in front of me because I could see what I'm doing. But this was uh this slide just confirms the three the three applications. So I'm going to just keep going here. Brief history. A lot of the history has already been talked about
and we're all very familiar with the history of the subject property dating back to 2010 when the Graham started working on a plan to bring a senior's village to Miami Lakes that included age restrictor apartments, a facility for assisted living and skilled nursing and a
community center. In 2017, as has been stated, flume amendment and resoning ordinances were adopted for the 9.458 45 acre portion of the property to accommodate the senior's village and the approved site plan called for 220
age restricted residential units. As we are all painfully aware, Miami Jewish backed out and left the Grahams in limbo in 2019. Many other operators came and went, requiring the Grahams to pivot and move
on from the senior village idea. Live local. While the Grahams considered alternatives for the subject property, the state of Florida in 2023 enacted a law that came to be known as the Live Local Act. This law allows multifamily residential development by
right on properties zoned commercial, industrial, or mixeduse. at the highest permitted residential density category in the town in Miami Lakes. That translates into 50 units per acre, 50
units per acre. Live local also requires 40% of the residential units to be offered as workforce housing. And the act also provides the for the developers with significant tax benefits including an exemption for the payment
of property taxes. Live local obviously became one of the alternatives considered by the Grahams. This next slide depicts the live local site plan which included the 220 apartments
approved in 2017, 330 units in the area where the Bob Graham office building was planned and 272 units on the southern 5.5 acres for a total of 822 residential units.
Mind you, that was not maxing out live local. A pure max out development under Live Local would have allowed 978 units. As discussions began with the town staff to bring this type of development to
life, it became apparent that an alternative plan might be in everyone's best interest. As we all know, in 2025, this council adopted legislation creating the RM30 zoning district, which allows for
development at 30 units per acre. Discussions with staff, primarily with Mr. Peterman, transitioned to the idea of a development for the entire 22 acres using the newly created RM30 category,
hence the application before you today. I'd like to make sure we're clear that the only reason we're showing a site plan is conceptually so we can talk a little bit about what went into the thinking but the formal consideration of
the site plan will be when the site plan resolution comes before you. Now, approval of the three applications, which like I said, I'm going to treat as one presentation, will allow for the development of 541 residential apartments, including a mix
of one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom apartments distributed amongst 14 buildings consisting of three, four, and five stories. As you can see, all seven threestory buildings will align Commerce Way.
This is important because this aligns with urban design principles of having buildings which define the streets that they front on. The remaining seven buildings at four and five stories are internally located and front on the large existing lake and amenity courtyard.
Of those seven buildings, five will be four stories and two will be five stories. And the amenities will include resort style pool and a clubhouse with work from home offices, a fitness center, a dog park, shaded green space, and much, much more.
The community will have one main entrance on Commerce Way and two additional exits, one on the north and the other one on the south to improve connectivity. The buildings were designed by Mr. Roger Fry, who has been working
with the Graham Company since 1995 and knows Miami Lakes very, very well. The buildings are highly compatible with the surrounding area and they keep with the proven concepts that make Miami Lake so special, including tile roofs and lush
landscaping. As an example, the code requires 562 trees on this site, yet we are providing 817 trees. 17 trees, which is 45% more than required by code. Now, why did I refer to this application
as a down zone? Because it's exactly what it is. We are downzoning from 36 units to the acre to 30 units to the acre for the RM36 parcel. And we are downzoning from
the available 50 units per acre if we are to avail ourselves to live local to 30 units per acre for the industrial parcels. As I mentioned earlier, the industrial parcels can be developed at 50 units per acre by right pursuant to live local.
And by right means administrative approvals, no public hearings. The proposed resoning before you tonight reduces the maximum potential development from 978 units under live local to 666 units under the new RM30
category. That would be a 32% reduction in allowable development. However, we are not proposing to develop at that maximum of 30 units per acre. The proposal of 541 apartments
translates to the density to 24 units per acre, which translates into 55% of the allowable development property taxes. I mentioned earlier that the discussions with Mr. Peterman
transitioned in the direction of an alternative plan that would be in everybody's best interest. A live local based development would bring dramatic consequences to the town of Miami Lakes, especially on the subject of advalorum taxes.
Under live local, affordable units are granted a 75 to 100% reduction in property taxes depending on the level of affordability. Now, some of you or the public may ask, why in the world would the grant companies downzone their land when they
can develop many more units under live local and take advantage of the incentives provided by state? Well, first, it provides an opportunity to unify all four parcels under one zoning category to create a much better site
plan, which perfectly leads into number two. The Graham Companies always ask the question when evaluating a development or a redevelopment opportunity. Is this a good thing for Miami Lakes?
Historically, the Graham Companies have taken a very responsible approach to development, creating the community that we all value today. And this is no different. We can all agree that this plan is undoubtedly better for Miami Lakes than a live local
project. However, let there be no doubt that the one thing the Grahams will not do is to remain idle. They will not remain idle. A no vote to responsible to the responsible plan before you today is a
yes vote to live to live local. And lastly, I'd like to talk about a profered contribution. And although the Crawford contribution once again is part of our site plan application, I want the Grahams the the the council to hear it tonight because
you're going to hear it again next time. And I want to make sure we're clear crystal clear on this issue. The Gramps were unsuccessful at creating this creating the senior village that everybody imagined. However, they are very aware of the town's continued interest in having a senior center.
Once again, the discussions with Mr. Peter Peterman included the senior center issue and a good faith profer was made by M. The Graham Companies of $1 million to the town to help the town with its efforts to fund a senior center at a
location to be decided by this council. In response to the profiter amount, an appraisal was requested by Mr. Peterman for the property where the senior centers would have been located. The appraisal came back at $1.56 million.
After further discussions, the Graham Companies increased their good faith offer to a million $1,280,000. I'm happy to announce tonight that the Grahams have agreed to once again increase their good faith profer to the
appraised value of $1.56 million. I do need to clarify that this is a proper tie to the site plan application which will be before you when these ordinance return. But I think the issue is important enough important enough to start talking about it tonight because we've been hearing a lot about the senior center.
My client truly wishes that this could have been able to deliver the senior village. Unfortunately, they just could not make it happen and must now move forward in a different path. The path is either the proposed development before you or a development
path per live local. Having said that, I would respectfully request your approval per your staff recommendation which is for approval with conditions all of which we accept. I'd like to personally thank Eddie Peterman,
Tony Lopez, Susana Raul, Lorenzo, and the entire staff. This has been an arduous process to get here, but like I said at the beginning, this is a process that's hopefully going to clean up whatever mess there was in the past, and it'll allow us to end up with a very responsible,
much better development for Miami Lakes than what the alternative would otherwise be. We hope we'll have your support tonight. We'll hope hope you'll have we'll have your support next time. And with that, I'll respectfully close and reserve time for rebuttal as may be needed.
>> Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Vasquez. And again, uh, being that they were taking this up like a like a normal ordinance, uh, to get in the right posture, let's go ahead and, um, get a motion on the table one way or the other, >> Mr. Mayor. >> Okay. M. U Mr. Attorney, go ahead.
>> Remember that also this is a public hearing, so you need to open up public. >> My ap first reading. >> Oh, okay. My apologies. All right. So, with that, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. And I do actually before we go there um madame clerk I believe
you wanted to ask everybody to make the disclosures regarding uh >> that that would be for the next the second item which is quasa judicial. >> Let's just get it done now. The rules just say we have to get it done before final approval. So we'll do it now. I want to get rid of all the procedural stuff as quickly as possible. >> Very well. So let the record reflect
that. Council member Cuadra Garcia, Council Member Sanchez, Mayor Diegas, Vice Mayor Mora. Let me read them all. Council member Garcia, Council Member Hburg
and and Council Member Fernandez have provided me the town clerk their quasi their exarty communications. So, let the record reflect that. For the next item, >> thank you. Um, with that, the public
hearing is now open. All those wishing to speak, you may come forward. And again, there's no time limit on this one. Please come up. I'm opening up. >> When do Excuse me. Say my name again. You know me. All right. So, first of
all, I've been coming to these meetings for 21 years and I have seen Javi at work and every time I hear him, it sounds like Darth Vader's march coming in. He's wonderful. He's really good. Okay. So only thing I want to put into the record is the powers that you do
have under the United States Supreme Court. Village of Uklid versus Amber Reality Company 1926 United States Supreme Court. Facts of the case. Amber Realy owned 68 acres outside Cleveland. The village enacted zoning ordinances restricting industrial uses on the
property. The developer argued the ordinance destroyed the value of the property. The holding the Supreme Court said upheld the municipality zoning restrictions. You have the power to say no under the United States Supreme Court. Another case, Village of Beltter versus Borealis.
Borealis, excuse me. United States Supreme Court. Property owners challenge a zoning ordinance limiting the land use of a single family residence. The ordinance prevented more intensive residential use. The holding Supreme Court upheld the zoning restriction. The legal principle there was
municipalities may regulate land use to preserve neighborhood character and family residential environments. Okay. Um, by the way, one one side, um, it was next to impossible to find a land development attorney that wasn't conflicted out. Kudos.
It was amazing. One couple more cases and then my time. Do I Oh, I have Okay, even better. Okay. Agens versus city of Tibberon, United States Supreme Court. Developers purchase land intending to build multi multiple homes. The city adopted a
zoning allowing one to five homes on the parcel holding Supreme Court upheld the zoning restriction. Any raisin Penn Central Transport versus New York City 1978. Um Penn Central wanted to build a high-rise above Grand Central Station.
New York denied the development due to landmark preservation rules holdings. Supreme Court upheld the denial. So you do have power. Now, what was profered sounds very attractive. I'm not saying
it isn't. The 1.5 million, is that held in our coffers in a specific account for some future location or do they hold it until some other thing happens? You see, my problem is is we were offered a senior center. Now, being a senior, I guess it's more important to me than it
was before. However, once again, I don't see any good faith effort to find another partner. I didn't hear one. I didn't see one. I never read about one. And I would say that maybe they should go back and perhaps try and find a partner to preserve the senior center.
Now, as far as 978 versus 666 versus 541, the traffic's going to be the same. Those are two-lane streets. The difference is people trying to get onto the street, people trying to get out of their apartments and people trying to get anywhere outside the town, which is
next to impossible now, let alone when the sevenstory building over on 154th Street and the Pomemetto Expressway is fully operational and occupied. I ask you, you have powers. It wouldn't you wouldn't have it wouldn't be brought before you if it didn't have the power
to say no, renegotiate something. You have the power. I urge you to use the power this the people of Miami Lakes, the voters and the taxpayers have given you to preserve our way of life. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next uh speaker in the public
hearing. >> Can we just take a break? I want to make sure that we're live streaming. Okay, I see Miss Fernandez in the screen. I just want to have a confirmation from help desk that the meeting is being live streamed because I don't see the
>> We'll stand in a fivem minute recess. So >> just to make sure >> so be back by 8:19. >> 89. >> It looks like we're back. I want to confirm. What do you Okay, everyone.
Thank you. All right, it is 8:20 now, actually, but when I got here, it was 8:19. Colleagues, please come back. Who am I missing? We got Councilman Garcia there. We got Councilman Sanchez in the back there. >> Uh, so, Madame Clerk, just to confirm,
we are rocking and rolling. Oh, not yet. >> Help desk. Can you please confirm now that we're gonna start live streaming again? >> Okay. Let let me know when we're back on. >> We're good. Okay. We're good to go. >> Yes, he just confirmed. We may begin.
>> Okay. Perfect. So, as I was uh saying, we are still in the public hearing. Uh Miss Hilda Fernandez was next to speak. Um so, I guess uh we'll go ahead and and reopen it up. Oh, now no, now it is. Um, once again, Hilda Fernandez, resident of Miami
Lakes. Um, address withheld according to state law. So, um, you know, they say the devil's in the details. So, I had a minute to actually look at the details. I have for the first time now seen the infamous unexecuted covenant. But let me just begin with um going back to something that the attorney referenced
before which was resolution 1960 1650 executed in March of 2020 and you did read from some of that um Mr. Town attorney and you you specifically referenced and emphasized the word conditionally on the warehouse clause
but I was an English minor. I'm not an attorney. And the rest of the sentence goes like this. conditionally approve the applicant site plan request provided that that's a qualifier that's a qualifying sent statement provided that
the applicant provide the town with a covenant ensuring that the area previously approved for the Miami Jewish home blah blah blah blah well what a coincidence that shortly thereafter Greenberg Tro one of the preeminent land use attorneys in the
state no offense to Gunster or anybody else is involved under the under the law firm but known literally for its land use work was secured by the applicant and drafted a covenant. Now you know because they're preeminent we know preeminent also means expensive. I
refuse to believe that if a covenant was not required until some point instinctively in the future that the applicant would have spent what would have been considerable money in spite of the fact that it wasn't a very long covenant to produce a covenant. Now, that covenant, which I h happened to
actually finally see, has a really interesting inclusion of it, which I thought was pretty favorable for the way that it's written for the applicant, which said, "In the event that TG, the applicant, I'm not trying to beat up on anybody in particular, is unable to attract and secure a business partner to
build the ALF portion, blah blah blah, um, and an application for development of the senior use property has not been initiated six months after the execution of this declaration. after the execution of the declaration. Coincidentally, we're here 9 years later and it's never
been executed. So, these six months never started. So, I am very unclear. I am very unclear as to how you have a resolution that called for the creation of a covenant based on a conditional approval provided that there was a covenant. How they went and got a
covenant developed by one of the most preeminent land use attorneys, you know, or organizations in the country. a really great law firm produced a covenant and this covenant happened to have land which has said we're not gonna do anything you know uh that you know you have six months after we executed
and coincidentally has not been executed ever now I you know I am not an attorney fortunately I do know enough land use attorneys that I'm sure they could take a look at that and give me an opinion as to whether something something weird happened here but here's my point I
think it's wonderful you don't want to do high density I think that's fantastic our streets cannot manage more density and you know Mr. prevent and regrettably so the bottom line is we cannot do anything about live local. The biggest difference between what's happening today and the plight site plans you're
being introduced is that back in 19 in 2019 you had an applicant come in and to try to make their request for reasonzoning palatable. They included something something for the residents this little sliver of land that they were going to make available owned by
the town and they were going to actually even build a shell for this center. I don't care, senior center, whatever it was going to be called. It was going to be an additional recreational amenity for this community. And here we are years later. The change is there's an ace in the pocket.
I don't have to concede anything because I can offer you something worse. I can just go ahead and do what I am zoning by zone by law now in the state of Florida permitted to do. Okay, listen folks. We all know that if live local was in fact
a viable option in this community because there might that might be viable someplace else. In fact was a viable option in this community that would have been the plan from the get-go. I commend them for not coming in with a high density model. But what I still have a problem with is when they did this beautiful redevelopment with now more
land to do something with. why they wrote out that one amenity that was the concession that was granted back in 2017 19 whatever which was a land for us to build additional recreational facilities and giving us money to go buy it or do it someplace else which would mean
eating up more of our our limited park land already by doing another senior center an existing park or by expanding a senior center and eating up more green space is not the solution because you know what the only other solution would be would be to buy the land from somebody and we know who owns most of the land in this community to begin
with. So with that, again, I know there's going to go to second hearing. I realize there's a lot of time. There's a lot of runway between now and then. And I hope in that runway, we can do a touchdown and have a conversation about how we go back to the original promise. I, you know, I would love to have an agent place. I would love to live in Miami Lakes till I no longer can I'm in
a walker in a wheelchair or whatever. But that I cannot tell a private business what to do with their business. I'm not going to tell them they have to run that kind of business because they said that was what they were going to do. Things change all the time. So, that is not what I'm going to get hung up on. As much as I would love that kind of
housing here. What I'm hung up on is an amenity was offered to this community and the reason why it's been taken off the table. This convoluted mess about a covenant that was or wasn't and this and that and what have you and I can't even deal with that right now. I know we're trying to fix that. So, in the future that doesn't happen again and that is
the most a very concerning thing for me because it obviously did not work out to our favor. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. Next speaker in the public hearing, >> Mr. Mayor Abel Fernandez, chapter 119. Um, thank thank you all for uh running
for offices and being up here to represent us. Uh, you're our safety net to keep the town growing beautifully. Correct. Bow Harbor, our neighbor just to the to the west and to the south of us, uh to
the east and to the south of us, also faced a dilemma from uh a large property owner there. And this family that owns the mall in B Harbor uh decided we're going to do this live local. And this is
the the biggest challenge that they had. So, what they did is in hearing uh as you heard tonight, all of the people that are put on record that they're against this, right? But it was said here tonight
uh that uh you either approve it or they're not going to stay quiet. They're just going to move to live local. That's just going to hurt the entire community. That's just going to hurt the traffic. You talk to anybody in this town and
they tell you that they're tired of the development. I haven't met one person that has said, "We want more development." You all run for office. You knock on doors. You hear it. With this said, what I wanted to talk to you about is Bow Harbor created a fund
uh litigate they they created a litigation fund through increasing the millillage and made it clear to the property owners that this segregated
mill would go to a legal defense fund and also to technical review. So they would go to outside experts to say if they build this live local, what is it going to do for traffic to our town? And I'm not talking that the developer
brings in their traffic studies. We already know how horrible it's going to be with the sevenstory apartment building on 154 in the Palmetto. Took me 20 minutes to get from 82 Avenue to the Palmetto this morning on the way to
Corpus Christi Church to volunteer. I have a feeling that you guys are going to vote to move it forward tonight. Uh I'm reading language between you and it takes four to pass anything. We've always said that.
Uh but remember, you were elected not for the developers, not for an attorney that is being paid to represent them. You were elected to represent us. We're We should be your greatest lobbyist, not
someone else. And Mr. Mayor, we're tired of what we see. It's constantly that that they are the largest owner of property here and they come and you guys give in and you come and now it's clear. Now
it's like, hey, you don't do it. We're going to build live local. Then do it. Build live local. Give people who work in this community at Cancun Grill or uh the Sports Grill or at Wind Dixie,
give them an opportunity to live for less. I guarantee you, as others have said, they don't want the scrutiny that comes with a live local. They're not going to open their books to the to the state government. They don't want that. They
don't want the reduction even for 40% of the units of what they would not be able to do it compared to fair market rate. Let them push back on the threat. Okay, do it. And in the meantime, raise my millage. I
will gladly pay more. And you know I'm anti- tax. I will gladly pay more as a defense fund. Reach the manager, George Gonzalez, and Bow Harbor as they're pushing back on a family that is probably even greater financially than
the Grahams. Ask them how they're doing it because their manager didn't give in to them. They did it. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Anyone else in chambers wishing to speak in the public hearing? Seeing none, Madame Clerk, any online uh
um residents that would like to participate in the public hearing? Again I see the same participants El Perez number four Amy and Miss Susana Era if you want to speak and participate now in public comments for this item
>> the public hearing the public hearing >> I mean the public right public hearing please unmute yourself and let us know so that you may speak. >> Yes. Okay. A Miss Amy right? >> Yes. >> Welcome. >> Hi. Thank you. So this is Amy again. Do
I have to say my address? I'll say it. 6944 bottle brush drive. Um, you know, basically this new proposal is lipstick on a pig. You can make it as pretty as you want. Um, but it's not what was originally
proposed. I heard a man get up today and wave a proverbial um stick, a live local stick in to basically nullify the carrot that was originally offered that was submitted with plans, which is how they
got the reasonzoning to begin with for this facility. And now under a very velvety gloved threat, this same person is trying to tell you, you either give us what we want now or you're going to
get this other thing. So, you know what? Let them try. Let them spend all that money and let them do that because promises were made. And in business, in negotiations, in anything, good faith matters. And these people came at us with good faith. They came before this
council with good faith and you guys reszoned in good faith and now they are doing taking all of that and they're just saying you know what don't that doesn't count anymore. We're going to use this new law and we're going to beat you with it if you don't give us what we
want. How does that count? This law came into place in 2023. That's much later than this council approved that. Timing matters as well. You have a case. let them go fight it elsewhere, but you guys should be standing up for us and the
original principle and in good faith of what was originally preferred. I know this job isn't easy. I appreciate what you guys do. I know sometimes I can be hard on you. Um, but I care about this town and I care about how we end up and I definitely think that the company
requesting this change is not the company that originally created this town. big changes have happened and I think we need to stay small and we need to be considerate and we need to be intentional about how we grow going forward. Thank you for hearing me out
and I hope at least four of you are feeling the same way. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Any other speakers online wishing to participate in the public hearing? Missera, >> yes, >> welcome.
>> Thank you. My plane got delayed, so I guess God wanted me to hear the presentation. Uh, short and sweet. If anybody shows at my house the way this attorney showed up at our house, the town of Miami Lakes, I'd say, "Turn around. Don't let it hit you in the
back." I said, "Nobody comes into our house and threatens." That was a direct threat. You know what I say? I pull a king is and say, "Go ahead and make my day." I'm not afraid of them. We shouldn't be afraid of them. And I support legal match.
>> Thank you very much. Uh anyone else who would like to provide uh input in the public hearing on this ordinance? Seeing none, the public hearing is now closed. Mr. have asked us if you had reserved time uh to respond. Would you like to
take it now or you want to wait uh you know on anything else? >> I have no further comment for the time being. >> Okay. So with that um now uh the chair will entertain a motion uh on this application. Is there a motion to get us
into the posture to discuss? >> I see you. Yeah. >> Put a motion on the floor to discuss item 7A. No, I need needed to be either to approve or deny. >> Yeah. Okay. Well, okay. >> I I'll move to approve. >> Okay, perfect. I'll go ahead and I'll second it. And trust me, I know the
Congressman Diaz Blard also had is having a coffee fit and so am I. So, with that, all right, it's been moved and seconded. Um, Councilman Hzburg, why don't you go ahead and kick off the discussion? And besides, uh, you were when we last had our sunshine meeting, you were the one that, uh, in my absence, we went ahead and was dealing
with the grants further. So why don't you update the council on anything else that you feel is relevant and provide your input generally on the project. >> Right. So yeah the most important thing that we discussed is and I had conversations of with applicant uh bringing that number up to the appraised
value uh at least for now where I am at on this. I think it's premature to end the discussion. Uh and I've been very honest with applicant. I'm not completely sold right now, but I want to continue to discussions. Uh, you know, when you look
at the history and of the parcel, this the way I see it, this was on a either a different parcel, either different parcels that had IU or or obviously a residentially zoned parcel.
This is this is not a bad project. It's a responsible project. The problem we have here is the history of the parcel, the promises that were made, and that's where that $1.5 million comes from, right? Um, and to clean it up because I do believe we have some rights on the
RM36 parcel, but it's it's a matter of how much what's the risk we have of a live local project. They're willing to not go that route and and what happens with the
RM36. So, um I I for tonight I'm going to move it to continue discussions. I've had good discussions with applicant. That's where I'm at right now. I think there's more to do. I want to speak more with the town attorney on the history of the RM36 parts a little bit more based off what he's told me today. It's a
little bit different than what I saw. So, I want to have those discussions before I can we make a final decision in second reading. Uh but that's where I am right now. That's all. >> Okay. Thank you, Councilman Hsburg. Next speaker. >> You you are you pointing at me or you or
you? >> Yes, I would like to speak. >> Okay. Councilman Cuadra Garcia. >> Um thank you, Mr. Chair. Um Mr. Chair, um I'm going to echo the words of my colleague, I'm pretty much in the same realm. What really worries me, extremely
worry, is our gridlock traffic. Our gridlock traffic is I have tried to get from the east side to the west side on a Friday afternoon and I feel like uh you
know leaving my van at 7-Eleven and getting on a moped or a scooter or something because I can't get over to the other side. That worries me. I have a recommendation and that would be that if this goes forward that the Grahams
consider the applicant considers doing um exits and entrances to that area of town. So if this does go through um consider uh you know
uh doing you know and and of course at the expense of the applicant um considering uh doing the exits and entrances of that that area. So really what really worries me a lot is that
gridlock traffic. So, um, with that being said, uh, I would, uh, I would be, uh, making, um, my decision after it goes through the planning and zoning board. That's what I'd like to say. >> Thank you. Keep in mind that we are
going to be voting tonight, but I think what you're trying to say is you'll vote to advance it perhaps uh, and then make your final decision at second reading. >> Okay. Um, with that, um, next speaker, Councilman Garcia, would you like to go? A vice mayor. Okay. And then Oh, don't
worry. We're going to come around. >> Thank you, Mayor. So, first and foremost, I want to point out um there there's a procedural aspect to this that I'm very uncomfortable with, which is the fact that this is coming for first
reading. Um before going to the planning and zoning board um and it's going to go before the planning and zoning board with our favorable out blessing I guess here assuming that this this passes and I I have a feeling
it will um and I I feel like there's there's no other way of slicing it but we're we're kind of telling the PNZ what to do uh because who are they to overturn us after we've already on first reading adopted uh you know approved an
ordinance to move forward. Um that being said, you know, I hope the members of the PNZ watch this meeting and um understand that this vote is not actually an imposition on them and that they are free to make their
recommendations to us uh as they see fit as is their job. Um but this is that is the reason why I initially um opposed having this as a special call and taking this strange order. uh of events because
it was going to result in this in this little quandry. Um, look, I I I I've been very torn on this and at the outset, I'll say I'm going to vote in favor of allowing this item to pass uh on first reading and that is because I
don't want to be the reason that this dies. I think I will say this, I I want to thank the the Grahams and and Mr. Vasquez for being willing to meet with us and and and discuss this issue with us. Um, but I don't think that that
discussion is done. I think that there's still more to do between now and second reading. Um, and I don't want it to just die here and then you just show up with live local. Um that being said, um I I really echo the
sentiments of one of our residents about uh there was an amenity that was promised um this the shell of of the senior center and I understand we are now replacing that with um with uh
dollars which is which is fine. And to answer presumably uh one of the questions raised by another resident, I believe that that would go to a capital projects fund. So it would be held by the town. I would assume and again that's none of this is
said on paper. So I'm saying that now it it's going to be held by the town otherwise it's not getting my vote. Um but that being said, an an amenity was promised. Um, I I do have some questions that I want to raise to uh the Grahams.
I don't think that this is the appropriate setting to do it, but I would like to see them making um some changes later on in site plan approval, especially um you know, seeing this site plan. There's a there's a big parking
lot and I can actually see one extra building which sounds weird coming up but one extra building a parking garage to reduce the number of open parking space available and that we can we can carve out a little chunk of land for the
town to have that promise delivered of a space for the town and a shell of a building. That that's a possibility. Um, aside from that, I I I've many on the council know I've been very big on on this issue for a long time, and that's
the par three as as a replacement item as, hey, we were going to get some land. Now we're not getting it. Let's set the precursors to get the par three land. And that is something that I've been
harping on over and over and over again. Um because I I I consider the par three a generational gift that we will be able to deliver to our kids and our grandkids and they'll look back and thank us for our actions. Now
>> Mr. Mayor, >> Mr. Attorney, >> yes, >> with all due respect, Mr. Vice Mayor, I understand that the issue of the part three is very important to you and the rest of this council, but I think it's inappropriate to be discussing it now when we're discussing the the resoning item >> and and I appreciate that and and and I'll I'll lay off that point. Uh I I
think you you did tell me that. So I do apologize for going beyond uh your your counsel. Um that being said, look um I'm I'm stuck in a position and I'm frankly all my colleagues are of of a lose-lose, right? We can approve, we could be
responsible for approving 541 units or we could be responsible for denying that and potentially uh arriving at 800 and something units or or or more, whatever the number. Let's just call it a thousand because it might as well be. Um
so so it it's a damned if you do and a damned if you don't. The reality is I have a lot of concerns. I don't think that this development is uh consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. I don't think that this uh s, you know, to
what Mr. Vasquez said, I don't agree that this is good for the town. I mean, call me an idealist, what's good for the town is a bunch of cows there, but I understand that's not going to happen. And I and that is by no means what I am
proposing. Um I I would like to sit with you guys and and see how this can be scaled um and how we can coexist. I also want to point out I don't see any traffic mitigation in this. I don't see any proposal to widen roads. I don't uh
see any um and I did also have a specific question uh that maybe I don't know whenever the the applicant can come back for a rebuttal. I I I developed a question as I was listening to the presentation and it's uh in their
application they have a trip generation report uh that was authored by Kimberly Horn and the attachment to that shows what appears to be the site plan that they were looking at. This is a page 30
I don't know if it's 32 or 33 of the agenda. Um and and it it shows buildings A, B, and C. Um I I don't know if that's what they base their trip generation report on. If if it is, then I'm a little concerned that this trip
generation report is not accurate as to what is actually being proposed because that that site plan shows three buildings. I don't know how many units. It's a different thing alto together. So, so I'm I'm asking for a little bit
of clarification on what that trip generation report was was based off of to ensure that if we're making these decisions that we're making it off of solid proper information. Uh, with that, I I'll I'll reserve and like I said, I I will be reaching out and trying to
continue uh getting as close as possible to a result that benefits both sides to the extent possible. >> Yeah. So even though this is a public hearing, this is uh you know being considered as a as an ordinance. It's not quite as judicial, so we don't have to follow a certain timeline. So I I'll
welcome the the attorney or the applicant himself uh or the representative of the applicant to come up and uh address the vice mayor's concerns. >> I'm sorry, the microphone I guess keeps turning. >> It's lights on. I'm just short. >> There we go. Thank you. >> 68
feel like a giant. Uh 6843 Main Street. Uh the traffic uh generation report was uh prepared looking at a uh office IU Sony. It was uh done under the uh live
local plan that we were considering. That's how we started this whole conversation and then with the proposed plan. So there's three different things that are that are there. I don't have it with me. I didn't I didn't bring it with me tonight, but but that's what it is, but I'm happy to review it with you after the meeting.
>> Thank you. anything for further uh Councilman Fernandez. >> Well, this is certainly for me I think for many of us the the hardest decision that we've had to make. You know, the one that we've had residents we had, you know, a lot of residents here for our
budget, but um I'll start by saying uh when it came to the the nine project, I wasn't a council member and I I stood there and I was in support of it. I thought it was an amazing I loved it. I love the the fact that we would have a clubhouse and you know they were going to invest all this money into the golf
course and the alternative what they could have done to it should should have been turned down. Um but do I and I love that project. Do I love this project? No. I I don't even like it. But it's not what we're here for. I mean the fact is that they've stated that they have a
right to build and I I believe them when they say that they if we don't approve this that they're going to go live local. Um I I take all the comments that I get. We get a lot of emails especially on something like this. Um there was an email that I received that suggested
that we fight it that the folks in Palmetto Bay have you know they go and they try to fight these things. I had a conversation with Councilman Fior um probably 40 minutes. He was gracious enough to talk to me and he really
they've been fighting this Burger King project and they lost it in the third district court of appeals. So, I do we want to spend all this money and and have our our town and and all the expenses that we're gonna um we're gonna
be responsible for and end up spending. I don't think that that's what the the residents voted me to do. And, you know, I'm going to I'm going to vote yes on it and let's see what happens in second reading. But that's my position. >> Thank you, Councilman Sanchez. >> All right. I'm going to try to push
through my voice a little bit. As someone that has elderly parents in the area, my parents live right across the bridge. My father's 90 years old, turns 91 this year. Having an ALF component meant a lot. Having them close by just because of
traffic, something happens um a a stone throw away to to make it to them. This this hits close to home for me. Um now, I do have questions with regards Thank you. I do have questions with regards to the other partners that were
approached after Miami Jewish. Was it one, two, was it multiple? Was it just a middle ground that couldn't be met? We've gone through a tremendous list and again I don't have it here but happy to share it with you. Come see me in my office. The last one, the big one was
just very recently was Doth DOSS Healthcare DOSs. We came, they came before you for their site plan application. >> Y >> uh and that was in 19 I'm sorry, in uh in February of 24,
so a couple years ago, they actually had to pony up and pay another deposit to extend their oblig, you know, their their u the deal that they had with us. They actually uh submitted to staff and you can check with a building department
their building plans, right? They spent a million dollars on building plans, extended their date and in March and DOSS is here at Miami Lakes, our headquarters and in March pulled away from the from the deal because they couldn't get it financed. >> So
I I don't need to address all that. We have tried. >> Yeah. There's nobody in this town that has worked harder at trying to get a senior's village in this town than this guy standing in front of you. Right? So, to me, it's upsetting and it's troubling
when I when we're told that promises were made, promises weren't kept. Nobody has worked harder at trying to generate a senior's community in this town than this guy right here. So, the list is very long and I'm happy to share them with you if you call me. >> Thank you. Thank you. I mean this is a
project that has been going on already for for nine years. Um you know and and we are in a capitalistic type of system. I mean it's it's it's who we are foundationally and no one no land owner wants to sit on empty land. Um unfortunately you know based on what
we've been told the senior component just isn't conceivable anymore anymore. I am going to vote yes on this but there is more homework that needs to be done. There is a long runway as Miss Fernandez stated earlier, but this is not over
today. This is just moving it forward to to see what else can be done and for the possible development of the senior center that we promise our residents, especially over the summer months where senior programming doesn't completely get eliminated, but we do have a
priority to take care of the kids in this town and the seniors have nowhere to go because of the summer camps. So, you know, that that is hopefully moving forward. Um, I am going to vote in favor just to see it move to the next stage. >> Thank you, Councilman. And and I'll go
ahead and close out, I guess, this portion of of the discussion. Um, I also was very excited to see the senior village uh concept come to life. I was not here at the time when it was first considered in 2017, but obviously I was here during the famous uh covenant era
is what I'm going to call it in 2019. Um, and I just, you know, without going too far into it, I just want to re, uh, to kind of clarify certain points, uh, that came up in the public hearing and in public comments. And, you know, and and the first one I want to take up is,
uh, being that she's still here in chambers, Miss Fernandez's point regarding, you know, spending money on attorneys to generate this covenant. I totally understand the point that you're making there, but it's also important to remember that many times, right, when you're doing your due diligence and everything, much as when they were
negotiating with DOSs, with Mammy Jewish and everything else, I'm sure you had attorneys engaged, that was not cheap. That's thousands of dollars involved. Similarly, when the 2019 approval amendment rather was uh was granted, it it was contemplated clearly that the
covenant had to be drafted, right? And so that's why there was already all that negotiation and back and forth. I understand what you're what you're saying regarding that we really want that senior center. That is something that has been promised I believe since even Mayor Sllayton was still up here. Um like many other things unfortunately
hasn't come to pass. My view is while it's not the perfect solution. I think the fact that the Grams are giving us the full value of the appraisal is tantamount to what we attorneys, right, the vice mayor and councilman Hersburg,
you know, you know, when when there's a tort or when there's a civil uh, you know, case involved, you know, even though, you know, it may not be a perfect solution every case, money is usually how we compensate people for the loss of something. And we are obviously losing the shell of the building and and
the land itself, but we're getting that in the value and and Mr. Manager, what were the assumptions again that went into preparing that appraisal? I just want to make it clear for the public to know what went into the reaching that amount. >> Yeah. 1 point 1.29 acres I think was the
the footprint of the piece of property with a shell of a building of I think 6,400 square feet. 6,300. >> Yeah. 6,500 square f feet and and remember we weren't getting a senior center. We were getting a shell of the
building, right? We were we the the part of building out the interior and all of that was going to be on us. >> Got it. You know, so it's not a perfect solution, but this is the closest in my view that we're going to get to getting the senior center done. We have tried to apply for grant money, right, uh for the
senior center project. It hasn't gone very far in Tallahassee or or elsewhere. So, you know, so to me, again, while not perfect, this is probably as close as we're going to get to finally meeting our our commitment to the residents. Not to mention, don't forget that we have an additional almost $500,000 set aside for
a senior center as well. So, combined, we're basically at $2 million. I just want to reiterate that, you know, as far as the profit that the applicant has made. As far as the the site plan itself, yes, you know, I'm not crazy about traffic either. My office is on
the west side of town, you know, right by the the Lintita, which you know, between Bob Graham and just, you know, uh, Banko Populad and everything else, you know, we're right in the middle, you know, in terms of everything that we get from that, right? But ultimately, as uh,
Mr. Vasquez stated, this land is not going to stay empty forever, right? Something is going to be coming to that site. And I want to remind everyone before they start to believe that the that the leverage that they are raising regarding live local before some because there have been some online that have
indicated that they feel that is not real. My view is that it is. I would remind everybody in 2024 I believe it was 2024 they came before us seeking to revert back to the industrial zoning. That's not the behavior of somebody that is somehow you know fearing this option.
Right? So I I don't want us to, you know, to over I guess overplay our hand. I think they have been very good negotiating partners in the past with us. They're being they're approaching us in good faith. Um you know again we just
I hate to say it but the reality is that something is going to come to that site and this is pro and outside of you know I don't know what other situation we might have this kind of ability to to have control over development because unfortunately we're not the ones that our residents need to you know uh need
to speak to about you know these sorts of approvals right they need to speak to our legislators in Tallahassee and tell them that we want more local control you know because unfortunately what happens is they come to us but again it's not in our power to, you know, any longer, right? You know, Tallahassee increasingly is stripping away power
from us. And so, the Grahams, they're giving us the option to be able to work with us as partners rather than go through the option that that has been made available to them again through Tallahassee. Um, and so I I do want to at least, you know, notwithstanding, you
know, the constrnation that exists on this project, you know, I do want to give them credit where credit is due. I also want to uh address something regarding the uh well I'm not going to get too far but
you know the moral of the story is and again because we have second reading and it's already you know 9:00 and we still have 7B to consider on the quasi uh judicial front. So, and I don't want to I don't believe in looking uh well, I'm not going to use that expression, but at
the end of the day, um I'll close and and ask for everyone to support this just because to me of the options available to us, it's the most responsible and the reality is that we're going to have another bite at the apple later this month. So, let let's go ahead and just move this forward,
continue negotiating and seeing uh what else uh we can come to an agreement with on with respect to this project. Madam clerk, please call the role. Ordinance in first reading item 7A. Council member Hzburg. >> Yes.
>> Council member Sanchez. >> Yes. >> Council member Fernandez. >> Yes. >> Council member Cuadra Garcia. >> No. >> Council member Garcia. >> No. >> A Vice Mayor Mora.
>> Yes. >> Mayor Diegas. >> Yes. The ordinance in first reading item 7A passes. >> Thank you madame clerk. We are now on 7B. Mr. Attorney, please read uh the the quad judicial statement you need to make. >> Yeah. So before I read the item, um Mr.
Mayor, I need to read the um advertisement. Right. So this is uh please be advised that the following items on the board's agenda are quasdicial in nature. An opportunity for persons speak on each item will be made after an applicant and staff have made their presentation on each item. All testimony, including public testimony and evidence, will be made under oath or
affirmation. Additionally, each person who gives testimony may be subject to cross-examination. If you do not wish to either be cross-examined or sworn, your testimony will be given its due weight. The general public will not be permitted to cross-examine witnesses, but the public may request the board to ask questions of staff or witnesses on their behalf. Persons representing
organizations must present evidence of their authority to speak for the organization. Any person presenting any documents to the board should provide the town clerk with a minimum of 10 copies. Further details of the quasa judicial procedure may be obtained from the clerk. Uh at this point I know that um Mr. Mayor everyone has made their
disclosures as far as u uh conflicts. I I think it would be proper for the clerk at this point to swear in anyone who will be providing. >> So I will call on the clerk to go ahead and swear uh the applicant and all those wishing to speak in the public hearing as part of this uh proceeding. Everyone
who is going to be speaking again on this item. And actually for wait before before we do this for those that are online and that wish to speak as part of the quasi judicial hearing I need you to turn on your camera and take out and also unmute yourself to swear the oath
along with those who are in here uh with us here in chambers. So we'll give you 10 seconds to do that. Otherwise you will be we'll have to swear you in later or you'll be forclosed uh from testifying. So going once twice. Okay, madame clerk, go ahead and swear
in uh those that are in chambers. >> Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to say the truth and only the truth? So help you, God. >> Thank you. >> Let the record reflect, Mayor Diegas, that the two individuals that I see
participating online did not um they were not sworn in. >> Yeah, they did not uh ex Exactly. They did not uh um unmute themselves or uh turn on their camera. Okay. So, with that, um, we are now again on item 7B, which is a quasi judicial hearing. Um,
I'm required to go ahead and announce that. Um, >> I'll read the ordinance. >> Read the ordinance into the record. >> Yeah, go ahead and read the ordinance into the record. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. An ordinance to the town of Miami Lakes, Florida, amending the official zoning map to reszone a 22 acres plus or minus property located on the west side of
Commerce Way and northwest 146 street with folio numbers 32202 070 0010 32202 0680020 32202 0680030 and 32202
0680010 and more particularly described at attachment A from the IU Industrial District conditional and from the RM RM36 residential multif family 36 units to an acre to RM30 medium density residential district 30 units to an acre providing for incorporation of recitals
providing for findings providing for direction to the administrative official providing for repeal of laws in conflict providing for severability providing for exclusion from the code and providing for an effective date. >> Thank you. And Mr. Vasquez at least per my little rule sheet here before we go to you the um staff uh goes first.
That's what I've got here. blame the attorneys. >> Um, Susan Alonso for uh the planning department. Give me one second. And I'm hereby entering the staff report into the record as the recommendation of
staff. Um, as you have heard, uh, you have just passed in first reading the the comp plan amendment for this item. Uh, this is the time to consider only the resoning, uh, and not the site plan at all, just the resoning portion of it. And you're considering to reszone all
four properties from one from RM36 and the other three from IU to RM30, which is multifamily with 30 units to the acre. Um as as seen on the staff report um you know the the staff is recommending approval. It does meet the
general requirements of the of the area of most comp plan amendments and and for the comprehensive plan and of the zoning uh requirements. Um and I'm going to answer any questions that you have. >> Okay. So according again I'm just
following what the attorneys gave me. So, at this juncture, it would be appropriate for the applicant to go ahead and make the presentation, but I believe you simply, Mr. Vasquez, wanted to come up and incorporate by reference instead of going through the whole project all over
again. >> Give me one second, mayor. >> No problem. So once again, Jav Vasquez, Gudster Law Firm, 600 600 Bickl Avenue on behalf of the Graham Companies, and I would like to incorporate my presentation from the
Flume amendment. Um, by by reference, every bit of it. Um, the only thing I'd like to add very briefly is that as Miss Alonso mentioned, this is a qua judicial uh application. you have substantial competent evidence to go by and it's not
just my presentation but a staff recommendation of approval that went item by item in your code and in your uh with a full analysis finding compliance with every requirement and I would like that to be part of the record for the reasonzoning and having said that we'll
respectfully request your approval. >> Thank you very much. Next up, uh we are now in the public hearing. So, I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. Um would anyone from the public uh what um well, actually no, nobody else was sworn in. So, actually, yeah, that's
right. So, okay. So, with that, well, we're going to close the public hearing and then move on now to kind of respond. I have the right to cross-examine. I'm going to assume Mr. Vasquez, you do not plan to cross-examine any individuals. Okay. Um, and staff, I also
uh assume you do not plan to cross-examine anyone. Okay. And then now at this juncture, council members, you may ask questions of any speaker through the chair. So that basically would be the three uh who were sworn in. That would be Mr. Martinez, Mr. Vasquez, or
Miss Alonzo. Beginning with Councilman Sanchez. >> Mr. Alonzo, if you could please come up to the podium for a moment. Based on the calculations of the 541 units at 22.2 acres, it gives that we can reszone to RM25. So why the RM30
instead of the RM25? >> Um RM25 is not necessarily available. U I think we have the the is RM24 is the lower one. >> We wouldn't be able to create a new one under RM25,
>> right? Uh we could we could create a new a new district. That's true. We could do the same thing that we did. Um at the same time, it's usually customary to choose between the things that you already have, not reinvent the wheel. But but yeah, that would that would be a separate process. >> Mr. Mr. Mayor, if I can also speak on
that, >> Mr. Attorney, >> there is a law that was passed last year. It's called SP 180, and it kind of restricts us from doing any downzoning. Um, so that's something that really we wouldn't be able to do at this time.
>> Okay. No, that's the only question I had. Thank you. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, um, Mr. Vasquez, you may come up because again, you're allowed to ask questions of any speaker. >> Thank you, Mayor. And, um, Mr. sense is I think you'll have additional assurance in knowing that we're tying
approval of the reszoning and the site plan approval is going to be tied to the plan that's before you at that 24 units per acre. Um the RM30 that you all created in in 2025 gives us more flexibility on height and design as
opposed to what we could get to a lower uh but I think you're ending adding ending up with the density you want and we're doing that by the site plan application and our plan will be tied to our zoning. So you have the asurances on the density in that.
>> Okay. Thank you. that. Uh, Councilman Harsburg, >> I guess a question for town planner, but maybe for the town attorney first if if the question is within the the hearing. Um, and based on it might be for Mr. Vasquez
as well. Based off what was just profered, is there a way for us to approve this zoning change and then the site plan be amended to all the way up on RM30 in the highest density? Because right now, you know, we're understanding
it's going to be tied to the site plan. >> Turn the mic. >> Right now, you're only considering the resoning. Y >> um the site plan travels by itself and you will consider the site plan maybe at second reading after the resoning goes
through. So technically um once you finish with the resoning then you can consider the type plan which is what will be presented at that time. >> But once we consider the resoning we do arm 30 then they have arm 30 by right.
>> Correct. >> Okay. >> That's the Yes. That's something to discuss. Thank you. >> Question, >> vice mayor. >> Thank you. I have a question for the town planner. >> You might as well you you might as well
sit in the front row. Um I'm on page 62 of the agenda for for my colleagues. Um the staff report indicates uh in regards to in regards to whether the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Um it later on provides uh policy 5.1.1 utilize the following minimum loss level of service standards for parks and open space in Miami lakes. >> Correct. Then it gives some criteria but I'm more interested in the analysis and the finding which states that the town
is currently underserved with regard to level of service for total park area and large park area. Um in the findings it states conditionally complies provided the applicant provides a mitigation plan for their proportionate share of total
and large park area. So my question is number one can you explain that in plain English and number two um have they yet presented something a mitigation plan for their proportionate share of the total and large park area.
>> So our comprehensive plan which is something that we are slating to begin reconsidering uh in the next few months. We uh recently passed some funding so that we can uh put it out for RFP and and reconsider it. Our comprehensive
plan as approved requires us to provide a certain level and it's it's on the staff report. I'm just going to read right off the staff report. Um large parks of five acres or more um at at uh at a total a total area of five acres per thousand residents and those are
just large parks. So the smaller parks don't count for that. Uh we are required to have uh 1.75 acres of small parks per thousand residents. we do meet the total area and the small area of parks. But
when we come to the large parks, the number of residents that as per the census we have in town right now as as it stands right now, we're already um below the number of um acres per resident that we are required to have per our own comprehensive plan. This is
something that we imposed on ourselves at a certain type certain point in time and right now we're in deficit of it. Now, let me let me I do need to talk about this really quick. The problem that we have is in order for the comp plan to be and for us to be effectuate
an impact fee or requirement, we would have had to adopt an ordinance. That ordinance wasn't adopted. At this point, our comp plan for reasons that we've discussed needs to be revisited urgently. I think it's something that we've discussed. I've discussed it openly. Once that's being revisited, my
understanding also is that the conversation with Dr. Lopez is we're we're already looking at getting a uh an expert that can review our parks and can review our comp plan so that we can develop that ordinance so for future projects we can capture those expenses
or require uh the the donation of land. But at this point in time we do not have that ordinance that would allow us to do that. >> I guess this question is for both of you but primarily the attorneys. Um, and I get that this is probably a
consideration for another day, but why would we adopt the comp plan at this point when all comp plan changes are basically frozen under SP80 until like 2027? >> Why would we do that? >> That's not necessarily true. What SP 180
does is that it says that any changes to your land development code or your comp plan that creates restrictions that were not in place prior to August 1st, 2024 are void Aanitio and it uh extends it up
to I think 2027. It's either 2027 or 2028 but basically that's that's what the law says. >> Okay. Um, I guess my my my question my original question to the planner I guess wasn't really answered and maybe I
missed it is is just um have they proposed something yet uh to in terms of providing a mitigation plan for their proportion here have they >> well there's the discussion of I hate to say it again but the part three
>> okay great thank you so much so is this a proper place for me to consider the part I I would say no. >> Okay. I will reserve then for a later time when I can again bring up the par three. But uh that being said again um
my only other question to you madam planner is is in your professional opinion as a planner for many years. Uh do you believe that this um that the current plan as proposed is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and um
fits into the overall mode? >> Yes. Um considering that there's a lot of surrounding areas that are already residential that are already single family residential and and and medium density residential. Uh that being said,
um there is still, you know, mitigation that needs to be taken over, including with things like traffic, uh pedestrian improvements and um and the parks. >> And is all of that discussed, I guess, at site plan approval? >> Correct.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> I the mayor have a question for planner. >> Councilman Herszburg. >> Thank you. Um, great question, Vice Mayor. Good try on on the par three. Uh, that's part of my
discussions as well. But, uh, without discussing the specifics there, what am I confused? What would a mitigation plan park mitigation plan be? How does someone mitigate? >> I I just want to know. I >> So, my attorney my attorney has their own his own opinions about these. And
>> no, it's it's statute. Okay. Basically stat says in order to maintain level of service you have to create a uh a reggg in your land development code. I'll give you for instance in where we do this mobility fee. Mobility fee our comp plan states the level of service that we're
supposed to maintain. Then we did a mobility fee study. Mobility fee study was based on how do you collect those costs on impacts from new development based on our level our level of service on our comp plan. And so based on that we created a formula. So whenever there
is a new project, we collect mobility fees based on that and we have an ordinance in place. So for parks, it would be something similar. >> That's in your code, right? >> That's in our code, right? And a park is not in our code, >> right? >> Yeah. >> I got it. >> Yeah. And I just and I just want to I
just want to be clear though for for procedural purposes. There will be a rebuttal opportunity for the applicant and for staff. So right now we are on on members of this board questions to the speakers. >> Got it. A part that just doesn't exist. So when we when impact fees are paid,
it's done through the county's code and they're they're paid through the county and then we collect the collect from the county >> because the county does have >> Right. I that's what I understand because I know we have the open space funds and all those. So that's how it gets collected. So correct. That's why I'm just >> I'll talk to you. We'll talk to as we
move on. Thank you. >> Questions? Any further questions? That's your finger up. Okay, Vice Mayor Moretta, >> again for the planner, um the fifth the fifth criteria, uh page 64 of the
agenda, uh whether and the extent to which the proposal would result in demands on transportation systems, public facilities and services exceeding the capacity of such facilities and services. I'm just going to go ahead and skip to the bottom where it says finding complies. I just and maybe skipping is
probably the reason why I'm asking this question, but How did we find that this complies given the concerns that have been raised from the residents from from the dis from staff from everyone that it's not going to exceed the capacity of our current road system of of of our
infrastructure water everything >> water is one thing it's considered in a separate item and and there's a water allocation that has been provided by the county so yes all of these items have been considered the issue of traffic is
a very particular one and obviously it's a very sensitive issue in this town. So we we can address it but the thing is that we cannot we cannot consider the increase in traffic in a vacuum. We don't get to compare the increase of
traffic from what they're proposing to the cows. The cows obviously produce no traffic. And so you're you're you're basically comparing the the proposed project to the no build solution. In this case, because what they're proposing is a change of zoning, we get
to we should be comparing the proposed traffic, the proposed project, and what traffic that's going to create to what they could build under the current zoning conditions because they do have property rights to build things there as it stands right
now. And even without considering live local as a possibility, even even without considering 998 units or whatever number it is that they came up with, if even if you just consider uh the regular buildings that they could be
building under industrial zoning for um office buildings, which is likely what would end up there because it's not a great place for warehouses and and freight, right? they probably end up putting office buildings. Office buildings generate a certain number of
traffic per square foot and we can calculate that. So that's how we calculate whether or not it the increase of traffic is significant and it's actually resulting in a reduction of traffic not an increase. Uh especially if you consider that some of those office buildings could turn out to be
medical buildings which basically multiplies traffic times 10. and and you know the number of trips per square foot is a lot higher than it is when you're building residential. Does that make sense? >> It it does, but I guess it it doesn't
really answer the the root question, which is I I understand that if they went uh and developed an office building on the two parcels that are uh industrial uh office
and that they built housing where it's um RM36 that that would produce a certain number of traffic versus what is being proposed today. But the way in which the criteria is phrased is uh
>> the extent to which the proposal would result in demands exceeding the capacity. My question is how are we determining whether or not it exceeds our current capacity? >> Our current capacity. I get you. I get you understand I understand what you're saying. Um
so our capacity is supposed to be for a certain level of service which is on the west side of the town is actually level D. We are still slightly below that on the west side. Believe it or not, the the comprehensive plan and the original
plan of the county that we were handed over at the town of the county was considering all these things when they created this roads and it is still below the capacity of what it was supposed to be. Um the reality that our roads are
meeting demands that are not necessarily coming from residential uses that are coming from other things that are happening around us. um you know and anybody that has been around last week with the schools being out can tell what that is. U it's is that we do have an
increase in traffic that is coming from other uses that are making things a lot more difficult. Right. But >> I'll say it for you. You're talking about the schools. Yes. All right. All right. Don't tap that answer around this public hearing or um a question here. Go ahead. >> And and it is true, right? It is it is a
thing that we're all living through that whenever schools are out all of a sudden the traffic is it's much better. But uh but at the end of the day all these all these uses were calculated for a certain level of traffic. The facilities that were put in place with a certain amount
of lanes, turning lanes, LA were all put in place for to accommodate the the land uses that were allocated at the time and that was allocated for IU which you know contemplated the uses of offices and
including medical offices and hospitals which is would be a lot worse as far as traffic goes. So even though it doesn't seem it seems counterintuitive that this is actually a reduction in traffic, it actually is. >> Okay. Thank you.
Any other questions? Seeing none. Okay. So, excellent. Uh at this time, uh staff, do you have a rebuttal that you want to make about anything? Okay. Uh would the applicant like to make a rebuttal? Okay. Excellent. Now, now we're on the
discussion phase. Um let me see here. Okay. Well, first okay and so I apparently earlier I had mentioned that the public hearing was closed. I was incorrect. This would be the point where I have to declare the public hearing closed. So I'll do so now. And now at this point we are in
discussion and we'll entertain motions. Uh so with that based on uh for my part based on the confidence substantial evidence that's been presented the staff report and the the presentations made um you know and to advance this to second reading I'm going to move that we
approve 7B >> second it's been moved and seconded discussion vice mayor Moretta thank you u I I would uh to the extent possible reinccorporate the things that I said uh when we were considering the flume
Um, I I can't say that I have seen competent, substantial evidence to suggest that this is a a plan that will receive my approval at second reading. Um, but I can say that at this stage it is enough to allow me to to vote in
favor just to see it proceed forward and then we can clear up uh some of the questions that have been raised uh during during this discussion uh with with the the Grams and and their attorney directly uh as well as through through our our staff. Uh but at this
point I I'll like I said uh move it forward uh just to allow us to continue the process of refining this Next speaker, >> Councilman Harrisburg. >> Thank you, mayor. Um, yeah, agreed. Just as on the prior item that there's no
reason to stop it, so I'll be moving it forward. One of the concerns I might have that we'll discuss with the town attorney and and staff is giving the RM30 and then that's 30 by right and where the mitigation can be there. But otherwise uh we'll continue
the discussions but it does make sense to we already moved the first one so let's move the second one. >> Further discussion looking around. Okay. Uh see none. Madam clerk please call the role. >> Item 7B ordinance in first reading.
Council member Fernandez. >> Yes. >> Council member Garcia. >> No. >> Council member Hburg. >> Yes. Council member Sanchez, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Morera, >> yes.
>> Mayor Diegas, >> yes. >> The ordinance and first reading item 7B passes. >> Thank you, Madam Clerk. And before I adjourn the meeting, there being no further business, I was uh as the vice mayor mentioned earlier, and I'm going to reiterate it again for those watching. Um, art without limits is
taking place Friday, April the 10th from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. The special needs advisory board requested that we go ahead and announce that. So, please be sure to attend if you are able. With that, there being no further business, this special call meeting of the town council is now adjourned at 9:27 p.m.