[0:00] Not quite that loud, but good morning and welcome. I'd like to now call to order the December 13,

[0:07] 2023, 930 special Village Council meeting to order. And we would like to remind everyone

[0:17] that if you have a cell phone, to please silence that now so that we don't get disrupted in a

[0:24] people's train of thought on this thing, that includes counsel in myself. I'd also like to remind

[0:32] all our speakers and council members when you are speaking that you get close to the microphones,

[0:39] especially this one up here, adjusted, and it needs to be within five or six inches of your

[0:46] speaking voice there. So I'll remind you if we can't hear but sometimes a little more difficult to

[0:52] up here how it's going. So with that, I would like to start this meeting with an

[0:58] invocation from Kyle Strom. He is from the Ocean Church right down the street

[1:03] from here. Welcome, Kyle.

[1:08] Welcome, more than everybody. We have power heads and we'll ask the Lord to be

[1:13] present in this meeting. Father, we thank you for another day that you gave us

[1:17] breath in our lungs and the Lord, we thank you that we can come to you with anything

[1:22] that we have in our hearts, Lord, and I just pray for anybody in this room that is carrying

[1:27] heavy hearts this morning.

[1:28] Maybe they're worried, anxiety, fear, maybe, Lord, I pray that you would just meet this

[1:33] morning.

[1:34] And Lord, that we can come to you, but you came to us first as we celebrate Christmas that

[1:40] you came to us as a baby, not as what we expected, but Lord has, in a major scene, father.

[1:48] And Lord, I pray that if anybody is just struggling with just things that they're holding

[1:56] on to from the past Lord, I pray that you would just meet them.

[2:01] And Lord, you came to us as the gentle counselor, the mighty God, the Prince of Peace, and

[2:07] everlasting Father.

[2:08] And you said the world and this government will be on your shoulder.

[2:11] So Lord, we pray right now for the village of a sterile.

[2:14] We pray for this meeting.

[2:15] Thank you for the leaders that sit before me. You placed them in the seats and Lord give them wisdom this morning

[2:22] Lord, I pray for their families. I pray for their children. Lord, it's not easy. They're sitting where they're at.

[2:28] But you put them there for a reason for such a time as this.

[2:32] And Lord, I pray for this meeting. It would be the best meeting they've had all year.

[2:36] Lord, I pray for wisdom beyond human reasoning. Lord, that you would give them wisdom this morning.

[2:41] pray for just the speech this morning, it would be uplifting and edifying to you. And Lord

[2:47] we give you all the praise and all the glory in Jesus name. Amen. Amen. Thank you, God.

[2:54] Please join me in the pledge of allegiance.

[3:16] Madam Clerk, would you please call a role?

[3:23] Vice Mayor

[3:27] of his councilmember Ward here.

[3:30] Councilmember Zelokki here.

[3:36] Today we have one item on the agenda.

[3:39] That is a quasi-uditial, that is quasi-uditial.

[3:44] So I will turn this over to the village attorney

[3:46] to emphasize the format of today's meeting.

[3:51] Thank you, Mayor.

[3:52] This is a hearing on an appeal of a decision

[3:54] of the planning, zoning, and design board.

[3:57] brought pursuant to Section 2-4091 of the Village Code, the relevant provisions of that code section

[4:04] provide. Any party agreed by a decision of the PZDB shell prior to seeking judicial review,

[4:11] file with the Village Clerk within 30 days from the vote of the board and application for a

[4:17] appeal to the Village Council. Upon the filing of a notice of appeal, the Village Council's shell

[4:24] As soon as reasonably practicable, hold a public hearing upon the matter, and shall affirm, reverse, or affirm with modifications, the decision of the PZDB.

[4:37] The hearing shall be conducted as a denovo hearing.

[4:41] Having reviewed the code language I will now review some core legal points, both for council and for those in the room.

[4:48] The first point surrounds the record on appeal.

[4:51] As noted, this appeal is a denovo hearing, meaning the parties present their cases from the beginning.

[5:00] The PZDB record and order being appealed are part of the record in this hearing.

[5:07] Further, the evidence and other materials submitted from any party by the seven-day deadline,

[5:13] the established in Council procedures rule 10J has been automatically included in the record.

[5:23] Parties need not move such records into evidence as they are already part of the record.

[5:29] If a party seeks to introduce a record not submitted by the deadline,

[5:35] her the council rules, the council will have to determine if it will accept such late record.

[5:42] Turning now to the steps in this appeal hearing, pursuant to village code section 2-407,

[5:52] the council's quasi-judicial procedures will control. The parts of this hearing are therefore

[5:57] as follows. Disclosure of X-parta communications by council members. Disclosure of any

[6:10] oath to all persons who will be providing testimony, brief introduction by staff and identification

[6:19] of affected parties.

[6:23] Presentation of Appalence affected parties.

[6:27] The Appalence affected party has the burden of convincing counsel through evidence and

[6:32] argument that the decision of the PZDB should be reversed based on the arguments raised

[6:38] in the appeal document filed with the village.

[6:43] Following the presentation of a balance,

[6:45] we'll be cross-examination of a balance,

[6:47] effective parties, if necessary.

[6:52] Next, village staff will present

[6:56] after staff's presentation.

[6:58] There will be cross-examination of village staff,

[7:01] if necessary.

[7:03] Finally, I'm sorry, the applicant,

[7:06] Developers presentation after the applicant developers completed their presentation that will be cross examination if necessary.

[7:18] Each presenting party shall be limited to 45 minutes. Cross examinations if any her party shall be limited to 10 minutes in total.

[7:31] Following party presentations, the chair will call for public comment. Public comments are limited to three minutes, and speakers must have filled out a speaker's card. After public comment closes, the chair may permit the appellants affected parties up to three minutes for brief rebuttal remarks.

[7:56] Pursuant to the Council's procedure rules after the parties have presented, and the public comment is closed,

[8:04] Council will introduce a motion, debate the motion, and vote on the question.

[8:11] Council members may ask questions of witnesses at any time.

[8:16] However, to ensure each party is afforded its full time, it is recommended that Council members hold questions until each party

[8:24] has finished its respective presentations. In a quasi-judicial setting, the strict rules of evidence

[8:31] do not apply. However, a party or a party's lawyer may make objections. The chair will rule

[8:39] on the objection and if necessary seek guidance from the village attorney. The council's decision

[8:46] shall be based on competent substantial evidence in the record of the proceeding and the applicable law.

[8:53] Following the hearing, the Council's decision shall be reduced to writing.

[8:59] Appeals of the Council's decision may be made by filing a petition for rid of

[9:04] surgery in the Circuit Court's appellate division as provided for in the Florida

[9:09] Rules of Appellate Procedure.

[9:12] With those ground rules in place, Maryland handed back over to you to begin the proceedings.

[9:16] Thank you.

[9:17] At this time, I will ask Council members, if any of them wish to disclose any ex-part-day

[9:22] communications, any of them may have had with the appeal

[9:27] pellet or developer applicant regarding this hearing.

[9:32] So why don't we start with the vice mayor and we'll go around.

[9:34] I have none, mayor.

[9:36] I have none.

[9:41] I have none.

[9:42] Do we need to disclose the discussion we had at the briefing with the

[9:46] village manager in the turning side part of expertise?

[9:49] I don't know that.

[9:50] Yeah, this is where you have talked to one of the parties,

[9:54] the developer, or the applicant.

[9:58] I did have discussions with Ms.

[10:01] Mike Kovsky prior to the appeal in a noted,

[10:06] but since then, I have not, and I have none.

[10:10] I need to say that I had conversations with several homeowners

[10:16] in the affected area.

[10:18] And that's in Shadowwood, the Brooks community, just to discuss their concerns they had.

[10:24] Other than that, I've had no communication with the developer.

[10:29] So that's there.

[10:30] So now I ask that any council members, if they need to declare a conflict of interest

[10:35] because the outcome of this hearing ensures to the members or members, families, special private gain.

[10:43] So we'll start again in Vice Mayor.

[10:45] have none. I have no conflict. I have none. I have none. I have none. I have none. No conflict. I have

[10:52] none. Also, I will now ask the clerk to administer the the old to all persons who will be providing

[10:59] testimony. Can everyone please stand?

[11:07] That will be speaking today. Anyone who's going to be providing

[11:10] testimony? Okay. Do you swear to tell the truth? The whole truth and nothing but the truth? So

[11:16] help you God?

[11:25] At this time village staff and land use council will briefly introduce the matter,

[11:31] including providing staff's analysis regarding which persons qualify as affected parties.

[11:42] Good morning everybody. Mary Gibbs from staff. I feel like I have never left since we were here

[11:47] last night, but I do want everybody to know I did change clothes. I would like to just spend a

[11:54] a couple minutes to do the brief overview of what this case is about and then just touch on this

[11:59] agreed parties issue. This is of course in appeal of the Brooks Town Center, APPE-2023-E-O-O-1,

[12:10] and this is the Brooks Town Center is located at the corner, northwest corner of Coconut

[12:15] Road, and three Oaks Parkway. The project is about 10 acres in size, just a little bit

[12:22] low ten acres, and it's the existing shopping center that has the vacant wind

[12:27] dixie property, I think everybody's familiar with that. Developers proposing to

[12:32] demolish the wind dixie part of the plaza and construct a multifamily

[12:37] building on the parking lot area on the east side of the site. They're proposing to

[12:43] build 137 units that was reduced from the 158 units that came to you in the

[12:50] proposal. Then they would retain the existing commercial businesses, as well as the

[12:58] fine mark bank. Again, this case is an appeal of the decision of the planning

[13:03] and zoning board that relates to the development order. The development order is

[13:07] the site plan approval, the engineered plans, the layout of the property. It's not

[13:13] the zoning. The zoning has already been established and I'm going to touch on that

[13:17] bit later, but there's a little bit of confusion about that. So planning zoning and design board

[13:22] approved the development order with conditions which was the staff conditions and they added

[13:26] an additional condition about the parking. The applicant did not agree with that decision of planning

[13:31] zoning and design board and that's why it's being appealed to council. So in the appeal and I think

[13:37] the attorney mentioned this, the council has three options. You can affirm the planning zoning

[13:42] design board decision, you can affirm it with modifications or you can reverse it.

[13:47] Staff is recommending that we affirm it, which means the development order would be approved

[13:52] with the same conditions that the planings on a design board had imposed when they

[13:58] heard the case.

[14:00] So let me move on just to what the degree of parties issue isn't what does that mean because

[14:05] it's a very legalistic and everybody's like, what does it agree with party?

[14:09] Now, planning is on a design board had reviewed this development order on October 10th.

[14:15] They approved it with conditions.

[14:17] There's a provision in the code as the attorney just mentioned that the grief party

[14:21] can file an appeal within 30 days of that decision.

[14:25] And that appeal was filed within 30 days by 37 residents of the Brooks and early days on,

[14:31] Mrs. Wyrowski has been early days on 37 people.

[14:35] So in the appeal, you know, we're going to listen to all the parties, that's what happens before you make any decision.

[14:42] But the grief parties is defined at our land development code, and it says anybody who has a legally recognizable interest,

[14:49] which may be adversely affected by an action of the village.

[14:54] So in order for the staff to determine who we think the affected parties or the grief parties are,

[15:00] To recommend to you, we took the list of the 37 applicants from the Brooks, and we made the list which we put in your packet and is also in line. It's a one-page list. It follows the staff report. It lists the 37 applicants. And then we looked at their addresses. And we looked on our computer system or GLS to see the proximity of the applicants to this project.

[15:24] So, going back and looking at that, we found that the closest neighbors are less than 500

[15:32] feet.

[15:32] There's five parties.

[15:34] There are two of them are within our 254 feet away from the project.

[15:39] One is 345 feet or two are, and one is 470 feet.

[15:45] And these neighbors are on Magnolia, for the most part, Magnolia Lane, which is just north

[15:50] of the projects, and there's a conservation area which separates the projects from Magnolia.

[15:57] There's one appellant who's over 800 feet, and the remaining 31 or over 1,000 feet away in

[16:03] different locations in the Brooks. So staff is recommending that the parties within 500 feet

[16:09] be considered the grief parties. And the reason for this is there, of course, the closest to the

[16:14] property. And then if you look at the case case law that the applicant supplied, which just shows

[16:21] that in many cases, when you're looking at a degree of party it might be the distance that

[16:27] you notify people about development order actions. So we notify people within 500 feet when

[16:34] we have a development order. So that seems to be a reasonable distance and is also supported

[16:39] by the case law.

[16:40] So what we're recommending is that these five

[16:42] appellants, Kathy Wyrowski, Rudolph Wyrowski, William Clark,

[16:48] Galeen Clark, and David Costello,

[16:51] be considered the degree of parties.

[16:53] And so if you agree with that, we'll go ahead

[16:56] and get started with the proceedings.

[16:57] We let the applicant talk first,

[17:00] unless you have any other questions for me.

[17:04] we have anybody object to that definition and I see, I see no council members, I see no council members and that's so.

[17:18] Go ahead and proceed.

[17:19] All right, so I think the first, we turned this over to the applicant now,

[17:24] which I think that way we'll be starting this off and then they get 45 minutes.

[17:30] We try to hold the questions into the end.

[17:32] Oh, I agree objecting, this is Steve Hartel, and he's here because Neil Montgomery couldn't be here to he represents the developer.

[17:47] I don't know if that's in order of what we've established.

[17:53] I believe that we were going to hear first from the grieved parties.

[17:58] I think he's wanting to make an objection.

[18:00] and he's not wanting to make a presentation.

[18:02] That's was that correct?

[18:04] OK, that's great.

[18:05] I'm going to break briefly for the record.

[18:11] I'm Steve Hartzel with Povies law firm.

[18:13] I'm here on behalf of the developers and owners

[18:17] of the Brooks Town Center apartments.

[18:20] As Mary pointed out, my partner, Neil Montgomery.

[18:23] I'm so good.

[18:24] Sorry.

[18:26] My partner, Neil Montgomery, is unable to be here

[18:28] because she's in the middle of another hearing,

[18:31] right at this moment. She would much rather be here, I'm sure. I do want to at least put on the

[18:38] record our objection to finding that any of these folks are agreed or adversely affected in any

[18:48] manner or degree greater than other members of the public. So we are not in agreement that any of them

[18:56] are a grieved parties. I don't want to go into a big presentation about that, but we at least

[19:01] wanted that to be on the record to the extent that that becomes an issue in the future.

[19:06] Thanks very much.

[19:07] Thank you.

[19:08] Okay.

[19:09] And why do that?

[19:10] The, um, now the appellants.

[19:12] Thank you.

[19:13] I'm sorry.

[19:14] Yes.

[19:14] I think the applicant will want us to make a quick comment.

[19:18] Okay.

[19:22] I reject that we're not a grieved.

[19:24] Oh, I'm sorry, Kathy.

[19:25] Why, Ralphski?

[19:26] And by the way, are you married in?

[19:27] From Guardian?

[19:28] Thank you.

[19:29] We had a higher year, but I have to say, thank you.

[19:32] I think that there are many, many reasons why we are

[19:35] aggrieved, and I think they are in the presentation we

[19:38] would have given view, noise, lights, serenity, the peace,

[19:45] the security.

[19:46] There's so many reasons on top of the fact that we are within

[19:49] 500 feet.

[19:50] So I disagree with Mr. Cartel, because I'm sorry.

[19:54] Thank you.

[19:54] We've heard from both parties on that.

[19:56] So now, we'll have the Appellates event and the effect of parties present their case.

[20:01] They will have a total of 45 minutes, which they will allocate among themselves if they desire.

[20:08] And I think we mentioned earlier that we will preserve the 45 minutes of time and counsel at the conclusion of their presentation.

[20:17] Will then ask any questions that are pertinent?

[20:37] Okay, thank you.

[20:40] I am Kathy Wyrowski, as you know, 1, 0, 0, 8, 9, Magnolia Ben, Shadowwood, the Brooks.

[20:46] Thank you for scheduling this hearing.

[20:48] I should be the principal presenter, but she'll be joined by Bill Clark, who will establish

[20:52] location density and later some applicable florida statutes.

[20:56] David Small will read the legal memorandum prepared for us by Ralph Brooks to be given in his absence.

[21:01] He will review our summary of the Bay Point, excuse me,

[21:05] incorporated versus Bay County case,

[21:08] and Mary Blakely, who will list areas of the development order

[21:10] that are inconsistent with the Estero Land Development Code.

[21:14] Before I begin, I would like to tell everyone present

[21:16] that I was told by the village that we would have an uninterrupted

[21:20] 45 minutes in which to present material of our choice.

[21:24] When you consider the cumulative impact of these presentations,

[21:27] you cannot help in our minds but conclude

[21:29] with the development order, DOS 2023-E01O Brooks Town Center,

[21:36] lacked necessary authorization, under Florida, and local law,

[21:40] and therefore should be reversed or remanded.

[21:43] As Denobo means from the beginning or made from scratch,

[21:46] we hope you are here with an open mind to hear our appeal presentation.

[21:51] We must include a review of the process leading up

[21:53] to the approval of this development order

[21:55] as we will show it is crucial, not only to our appeal,

[21:59] but to the legality of this process.

[22:01] Many residents of the Brooks are disillusioned

[22:03] as we do not feel the villages acted

[22:05] in our best interests in this case.

[22:08] Our interests were not considered at all.

[22:10] And in fact, we'll be negatively affected

[22:13] by this development order and development.

[22:16] And before we continue,

[22:18] I wish to set the record straight.

[22:20] I refute that I have ever said that I use

[22:24] the conservation area as I do not.

[22:27] and to do so would be illegal.

[22:30] The conservation area owned by the CDD is for natural wildlife and vegetation and is not to be used by residents, other than to enjoy the view.

[22:41] Trespassing is illegal, hence are concerned with its proximity to the new development.

[22:47] As for my emails, I plead guilty. I plead guilty to being tireless in my determination to protect the rights of my neighbors and hope all officials and staff

[22:59] take that same approach to their responsibilities.

[23:04] David Small.

[23:05] Good morning. I'm David Small. I live at 1 0 0 5 5 Magnolia Bend in Shadowwood.

[23:15] I'm going to be reading the memorandum of law prepared by our attorney Ralph Brooks,

[23:19] as well as providing additional commentary on the relevance of the Bay Point versus Bay County case

[23:25] and why we believe it applies.

[23:28] Before I begin, I'd like to inform everyone here

[23:31] that I am not a lawyer in practice,

[23:33] nor education or training.

[23:35] I have zero legal background.

[23:38] I'm simply here because we were not afforded the opportunity

[23:41] to schedule a date and time in which our attorney was available.

[23:46] I'll now read a summary that our attorney prepared for us.

[23:51] Development orders must be consistent with the comprehensive plan,

[23:54] even with a vested DRI. Once a local comprehensive plan is reviewed and found in compliance

[24:02] by the State Land Planning Agency under the Growth Management Community Planning Act,

[24:08] the duly adopted local comprehensive plan is then controlling law. Once a comprehensive plan

[24:15] is adopted, all development orders must be consistent with the comprehensive plan pursuant

[24:22] Florida statute. The Community Planning Act requires that a development order shall be consistent

[24:29] with the comprehensive plan if the land uses densities or intensities and other aspects of the

[24:36] development permitted by such order or regulation are compatible with and further the objectives,

[24:43] policies, land uses and densities or intensities of the comprehensive plan. This has been made

[24:50] abundantly clear in case law from the Florida Supreme Court.

[24:55] A DRI that does not contain a density limitation on multifamily use in the Brooks Town

[25:02] Center does not vest a particular density for a new multifamily use.

[25:08] In this case, any changes to the built-out town center, exchanging retail for multifamily,

[25:14] must be consistent with the density contained in the duly adopted comprehensive plan

[25:20] future land use map, which happens to be hanging on the wall in this building.

[25:26] In particular, the designation limiting density to a maximum of four units per acre.

[25:33] Although section 163 provides that, nothing in this act shall limit or modify the rights of any person

[25:41] to complete any development that has been authorized as a development of regional impact pursuant to chapter 380 or who has been issued a final local development order and development has commenced and is acting in good faith.

[25:57] In 2004, the first district court of appeals made it clear that changes to a vested or built out the R.I. must be consistent with the comprehensive plan.

[26:08] The district court in the Bay Point opinion, which was issued after the Edgewater Beach

[26:15] Owner's Association versus Walton County, it was made clear that changes to a vested

[26:20] or built out the R.I. must then be consistent with the comprehensive plan.

[26:26] All development orders must be consistent with the comprehensive plan as the comprehensive

[26:31] plan exists on the date of issuance of the development order.

[26:35] In evaluating an application for a development order, a local government cannot use a prior

[26:43] built-out portion of a DRI to invalidate a comprehensive plan designation and replace the

[26:50] eradicated designation with whatever the local government sees fit to apply in a settlement

[26:56] agreement. Such a change can only be made under the plan amendment procedures of the act.

[27:02] Even compliance with the zoning and land regulations is not sufficient to provide consistency with the maximum density contained in the comprehensive plan.

[27:14] The Brooks DRI development order make it clear that any changes to the built-out completed town center shall be subject to the planned development rezoning process.

[27:25] All resonings must be consistent with the density sent forth in the comprehensive plan,

[27:31] limiting density to four units per acre for the town center property.

[27:36] Further, resonings requiring procedural safeguards of two public readings that provide for due

[27:43] process, and the initial burden is on the applicant to show by competent and substantial evidence

[27:49] that the development order conforms strictly to the maximum density in the comprehensive plan.

[27:56] I'd also like to briefly comment concerning Nancy Stroud's December 2023 memo. She challenged

[28:03] us on the meaning of the Bay Point versus Bay County case. We believe the holding is straightforward,

[28:10] where a developer enjoys vested rights under a DRI, the development can proceed consistent with the

[28:16] R.I. notwithstanding changes in law. However, that protection does not extend to changes or variations

[28:23] from the D.R.I. that in themselves do not trigger the need for a further D.R.I., but which

[28:30] conflict with current law such as a subsequently established comprehensive plan? In other words,

[28:37] you start with the development that is going to have a regional impact. That forces and requires

[28:42] a developer to go through the expensive and time-consuming DRI process. However once through it,

[28:49] the developer enjoys the right to construct what has been approved in the DRI. That right is

[28:55] vested so that subsequent changes in the law do not trump that right, which would otherwise require

[29:01] the developer to go back through the DRI process again. If, however, the developer makes changes

[29:08] in the development that our minor in the sense they would not trigger another DRI review,

[29:14] those changes are not immune from compliance with local standards such as a comprehensive

[29:20] plan. Even if the comprehensive plan was put in place subsequent to the original DRI.

[29:27] It would be nonsensical to say that something that did not exist when the vested right was created

[29:32] could be vested. That makes sense in that everything should be subject to review. The DRI is

[29:39] the review for the original plan. Significant changes that are major would be reviewed in a new

[29:45] DRI, but minor changes would simply slip through the cracks unless they were subject to local

[29:51] standard such as the comprehensive plan. Thank you. I appreciate your time. I will turn it over to

[29:57] New York.

[30:04] My name is Bill Clark. I live at 1 0 0 9 7 Magnolia Ben, and good morning and council members.

[30:13] The comprehensive plan of the village of Astero was established in 2018, amended in 2019, and by 2020 was fully recognized by the State of Florida.

[30:22] On the screen, you can see if we can get it. And you can see the future.

[30:29] Oh, did you want me to...

[30:30] Just keep going.

[30:32] You can see the hanging...

[30:36] On the screen, you can see the future land use map of a sterile.

[30:41] And all the books, including towns in our clearly in the village, one neighborhood.

[30:46] And that's what we saw.

[30:47] And I think what David referred to on the hallways we came in.

[30:55] We're going to change that.

[30:59] OK.

[30:59] Thank you.

[31:00] Didn't get that.

[31:02] OK.

[31:02] A second map, which I don't know if I have it.

[31:09] This map is the sterile land development code map, and it's inconsistent with the future land use map.

[31:17] As this is not the form to create the required consistency, we simply pass out a note that the zoning map was amended in 2021 and is inconsistent with the future land use map.

[31:28] We'd like to see this inconsistency corrected.

[31:32] Density was not addressed in the DRI for the Town Center.

[31:36] It is the comprehensive plan that determines density in the comprehensive plan for a

[31:40] era specifically states.

[31:43] Predominant land uses in Village 1 neighborhood will be lowered density residential uses

[31:48] with the potential to allow for minor commercial or limited neighborhood commercial.

[31:53] Also assisted living facilities, public and quasi-public uses, in each case through a public hearing process.

[32:01] Higher densities, greater than four dwelling units per acre.

[32:05] Commercial development greater than neighborhood centers in industrial land uses are not permitted.

[32:12] The standard dense range is from one dwelling unit per acre to four dwelling unit per acres.

[32:17] Bonus densities are not allowed.

[32:19] This is reinforced by the chart in the comp plan, and I'll now turn it over to Kathy.

[32:29] Kathy, why Rothschaden?

[32:32] In order to understand the key to our appeal, we need to discuss some history.

[32:37] The chronology Mary Gibbs has prepared is missing some crucial details in our mind.

[32:43] While Nancy Stroud showed calls against this development in 2022,

[32:48] we believe that two important arguments were left out.

[32:54] The 200 additional units granted to the DRI for the Oak Brook project in 2013 were specific to the land referred to as the Martini glass parcel of the Brooks that is now pebble point.

[33:08] Lee County, DRI, 2012, 0019, and DRI, 2012, 0039, excuse me, specified the specific location, including the strap number, 1147, 25, 0000, 001, 000, and provided a drawing of the site for the approved additional 200 units.

[33:38] This strapped number is specific to the Pebble Point Oakbrook property.

[33:44] Further, it expressly mandated master plan consistency.

[33:48] Lee Counties at that time.

[33:51] Indeed, there was a further restriction of these additional units.

[33:56] Section B conditions of the approval states specifically.

[34:00] And this is the hearing examiner and is in the hearing examiner's report recommendations as well.

[34:06] All administrative approvals granted after the adoption of Zoning Resolution Z-97-037 as amended also remain in full force and effect, except the use of multi-family mid-rise is not a permitted use, and this use is removed from the approved schedule of uses and priority, a property development regulations on the master concept plan.

[34:34] The definition of mid-rise family, multifamily residences at that time in Lee County, MCP, is three to ten stories.

[34:44] Removing this requires that all of the residences built with any of the 200 additional units must be one to two stories in height.

[34:54] This is equivalent to the current Estero LDC requirement for low density building heights of 35 feet and never 50 feet.

[35:02] The county explained that this condition was to keep the new development compatible with the rest of the Brooks.

[35:10] Further, in her petition to Lee County for the additional units for Pebble Point, Ms. Montgomery stated,

[35:17] adding those 200 units don't have an impact.

[35:20] I think we would all disagree with that.

[35:22] She goes on to say that adding the units is necessary in order to develop the actually develop the property.

[35:30] In Chip's staff report he indicates that there's 48 units left.

[35:35] This refers to the university units left in the 1997 DRI, for the Brooks.

[35:43] She said further, but you know, when most of the property in here was sold, it was sold

[35:47] with an allocation of units.

[35:49] So it was not to get any kind of legal entanglement with anybody else if we don't think

[35:53] those can be developed anywhere.

[35:56] She also stated, this is just the 200 units that will

[36:00] on the subject property. She later confirmed as you have heard it's a developed area. It's an

[36:07] essentially built out DRI. The festive rights for the Brooks DRI expired with the final development

[36:16] order of Pebble Point. It is fully developed. It used the remaining 48 units and an additional

[36:23] site-specific 42 units for a total of 90 residential units.

[36:29] That left 158 unused units.

[36:34] The development plan for townset are started with 157 units using the same lawyer in the

[36:39] same engineering company.

[36:41] Indeed, the engineering company designed the original town center under the Brooks DRI around

[36:46] 2008.

[36:47] The town center was completed, per the DRI, and received a final development order.

[36:54] These extra units cannot be transferred from strapped number 1147-25001.00000.

[37:04] What is now Pebble Point?

[37:06] To change the land use and density on the town center site,

[37:10] requires a rezoning or comp plan amendment.

[37:13] Both of which would have been easy to fight on compatibility and density.

[37:19] But the signing of the settlement agreement removed these requirements and removed your policing power.

[37:26] That said, because this claim was not justified, it seems misleading.

[37:30] A possible deceptive to us. The development order, and we believe the very settlement agreement, should be void.

[37:37] Clearly, any residential development approved in the future at Town Center, or in the Brooks-DRI or Compland, must be one to two stories, or a maximum of 35 feet at all.

[37:48] Further, the billed out date for the DRI's expired. There are no remaining DRI vested rights, as all additional were cite, specific only.

[38:12] Good morning. My name is Marianne Blakely. I live at 1-0-0-39, Magnolia Ben, and Chadwood.

[38:22] Right behind the proposed complex.

[38:28] The approved development order is inconsistent with a sterile land development code.

[38:34] And the Estero Master Comprehensive Plan.

[38:38] The LDC numbers, I will be referring to, are from the land development code of the village of Estero.

[38:46] First, let's review the deviations provided by the planning zoning in design board.

[38:53] Number one, the deviation from land development code,

[38:57] table 5, dash 204, b1, minimum number of street parking was reduced by 21 spaces.

[39:07] Reduced from the minimum. We have already been told,

[39:11] of parking issues at the Town Center merchants are not happy.

[39:16] Weir will the residents and their guests park. This is not an urban area with other parking

[39:24] choices.

[39:27] There is no neighborhood parking accessible. This is a serious safety issue. Without ample

[39:34] parking residents may be forced to park along three oaks in coconut. Not only is this illegal,

[39:42] but it could cause a tremendous safety issue for residents of the Brooks. As you know, this is already

[39:48] a very busy intersection, especially at high traffic hours. And it will only get more so with

[39:55] planned development at 41 in Coconut. This deviation clearly only helps the land developer

[40:01] and land owner and developer add more units that are feasible on the site. This is a huge

[40:09] negative for us residents.

[40:13] Number two, the deviation approved from the LDC 7-206 is not to

[40:20] current code. This clearly is just for the convenience of the land owner and the builder.

[40:25] and could be a future issue with future hurricanes.

[40:30] All elevation must be to current code.

[40:34] This is clear in consistency and should not be allowed.

[40:38] Number 3.

[40:40] The third deviation once again is not in the interest of us residents.

[40:43] LDC 5-604-C, table 5-604-C, list the maximum allowed height for exterior lighter lighting

[40:56] to be 15 feet. But again, the board approved a higher height of 20 feet. This clearly

[41:03] will be disruptive to current residents in our wildlife adjacent to our preserve and should

[41:10] be allowed. The conservation areas behind the town center contain much wildlife, some of which is

[41:19] federally and stated protected. Indeed, we would argue for more restrictive lighting in this

[41:24] development as any lighting would clearly be seen in dams the view and serenity of the nearby neighbors.

[41:33] Other inconsistencies include number four, LDC Section 155.

[41:42] The land use map may list multi-use for the land, but the density is detailed in the

[41:48] compound.

[41:50] The land development code section 155 requires consistency with the comprehensive plan and states

[41:57] this LDC is intended to ensure that all development within the village is consistent with the

[42:04] goals, objectives, and policies in future land use maya, and value m of the comprehensive plan.

[42:13] Where there are clear conflicts between the comprehensive plan and this LDC, the comprehensive plan

[42:20] Shell Control.

[42:22] This development is entirely inconsistent with the density required

[42:26] in the comprehensive plan.

[42:38] Future section 1, 502 states.

[42:42] All development permits, as defined in state law,

[42:46] including by not limited to developments

[42:48] of regional impact, the Allies, amendments

[42:51] to the zoning districts, maps, rezoning, plan,

[42:54] development, et cetera.

[42:56] Shell be consistent with the comprehensive plan.

[42:58] Number five, LDC3-301A.

[43:04] Requires that development must provide appropriately located lands for residential development

[43:12] that are consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the comprehensive plan

[43:20] against this development order is not consistent.

[43:23] Number six, LDC3-301E.

[43:27] We inquire that residential neighborhoods are protected from incompatible development.

[43:33] Clearly, this fourth story, 134 unit apartment complex in the middle of the residential

[43:40] bricks of village neighborhood one is again clearly inconsistent.

[43:46] Number 7, LDC3301.

[43:50] Residential districts.

[43:51] We have clearly shown town center in all of the books to be in the village neighborhood

[43:57] one.

[43:58] Have a maximum building height of 35 feet and density maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre.

[44:05] This development order allows for 50 foot high residential height, clearly inconsistent,

[44:11] and clearly not in the interest of us neighbors.

[44:15] And residents, we will have apartment dwellers that can look right into my neighbor's

[44:19] records, privacy and views are being destroyed.

[44:23] This is completely unacceptable.

[44:26] Number eight, LDC-3303.

[44:31] Requires district regulations to discourage development

[44:36] that substantially interferes with the quiet residential

[44:38] nature of the district, and this will clearly interfere

[44:42] with our quiet and with all the quiet nature

[44:46] of the preserve in general.

[44:47] Number nine, LDC-703, requires that residential districts will be consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives in the comprehensive plan.

[45:00] Number 10, 4-101. As the entire 9-plus acre lot is being considered, as one due to the ownership contract, the site

[45:12] cannot contain more than the single principle used for a lot. It is inconsistent with part of the land development code.

[45:23] 11. LDC-408C. We require that this plan have 35% open space, but it does not.

[45:34] 12. Earlier we passed out a page from LDC with an illustration. I'd like to show you

[45:41] the look at the LDC figure 5-706B building transition. Clearly this forest story building

[45:48] to the town center shops meets the do not do this illustration, another major inconsistency.

[45:57] This builder building will forever be an isor in the Brooks. It is far too large and will be a

[46:05] visual blight. Number 13. Parking recommendations in the astero-compliance of plan for buildings

[46:14] of this type are not being followed.

[46:19] There are more, but these are the fundamental flaw,

[46:22] and density allowance that enough reason to avoid this development order as inconsistent.

[46:30] We are furious that our interests have not been considered.

[46:36] You have the responsibility to protect our interests in our quality of life.

[46:41] This development and this process are doing just the exact opposite.

[46:47] You are damaging our quality of life and the value of our homes and this is unacceptable.

[46:54] I'm sure that if you asked the majority of people that are in this room right now, they

[47:00] would definitely tell you that this is not in your residence best interest.

[47:07] Thank you.

[47:15] Kathy Wairovsky.

[47:19] This was not a transparent process.

[47:22] There were no public meetings or discussions of this project or its litigation for two years.

[47:27] And you knew that the residents of the Brooks were very interested.

[47:32] We were to believe there was no discussion, no work around, no legal counsel.

[47:37] Thank you, Mayor McLean, for being the only council member to care enough to investigate

[47:42] our situation and to show any concern for our interests.

[47:46] Last week, you visited with me and seven of my neighbors to see how negatively impacted

[47:51] we will be.

[47:54] However, when one of the neighbors asked Mary McLean, how this process could have taken place

[47:59] without meetings or even shade meetings, you did tell us that at least two executive sessions

[48:06] were held to discuss the ongoing litigation, which I believe.

[48:12] But then why, when Ralph Brooks and I asked this specific question, did Village Council

[48:16] Rob Eschenfelder right back and say, the Village Council did not conduct a litigation

[48:23] shade meeting related to this matter.

[48:25] There are therefore no records responsive to your request.

[48:31] We believe scheduling meetings that are this important to the public at a time when they

[48:35] are not in Florida is unreasonable.

[48:39] Being told that approval is expected prior to public involvement is unfair.

[48:45] Being denied prior participation in proceedings for an invalid reason is wrong.

[48:51] You know I did not have to be the only or the most adversely affected individual, yet that

[48:56] was allowed to stand by staff, village, council, and the board.

[49:02] The planning zoning and design board chairman didn't know where developments are in the

[49:06] Stero when he incorrectly stated at the October 10th meeting that the four-story apartment

[49:10] complex at Williams Road and via coconut was in the Brooks DRI.

[49:16] Engineer Car Charles Krebs of Holmonties told the public and the board at that same meeting

[49:21] that there exists a wooden fence all along the conservation land border and town centre.

[49:26] This is untrue.

[49:29] There were additional false statements at that October meeting.

[49:40] Again, I'm a bill clerk on Magnolia.

[49:44] Per Florida Statue 112.3143, any elected or appointed officer shall make reasonable effort

[49:51] to disclose the nature of his or her interest as a public record in a memorandum filed with

[49:56] the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who shall incorporate the memorandum

[50:01] in the minutes.

[50:02] The memorandum must be filed in the later than 15 days after the vote.

[50:06] No officers shall vote in an official capacity upon any measure which would endure to his or

[50:12] his or her special private gain or loss.

[50:14] It would seem inappropriate once an officer is received a gain from work that they could then

[50:20] think they have no conflict when discussing or voting on the very project that provided this gain.

[50:27] The statute goes on to require any such memorandum shall become a public record immediately

[50:31] provided to other agency members, and Shelby Red publicly at the next meeting held subsequent

[50:37] to the filing of the written memorandum.

[50:40] For the record, participate means any attempt to influence a decision whenever a public

[50:44] officer is being considered for appointment or reappointment, the appointing body shall

[50:49] consider the number and nature of the memorandum and conflict previously filed.

[50:55] In October, Kathy printed out all of the minutes of the last two years, in no case, was

[51:01] form 8B attached or an oral disclosure included.

[51:06] How are pointed officials being screened for conflicts without required declarations and declaration forms?

[51:14] Florida statute 112.311 states that no officer shall have any interest, financial or otherwise

[51:20] director and director engage in any business transaction or professional activity or

[51:26] in current obligation of any nature, which is a substantial conflict with the proper discharge

[51:33] of his or her duties in the public interest, recognizing that promoting the public interest

[51:40] and maintaining the respect of the people in the government must be the foremost concern.

[51:46] Please note that Mr. Barry Jones was listed as a shareholder of the engineering firm of

[51:51] Montes, when he was re-appointed to the board in 2021.

[51:56] Whole Montes designed the site for the Town Center apartment complex, which was presented

[52:01] as town in 2020 and 2021.

[52:05] Mr. Jones made the motion to approve the final development order and voted to approve

[52:10] it.

[52:13] While Nancy Schraud writes that this vote may not have mattered, it doesn't make any

[52:18] difference.

[52:19] It's like going through a red light getting pulled over by a cop.

[52:21] Well, I didn't have an accident, you know, it's against the rules.

[52:25] I'm in the security's business. I'm subject to a lot of rules. Complain...

[52:30] With conflicts. If I'm on a board, I can't have anything to do with any other benefit businesses. Otherwise, I could get in a lot of trouble.

[52:38] So conflicts of interest are important to enforce. As of the September 12th to 20th, as of the September 12th, 2023 meeting, Mr. Michael Sheely recluse himself from voting on a manner concerning the Abidite dental building.

[52:53] No declatory detail was provided, still no form AP is attached to the minutes, and no declaration was read at the next meeting, though his firm designed to the building.

[53:05] There are other similar cases, but in the interest of time, I'm not going to go through these.

[53:10] In summary, we do not believe that there are any remaining vested rights in the 1997 or the 2013 DRI Resolutions.

[53:18] All additional 200 units added in the 2013 were site-specific for the town and not for the town center.

[53:25] If further condition was that the building height could only be two stories maximum,

[53:29] so that these residents could be compatible with the Brooks current density.

[53:33] Further, we think that the R.A. buildout time extension is expired.

[53:37] This may have contributed to the Russia meetings and decisions this year,

[53:41] and this development order clearly required a rezoning application

[53:45] in comprehensive plan application, which, of course, would have been challenged and required

[53:50] to comply with the 2018 Astero Comprehensive Plan.

[53:54] Density was not specified in the DRI, but it is specified in the Astero Comprehensive Master Plan.

[54:01] The Astero Future Land Use Map puts all the Brooks, including a town center village, clearly

[54:06] in neighborhood one, an area of low density, no exceptions.

[54:10] This restricts the town center and all the books to the maximum of 35 feet.

[54:16] There are many inconsistencies with the deltment order in the land development

[54:19] code of a sterile providing further cause for appeal of the approval.

[54:25] Kathy wrote to the land owners and the developer this past summer and asked that

[54:29] they would meet with the residents to discuss better options or more compatible

[54:33] options for the town center.

[54:35] We have never had any response.

[54:37] We were not involved in the process.

[54:39] My view is directly across from this development.

[54:44] I can hear right now when they pick up the garbage and so on in the noise.

[54:49] This building height will be above the tree line.

[54:52] I will see this development very clearly.

[54:55] It will change the value and the enjoyment of my home that I was hoping that the city council would defend.

[55:04] Not to mention the extreme disruption of that this development will cause.

[55:12] In the middle of a completely developed, site near residents, we have a nice conservation area across

[55:18] us that butts right up to this development.

[55:21] There will be noise pollution made worse by the sound coming across the lake between the two

[55:27] properties that we're talking about and we've heard many residents that have not that would

[55:34] We'd like to have a different option

[55:36] explored for this development, and we haven't

[55:38] had so.

[55:39] Thank you.

[55:46] I would like to ask the audience not to clap

[55:49] after all these, this is a serious matter that

[55:52] we're dealing with, and that's just not appropriate.

[55:55] So, thank you.

[55:56] Please abstain.

[55:58] Kathy, why are off-scaling?

[56:00] The development order should not have been approved.

[56:04] It was basically pre-approved by Village Council

[56:07] via the settlement agreement before it was presented

[56:09] to the planning zoning and design board.

[56:13] Safety and security for both the conservation area and the residents of Shadowwood should have

[56:18] been resolved prior to any agreement.

[56:22] The village council bargained away policing power as well as the necessity to resume.

[56:29] Residents and their interests were never considered.

[56:33] The settlement agreement and the development order clearly only favor the land owner and developer.

[56:38] Land that they had already developed per the original intentions of the DRI.

[56:44] If this inconsistency is allowed, we will be putting out the welcome act for developers

[56:49] and many more unnecessary legal complexities.

[56:54] The residents put their trust in town council to protect them.

[56:58] Town council has a responsibility to protect them.

[57:02] The very incorporation of a store was to be based on transparency, resident interest,

[57:07] and involvement and responsible development. We have a comprehensive plan, specifying, density,

[57:16] and intensity of our land, and this document must be followed. No development in village neighborhood

[57:23] one can exceed four dwelling units per acre, and no multi-family building can exceed 35 feet.

[57:31] No vested rights remain in the Brooks DRI, and if they did, they would be site specific

[57:38] to strap number, don't think I need to repeat it, which is now the pebble point community.

[57:46] Even if residences could be built, they would be restricted both per the DRI amendment and

[57:53] her the comp plan to a minimum of two stories, both the site plan, settlement agreement, and

[58:01] therefore development order lack good faith, resident protection, and in our mind's

[58:08] necessary authority under the law.

[58:10] Thank you.

[58:16] As that concludes your presentation.

[58:18] Thank you.

[58:19] Now that the Appellates and the affected parties have concluded, does the village staff wish

[58:25] to cross-examine any witness.

[58:30] I believe I'll just address some of my comments

[58:33] when I have my 45 minutes.

[58:35] Okay, thank you.

[58:37] And does the applicant develop or wish to cross-examine

[58:40] any witness?

[58:45] No, sir.

[58:47] Thank you.

[58:49] So at this time, I will ask the village staff

[58:51] to present their case.

[58:53] They shall have a total of 45 minutes.

[59:00] We're gonna have Nancy Stroud will start

[59:02] and then I will fall off.

[59:06] Madam Clerk, we'll start the time now.

[59:10] Good morning.

[59:13] I just want to make a few introductory comments before Mary gets up.

[59:19] And mostly want to emphasize what the Village Council is here to decide in this appeal.

[59:27] Because you've heard a lot about a number of issues that the petitioners are concerned about,

[59:33] But unfortunately, are not subject to this appeal.

[59:38] They've complaints, for example, about so-called conflicts,

[59:41] of which there were none.

[59:43] So-called shade meetings of which there were none.

[59:47] Issues related to zoning vested rights.

[59:54] All of those issues are not subject to this appeal.

[59:59] this this.

[1:00:00] Appeal is repeal of the PCBB development order approval. And the village council is here to decide whether that development order should be approved.

[1:00:12] And the competence substantial evidence that Mary will give, and it has given in the documentation before you will show that the proposed development order meets all of the relevant land development code.

[1:00:29] regulations, including the deviations and should be approved.

[1:00:36] I do want to also say something

[1:00:39] about complaint consistency, because I think that the petitioners clearly have the consistency

[1:00:48] issue incorrect. And that's based on the case that there are attorney brought to you and his

[1:00:58] of the Bay Point club case. The Bay Point club case says that when there is an authorized

[1:01:07] DRI, this is an authorized DRI. Any change to that what is authorized in the DRI has to be reviewed

[1:01:19] pursuant to the current comprehensive plan. There are whole argument fails because there is no

[1:01:28] change to what is authorized in this DRI.

[1:01:32] The DRI authorizes the multifamily use.

[1:01:36] It authorizes the height.

[1:01:39] It authorizes the number of units.

[1:01:41] In fact, more units than what the DO has approved.

[1:01:47] So because there's no change, all the testimony that was provided

[1:01:53] It is irrelevant regarding the comprehensive plan.

[1:01:58] DRIs have a special status under the Florida Statutes, under the Village Charter, under

[1:02:07] the Village Complian.

[1:02:09] The Village Complian, the current Village Complian, recognizes what the Statutes provide,

[1:02:16] which is the Vestergrites of Development of Regional Impact.

[1:02:21] So, I appreciate that the testimony of the petitioners is heartfelt and is of concern to them.

[1:02:35] I think the problem is that their testimony is not substantial competent evidence in regard to what's happening in this appeal today.

[1:02:44] substantial, competent evidence has to be evidence that is relevant to the issue before you.

[1:02:52] And nothing that has been provided today is evidence that really goes to the requirements to approve a development order, a site plan.

[1:03:05] It's also not in legal terms competent.

[1:03:11] Lay people can give testimony and do before this counts.

[1:03:16] You hear it all the time.

[1:03:18] But in order to be competent and to be considered by the Council in its decision,

[1:03:26] it's legal decision, it has to be based on facts,

[1:03:31] facts in the knowledge of the persons who are testifying and none of the persons

[1:03:37] testifying today identified themselves as land use planners as engineers

[1:03:42] as attorneys and what you all heard was a lot of argument but not a lot of

[1:03:52] facts based on their own personal knowledge or expertise. That doesn't mean

[1:03:58] you shouldn't listen to it, it just means that you can't use it if it's not substantial

[1:04:04] competent evidence.

[1:04:06] What Mary will give you is the relevant and competent and expert testimony that supports

[1:04:16] the approval of the development order.

[1:04:18] And so, we would ask you to approve the development order with the conditions as approved by the PCDB.

[1:04:31] Thank you.

[1:04:44] Good morning again.

[1:04:47] As Nancy said, we think that the planning zoning and design board made the correct decision and that should be affirmed.

[1:04:54] I'm going to talk about some of the things they applicant talked about and why we don't think

[1:05:02] those are correct.

[1:05:03] There's really just two items that they point out that would be relevant to your decision.

[1:05:09] A lot of the items are like conflicts and measures are interesting but extraneous items.

[1:05:14] So the ones that are the most important are the consistency of the comprehensive plan and

[1:05:20] the consistency of the land development code.

[1:05:21] So I'm going to touch on them first.

[1:05:24] But I will address everything.

[1:05:26] So we'll take a little while.

[1:05:29] The applicant is referring to the reason

[1:05:33] they think that the comprehensive plan is in consistent

[1:05:37] is because they say that we've got the new comprehensive plan

[1:05:39] from 2021 that labels this area as village neighborhood one,

[1:05:45] which has a maximum density for residential

[1:05:48] for units in acre, but they really have, like, ignored the fact that we have a DRI that has

[1:05:56] rights and has density that was given to them in the Approvals in 1997. So, I'm going to explain

[1:06:04] this a little bit. And also in 1997, the project was part of a DRI, which is a development

[1:06:11] of regional impact. That is the state review process. So, in addition to the Lee County Review,

[1:06:17] There's a state review process that happens at the same time for the whole Brooks, which is about 2,500 acres.

[1:06:24] And the state grants them the special rights that Nancy Stroud referred to.

[1:06:28] They get a special rights there entitled to uses as long as they build out according to plans.

[1:06:33] And I'll explain that a little bit more.

[1:06:36] We recognize that in our land development code also, that there's policies in there that say the central tenant of our comprehensive plan in our land development code is to respect the rights of the DRIs.

[1:06:46] So, the zoning was approved in 1997. I know there's confusion that this is zoning, hearing, and again, it's not, this is the further development order, but the zoning was approved.

[1:06:58] They were allowed certain uses, total number of units. It addressed the height, it addressed the setbacks, it addressed the open space.

[1:07:06] and it proved that allowed a low-rise multifamily and commercial in the town center.

[1:07:13] So when it's approved with those uses, you cannot take those uses away. Even though the village

[1:07:17] incorporated, we inherited it from Lee County. We inherited it. It doesn't go away. It doesn't

[1:07:25] convoyed. So it's still in effect, the, the, the,

[1:07:31] In my opinion, this is consistent. Even if you looked at the new comprehensive plan, let's take a look at that. Even though they've got the density allowed in the DRI, you look at the new comprehensive plan. You say, for units in acre, we're going to look at the Brooks development. The project was approved. It was approved initially for 5,200 units on the 2,500 acres. So it really does meet the new comprehensive plan, because the density is 2 units in acre.

[1:08:00] further came back later and reduced the number of units from 5200 to I think 3700 so actually the

[1:08:06] books is building out with the density that's less than 2 units in acre. So in overall you don't take

[1:08:13] each particular parcel and make every single parcel comply with the conference of plan that's

[1:08:19] done on the average of the project. So in our opinion it does comply. Secondly if the if you think

[1:08:29] about the property just to the north of this malan villas when we had the zoning for that property.

[1:08:35] That was in village neighborhood one, that was a 10 acre site they came in and they wanted to do 40 units.

[1:08:42] They were limited to the four units in acre because they didn't have zoning on the property.

[1:08:47] They didn't have any allowable, they only had commercial allowable uses, they had to rezone the property to residential.

[1:08:53] And they were limited to that units because they had to come in and do the rezoning.

[1:08:57] So that's really the distinction, when you come in to do the rezoning, those density supply.

[1:09:04] They had a second issue that they claim is that it's inconsistent with the land development code.

[1:09:12] And they selected a few items in the code.

[1:09:14] Again, the open space they said should be 35%.

[1:09:19] And it's not because in the DRI approved open space for each of the individual sections of the books.

[1:09:26] And the town center was approved for 10% open space because you had, you met the open space in the whole DRI because you had large conservation areas and other open space.

[1:09:38] So you can't, you can't go back and take away the rights that were in the DRI for the open space or the height which was 50 feet approved in the DRI for town center.

[1:09:50] not, you know, in the new conference of plan 35 feet is a height, but you can't take away the 50 feet.

[1:10:01] I wanted to talk about a couple things that the speakers brought up.

[1:10:08] There was some discussion that the zoning map was not consistent with the conference of plan map,

[1:10:14] but the zoning map is consistent. It has to be consistent per state law.

[1:10:18] So, I don't really understand what the point of that was, but there is, there is consistency there.

[1:10:25] Now, there was a large discussion about pebble point or the martini glass property on the other side of three oaks that's part of the Brooks.

[1:10:33] There's a very long discussion about 200 units that were approved there.

[1:10:38] And yes, 200 units were approved, not initially, but came in later on because that little piece of, of the Brooks on coconut road

[1:10:48] was originally planned to be an interstate interchange, which a lot of people didn't know about.

[1:10:54] There was a big long story behind that with the governor of Alaska and state legislation,

[1:11:01] and lots of things happened, and then that ended up going away. It did not become the

[1:11:05] interchange, so that parcel became available. And they came in and amended that to ask for 200 units

[1:11:11] for a couple of points. They did not build all the 200 units. They only built, I think, 90

[1:11:17] something. So I know the applicant is saying those units were only limited to that strap

[1:11:24] number, but that's not correct. We went back and looked at that in some detail when the original

[1:11:30] lawsuit came in. And if you recall, I think the Brooks Council of Presidents or somebody had

[1:11:37] attorney at that time Beverly Grady and they brought up that point and Nancy and I went back

[1:11:42] into it a lot of research into that. It's the intent was for those units to be for Pable Point.

[1:11:50] But they were not all used in Pable Point and the way of the DRI was worded, there was no restriction

[1:11:55] that said they could only be used for Pable Point. So they could be used elsewhere and we spent a

[1:12:01] time looking at that. So the units are still there. There's 158 units left. They were not assigned

[1:12:10] to that property. And then there was also a discussion about the buildout date expired and that's

[1:12:19] not correct. The buildout date, I think in the DRI original, if you're looking at the original

[1:12:25] DRI development order had a buildout date, which was an old buildout date.

[1:12:30] The state has changed the rules and will allow DRIs to get time extensions for natural

[1:12:39] disasters like hurricanes, wildfires, all kinds of things.

[1:12:43] There's a state law that says you can come in and get an extension to your DRI.

[1:12:48] So every time we have a hurricane, everybody gets an extension.

[1:12:52] There was wildfires, people got extensions, we spend a lot of time with the DRIs like updating them for their new buildout dates because they are allowed to have extensions.

[1:13:05] Luckily, a lot of these people notify us, they send the letter and say, please grant our extension to ex-date.

[1:13:12] They don't have to, all they really have to do is notify us that we're here by extended per hurricane, no, Ian.

[1:13:19] So, when you go back and look at the buildout date for the Brooks, it is now December, 2028.

[1:13:27] So, there is no expiration of the buildout date that's good to 2028.

[1:13:32] And if we have any more natural disasters, you know, we may end up having more extensions as well.

[1:13:39] And the inconsistencies with the land of El Macode that were brought up, there were a few that were brought up, but I think it was the parking spaces, parking lot elevation, and those were actually, they got small deviations granted through the final plan approval process.

[1:14:02] There we had recommended that they add some garages to the property instead of just the surface parking in order to do that they had.

[1:14:11] There were a few spaces short, 21st parking spaces short.

[1:14:15] And we said we would support a deviation at the final plan approval because we'd rather see the nicer product.

[1:14:22] So those were granted by deviation, which complies, which means it's not inconsistent with the land development code.

[1:14:30] There was a discussion of the parking, which, you know, they do other than this deviation,

[1:14:36] the parking is sufficient.

[1:14:38] There are operational issues that came up at planning a zoning board with people wanting

[1:14:43] to park and proximity to certain businesses.

[1:14:46] And so there is an operational issue that we hope is being addressed by the property owners.

[1:14:52] The height again, they said should be 35 feet, but it's approved for 50, no.

[1:15:00] And then the parking lot, elevation was something that was also requested by deviation just so that they wouldn't

[1:15:08] have to build half the parking lot higher than the other half, which didn't make any sense in terms

[1:15:12] of water management. So those things were granted by deviation discussed by the cleaning as

[1:15:17] only in design board at the time. Let's see. There was a discussion, some general discussion about

[1:15:27] in development code sections where you're discouraging development, that was not compatible.

[1:15:37] Those specific citations applied to the residential single family district of the zoning.

[1:15:43] This is not residential single family.

[1:15:45] This whole Brooks is owned as a mixed use plan development.

[1:15:48] So those citations were not relevant.

[1:15:57] So, and I just know they said there were vested rights, there were no vested rights remaining but that's not correct.

[1:16:05] There was a discussion again on Pebble Point, which I want to come back to that, but there's a two story maximum.

[1:16:12] Pebble Point when that was approved for that extra units, they did remove the high-rise multifamily out of that section.

[1:16:21] But there is nothing put in the rest of the books that said you have a two-story maximum.

[1:16:27] So even though most of it has built out as two-story, one-to-story, there's no limit in the DRI.

[1:16:34] Town center allows you to go to 50 feet in pebble point.

[1:16:38] I don't think they're allowed to go that high, but in town center you are allowed to go to 50 feet.

[1:16:43] So if you've got those remaining units, you've got that high as well.

[1:16:50] So, now I want to go back and address a few of the other claims that were in my opinion

[1:16:59] not really relevant, but I want to touch on those anyway.

[1:17:04] So, let me see, the first one I think was contract zoning, and that was there was a statement

[1:17:10] made that we were giving away the zoning, there was a contract zoning, which means you promised

[1:17:15] somebody zoning.

[1:17:16] Again, I think there's a misunderstanding we're not reviewing a zoning case here.

[1:17:21] The zoning was given by Lee County in 1997.

[1:17:25] So there's no promise of zoning.

[1:17:27] There was no council members never voted on zoning.

[1:17:31] There was no discussion of approving a zoning.

[1:17:35] The settlement agreement was not contract zoning.

[1:17:38] There were statements in the settlement agreement that said

[1:17:41] Planings only in design board will review.

[1:17:43] you will review the case and make their determination in order to be contract zoning it would

[1:17:49] have to say, planning a zoning will approve the case. This does not say that, so there is

[1:17:55] no contract zoning issue.

[1:18:01] There is a discussion that the application was contrary to the intent

[1:18:09] of the DRI development order. Again, this is not really a reason that you would overturn the

[1:18:16] and designing board decision, but the applicant is saying that Town Center was intended to serve

[1:18:21] the commercial and office needs of the community and it was that. There was a statement in

[1:18:27] the DRI that says, you know, Town Center is intended to serve those needs. But there was no statement

[1:18:34] in there that said Town Center is required to serve those needs and is only allowed to have

[1:18:39] commercial uses. So, you know, if it had said that, we would be having a different conversation,

[1:18:44] but it didn't say that, it only said in temp.

[1:18:48] So sadly, everybody wishes that the shopping center

[1:18:52] was more successful and sadly, it hasn't been.

[1:18:58] There was a discussion in the applicants,

[1:19:02] what they had submitted about fundamental fairness

[1:19:05] and saying that we're holding hearings in the off season

[1:19:10] or why can't we hold the hearings during season

[1:19:13] people are here and I understand because I know there's a lot of seasonal people here, but

[1:19:20] again we have constraints from the state, thank you state legislators who say who have put into

[1:19:27] the statute that there are specific review times for zoning's development orders building

[1:19:33] permits and these are mandated by the state and we don't have the option of scheduling something

[1:19:40] only during season, because we don't meet the state requirements in the state requirements,

[1:19:46] even for building permits, interestingly, if you don't issue it within 10 days or something,

[1:19:51] they got automatically approved. So there are very, very stringent requirements. I understand the

[1:19:56] legislature may be revisiting that this year, but we are very constrained. So if we tried to

[1:20:02] work this out so we could only do it during a season, we can't make that work. So I understand

[1:20:09] people are upset because they can't be here but we we are stuck really with what the state has given us.

[1:20:17] I wanted to just touch on another thing the applicant brought up about traffic.

[1:20:24] Even though they didn't mention it today it's in their in their application that they were saying

[1:20:29] that there was a failure to complete the traffic mitigation options in the DRI.

[1:20:34] applicant is misleading the DRI development order and it's very complicated and technical so that's easy to do unless you've been doing this for 40 years like I have

[1:20:46] you know it's very complicated. So there is a mitigation in the DRI development order where the applicant had to pay a proportionate share of

[1:20:56] of the traffic mitigation cost and that proportion share covered all the number of units

[1:21:02] and all the square footage that was outlined in their DRI. They actually,

[1:21:07] oh, I did a development agreement with Lee County. I think I was working there at the time.

[1:21:12] So the development agreement outlined the very specifics of what all the mitigation was going to be

[1:21:16] and that included constructing three oaks partly and constructing coconut road. So that was all

[1:21:23] taking care of many years ago, when this development order came in to look at the apartments,

[1:21:33] they looked at the traffic impacts, the engineers reviewed that, interestingly apartments

[1:21:40] generate a third of the traffic of an equivalent amount of commercial uses.

[1:21:46] So even though everybody is saying the traffic is going to be horrible, you know, will the traffic

[1:21:50] be more than an empty-win-dixie, yes, but will the traffic will be less than what you would have

[1:21:56] if you had the commercial that was there. So I just wanted to clarify that point.

[1:22:04] And this is just a bonus, I didn't relate anything that was discussed today, but it's an interesting

[1:22:10] point of interest. It was brought up, I think, at a prior meeting, that there was a potential

[1:22:16] eagle nest on the property in the conservation area. So, we had our consultant, our biological

[1:22:24] consultant went out to look and see if we could find a nest. And she did not find a nest.

[1:22:31] We asked her to go out again, knowing that it's nesting season and then the cypress trees sometimes drop their needle so you get a better view.

[1:22:40] So we had our consultant go out again. She went on November 29. She did not find a nest. She did see an eagle soring overhead. So I think they like to stop for snacks and fishes and things.

[1:22:54] So, the eagle is protected, so just want to let people know that there is no eagle nest,

[1:23:02] but we continue to look at that if an eagle nest is constructed, then there's federal and state rules that apply.

[1:23:11] And you might remember that because on our property at 41, in corkscrew, when we were going to go build our pedestrian paths,

[1:23:20] an eagle built a nest on our property and we had to wait until the nesting season was over to

[1:23:26] do construction. So, you know, just to let people know there are safeguards in place, you know,

[1:23:32] in case there is an eagle. Oh, let's see if I've got anything else. Jumping around a little bit

[1:23:40] because some of the speakers brought up things that my wasn't really knowing they were going to address

[1:23:52] And the conflicts have interest, I just wanted to touch on, because even though again, it's not relevant.

[1:24:01] The Barry Jones, who was then the planning and zoning and designed board initially worked for Holmont as he left and went to work for a different consulting firm.

[1:24:11] So he was not involved in that project. I worked with Charlie Krebs from Holmont as in this project the whole way.

[1:24:18] He didn't, so Barry did not have a financial gain, which is what you have to do to fill out the conflict of interest for.

[1:24:25] There were two others mentioned, Mike Sheely on an abiotid dental case, where he was presenting, and he did file the conflict of interest for him.

[1:24:36] When we went back to look, it was not attached to the minutes, but from now on, we do attach him to the minutes that his form was filed.

[1:24:43] And the other one that whose name didn't come up, but with Jim Wallace, did have a conflict of interest declared refusal and he did file a form as well.

[1:24:53] So we'll just be sure to attach them to the minutes going forward again, but not relevant to the case at hand today.

[1:25:02] So, we do feel that everything was met, everything was

[1:25:09] complied with the conference of plan, was

[1:25:11] complied with when development code standards were met,

[1:25:18] the development order, complied with the code,

[1:25:22] complied with the plan, it also complied with the final plan,

[1:25:25] approval that was granted prior to that,

[1:25:29] and it complies with the zoning and it also complies with the

[1:25:31] development order. So we just feel that there's no reason to overturn the decision.

[1:25:40] There's really no valid reason. And Nancy, I think, is waiting to jump up and add something.

[1:25:51] I'm done.

[1:25:54] I'm going to get my nest on the way.

[1:26:00] Mary and I quickly look to all of the exhibits

[1:26:03] that we put in your package this morning. To see if, in fact, you have a copy of the DRI

[1:26:10] and the zoning resolution that applies to this property.

[1:26:15] The zoning resolution is in one of your exhibits,

[1:26:19] it's with the final plan approval exhibits.

[1:26:23] That is where you see, for example, on page nine,

[1:26:28] the town center uses, which include mid-rise residential,

[1:26:35] and the town page 17 through 18 town center regulations,

[1:26:39] which allow the height and have the other provisions that were applied during the development order.

[1:26:48] The DRI development order may be in there, but in an excessive caution, I'd like to be sure,

[1:26:55] and put it into the record today, and direct your attention to page 7 of that development order,

[1:27:06] which says that the uses allowed in Town Center

[1:27:09] will be those allowed in the planned development zoning,

[1:27:14] which is the zoning I just described to you.

[1:27:17] So I'd like to give this to the clerk.

[1:27:21] If Council will accept it.

[1:27:29] And again, based on the Cabinet's substantial evidence

[1:27:33] relevant to the development order,

[1:27:36] we would request that the Council approve with conditions that were put on the PZDB approval.

[1:27:47] Thank you.

[1:27:50] Nancy, does that conclude the staff's presentation? You got 16 minutes left?

[1:27:58] Okay, thank you. So now that the village staff have concluded

[1:28:02] do the Appellates and affected parties wish to cross examine any of the village staff or witness.

[1:28:37] You can start.

[1:28:39] You can start the timer.

[1:28:40] Let me start now.

[1:28:42] Okay.

[1:28:42] I love you.

[1:28:44] Only if you've been sworn in.

[1:28:46] No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

[1:28:49] No, no, no, no, no.

[1:28:50] No, no, no, no.

[1:28:50] No, no, no.

[1:28:50] No one's providing you testimony.

[1:28:51] This is crosses emanations.

[1:28:53] So they would ask questions of our staff.

[1:28:57] But not testimony.

[1:28:58] Okay, thank you.

[1:28:59] Okay.

[1:29:04] So we see able to ask questions.

[1:29:08] The appellant may share how are they wish to 10 minutes to ask Ms. Gibbs questions related to

[1:29:15] what she tested right to.

[1:29:16] So, if one wants to ask one question and one wants to ask another, that's fine.

[1:29:19] They've got 10 minutes now in my meds in 39 seconds.

[1:29:23] Thank you.

[1:29:24] Well, I would like to just say, thank you for your presentations.

[1:29:27] It seems like you were helping to know that there's continued.

[1:29:32] Anyway, I'll strike that.

[1:29:34] I would like to know why there was a 180 degree turnaround on your arguments.

[1:29:43] It was not that long ago that you used the very bay point to versus Bay County case against this development.

[1:29:51] What changed your mind?

[1:29:53] What changed your mind?

[1:29:58] Yes, I'm sorry.

[1:30:00] I do not recall using the Bay Point case earlier, if you can, if you can, if you have some time or, I will.

[1:30:08] I have a document, but I will do that. Okay. So we will have to address that.

[1:30:16] In the context of this, for seating and in response to Mr. Brooks' misinterpretation of the case, I stand by my testimony today.

[1:30:29] okay.

[1:30:33] And neither of you feel that the additional 200 units that were granted were site specific.

[1:30:43] Oh, can you hear me? Yes. Okay. They were not site specific, and we looked at it in great detail.

[1:30:53] Great detail, because there was that question brought up to us, but the way it was awarded,

[1:31:00] and they were intended, but they were not specific.

[1:31:04] And they can, the wording was intended.

[1:31:10] May I add to that the intent language comes from a hearing transcript before the hearing

[1:31:17] examiner.

[1:31:19] When it got to the Lee County Commission, which made the actual decision and amended the

[1:31:25] development order. Those 200 units were never assigned to a particular parcel. In fact,

[1:31:34] when the development order was amended, they added to the total number of units, so it

[1:31:43] could be used anywhere in the DRI. There were multiple documents involved in this, and a number

[1:31:50] them did specify the site and a number of them did specify the height. So when the ultimate

[1:31:58] resolution was done and I will have to review that again myself, the last document seemed

[1:32:03] to miss that a little bit, but the intent was clear in alignments. I also have a question

[1:32:10] for the town was your insurance company was a claim filed with your insurance company at any

[1:32:19] point for this case to cover the legal fees.

[1:32:23] You could ask that to the bill of attorney.

[1:32:26] Mr. Mayor, if you want me to respond, I'm not a witness in this case.

[1:32:31] I'm a bill of attorney.

[1:32:33] But there will be no claim filed with insurance,

[1:32:37] because there has been no claim.

[1:32:41] You didn't file a claim that would cover potentially the legal fees.

[1:32:46] Well, this isn't the time for our summary or final comment, so I will stop at that.

[1:32:52] Thank you.

[1:32:53] Thank you.

[1:32:54] Does the applicant develop or wish to cross examine our staff?

[1:33:03] Steve Hartzle for the record.

[1:33:04] No.

[1:33:04] We do not.

[1:33:06] Thank you.

[1:33:07] Well, in the interest of comfort, it's 11.03 right now, we've got a pretty good crowd here.

[1:33:14] We're going to take a 10-minute break and we will resume.

[1:33:21] I want to caution council that we not talk with each other during this period of time to

[1:33:29] make sure that we don't discuss this case privately, that we will wait for those comments

[1:33:35] when we obtain a motion.

[1:33:38] I'd also ask the public not to address the council members at this point because we've

[1:33:46] already revealed that we've had no conflicts, so we want to maintain that integrity.

[1:33:51] So it's now 1104, so at 1114 we will adjourn.

[1:33:56] I don't know how to join, but we're similar.

[1:44:24] 14. Let's restart this meeting, please.

[1:44:35] May I have your attention, please?

[1:44:40] We're going to resume the meeting at this point. I will now ask the applicant

[1:44:45] developer to present his case. You don't have a total of 45 minutes. The clerk, would you please start the time?

[1:44:55] Good morning, Mr. Mayor and council members. As I mentioned before, my name is Steve Hartsell.

[1:45:01] I'm here on behalf of the owners and developers of the Brooklyn Town Center apartments.

[1:45:08] With me today, our owner and developers representatives, Tom Cavanagh, Susan Watts, and Elias Faisaleras.

[1:45:17] Also with me today is Bill Moore and attorney with more Bowman and Reese, who represented the developer and owners in the litigation, which has been outlined in your staff report.

[1:45:27] and which ultimately led to the settlement agreement which governs this development order.

[1:45:32] Also with our team today as Charlie Krebs, the project engineer with Holmontez who made the presentation to the PZDB.

[1:45:40] I'll start by stating that we support the staff recommendation that this appeal should be denied

[1:45:45] for all of reasons that were specifically outlined in the staff report and in your council's memo.

[1:45:51] Ms. Gibbs has done an excellent job addressing each of the many points and identifying the fact that

[1:45:57] None of them are supported by specific references

[1:45:59] to the land development code that would support

[1:46:02] an objection to the development order.

[1:46:05] My partner, Neil Montgomery, has already

[1:46:07] filed a motion to dismiss, which is part of your materials.

[1:46:10] We continue to stand by all the reasons

[1:46:12] that we're set out in that motion to dismiss.

[1:46:15] We believe that the staff report presented

[1:46:17] by Mary Gibbs has effectively addressed

[1:46:20] each of the many reasons why the appeals should be denied.

[1:46:24] I could walk you through each one of those

[1:46:26] if you have any questions, but instead I'll briefly address those points in my conclusion.

[1:46:33] In brief summary, as you have recognized, the Brooks Town Center Apartments is a multi-family

[1:46:38] complex on 5.3 acres previously occupied by the long vacant wind-dixie building.

[1:46:45] That building will be demolished and replaced by the multi-family.

[1:46:49] Properties is also part of the Brooks Development of Regional Impact.

[1:46:53] You've now got that development order as part of your record.

[1:46:58] Both the MPD zoning in Resolution Z97037 and the Brooks DRI are active and are vested as

[1:47:09] your staff and legal counsel pointed out.

[1:47:12] Particularly and I appreciate Nancy Stroud bringing your attention to that in the DRI

[1:47:18] development order, section, Roman numeral II, E5A,

[1:47:24] it specifically states that the following conditions

[1:47:27] applied to the town center, town center.

[1:47:31] Number two, the uses within the town center

[1:47:34] will be governed by the planned development zoning.

[1:47:39] So those multi-family uses were already

[1:47:41] permissible in the existing zoning, because the property

[1:47:44] is contained in that mixed-use PD previously approved

[1:47:48] in Resolution Z-97-037.

[1:47:52] The number of dwelling units approved in the DO is within the maximum number set by the

[1:47:59] DRI.

[1:48:00] It does not exceed the permissible density.

[1:48:04] Furthermore, the approved development order is also consistent with the settlement agreement.

[1:48:08] you approved as Village Council on June 21, 2023, and has been pointed out what was approved

[1:48:18] in the development order by the PZDB, our fewer units that are approved in the settlement agreement.

[1:48:27] This development order did not change the DRI, which remains vested. The proposed redevelopment

[1:48:33] that property into a multi-family project was designed and complies with all the requirements

[1:48:40] of your land development code and the comprehensive plan. That's what the BZDB found.

[1:48:46] It meets all of the architectural requirements, transportation and parking requirements, storm

[1:48:52] water surface water management requirements, the lighting, landscaping, signage and environmental

[1:48:59] requirements. All of those are thoroughly explained in the staff report for the PZDB for October

[1:49:06] 10th, 2023, and that staff report is again part of your materials and part of the record today.

[1:49:15] In final plan approval, which was based upon the application staff report testimony and evidence

[1:49:21] presented at the PD's PZDB is set forth in their resolution 2023-01, which is submitted today

[1:49:32] being challenged by the Appellants. I mention the Charlie Krebs, the project engineer,

[1:49:37] as with me today. For the record we do want to confirm the incorporation by reference of all

[1:49:43] of the application materials and the PZDB record that was presented as your council, I think,

[1:49:50] started the hearing out.

[1:49:56] Given that that record has been made, we don't have a long presentation.

[1:50:02] Instead, what I'm going to do is to briefly cite to the six reasons that the appellants

[1:50:09] identified and which Mary Gibbs also pointed out in her staff report. The six reasons

[1:50:17] started out with one contract zoning.

[1:50:20] They've challenged the development order as being an evidence

[1:50:24] of contract zoning.

[1:50:26] As Mary pointed out, it is not contract zoning.

[1:50:30] The zoning remains as it was approved

[1:50:32] in resolution Z97037 adopted by Lee County in 1997.

[1:50:40] They argue that it's inconsistent with a comprehensive plan.

[1:50:43] The development order, as it's been pointed out by your staff and council, is in fact

[1:50:49] consistent with your comprehensive plan, which recognizes DRI development orders and zoning

[1:50:56] that was approved by Lee County prior to the village incorporation. The appellants ignore

[1:51:02] the vested status of the DRI and the planned development zoning and arbitrarily declare that

[1:51:09] the DO, which was approved by the PZDB, is inconsistent with the plan.

[1:51:15] The appellant seemed to dispute really the 25-year-old DRI and zoning resolution that

[1:51:23] was adopted at the same time in 1997.

[1:51:27] Third, they argued that contract zoning occurred by approval of the settlement agreement.

[1:51:34] Your staff has pointed out why that's not the case.

[1:51:36] We would also point out that the settlement agreement was not required to be approved by the

[1:51:43] PDZB and they did not address, whether the settlement agreement was appropriate or not.

[1:51:51] Fourth, they argued that it was contrary to the intent of the DRI development order.

[1:51:57] Your staff and legal counsel have very effectively addressed that point.

[1:52:01] The PCDB was an authorized to examine the intent of the DRI, nor did they address the intent of the DRI.

[1:52:12] The fifth point that raised was fundamental fairness, and we would like to point out that the participants were all given an opportunity to participate and express their objections.

[1:52:22] They were not denied fundamental fairness by the PCDB.

[1:52:28] And finally, they are...

[1:52:30] Under your conflicts of interest and the lack of a conflict declaration has been pointed out, there was no conflict of interest and planning board addressed that appropriately according to their rules.

[1:52:45] So, for all the reasons set forth in motion to dismiss in the staff report and in your

[1:52:51] illegal counsel's memo and the testimony this morning, we agree with your staff and

[1:52:56] legal counsel that the development order will prove for this project meets all of the necessary

[1:53:02] requirements of your land development code, is consistent with the Estero Comprehensive Plan,

[1:53:08] and the settlement agreement, and that this appeal should be denied and that the development

[1:53:14] that's been approved should be upheld and continue to be approved.

[1:53:19] Thank you for the opportunity to make the presentation.

[1:53:22] I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have.

[1:53:25] We'll get to those in a few minutes there.

[1:53:27] Thank you very much.

[1:53:31] Now, if the applicant develops,

[1:53:33] perhaps include his presentation, does the village staff wish to have any questions or

[1:53:39] but no, and does the appellate affected parties wish to cross-examine the developer?

[1:53:55] David Small, 105055, Magnolia Bend, I have one question.

[1:54:00] And the question is, I heard from Mr. Hartsel that everything is fully compliant,

[1:54:05] and yet I heard from Mary Gibbs that there's a deficiency in terms of parking spots,

[1:54:10] characterized as a few, it's 21, and we hope that it's addressed by the developer.

[1:54:17] So it seems to me that there's obviously a significant issue in terms of existence of

[1:54:22] facts here.

[1:54:23] I guess I wanted to point that out.

[1:54:29] Steve Hartsel again for the record.

[1:54:32] What Mr. Small is referring to is a deviation, a deviation that's been approved, consistent

[1:54:38] with the code is not a deficiency.

[1:54:42] It's been approved consistent with the code requirements.

[1:54:45] So there is not any deficiency.

[1:54:48] And I'll let Mary provide any additional comments

[1:54:52] that she feels are necessary.

[1:54:54] Thank you.

[1:54:55] Thank you.

[1:55:08] Just add, the deviations were approved

[1:55:11] during final planner approval, which occurred in July.

[1:55:15] So any challenge to those deviations,

[1:55:18] It's missed the day, the 30-day time period to appeal those.

[1:55:23] It's not something that the Council should be considering.

[1:55:28] That's not something that the Council should be considering the deviations.

[1:55:36] And does the effect of parties have any other questions?

[1:55:41] At this time, I would like to allow Council to answer any questions that you may have that are developed over all of the

[1:55:52] testimony that we received today, I would ask you to address the developer or the affected

[1:55:59] parties or staff with your questions, do any of council have any questions, a council

[1:56:07] and ward?

[1:56:08] Yeah, I'd just like to start with a question to our council regarding substantial competent

[1:56:13] evidence because obviously you have a conflict in how this has been viewed by the appellate

[1:56:20] versus the staff versus the developer.

[1:56:24] And the real sighting, different requirements,

[1:56:27] as it relates to the LVC and the company has a plan.

[1:56:31] And so I'm just wanting to understand

[1:56:34] what defines substantial competent evidence

[1:56:37] is it something that is being read to us

[1:56:40] by the appellant or is it something that's being read

[1:56:43] to us by staff or the developer?

[1:56:46] How do we define who is correct in understanding

[1:56:50] of whether it meets the LDC or the confidence of plan.

[1:56:56] So, substantive competence evidence is evidence which would tend to convince the decision-maker

[1:57:00] of the position being argued.

[1:57:03] In this particular case, you have parties who disagree on what some of the facts are and disagree

[1:57:11] on how those facts may apply to the code.

[1:57:13] All of all requires, in terms of substantial competent evidence, is that when the court

[1:57:19] reviews it, is there factual evidence in the record that the village can point to support

[1:57:25] the decision made by council?

[1:57:29] There can be conflicting evidence, but there simply needs to be evidence in the record.

[1:57:33] In other words, you can't make a decision, for instance, if your decision is to reverse.

[1:57:39] You can't make a decision to reverse unless there is facts that in the record to support that.

[1:57:47] And it doesn't just have to be what is spoken to you today.

[1:57:50] Many of the parties have referred to the written record, this big thick notebook.

[1:57:55] And that is also part of the evidence, the substantial competence evidence that the Council can rely upon.

[1:58:01] Does that answer your question?

[1:58:04] Yeah, I guess it does, but I'm just wondering how two different parties are looking at the same document and coming to two different conclusions.

[1:58:14] It happens in court all the time when two parties go into front of a judge in a jury and say, I think this, I think that.

[1:58:21] It could be a contract interpretation and interpretation of an ordinance and interpretation of a statute.

[1:58:27] Ultimately, what the law is, you all determine, based upon your comprehensive plan, your

[1:58:37] land development code, and in this case, the development of regional impact, because that

[1:58:42] is part of what the law is that applies to this case.

[1:58:46] The facts that then have to be put onto that law is what's being argued to you today.

[1:58:52] So, in terms of, of there being competent substantial evidence, I think there's competent substantial evidence in the record that can go both ways.

[1:59:04] You all have to decide of the evidence that has been put in by the appellant and the evidence that is put in by the staff and the evidence that is put in by the developer.

[1:59:13] what will weigh more in how I decide the case, because clearly there is

[1:59:19] disputed facts, but the legal standard in a quasi-judicial proceeding is lower

[1:59:25] than it is in court, and so basically, Compton Substantial Evidence is, is there any evidence

[1:59:32] in the record that will go to support the decision made by the governing body?

[1:59:40] Thank you.

[1:59:41] It's going to be a question, please.

[1:59:43] To the appellate, I believe you stated initially that you do not have legal representation

[1:59:51] here, but I believe you do have legal representation, correct?

[1:59:59] I engage.

[2:00:00] Realt Brooks for the initial hearing before the planning is on award. When we did not get participation status,

[2:00:13] I then terminated that relationship for a period of time. But when we realized that this, we would have to create an appeal.

[2:00:21] We did re-engage him.

[2:00:23] However, he did receive notice of this meeting when I did and he did provide six additional seven additional dates.

[2:00:33] One of which I think was that one of your meetings in January in order to represent us,

[2:00:39] we were told by the village that none of those dates were good for the village and that we didn't get to participate in that decision.

[2:00:47] So we do have representation, he did prepare the members both for the agreed party status,

[2:00:54] although we didn't have to present that this morning, and he did give us the memorandum

[2:00:59] that Mr. David Small read to all of you supporting our position. He's not here, unfortunately,

[2:01:07] but we do currently have representation. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:01:15] Any other questions?

[2:01:15] go

[2:01:20] ahead and know you go first.

[2:01:22] Council, Council Lady, thank you.

[2:01:29] That's a couple questions here for both of you that may not be relevant to our decision,

[2:01:38] but I feel that that it is to my decision.

[2:01:46] When I've lost my page now, Miss.

[2:01:51] Thank you.

[2:01:53] Thank you, Chair.

[2:01:56] I understand your concerns, I guess what I would question is you have a lot along list of things you don't like about this development project.

[2:02:16] Do you have concessions in mind that you would ask the developer if you had the opportunity?

[2:02:22] Well, the first, of course, would be to be consistent with the comprehensive plan.

[2:02:27] But beyond that, I have heard from, as you can imagine, thousands of residents of the

[2:02:32] books.

[2:02:34] Yes, indeed, I've had a laundry list of not only concessions, but ideas, and we're happy to

[2:02:40] present them and discuss them.

[2:02:42] Most of them do deal with the height of the buildings.

[2:02:45] And I understand why the developer wants the height of the buildings.

[2:02:48] but not only is it inconsistent, not only will it create issues for adjacent neighbors, that is

[2:02:56] one of our big issues, the size of the building on the lot safety. But yes, the answer is yes,

[2:03:05] we would be amenable to certain concessions and meetings. Absolutely. I appreciate that. Thank you.

[2:03:14] I'm always, you know, working at least in my own mind.

[2:03:18] We offered, and we're still open, so yes, thank you.

[2:03:21] You know, to try to bring peace to a situation, yes.

[2:03:28] And to the developers' representative,

[2:03:33] if I could ask you a question or two, now this is

[2:03:40] for stories.

[2:03:44] If it were reduced to three stories, how does that at what loss would that be financially for your

[2:03:55] development? I absolutely have no idea what the answer to that question. Do you have any idea

[2:04:02] what the, how many,

[2:04:09] I'm in, sorry, the feet through me off, do you have how many units are on that fourth floor? I'm sorry.

[2:04:18] I don't know off the top of my head, how many I would probably presume that they're about a quarter of 137 units.

[2:04:28] That would make sense, I guess. Thank you.

[2:04:30] And, on the lighting, my understanding was that it was 20 feet, and the Rutger residents

[2:04:38] would prefer 15 feet for the lighting height, is, has that been discussed?

[2:04:47] I believe that the lighting was discussed as a deviation at the planning board hearing,

[2:04:54] and that that was that there was a deviation that was granted with regard to the lighting.

[2:05:02] I don't know exactly whether changing that to fit to have any extra early crebs would like

[2:05:09] to address that.

[2:05:10] Thank you.

[2:05:14] Charlie Krebs with Homeland Test for the record.

[2:05:17] On the lighting, when we came in to do the residential portion, that lighting on that portion

[2:05:23] of the property of the 5.3 acres, that was reduced down to the 15 feet.

[2:05:27] the commercial lighting was staying as it is because we weren't impacting those

[2:05:33] light poles. So we only looked at modifying the lighting on the residential

[2:05:36] side and that was brought down to the residential requirement while the

[2:05:40] commercial was still at the previous approved 20 feet. So the deviation was so

[2:05:44] that we could have the commercial lighting comply with the code without having to go

[2:05:49] and redo the lighting on the commercial side since we weren't impacting that

[2:05:52] of the property. Okay, I appreciate that, thank you. And I

[2:06:01] have, have you met with the Brooks

[2:06:03] communities or do you plan to do? We have yet another one, I'm sorry.

[2:06:13] We don't plan to at the

[2:06:15] moment. No, we've got the approvals that are necessary. Okay. All right, thank you very much. Thank you.

[2:06:25] There is one other important item to the residents, especially the residents of Shadawood.

[2:06:32] And again, without being able to negotiate anything, there is no security perimeter between

[2:06:39] town center and either the conservation area or our properties.

[2:06:44] Mr. Mayor, that procedurally, if Council is asking questions, this isn't really the

[2:06:50] back and forth.

[2:06:52] To stand up.

[2:06:53] Well, security would be an issue to talk with.

[2:06:55] Thank you.

[2:06:56] I apologize.

[2:06:57] Thank you.

[2:06:59] Well, I've got maybe clarification because we've heard on both sides the 50 foot building

[2:07:06] limit.

[2:07:09] The applicant agreed people are saying that's not allowed what I'm hearing from both the developer

[2:07:17] and from staff that that clearly is allowed.

[2:07:20] And I think for me to make a decision, that's extremely important that we get from evidence and conclude.

[2:07:32] The 50 feet is clearly allowed. It was approved in 1997 by the county. It is not taken away by a new comprehensive plan.

[2:07:44] And let me just add on when Rob was talking about competence of social evidence. Typically, you know, and I know the neighbors have done a great job.

[2:07:53] know, I'm a very passionate, but when you talk about

[2:07:56] competence of Statial Evidence, I've been reviewing DRIs for

[2:07:59] 40 years. Regional Planning Council, Lee County,

[2:08:03] Village of Estero, I am really recognized as an expert in that.

[2:08:09] So, you know, you have to put some credence in the staff's

[2:08:12] knowledge of dealing with DRIs and how it's interpreted.

[2:08:16] So, I would say that, you know, the 50 feet is, and I had asked the developer

[2:08:22] early on when we, way back in the beginning, you know, could they reduce the height of the building,

[2:08:28] and they said no. If you do reduce it to three-story, you're not required to have elevators,

[2:08:35] you know, you are required to have elevators. So the quality of the project is a little bit affected,

[2:08:41] but, you know, the 50 feet is correct in my opinion.

[2:08:45] You know, I've been on council here for a few years, and it is a little disturbing to me that

[2:08:55] the affected parties had reached out to the developer to discuss their concerns.

[2:09:03] And in my previous experiences, that is a great way to get acceptance projects.

[2:09:10] And so I am concerned with why the developer

[2:09:14] had chosen not to respond in any format to the affected parties

[2:09:22] in there.

[2:09:23] And so the question is, can you tell me why that was not done?

[2:09:30] Steve Hartzell again for the record.

[2:09:32] Clearly, I'm at a little bit of a disadvantage.

[2:09:36] Since I'm here on behalf of Neil Montgomery, my partner,

[2:09:40] who's been involved this this whole time. With regard to not addressing the concerns that you're

[2:09:49] asking about, I think perhaps the question that to council member Fahey asked me about the height

[2:09:58] of the lives that lights were reduced, the developers have been cognizant of the neighbor's concerns.

[2:10:14] largely, the point has been, don't do four stories. And as Mary gives pointed out, that's simply not an option.

[2:10:30] So in terms of where the objections are coming from, I mean, largely you've heard from all of this testimony,

[2:10:38] that they don't want this project to be here, what they want is one or two story, something

[2:10:45] that's one or two story, and that doesn't work. What they would like is something that isn't

[2:10:53] multifamily, apparently. And again, it's clear we have, I'd like to keep, please. It's clear

[2:11:03] we have a commercial project where that grocery store has been vacant for years. It doesn't work.

[2:11:11] So the developer has proposed something that is consistent with the zoning, the code,

[2:11:19] the comprehensive plan. It's consistent with what they are able to do. It has a significantly reduced

[2:11:26] traffic impact, as Mary Gibbs pointed out, it's 30% of what a thriving shopping center would,

[2:11:35] that's already permitted. Now, granted, it's been vacant for years, so know the impact

[2:11:42] seemed to be lower. As one gentleman testified, he can still hear the garbage trucks and pickups

[2:11:49] and things like that. If this were a thriving shopping center, you would have a lot more noise

[2:11:55] then you're going to have with multi-family there.

[2:12:00] So I've got another question for you.

[2:12:03] I did visit the affected parties on the street.

[2:12:09] And they bring some valid concerns, but I think we've addressed those through the whole area,

[2:12:14] but one area, and I don't know if you probably can't speak for the developer,

[2:12:18] but one that was brought out to me was potentially increased in security concerns

[2:12:25] along with CDD property that Kathy had mentioned,

[2:12:29] no one walks on that, but that butts this property.

[2:12:34] And I'm wondering, asking the question,

[2:12:38] if I know you've got your development order already,

[2:12:41] but because there was no communications back and forth,

[2:12:45] if the developer would consider meeting with the appropriate parties

[2:12:50] that are affected, and address their security

[2:12:55] issues. I'm not sure how to address those appropriately, but I would like to see, I think

[2:13:02] security is important. I think you have addressed a lighting. They brought up the lighting

[2:13:06] issue to me. I'm glad to see that's down. I know you can redirect lights and all that.

[2:13:12] So I think that's been solved. But security, when you put more density of people, can

[2:13:17] be a risk and I'll be more folks around.

[2:13:21] So can you comment on that at all?

[2:13:25] I will defer to Mr. Cavanol to address that.

[2:13:30] Thank you.

[2:13:33] So my name is Tom Cavanol.

[2:13:34] I am the developer, I have been sworn in,

[2:13:37] and I can answer all of your questions.

[2:13:42] First, the general rule is, I wanted to meet.

[2:13:47] We reached out to the presidents, going back three years ago, personally reached out all three of the presidents,

[2:13:53] meet with them, tell them what we were doing, be the good neighbor.

[2:13:58] We had some communication going back and forth with the email.

[2:14:01] And at the time, they didn't want to talk to us.

[2:14:04] They were being advised by an attorney and attorney said, don't meet with them.

[2:14:09] You know, I personally have never been reached out by Kathy, she made a coming.

[2:14:13] Okay, my apologies, I had never received it, but if we want to talk about concessions and

[2:14:22] security, let's have the conversation, because everything that I was asked to do by the

[2:14:28] planning board, we've done so if Kathy wants a fence, Kathy can have a fence, Kathy wants

[2:14:36] additional landscaping, Cathy can have additional landscaping.

[2:14:41] Okay, I'm sorry, the residents, okay.

[2:14:45] And so I think it's probably a good form to ask

[2:14:49] what they want and let's discuss it right now.

[2:14:53] Personally, I don't think there's any difference in

[2:14:55] security between a back of a retail center and a back of a very...

[2:15:00] A very luxurious, high-end, you know, community that fulfills the needs of a sterile. May not fill the needs of

[2:15:10] Brooks, but it sure fills the needs of a sterile as a community.

[2:15:16] So I'm more than willing to sit here.

[2:15:18] answer 20. Robert, is it appropriate that we have the affected parties provide some

[2:15:29] of their concerns that may not have been addressed like security? Is that appropriate

[2:15:35] for this?

[2:15:41] So the difficulty that that will come in is that coming out of this

[2:15:47] hearing today, you all need to issue a ruling, and you're either affirming, reversing,

[2:15:59] or affirming with new conditions. If you put new conditions on, those conditions have to be

[2:16:07] of subspecificity that they are enforceable. And so it's a difficult environment in the middle of

[2:16:16] as I'm judicial hearing to start negotiating the specifics of what kind of fence, how high

[2:16:23] is the fence? When will the fence be built? I mean there's a ton of discussions and it's very

[2:16:29] difficult to have them in this setting. So that's the problem that's created. Can it be done? Yes,

[2:16:36] it can be done. You might, and truly I think it also will be the case. Let's assume that you take

[2:16:46] a ten minute break and you say developer meet with the affected parties and see if you

[2:16:52] can come to an agreement. They may come back and say, well, we come to an agreement that

[2:16:57] we would like to have a fence, but does that mean that they're dropping this appeal?

[2:17:02] Doubtful. So, so you still have an appeal that needs to be voted on. Does that answer your question?

[2:17:09] I think so, so I guess I would, I like people to be able to discuss these, and we're

[2:17:17] fortunate we have the developer here, he can make decisions, you got people that are

[2:17:21] able to do it,

[2:17:25] I asked the affected parties, there's five, I guess, would you want

[2:17:31] to take a 10-minute break and see if you can carve out?

[2:17:38] What?

[2:17:46] I feel that we are at a disadvantage, Kathy Weirovsky, a disadvantage without our legal representation

[2:17:51] here to make those determinations in a way that might be appropriate.

[2:17:55] Yes, indeed, I'm not averse to discussing compromises or concessions, and some of them

[2:18:02] you've already touched on that are important to us, there may be others, but to put into position

[2:18:11] with a team of legal advisors and professionals in this area. I'm not quite sure I've considered that.

[2:18:18] I'm sure you have to have the attorneys present. I think the developer and the other effective

[2:18:24] parties could have a well ten-minute meeting you can either do it now at least for the record.

[2:18:38] I'd like to point out, which I think your council was polluting to, we've been through

[2:18:45] all of the hearings that are necessary.

[2:18:49] There have been public information meetings, there have been public hearings going back

[2:18:54] to June when the settlement agreement came through, when the final planner approval came

[2:18:59] through the PZDB in October, again, when we went to the planning and zoning design board.

[2:19:05] We have had these discussions.

[2:19:10] We would urge you today with regard to the present appeal, to deny the appeal, to approve

[2:19:17] the development order, with regard to the questions of security, whether having a fence to

[2:19:26] that, whether adding additional landscaping, as Mr. Cavanagh has said, he is open to having

[2:19:32] those discussions.

[2:19:34] We would still be open to having those discussions.

[2:19:39] After the appeal has been determined,

[2:19:42] but we would urge you to do,

[2:19:45] to make the decision to deny the appeal,

[2:19:50] and not to basically put the developer in the position

[2:19:54] where is being held hostage by the residents

[2:19:58] who up to this point have simply said,

[2:20:01] We don't want you to do that. Go away.

[2:20:06] All right, so I'm going to end.

[2:20:09] We're in the question from council.

[2:20:11] Thank you.

[2:20:12] You know, I think all of our council members here,

[2:20:15] we want to represent our citizens.

[2:20:18] We have to do that in a legal manner.

[2:20:21] I think we've done that today.

[2:20:23] We've heard from all parties.

[2:20:24] I think we've got some clarifications on a significant issue with the 50 feet.

[2:20:29] Obviously there's some other issues.

[2:20:30] the light is them and done,

[2:20:35] you know, as the mayor and as a council member, I was trying to say

[2:20:38] can we get some harmony and understand that if it's not specific and enforceable, it's kind of

[2:20:47] difficult to do that. So we're here, council is here to make a decision on this today. We're going

[2:20:54] to vote on this. I don't know what that's going to look like. And so I was trying to give some

[2:21:00] opportunities for the two parties to maybe come to an agreement that we could enforce.

[2:21:06] I think where we are now is that we have an developer here who said,

[2:21:11] let's get this obviously approved, and they were going to have some discussion.

[2:21:15] There's some good faith that might have to be involved in that, would not be enforceable.

[2:21:20] You have no agreement that can present to council right now that would allow us to take that under consideration.

[2:21:29] So, I think those are my, at least my comments in my thought process that we have.

[2:21:37] I'm trying to make this work, but it doesn't look like we have an easy solution.

[2:21:41] We have a trusting solution and hope that our folks that come into the village of Estero

[2:21:48] will stand behind their word that they will try to work as solution.

[2:21:53] He's not saying a dollar or a amount or the extent of that, but at least I have the conversation

[2:21:59] and trust that you can come up with something that does make sense and establish the real need

[2:22:05] for those concerns.

[2:22:07] So that's all in my comment.

[2:22:09] We'll go back to Council on Award.

[2:22:11] Just a quick comment to the audience.

[2:22:14] Many of you probably know me, my name is Jim Ward, I live in the Bronx, I live in Spring

[2:22:20] I've been active in the community for a number of years having served on the Springland Board for a number of years having served on the Brooks Cummins Club.

[2:22:30] Board for a number of years was involved with the Brooks Council Presidents for years and was also on the CDD for a number of years.

[2:22:39] We had a number of discussions with the Brooks Council of Presidents prior to this being authorized for the village to accept the legal status as we did on June 21, 2023.

[2:22:53] So I want the community to be aware of the fact that we did reach out and did have numerous meetings with Council, with Mary Gibbs, with Nancy Stroud, with the Brooks Council of Presidents, and we kept them abreast as to exactly what was going on over a period of time even up through the recent months during this past summer.

[2:23:15] we kept them advised us to what exactly the process was and where we were at a point in time

[2:23:21] where we wish to settle this dispute that we had with the developer because as many of you know

[2:23:26] we were in court for well over a year with the developer to ensure the community had the right

[2:23:32] to be here today that the community had the right to be before the planning zoning board to express

[2:23:38] their views. The developer at one point in time wanted it be a simple administrative process

[2:23:43] whereby the staff would make the decision and it wouldn't have the community would not have the opportunity to come in or make some changes to the product.

[2:23:55] One of the things I'd like to do if I can is to ask Mary to come up because there were circumstances that were made.

[2:24:03] Even in the last three or four months with the blessing of the Brooks Council of Presidents and with the blessing of the developer.

[2:24:10] So, Mary, are you in a position to go through some of those changes that positively affected

[2:24:16] the outcome of this?

[2:24:19] I think you're talking about some of the things that we work with the developer to get

[2:24:25] into the settlement agreement.

[2:24:29] And the main things were, you know, we did try to get the height lowered, the developer said

[2:24:36] We couldn't, we didn't want to lower the height, but with a four-story building, there would

[2:24:41] be elevators in the building, that they would do the architectural design that fit with

[2:24:47] the sterot, not the kind of stuff they do, or other people do elsewhere that you've seen

[2:24:53] in the county.

[2:24:54] So we have kind of the attractive architectural design, they had concrete block construction

[2:25:05] because we were worried that sometimes people do wood frame and even the wood frame is allowed

[2:25:11] by code. It's not very sustainable and it's not really of the quality that we were hoping for.

[2:25:20] So we've got a CBS concrete block building, elevators, the attractive kind of rendering that you saw,

[2:25:29] and then they have amenities for the residents which we didn't stipulate but they have

[2:25:34] pool cabin as fitness center. I think they haven't had a wine storage room. And some

[2:25:40] of those things, we, you know, we didn't, they have a little dog park. They're going to

[2:25:46] repaint the commercial center because when they build the apartments, the commercial

[2:25:53] centers like a little bit drab-looking. It means a refresh. So they're going to repaint the

[2:25:58] rest of the shopping center to be consistent with the color scheme that planning zoning

[2:26:04] design board had approved, and then I think the lighting fixtures, they were also going

[2:26:12] to replace the fixtures in the remaining parking lots, so they would be consistent, as

[2:26:16] well, do some paper block crosswalks in the parking lot between the residential and the commercial

[2:26:24] areas. And then there were a few more things that I think were stipulated in the planning zoning

[2:26:31] design review board review of the development order. They had some additional parking suggestions

[2:26:39] to try to make it operationally work the flow work a little bit better. So those I think were the

[2:26:46] the main things that I recall at the moment. Mary, I think we also had a reduction in the

[2:26:52] units from 158 to 137 as well. Which the developer offered that 158 or 157 and I think was in the final

[2:27:00] And when they came out of the development order,

[2:27:03] they reduced it to 137.

[2:27:10] Yes.

[2:27:11] Thank you, Madam Good.

[2:27:12] Any other questions on council?

[2:27:15] If none, that all parties have presented,

[2:27:19] the chair will open the meeting here to public comments.

[2:27:25] And Madam Park, do we have anyone to speak?

[2:27:28] Yes, Mayor.

[2:27:29] Are we also sent out a 20 to e-commerce yesterday, too?

[2:27:33] We should talk about that.

[2:27:34] Yes.

[2:27:34] Our first call, I'll call up Tammy Rose from a cut above of a sterile representing the books.

[2:27:45] Sorry for my appearance, but I'm coming from work and I have a haircut at one, so I need to be fast.

[2:27:53] My name is Tammy Rose and I do own a cut above of a sterile.

[2:27:57] I have been there for seven years.

[2:27:59] I have also been in a sterile resident for 20 years and I came to a sterile because it was a nice quiet area.

[2:28:07] I wanted to speak as far as the shop owners, a lot of them wanted to be here.

[2:28:14] However, at 9.30 in the morning, it was hard for them to be here.

[2:28:18] I spoke with the Jim owner, and he is concerned about the parking.

[2:28:25] He consumes most of the parking, but his concern was the construction parking.

[2:28:31] I do know that a majority of my clientele are from the four areas.

[2:28:37] We have to spoken with them.

[2:28:39] It is trust me.

[2:28:40] It is like Groundhog Day in my barbershop.

[2:28:42] Every single day, people come in and that's all they want to talk about is this development.

[2:28:49] I can tell you that a lot of clients wanted to be here today, but could not because they

[2:28:55] are traveling for the holidays and they weren't going to be in town.

[2:28:58] A lot of my other customers said, well, it's pretty much a done deal, so it's just a waste of time.

[2:29:05] I still encourage them to come.

[2:29:07] My deal is the two year visibility and what it's going to do to the businesses in the area.

[2:29:15] I've talked to every business owner and the two things that we have had problems with is we have had one.

[2:29:22] customers coming in going, well, where are you going to go, because they're under the impression

[2:29:26] that they're taking the whole strip mall, and that is not the case. The second part is

[2:29:33] is they're worried about what it's going to do to our visibility and what it's going to do to our

[2:29:39] business. And if it decreases our business, we'll be forced to leave. So then you're going to have

[2:29:52] reason why the Windixie has been vacant for so long is because Cortellus was still getting

[2:29:57] rent money because they are under bankruptcy.

[2:30:00] So they had no, I can't think of the work, but anyway. They talked about, you know, this has been going on for so long.

[2:30:11] They talked about site visibility and everything else. Well, the traffic studies and all of the other studies have been conducted quite a few years back.

[2:30:20] And I think that if it is going to be approved, that those studies should be re-evaluated.

[2:30:25] because I can tell you that I had a customer that came in at 7.30 this morning because I wanted to be at this meeting so he came in early and he was coming from copper leaf and he said that it took him 5 minutes to get out of the development and that was at 7.30 in the morning.

[2:30:41] There has been other developments created since all of this started that have impacted this area and you know talking about the deviations of the 21 spots after the last meeting.

[2:30:55] They did do, sorry.

[2:30:58] I will respect my time.

[2:31:00] Thank you.

[2:31:01] I'm just reminded of the other speakers that we do have three minutes.

[2:31:05] So time your presentation to that.

[2:31:07] And I do appreciate that we don't clap for cheer or boo or whatever.

[2:31:13] I just let the people do their piece.

[2:31:15] So who was next?

[2:31:16] Our next is Mr. William Clark from Shadowwood, representing the Brooks.

[2:31:29] Hi, William Clark and Magnolia Ben.

[2:31:32] One of the questions I had is,

[2:31:33] With the developer, I don't know the details if they, I assume they bought the whole site.

[2:31:40] With the, with the stores in the bank, is that true?

[2:31:45] This is an opportunity for you to, for a minute statements.

[2:31:48] Well, the point is, is that I would like to understand what the long-term plans are.

[2:31:52] They're going to, when they least come around on these businesses, are they just going to develop more of this site?

[2:31:57] Put up another four stories and more units on that site and put more pressure on that site,

[2:32:03] as far as traffic, in parking, and I'd like to know what the intent is long-term that

[2:32:09] they own the whole property.

[2:32:09] I would have, have you, after the meeting is talked to Mary or Nancy, I think they can

[2:32:14] address your request, and that's not going to be a concern for my mind,

[2:32:21] but so thank you.

[2:32:24] Mary, do you want, do you want to address that open links?

[2:32:28] I was just going to say that the developer, I think, is purchasing part half of the five

[2:32:36] acres, so it's half of that shopping center, not the remaining shopping center. And they

[2:32:42] couldn't, if they wanted to come in and take that down and build more units, there's no

[2:32:47] units left in the DRI, they're using up basically, almost all the units except for 20. So they

[2:32:54] have to go back and go through a public hearing, a zoning amendment, and go through that gamut,

[2:33:00] in order to do something like that. So we've asked them before if they were going to redevelop,

[2:33:05] and they said, no, not the whole site. And the risk of another apartment building being four

[2:33:11] stories in there wouldn't be allowed on the DRI because we were close to the maximums that's allowed

[2:33:17] in there. There's the units, there wouldn't be enough units left to do that without coming back

[2:33:24] And I want to make that clearer folks.

[2:33:27] Our next is Sandy Small from Shadowwood, representing the Brooks.

[2:33:40] Sandy Small, 10055, Magnolia Band.

[2:33:44] This has been a very frustrating process in which it appears.

[2:33:48] The needs and desires of existing residents and taxpayers

[2:33:51] are placed last on the priority list.

[2:33:55] Instead, the desire for financial gain by the developer, the financial gain of the owner of the complex,

[2:34:02] and the alleged needs of potential future transient residents, are being prioritized.

[2:34:08] Three Oaks Parkway North of a sterile parkway has been turned into apartment row, and that is not a compliment.

[2:34:15] And to have apartment housing next to multi-million dollar homes in the Brooks, seems very inconsistent from a common sense perspective.

[2:34:24] perspective, let alone a zoning perspective. Part of what Drew was to

[2:34:29] ignore, you've been, was the hope of another grocery store moving

[2:34:32] in to the old wind exit location. Instead, we will be subjected to

[2:34:38] the noise pollution and dust pollution of the demolition of the

[2:34:42] wind exit and be subjected to the noise and dust pollution of a

[2:34:47] lengthy construction process. Then again, transient residents will

[2:34:51] occupy this location, who will possibly lack pride of ownership.

[2:34:57] And what will occur when mortgage rates drop to more affordable levels?

[2:35:01] This will occur prior to this complex being complete.

[2:35:06] More potential apartment dwellers will instead opt to purchase small starter homes and demand

[2:35:12] for apartments will decrease.

[2:35:14] This is the fundamental reality of supply and demand.

[2:35:18] As tenants move out and new ones move in,

[2:35:21] rinse will decrease to maintain 100% occupancy.

[2:35:26] That is how the apartment business model works.

[2:35:29] As a result, a complete new type of resident

[2:35:32] will occupy the complex.

[2:35:34] With loan repayments to be made,

[2:35:36] and I'm assuming some of the funds

[2:35:38] to build this complex will be borrowed,

[2:35:41] and less tenant revenue coming in,

[2:35:44] what discretionary maintenance work will be stopped.

[2:35:47] What will become of this complex then?

[2:35:50] To summarize, I really don't understand why tax paying residents

[2:35:55] of the Brooks are prioritized at the bottom of the list.

[2:35:59] This really doesn't make any sense at all

[2:36:02] and defies a reasonable, even extreme, extreme definition

[2:36:07] of fairness.

[2:36:08] Thank you.

[2:36:11] Our next is David Small, representing the Brooks from Shadowwood.

[2:36:21] David Small, 105055, Magnolia Bend, I think my wife paraphrase that quite well in terms

[2:36:29] of potential long-term impacts of the actual community.

[2:36:34] I want to go back to the Nancy Strout memo in that there's a question along the lines

[2:36:40] of, do any persons in the petition have standing to bring the appeal?

[2:36:45] While that's, I'm sure a very valid legal question from a practical matter, it's interpreted

[2:36:53] this way. Does any person in the community or a taxpayer have an opinion that matters?

[2:37:01] I find that offensive. The second notion is the definition of how people are aggrieved, and

[2:37:09] I do very much appreciate the granting of that. Thank you very much. There's a definition

[2:37:14] of a definite interest exceeding the general interest in community good

[2:37:20] share in common with all citizens.

[2:37:24] We had an objection to that.

[2:37:27] So if you take an extreme example of that, someone...

[2:37:30] Objective to the notion that if someone lives next to a garbage dump, and somebody else lives two miles away,

[2:37:37] that the person doesn't have an exceeding interest if they live next to the garbage dump.

[2:37:43] I find that offensive. That's all I have to say. And very much appreciate the opportunity

[2:37:49] to speak. I appreciate you listening. Thank you.

[2:37:54] Our next is Kathy Varoski from Shatterwood representing the rocks.

[2:38:03] Kathy Varoski.

[2:38:06] I'd like to say if evidence can be interpreted different ways

[2:38:10] that at the end of the day it's your responsibility to protect your citizens.

[2:38:15] I also think that I have in my hands here

[2:38:19] and they're potentially in your packet, but if not public records,

[2:38:23] numerous documents that clearly specify that the additional units were to be used on a specified site.

[2:38:34] We do not believe there are any vested rights left in the original or the amended DRI.

[2:38:42] Pebble Point was built, in addition, DRIs in general are meant to protect developers once

[2:38:50] a permit has been issued and land use or of overalls change, or when there's open land

[2:38:55] to be built, but in this case, we have a town center built under the DRI to the intentions

[2:39:03] of the DRI with the finalized development order.

[2:39:07] We have clear intention of any additional units.

[2:39:11] We have clear intention that the height was to have been limited to two stories.

[2:39:19] As far as I'm concerned, there is no claim of estates,

[2:39:23] and even if there was, you can't automatically just transfer them to a new site

[2:39:28] and a new land use that is incompatible with the comprehensive plan.

[2:39:34] Thank you.

[2:39:38] Our next is Galen Clark from Shadowwood, representing the Brooks.

[2:39:47] I'm Galen Clark at 1090-97, Magnolia Bend, live next door to the Wyrowski's, and I'm one of the affected parties of the five.

[2:39:57] I've set back and listened to all the work hard work that Kathy Wyrowski has done time and others among them.

[2:40:05] But one of my points that I was going to bring up is that I was disillusioned in feeling that my village of the sterile council had not represented at our citizens of Brooks of the Brooks in regard to this project.

[2:40:23] Mayor McLean, Lori Fay, he thank you for the comments and the questions you have given that is brought me back to a little bit of trust there.

[2:40:30] So that's very helpful.

[2:40:33] Actually, and then from a different point of view,

[2:40:35] I would love to invite all of you over to my house for dinner.

[2:40:39] Let's have a party out on the line.

[2:40:41] Let's see how beautiful it is right now.

[2:40:43] Why we bought that house? Why we're living there?

[2:40:46] What it is about the Brooks and the Hall is represented right there.

[2:40:51] That way you can see what we're dealing with right now.

[2:40:55] the beauty, the serenity of the preserve behind us,

[2:40:59] the conservation area.

[2:41:01] Then let's fast forward to two to three years from now

[2:41:05] after this four-story apartment building goes up.

[2:41:09] Then I want you all to come back for dinner again

[2:41:11] and sit on the deck and see the difference.

[2:41:14] Unfortunately, that'll be too late

[2:41:16] to prevent this from happening.

[2:41:18] So I compel you to consider all our concerns

[2:41:22] and make a decision to uphold our appeal and not go forward with this project.

[2:41:29] Thank you.

[2:41:32] Our next is Mr. Rod Raraski of Shadowwood, representing himself,

[2:41:46] next.

[2:41:49] Our next is Betty Joyce Dizel from White House Bay, representing Common Sense.

[2:42:02] Our next is Mary Lou Kennedy from Shadowwood.

[2:42:13] Oh, I'm Mary Lou Kennedy 10104, Magnolia Band.

[2:42:16] We have a serious security issues, a meeting was held between the Shatterwood community association and the Brook CDD in which this was discussed.

[2:42:29] Our last communication from Jim Dunlap, President of our Community Association, tells us that land is clearly owned by the CDD and that Shatterwood can do nothing to secure our border area.

[2:42:41] this CDD needed the ability to work with the developer to solve this problem. In fact the

[2:42:47] developer should be forced to put up a fence between Town Center and the conservation area

[2:42:52] adjacent to Magnolia Ben. No, no, no gody negotiation solution was reached. As this was just

[2:43:02] pushed through. My interests, the interests of my neighbors and all of Shatterwood were never

[2:43:08] considered. We just had to instant last week with non-residents coming on our street, breaking

[2:43:14] into our cars in mailboxes. We suspect they came from the town center area. Adding this number

[2:43:20] of units and residents with such close proximity has substantial impact on us and can certainly

[2:43:28] raise the likelihood for security and safety issues. Further, why no one is allowed to trust

[2:43:33] in the conservation area. How is it that we have vagrants living there? For my

[2:43:38] door, I will now stare at us four-story eye sore. Thank you.

[2:43:46] Our next is Susan Nicoletti from Shadowwood.

[2:44:00] Susan Nicoletti.

[2:44:01] I signed up to make a comment before I heard everything else.

[2:44:07] And I'm very happy what I've heard from the people of Shadowwood.

[2:44:10] we have tried very hard to give you an idea of what this is going to be like for us and I appreciate

[2:44:19] listening and I hope you'll stand by us. Thank you.

[2:44:24] Our next is Gregory Lewis of Shadowwood,

[2:44:26] representing himself.

[2:44:32] Good afternoon. My name is Greg Lewis and I live at 1-0024

[2:44:38] or Ginger Point Court in Shadowwood at the Brooks have been an honor of our residents

[2:44:45] for approximately 23 years.

[2:44:49] I have also been a real estate agent selling literally hundreds of homes in the Brooks

[2:44:57] during my root of real estate prep.

[2:45:00] Practice over the last 18 years. When I meet with perspective, buyers, they often ask, what in the world is the Commons Club?

[2:45:10] I go back to the year 2,003, when the Benito Bay Group came to three or four residents and said, would you mind being part of an advisory council, so that you can tell us what you really think the Commons Club should be over time.

[2:45:28] It became the consensus and confirmed that it really should be a gathering place, a gathering

[2:45:35] place for the people who live in the four communities which comprise the Brooks White House

[2:45:42] Bay Spring Run, Copper Leaf, and Shadowwood.

[2:45:45] A gathering place which would in your solely for the Brooks to gather a place for socialization

[2:45:54] and a commitment, which would be consistent for all of the Brooks owners in perpetuity.

[2:46:03] Well, that seems to be in jeopardy.

[2:46:06] It's not really a real estate puffry or boasting or nightle promise,

[2:46:13] because the Commons Club was founded on written documents.

[2:46:19] And I think that those promises really need to be upheld.

[2:46:25] In terms of the agreed parties, I don't think it's just those people who live within 500 feet of the proposed project,

[2:46:34] but really all of the thousands of people who own property in the Brooks are being disadvantaged.

[2:46:43] In addition, Tammy Rhodes, who spoke earlier, represented the small business owners who are going to be a disadvantaged.

[2:46:54] When you think about the development of the United States, it's the small business owner who has been the backbone

[2:47:00] of the development of this country from an economic sense, and they're going to be disadvantaged.

[2:47:06] this advantage from the standpoint of the project taking two years to develop the lack of

[2:47:12] visibility, the parking issues, security issues, etc. So I appeal to the Council to not support

[2:47:24] the development of this project, and I thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you.

[2:47:34] Next is Mr. Bob Dollwick from Spring Run representing the appeal.

[2:47:43] Thank you Bob Dollwick, 9331 Spring Run Boulevard in Spring Run.

[2:47:50] I won't use all my three minutes, but I would like to ask the question, and I know it won't be answered now,

[2:47:56] but as far as the DRI is concerned, I heard the term or the number of 2500 acres,

[2:48:02] Does that include the unbuildable portion of the 2,500 acres?

[2:48:07] There's a lot of wetlands there and stuff that just wouldn't be buildable.

[2:48:11] I don't know how that's evaluated.

[2:48:15] Second,

[2:48:18] there was a deviation of 21 parking spots.

[2:48:21] And I know from experience this spring run that parking is an issue,

[2:48:26] because we just went through a big remodeling thing,

[2:48:29] and there was quite a bit of discussion about how many parking spots were required,

[2:48:32] even though no more people, we're going to be in spring

[2:48:34] around the 846 stores.

[2:48:38] Thirdly, I would like to know if precedent comes into play

[2:48:42] in any way, in form of the law.

[2:48:44] I know in labor law, if you've been doing something for 25 years

[2:48:48] and someone grieves against some Jew,

[2:48:50] and you say that's the way we've always done it,

[2:48:52] that's probably a pretty good chance you're not going to win

[2:48:54] your grievance, because that's the way it's been done.

[2:48:57] And spring run, and well, all of the Brooks,

[2:49:00] We've been around for excess of 25 years, and the precedent has always been no more than

[2:49:06] a two-story building.

[2:49:08] So now we're going to go to a four-story building, question, not an answer.

[2:49:14] Thank you for your time.

[2:49:15] Thank you for consideration, and we appreciate the pressure that goes on you for your job

[2:49:20] as well.

[2:49:21] Thank you.

[2:49:23] Our next is Mary Ann Blakely from Shadowwood.

[2:49:36] Hello again.

[2:49:37] I'm Mary Ann Blakely, 1-0039, Magnolia Band.

[2:49:43] I bought my home two years ago, almost two years ago,

[2:49:48] and I bought it kind of at the height.

[2:49:50] So we're talking about close to three million dollars.

[2:49:55] And now I'm looking at what's going to be going on behind me.

[2:50:00] The reason I moved out of Phillips Creek was because I did build a home

[2:50:06] that behind me was someone else and it was not serene. It didn't give me the serenity that I needed

[2:50:16] that now I'm 70 years old. Behind me right now is the most beautiful wildlife preserve.

[2:50:26] And I'm at a different point in Magnolia than the Warrar skis in the Clarks.

[2:50:31] But I do have the island behind me, and there are several, several, eagles behind there.

[2:50:42] There's woodstorks, there's all these beautiful, beautiful birds.

[2:50:47] With this construction and the demolition and the dynamite, what's going to happen here?

[2:50:55] And the security, also, we did have that instance just about a week ago.

[2:51:00] when we know where they came from.

[2:51:04] So I'm just praying that this will not happen to us.

[2:51:11] You are the ones that represent us,

[2:51:14] and we have put our faith in you.

[2:51:17] And we pray that at least something better can be done here.

[2:51:22] Thank you so much. I really appreciate your time. Thank you.

[2:51:27] Our next is Mr. Glenn Horvich, representing Shadowwood.

[2:51:32] I'm sorry. Community Shadowwood, representing himself.

[2:51:36] Glenn Horvich, 1-0-312.

[2:51:40] Yes, it's K-O-R-F-H-A-G-E.

[2:51:45] I live at 103-12, Autumn Breeze Drive, apartment 102,

[2:51:50] in the O-Kamic neighborhood of Shadowwood.

[2:51:52] And I, my thoughts and comments are really cumulative and what's already been expressed.

[2:52:00] I compliment our neighbors and the magnolia band for doing an excellent job.

[2:52:05] Thank you.

[2:52:08] Our next is Mr. Ron Bischko, representing White House Bay.

[2:52:17] Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

[2:52:21] I want to just focus on one word.

[2:52:23] Could you give your name and add the name as Ron, the last is Ms. Go?

[2:52:28] Yeah.

[2:52:30] And I live in Lighthouse Bay in the Bronx.

[2:52:36] Okay, I want to focus on one word. Comparability. Comparability. Comparability. Comparability.

[2:52:49] putting up a flow story building right smack dab in the middle of the

[2:52:57] blocks is that compatible.

[2:53:03] And when you go to vote I let you think of that word and

[2:53:10] what we're doing to the Brooks town center. Thank you very much that's all.

[2:53:17] Our next is Max Robinson from Shadowwood.

[2:53:31] Morning.

[2:53:32] I'm Max Robinson.

[2:53:33] I'd have at 1-0-0-4-8.

[2:53:36] Ginger Point Court in Shadowwood.

[2:53:39] And I'm not within 500 feet of the project,

[2:53:43] but I can assure you that I feel aggrieved.

[2:53:49] The apartment proposal is totally out of character

[2:53:53] for the neighborhood.

[2:53:54] Brookstown Center is for the Brook's homeowners and they have spent together millions of dollars

[2:54:04] to develop and maintain the area, including the beautiful landscaping on coconut road and three oaks.

[2:54:15] Brooks Town Center was intended to serve the residents and to reduce traffic on U.S. 41

[2:54:23] and other thoroughfares by providing services, close by, and not to become an opportunity

[2:54:32] opportunistic development, which you serve as the investments of Brooks Homeowners in

[2:54:40] purchase on our peaceful community, and will increase traffic

[2:54:44] contrary to the original intent.

[2:54:49] The apartments would be an unfair conversion

[2:54:52] of the service intent of the Brooks County Center,

[2:54:58] taking away resources for Brooks home owners,

[2:55:02] exploiting their investment, imposing congestion,

[2:55:06] and comparing the peacefulness and security of the Brooks.

[2:55:11] Town Center was not intended for apartments.

[2:55:15] It was intended for businesses serving Brooks residences.

[2:55:21] Indeed, the same is Brooks Town Center.

[2:55:25] Thank you for the opportunity.

[2:55:29] Our next is Mr. Andy Kern from Shadowwood.

[2:55:39] Our next is Charlie Kennedy from Shadowwood, representing Shadowwood.

[2:55:45] Our next Susan Snow from Shadowwood,

[2:55:53] and our last is Mr. Clark McKenzie from Highlands, representing himself.

[2:56:05] Clark McKenzie and I live at to a 6, 7, 9, 9, 9, 7 and I was very disappointed with you guys putting some 54 buildings close to where I live.

[2:56:19] And I'm really sorry about that for you, but Mr. Scott, your governor, who you voted for,

[2:56:31] got it that development thing. So I think it's very important to remember who you're voting

[2:56:39] for, because it's all about money. And my house is not $3 million, but I still don't want

[2:56:46] by a 40 foot building so you know think about who you're voting for you know Mr. Scott's guy

[2:56:54] that got into that provision. Alright thanks. Thank you. Mayor let us complete public comment.

[2:57:02] Okay I will now close the public comment this portion of our meeting and now that the public

[2:57:08] comment section is closed the chair will permit applicants affected parties the opportunity for a brief

[2:57:15] Rebuttal statement, not to exceed three minutes.

[2:57:21] Do you have any further comments?

[2:57:27] Please, please, please, I can't.

[2:57:29] I can't be white rough ski of a battle period.

[2:57:32] I just rebut, again, the idea that they remain vested rights,

[2:57:36] that the building in the vested rights could be above two stories,

[2:57:43] that we can deviate from the comp plan based on current cases

[2:57:48] And that this will create an inconsistency that will be very difficult to fight in the future.

[2:57:55] And that we really feel our openness, I know you said there were meetings, but we didn't hear of the meeting,

[2:58:06] until we received the notice that said basically this was a done deal, but you can come comment.

[2:58:11] I mean that was the process we received.

[2:58:15] And having this building is clearly not in the intention of the original DRI, and we are interested

[2:58:24] not being met, and I live here because of the privacy and serenity of my lot.

[2:58:31] That's it, and it will be forever changed.

[2:58:35] Thank you.

[2:58:38] Now that all parties and presentations and public comments are conclude, I will accept a motion

[2:58:45] to either affirm the decision of the planning zoning board, reverse the decision of the

[2:58:51] PZDB, or affirm with modifications to the planning zoning.

[2:59:02] So I am ready

[2:59:06] to take a motion for anyone.

[2:59:08] It's a very own, like a motion based upon the evidence and the testimony that presented

[2:59:15] to us today during the arguments for the parties.

[2:59:19] I move the firm of the decision of the planning zoning and dying board to issue the development

[2:59:22] order.

[2:59:23] In this case, including the conditions that have been set forth to the area, do I have a

[2:59:29] second?

[2:59:30] Second.

[2:59:31] Second.

[2:59:34] Councilman Lopez.

[2:59:38] Any discussion amongst the council?

[2:59:40] Yes.

[2:59:41] Councilman Ward.

[2:59:42] You know, as I noted a few minutes ago,

[2:59:45] I am a resident of the Brooks. I am a resident of spring run.

[2:59:49] I can thoroughly understand the passion that you have brought today, and you concerns,

[2:59:56] because I understand what the individual intent.

[3:00:00] Of the Brooks Town Center was. I really do feel that it's not compatible with what was an

[3:00:12] originally intended. I can remember back in 2003 when I first came here 2005, few years later

[3:00:19] week Bay was built. I remember the community being reached out to support Sweet Bay because we

[3:00:28] recognize if we didn't support Sweet Bay that it wouldn't be there. Subsequently, Sweet Bay

[3:00:35] went away. When Dixie came in, we again went out to the residents and said, please support

[3:00:40] Windixie. Apparently neither one of them was financially stable, could not exist. So the developer

[3:00:48] had to reach out and do something different. The developer did reach out to other avenues

[3:00:55] to which they could use the property. I know even at this village the village manager reached

[3:01:01] out to other entities to see if we could do something different than the apartments.

[3:01:09] At this

[3:01:10] point in time this council has to make a decision that is based on what we talked about as the

[3:01:16] confident authority or competent, what's the word I'm thinking of for you?

[3:01:23] It's not an answer to the answer.

[3:01:25] And unfortunately, I don't really see any reason to deny what the planning is only Board did.

[3:01:38] I believe that they are a competent authority.

[3:01:42] They serve this Board very well.

[3:01:44] They serve this community very well over the years, so unfortunately I really do have to support the planning

[3:01:54] is owning board and deny the appeal

[3:01:59] council comments.

[3:02:03] Just one comment I have, I'm not sure all the vote will go.

[3:02:07] We obviously need four to support the planning is owning board, but based on what we've heard today,

[3:02:14] I would encourage the affected parties to work with the developer.

[3:02:21] It sounds like he's willing to consider your concerns specifically around security.

[3:02:27] So no matter how we vote today, that's an option that you should,

[3:02:32] I would encourage you to do if it's appropriate.

[3:02:37] So,

[3:02:40] no further comments from Council, Council person to A.

[3:02:47] The majority of our, I'm sorry.

[3:02:50] The majority of our board are local residents here.

[3:02:55] I've lived here for 20 years and I miss the Cal Pastors, like the rest of you.

[3:03:03] But it's very difficult for council to try to tell a developer that they can't build something on the property that they purchased.

[3:03:17] You know, according to the regulations that are provided.

[3:03:21] It would be the same if you were told you couldn't build a house on the property you had.

[3:03:28] All we can do is tell you what the policies are and how you need to conform to that.

[3:03:37] So, that's all I have.

[3:03:38] Thank you.

[3:03:39] Thank you all for speaking out.

[3:03:41] This is a tough decision.

[3:03:44] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[3:03:45] Mr. Mayor.

[3:03:46] Yes.

[3:03:46] Thank you.

[3:03:47] I'd just like to make a quick couple of comments.

[3:03:49] Kathy, I thank you and everybody from the Bronx for being here today is very apparent your passion on this particular issue and I understand your frustration and I can see it and thank you for a very compelling presentation today.

[3:04:05] I will speak on behalf of myself. I did weigh the evidence and all of the testimony provided today and in our packet.

[3:04:11] And for me, it comes down to a simple legal test, right?

[3:04:17] I need to follow what is legally applicable in the law.

[3:04:23] And so when I take a look at the DRI and the vested rights of the developer,

[3:04:29] The comprehensive plan, the PZDB board, and their approval of those items, staffs, recommendation,

[3:04:40] Nancy Stroud, our land use attorneys, recommendation, and then our village attorneys recommendation.

[3:04:48] I want you to know as a village counsel person, I'm compelled to follow the legal findings.

[3:04:53] So although your arguments were compelling, I'm letting you know the reason that I'm going to be voting to support the motion is because of the legalities.

[3:05:07] But thank you very much.

[3:05:20] Thank you.

[3:05:22] of fines that could be brought against the village,

[3:05:26] lawsuits that are brought against the village,

[3:05:28] we have to protect everyone in the village.

[3:05:32] And that is why I seconded emotion,

[3:05:35] because I have to look at, we have to look at everyone

[3:05:38] that lives in this village.

[3:05:40] And I encourage you all to do with the mayor suggested,

[3:05:44] and maybe reach out to the developer

[3:05:46] and try to arrange more accommodations

[3:05:49] that you can get from him.

[3:05:51] I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm thinking that he's a man of his word and that he'll follow up with it again

[3:05:58] I I thank you all for coming out and supporting us and supporting the village

[3:06:04] It's still the greatest city in Florida and if not the United States and you know, we all

[3:06:14] Still residents, so we we we we appreciate everything that you guys did and thank you

[3:06:21] Thank you.

[3:06:22] So Madam Perk, we have a motion and we have a second.

[3:06:25] Yes, we do.

[3:06:26] So let's call the roll.

[3:06:29] Council Member Feasal.

[3:06:31] Council Member Feasal.

[3:06:33] Aye.

[3:06:34] Council Member Lopez.

[3:06:36] Council Member Ward.

[3:06:37] Council Member Zulaki.

[3:06:39] Place Mayor Ribble.

[3:06:40] May I McQueen.

[3:06:42] Aye.

[3:06:43] Now that the council has ruled, this hearing is ready to be adjourned.

[3:06:48] May I have a motion to adjourn?

[3:06:51] Thank you, Mary, but let's all move from Larry Fesal.

[3:06:54] I'm sorry.

[3:06:55] Me as a jerk.

Special Village Council Meeting

Agenda

Transcript