Loading...
06.22.2021 - City Council MinutesCity of Clermont MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 CALL TO ORDER The City Council met in a regular meeting on Tuesday, June 22, 2021 in the Clermont City Council Chambers. Mayor Murry called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm with the following Council Members present: Council Members Pines, Entsuah, Bates, and Purvis. Other City officials present were Interim City Manager Dauderis, City Attorney Mantzaris, and City Clerk Howe. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The invocation was given by Bishop Everett Gates of One in Christ Ministries followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Opening Comments Mayor Murry announced the agenda changes. The Florida League of Cities presentation will be moved to July 13 and the closed session will be held at the end of the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jodi Long, 1521 Arrow Court — Asked the Council for reconsideration for Modern Orthodontics sign variance, and showed the Council a rendering of the sign with the hashtag removed. City Attorney Mantzaris said that there is not an appeal process, but staff can look into working with Ms. Long on a new application. Mayor Murry informed Ms. Long that recommendations were made at the denial hearing. Matt Kryzminski, Planning & Zoning Board Chair — Asked that the Council consider providing members of the Planning & Zoning Board with official identification for use while they are investigating properties in the course of their duties as members of the board. Council Member Purvis stated that he watched the Planning & Zoning meeting on YouTube where this issue was discussed and pointed out that this is not a unanimous request from the board. He stated that a board member is on a property it should be at the invite of the property owner; if it is not, they are trespassing. Council Member Entsuah supported the request. Council Member Pines stated that the Planning & Zoning Board has operated for a long time without official identification. Upon watching the Planning & Zoning Board meeting, she too agreed that there was no strong consensus from the board for this request. She expressed concern for the City, if Planning & Zoning Board members are trespassing on private property. Mayor Murry said that he does not have any official identification when he is out and about as he does not see a need for it. The Council took no action on this request. City of Clermont MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 Charlene Forth, 939 E. Desoto Street — Ms. Forth expressed concern about activities in the downtown area at businesses with Conditional Use Permits (CUP). She provided an example and gave a handout to the Council. Council Member Entsuah asked if the City had looked into the activity Ms. Forth had referenced. Interim City Manager Dauderis stated that the City had looked into the issue and supplied each Council Member with a report showing that the property was in compliance. Interim City Manager Dauderis continued that the City is proactively meeting with the management from the business regarding their events. Mayor Murry asked if anything that occurred was against the CUP. City Attorney Mantzaris stated that upon review of the CUP, there were no violations. Mayor Murry asked if all the permits had been acquired. City Attorney Mantzaris explained that the CUP allows them to have special events, so no permit was needed. Mayor Murry said that while he observed that the event was noisy, he thinks it ended before 11:00 pm which makes them in compliance with the code and their CUP. Council Member Purvis expressed a strong concern about the operation of the City. He stated that he wants to know exactly what a CUP allows and does not allow. City Attorney Mantzaris explained that every CUP is different and that is why each application must come before the Council so they can review and approve the specific conditions for each property. Council Member Purvis stated that the referenced event was utilizing city property and city right of way as he observed. City Attorney Mantzaris stated that a CUP does not authorize the use of public property as the conditions are tied to a specific parcel. Mayor Murry stated that a review of Conditional Use Permit practices may need to be a workshop item. Linda Charlton, 91021 County Road 561 — Ms. Charlton expressed a concern about the process that occurred with regards to an overturned car accident. Paula Hoisington, 564 E Desoto Street — Ms. Hoisington stated she was speaking on behalf of the South Lake Alliance. She expressed frustration over the upcoming retreat stating that the alliance needs clarity and direction. They have not received any official notification about being on the agenda. She feels that the City Administration is doing a disservice to the people, when they expect to be treated equally. Interim City Manager Dauderis explained to the Council that since this is a retreat there is no set agenda yet as they are still working with the facilitator. She also stated that the alliance is the only presenter during the retreat so they were given a specific time to assist them in coordinating their people and presentation. She informed the Council that she has a phone call with the facilitator to go over items that could be on the agenda. City Attorney Mantzaris emphasized to the Council that this is a retreat, which by its nature allows for greater flexibility, thus an agenda is kept to very broad topics and is to be considered a guideline more so than the order of business. City of Clermont MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 Mayor Murry stated he would like to see an agenda by the end of the week. REPORTS INTERIM CITY MANAGER REPORT Interim City Manager Dauderis — • The Council Retreat will be on June 30 at the Clermont City Center beginning at 9:OOam • The City will be closed Monday, July 5 for observation of the July 4 holiday. • City will have an event from 7pm to 1 Opm on July 4. • The next City Council meeting is on July 13. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT City Attorney Mantzaris • Reminded members about their Form 1 financial filings. Regarding the Form 1 filings, Council Member Purvis asked if they needed to submit them even though they just completed them as part of their qualifying process for the election. City Clerk Howe responded that Council Member Purvis will need to complete the form as he was in office on December 31, 2020. Council Member Entsuah was elected during the current calendar year, so he will not need to complete the form. CITY COUNCIL REPO Council Member Bates - Congratulated Chief Broadway on recent appointment and commendation. - Congratulated Council Members Purvis and Entsuah on their no -opposition elections. Council Member Purvis - Informed the Council about the death of Frank Lyon who was an involved member of the community. Reminded the public that the County Board is meeting in south Lake County at the Clermont City Center at Ipm next week. He encouraged the public to attend and let them know how they feel on certain topics. Congratulated Chief Broadway for his commendations Council Member Entsuah - Congratulated Chief Broadway for his accomplishments. - Attended the inaugural Juneteenth event in Groveland and would like to see one done in Clermont. - Attended the Mega -Food Truck rally in Downtown Clermont. - Expressed concerns about special events at The Rusty Truck which is now a club. 3 City of Clermont MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 Council Member Pines - Congratulated Chief Broadway for his accomplishments. - Congratulated the Fire Department on their pinning and promotion ceremony. - Took the Florida League of Cities (FLC) class for newly elected officials last fall and had questions on the oversight of the Planning & Zoning Board. She contacted FLC who suggested that the Council hold a joint educational meeting with the Planning & Zoning members. She would like to see it be a half day event. The league suggested the City reach out to Richard Levey to be the facilitator and trainer. Mayor Murry stated that he supports the idea and asked staff to look at the calendar to schedule another retreat, if there is a consensus from the Council. Council Member Purvis stated that he is opposed to hiring Mr. Levey as he believes the City Attorney can do the same material without the added expense. City Attorney Mantzaris informed the Council that it is common at times for groups to have joint meetings between the two boards for discussion, but that it be narrowed to a planning perspective. Council Member Bates asked if the FLC could do the training. City Attorney Mantzaris informed the Council that staff could return with a proposal. He reiterated that the true value may not be in a presentation, but the interaction between the members of the two boards. Max Kryzminski, Planning & Zoning Board Chair — Agreed that this is a good idea as the board members have had no formal training. City Attorney Mantzaris responded that an overview of the rules and regulations for the Planning & Zoning Board was made in January. Mayor Murry - County Board Chair Sean Parks will resume his report in July. - Attended the Mega -Food Truck rally in downtown Clermont. It was a great event. - Attended the Juneteenth event in Groveland. Has spoken to Interim City Manager Dauderis about having an event in Clermont. - Congratulated the Fire Department on their hiring and promotions. - Attended the Youth Police Academy graduation. - Congratulated Council Members Purvis and Entsuah on their no -opposition elections. - Congratulated Chief Broadway on his appointment from the Governor. - Announced that he is not going to continue the "Coffee with the Mayor" forum, but will be doing a "Lunch with the Mayor" on the first Monday of the month. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Murry advised the next item on the Agenda for consideration was the Consent Agenda and requested anyone wishing to have any item pulled for discussion to please come forward at this time. 4 City of Clermont MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 Item No. 1— Minutes Approval Item No. 2 — Surplus Request Item No. 3 — Resolution No. 2021-038R Consider approval of the minutes from the May 11, 2021 and June 8, 2021 Council meetings. Consider declaring end of life inventory as surplus from Information Technology, Police, and Fire Departments and dispose of in accordance with the Procurement Services Policy. Consider Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Amendment MOTION TO APPROVE the consent agenda for June 22 2021 made bv Council Member Bates. Seconded by Council Member Purvis. Passed unanimously with all members present voicing a UNFINISHED BUSINESS Item No. 4 — Administrative Appeal — Highland Ranch/Black West PUD Planning Manager John Kruse provided the staff presentation. The applicant is requesting an administrative appeal in regards to a commercial use designation located within the Highland Ranch/Black West Planned Unit Development (PUD). The applicant is not in agreeance with staff on the interpretation of "commercial uses" contained in Resolution 2019-26R. Resolution 2019-26R provided many details governing the development, such as overall density, cut and fill locations, gated community approval, age restricted community details, and commercial locations. The Resolution specifically stated that the Conditional Use Permit allows a Planned Unit Development in the Urban Estate Zoning District. Within the PUD, a commercial location was depicted along Hancock Rd. City staff reads as the PUD allows C-1 Light Commercial uses within this area. The applicant believes the uses should allow C-2 General Commercial uses. The PUD does not clearly state or document the "commercial uses" are C-1 Light Commercial or C-2 General Commercial district. Reviewing the original traffic study, the trip generation code used for the traffic generation was for office and retail. Under the C-1 Light Commercial district, the purpose of the C-1 district is to provide light retail sales and services, which would not be detrimental to adjacent residential districts. The commercial aspect of the project is surrounded by residential uses. The applicant believes that C-2 General Commercial uses are allowed within the PUD commercial zone. The C-2 district is intended for full-scale retail sales and service needs of the community. This district would permit higher intensity commercial uses, such as gas stations, hotels and motels, childcare centers, along with shopping centers. 61 City of Clermont MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 Staff does not believe the parcel was intended for C-2 General Commercial uses, especially since these types of intensities and uses occur within two (2) miles of the New Publix Shopping Center to the North, and the Target Shopping Center to the South. City staff and the applicant are seeking the direction from City Council on this item. Mayor Murry asked if the applicant was present. Jimmy Crawford, Esq. — Applicants Representative. Mr. Crawford congratulated Clermont. Mr. Crawford offered to forgo his 20 minute presentation and allow the Council to ask questions of the experts present. City Attorney Mantzaris stated that Mr. Crawford has to present some sort of information for the Council to consider as it is an appeal. Mr. Crawford stated that he will enter several items into the record as well as his notes to explain why the applicant thinks the 2019 CUP authorizes C2 Zoning. He displayed a draft of an approval Order and highlighted the items they were asking to the Council to consider. Mr. Crawford displayed a map of the site and stated that there are 13,000 approved homes within three (3) miles of the site, though, 9,000 have yet to be built. The applicant feels that based on the surrounding area as well as the upcoming development, the site is perfect for commercial development (C2). He asserted that the six (6) acre site they have is too small to locate any major commercial big box stores. He reminded the Council that they have dedicated right-of-way and have been good neighbors. He also informed the Council that since the original traffic impact study was done, they have reduced commercial space by 50,000 square feet. City Attorney Mantzaris informed the Council that this is a technical appeal and is a unique situation. He asked Mr. Crawford to explain to the Council why he legally feels they are entitled to do in the C2 zoning. Mr. Crawford stated that in all prior contexts the development team and City staff have talked about the uses for the site as commercial uses and never specified C1 or C2. He also stated that the document originally done for the PUD says C2. This is why they are not looking to amend their CUP because they feel they already have it. They are just asking the Council to clarify that their interpretation is correct. Jim Curoso, 102 W. Palm Street Orlando — Applicant. Mr. Curoso stated that they are a build and hold developer, and gave an overview of their company and business practices. Brent Lacy, BHP Senior Transportation Planner — Applicant Representative. Mr. Lacy gave an overview of his credentials. He stated that at the time of the original discussions they did not know what type of shopping center it would be. He informed the Council that a shopping center does not have to be a series of big box stores and it can contain lots of different things. Mr. Lacy went over the definition of ITE CODE 820 and displayed it for the Council. C. City of Clermont MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 Mayor Murry opened the floor for comments from the public; seeing no one come forth, the floor was closed. Mr. Crawford entered into the record a letter from builder Taylor Morrison supporting the applicant's request. Mr. Crawford entered into the record another letter supporting the applicant's request. Council Member Pines asked Mr. Crawford if he has the CUP that states that it is C2. He replied that he did not have it with him. Council Member Pines asked what the C2 zoning designation offers that is not available in the C1. Mr. Crawford said that it is more about floor sizes than uses, but there are some uses as well that they prefer in C2. City Attorney Mantzaris clarified for the Council that the 2019 Resolution does not specifically address the commercial zoning in the same manner the Resolution from 2013 did. The issue is that the 2013 Resolution is invalidated as it was replaced with the 2019 resolution. Council Member Bates disclosed that he met with the applicant. He also had some questions on the uses allowed. Mr. Crawford displayed the permitted uses from the application and reviewed the uses that have been crossed out and left. Council Member Purvis disclosed that he spoke with the applicant and the applicant's attorney. He stated that he feels this is a good use of the available property. He is not opposed to the C2 designation, but would like a better definition of "Clinic" to be created. Mr. Crawford asked if the Council would consent to having "Clinic" defined as a medical facilities without an emergency department. The Council gave consensus for that definition. Council Member Entsuah disclosed that he talked with the applicant and is in favor of the proposal. Mayor Murry stated the he did not meet or speak with the applicant. He also said he is in support of the project from both a planning perspective and to help reduce traffic. MOTION TO APPROVE the apolicant's petition on appeal with the addition of language clarifying "Clinic" made by Council Member Purvis. Seconded b Council Member Bates. Passed unanimously with all members present voicing aye. Council Member Entsuah left the dais at 8:10 PM Council Member Entsuah returned to the dais at 8:11 PM Item No. 5 — Bid Award and Budget Amendment Items S and 6 were considered together and voted on separately. 7 City of Clermont MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 Item No. 6 — Piggyback Purchase and Budget Amendment Police Chief Broadway presented the staff presentation via PowerPoint. Staff is requesting to patrol the waterways to address specific issues and activities related to the lakes. Chief Broadway provided highlights of enforcement actions thus far. He showed the Council an example of a Police boat, and informed the Council of the cost, stating that the boat will be bought out of police impact fees. He explained that the cost of the boat is $56,900, but with outfitting comes to $78,500 which would include lights, striping. He pointed out that this is a reduction from the originally posted cost in the agenda. He also informed the Council that a vehicle will be needed to tow the boat from location to location. This will also be paid out of police impact fees. Mayor Murry opened the floor for comments from the public. Charlene Harrison Forth, 939 E. DeSoto Street — Opposed to the purchase of the boat and truck. Feels that Lake County is doing the job adequately enough. Darren Johnson — Said that this is a needed purchase. Supports the project. Vincent Niemiec, 4569 Barrister Drive, Regency Hills — Supports the project. Seeing no further speakers, the floor was closed. Council Member Bates supported the purchase. Council Member Pines stated the boat is very well priced. Council Member Entsuah wonders if one (1) boat is enough, and is in full support. Council Member Purvis stated that he is opposed to the purchase. He agrees that there is a serious issue on the lakes, however, it is not the City's responsibility to patrol this lake. The lake belongs to the state and the Sheriff is responsible for protecting it. The $133,000 purchase also requires the addition of staff because if no one volunteers for a shift, the boat does not move. The County needs to step up and do their job. Mayor Murry agreed with Mr. Purvis, but stated that the County is not able to do the job. He is also concerned about the growing cost and believes this project will grow to be a $1,000,000 project. He believes that it is the City's responsibility to protect the life of its citizens and visitors. Council Member Pines reminded the Council that the County is not able to take care of the job, and agrees with the Mayor that the City has a responsibility to its citizens and visitors. She also pointed out the City owns a majority of the lakefront property. MOTION TO APPROVE the boat purchase in the amount of $78,500 made b Council Member Pines. Seconded by Council Member Bates. Passed 4-1 with Council Member Purvis dissenting. L3 City of Clermont MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE the truck purchase as presented made by Council Member Bates. Seconded by Council Member Entsuah. Passed 4-1 with Council Member Purvis dissentin =. Item No. 7 — Resolution No. 2021-039R — FY2021 Budget Amendment — Code Enforcement A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLERMONT, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR THE CITY OF CLERMONT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020-2021 City Clerk Howe read the resolution title aloud. Development Services Director Curt Henschel made the staff presentation. Resolution No. 2021-039R is proposed to amend the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget. This resolution formally amends the annual budget for the reinstatement of a Code Enforcement Officer position that was originally frozen in 2020. This Code Enforcement Officer will provide services for the waterfront and boat ramp area on weekends and holidays (Saturday and Sunday), and provide supplemental support to the existing officers three (3) days during the week. This additional support will include: picking up snipe signs, addressing property maintenance issues, and responding to citizen complaints. One of the allowable uses of The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds is for the restoration of staffing to pre -pandemic levels. These ARPA funds are anticipated to be received later this calendar year and will be used for staffing this position, the General Fund will upfront these costs and will be reimbursed upon receipt of the ARPA funds. Mayor Murry opened the floor for comments from the public. Charlene Harrison Forth, 939 E. Desoto Street — Supports the addition of a code enforcement officer. She showed numerous pictures to the Council of alleged code violations. Seeing no further comments the floor was closed. Council Member Purvis stated that code enforcement, though limited in staff, is far too reactive and needs to be more proactive. He felt that this is the direction the officers have been provided by City management. Mayor Murry agreed that there are code violations all over the City. He would like to see the return of the Code Enforcement Board, and asked that it be a future workshop item. Council Member Purvis asked how the $15,000 was arrived. Finance Director Pam Brosonski explained that the amount is only for July 1 through September 30 of the current fiscal year. A full position would be budgeted at $60,000. MOTION TO APPROVE the bud get amendment in Resolution 2021-039R made by Council Member Bates. Second by Council Member Purvis. Passed unanimously with all members present voicing Me. City of Clermont MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 NEW BUSINESS Item No. 8 — Resolution No. 2021- 030R — Costco Wholesale CUP A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLERMONT, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A TIRE STORE WITH FIVE SERVICE BAYS WITHIN COSTCO AS PART OF THE MIXED -USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF PLAZA COLLINA WITHIN THE URBAN ESTATE ZONING City Clerk Howe read the resolution title aloud. Planning Manager John Kruse made the staff presentation. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow an, internal tire store as a service to its club members in the proposed Costco building within the Plaza Collina development. The five (5) service bays for this use are located on the eastern side of the proposed building. The tire service is an ancillary use to the primary use of retail sales of the club and the Land Development Code requires a Conditional Use Permit for any automotive services in the C2 zoning district. The location of the service bays within the building are almost centered on the 20 acre parcel and do not face toward any public right-of-way. The nearest single-family residence is over 1,000 feet away. The two existing automotive dealerships to the west within Plaza Collina also provide this type of automotive service. Plaza Collina was approved by Lake County on January 24, 2006 under the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) process. The development was approved for 1.2 million square feet of commercial use. Included in this commercial use was the ability to have one commercial building not to exceed 187,000 square feet of floor area. Costco Wholesale will be the commercial user of this entitlement, which is approximately 152,000 square feet. The City of Clermont annexed the property in 2015 and the existing entitlements transferred over into Resolution No. 2015-08. When evaluating a request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Land Development Code requires that specific development standards are met. Staff has reviewed the application as submitted in accordance with the development standards criteria and finds the proposed use can meet the general criteria for granting a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding community, and so staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the conditions contained in Resolution No. 2021-030R. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval. Mayor Murry asked if the applicant was present. 10 City of Clermont MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL, MEETING June 22, 2021 Brad Wester, Jacksonville Florida — Applicant Representative. Mr. Wester said he was available to answer questions. He also indicated that the project engineer is in attendance for questions as well. Mayor Murry opened the floor for comments from the public; seeing no public come forth, the floor was closed. Council Member Entsuah asked for clarification on the annexation process. Planner Kruse explained that all conditions were assumed except for two (2) car lots. Costco does not need to come before the Council as it meets the criteria of the PUD. Council Member Purvis disclosed that he received an email from the applicant. MOTION TO APPROVE the conditional use permit in Resolution No. 2021- 030R made by Council Member Bates. Seconded by Council Member Pines. Passed unanimously with all members present voicin T aye. Item No. 9 — Variance Request — 2689 Clearview Street Development Services Director Curt Henschel made the staff presentation. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a rear yard setback of 17 feet instead of the 25 feet as required by the development standards for the approved Planned Unit Development (PUD). The requested variance would allow construction of a 10' x 17' screen porch enclosure with a solid roof over an existing concrete slab. Under the current code, any structures with a solid roof are required to meet the setbacks for the primary structure. The existing single-family primary residence is currently located 27 feet from the rear property line, and the proposed screen porch addition will be 17 feet from the rear property line. This would provide a 10 -foot encroachment into the rear yard setback. The proposed 10' x 17' screen room enclosure will be constructed over the existing patio slab; therefore providing no increase of the impervious surface area for the property. The applicant has presented supporting documents with the application that includes approval from the Homeowners Association Review Board and letters of no objections from adjacent property owners that may be impacted by the proposed development. The applicant has indicated the construction of the screen porch with the solid roof will allow the family an opportunity to enjoy the outdoors, while providing shelter protection from the impacts of the weather elements. The variance request is the minimum permitted to allow reasonable use of the property. The screen porch addition will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding neighborhoods. The Land Development Code requires a positive finding on the review criteria in order to grant a variance. Staff has reviewed this application as submitted and finds the application does meet a positive finding for the provisions of the five review criteria. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested variance. 11 City of Clermont MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 Mayor Murry asked if the applicant was present. Steven Taylor, 2689 Clearview Street — Applicant. This will greatly benefit his family who has medical concerns relating to the sun. Mayor Murry opened the floor for comments from the public. Seeing no public come forth, the floor was closed. MOTION TO APPROVE the variance for 2689 Clearview Street made b% Council Member Bates. Seconded by Council Member Pines. Passed unanimousl with all members present voicing aye Item No. 10 — Variance Request — Teamont Boba Development Services Director Curt Henschel made the staff presentation. The applicant is requesting two (2) variances to the Land Development Code on a 1,875 square foot vacant lot located east of 7th Street between Montrose Street and Minneola Avenue. The following (2) two variances are being requested: (1) to allow for offsite public parking to meet the requirements for the minimum number of parking spaces and (2) to allow for the elimination of the dumpster for solid waste collection. The applicant is proposing to construct a 1,320 square foot single story building to operate a restaurant with a patron bar area with 35 seats. The Land Development Code, Section 98-14, requires 0.5 spaces per every four seats, which would require a minimum of five (5) onsite parking spaces. The applicant is requesting the variance to allow for public parking as compliance to the requirements of the code. City staff encourages new development in the Central Business District, but with the existing limited amount of public parking for all businesses located in Downtown Clermont, staff cannot support a new business that cannot provide any onsite parking for their patrons, especially an ADA accessible space. This lot, which measures 25 feet wide by 75 deep, was split from a parent parcel with lot dimensions of 75 feet wide by 75 feet deep. Therefore, the existing property hardship was created with the requested lot split. This small lot cannot reasonably accommodate the requirements for becoming a buildable lot. The definition for a buildable lot means a lot or parcel of land that can comply with the land development regulations for the zoning district, which includes the principle structure or building, access points, parking, open space, setbacks and any other development standards that allows the property to become a stand-alone piece of land. This is evident in the fact that the applicant is requesting a variance for the elimination of a dumpster and onsite parking to serve the development. The Land Development Code requires a positive finding on the five review criteria for granting a variance. Staff has reviewed the application and supporting documents and finds the applicant does not meet positive findings for the provisions of the review criteria. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variances to the Clermont Land Development Code. 12 City of Clermont MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 Mayor Murry asked if the applicant was present. Patrick Bianchi, VP Development — Applicant. Mr. Bianchi provided a history of the business proposed for the site and gave a slight overview of the site location. He asked for Council support. He displayed a site plan that showed where the solid waste collection cans would be. Mayor Murry opened the floor for comments from the public. Keith Mullins, 640 Drew Ave — Concerned about the tree to the west of his property. He emphasized that he supports the project, but thinks the building needs some tweaking. Vincent Niemiec, Barrister Drive, Regency Hills — Encouraged the Council to work with new businesses. Supported the project. Charlene Forth, 939 W. DeSoto Street — Supports the project. Lavonte Rogers, 836 W. Osceola Street — Supports the project. Seeing no further comments, the floor was closed. Council Member Purvis stated that he is in full support of the project and this is a great example of infill. Council Member Bates stated that he is in support of the project. However, he wants to know where people will park. Mr. Bianchi said that he does not know where they will park. Council Member Bates asked about a dumpster. Mr. Bianchi stated that the fire code mandates that a dumpster is 10 feet from a building which will not work for the site. He added that the site occupant will most likely need more recycling bins then solid waste bins. Council Member Entsuah asked about the feelings from adjacent property owners. Mr. Bianchi stated that they have received no opposition and they are committed to mitigating any storm water issues that may arise. Mayor Murry has concerns about parking and the inconsistency with the rules. He has a tough time approving a project with no designated parking. He accused Mr. Bianchi of creating the issue as he bought one (1) parcel and divided it into three (3). Mr. Bianchi stated he has no issue creating an agreement with himself, but feels that it does not address the real issue. Mayor Murry asked about the retention pond and who is the owner. Mr. Bianchi said that they are not the owner, but they are also not using the pond for runoff. Council Member Pines said that the City has a code and the code the Council has to work under. There is a lot of building on a little lot. She expressed concerns about the trash can vs dumpster issue. She stated that overall she likes the project, but is having trouble approving it. Council Member Purvis summarized the discussion thus far and encouraged the Council to approve this and move on to the next agenda item. 13 City of Clermont MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 As an incentive for approval, Mr. Bianchi said that he would be willing to lease this lot to the City at 81h and Minneola conditioned on approval of the variance. The lease would be for six (6) months lease, but would have a 60 day termination clause. City Attorney Mantzaris clarified for the Council that some negotiations had occurred unrelated to this project and the spacing would be at less than $400/space. He also emphasized to the Council that the term of lease could be for six (6) months, but with a 60 termination, it could be a two (2) month lease. MOTION TO APPROVE the a lication for variance with the addendum that it be intei-rated with a lease for city parking at the a licants 8lb and Minneola location terms to be 180 day lease with a 60 da termination made by Council Member Purvis. Seconded by Council Member Bates. Passed 4-1 with Mayo MpM opposing_ CLOSED SESSION Mayor Murry read the following statement: At this time, the City Council meeting will be in recess for the Council to conduct a private pending litigation session as required by the City Attorney and as authorized by Section 286.011, Florida Statutes. The session is for the purpose of discussing settlement and expense strategy for pending litigation involving the City, The Art District, LLC and VP Development, LLC. The City Council, Interim City Manager Susan Dauderis, City Attorney Dan Mantzaris and the City's litigation legal counsel Thomas Neal will attend the session. A court reporter will be present at the session and a transcript will be available after the conclusion of the litigation. The meeting will last approximately 60 minutes and the Council Meeting will resume thereafter. Private pending litigation session with the Interim City Manager and the City Attorney and the City's assigned defense counsel to discuss settlement and legal expense issues related to a pending litigation matter involving Art District, LLC, VP Development, LLC and the City of Clermont. This meeting is authorized and not open to the public in accordance with 286.011, F.S. Closed Session began at: 9: 57 pm Meeting resumed at: 10: 42 pm 14 City of Clermont MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 Item No. 11— Roadway Naming Planning and Development Services Director Henschel made the staff presentation. He explained that Lake County staff is seeking input on naming the new section of County Road 455 south of Highway 50. The current name of this section of roadway is Hartle Road. The name of Hartle Road will remain as a spur off of County Road 455. Three names have been vetted through the emergency /addressing system from Lake County and are available for use. 1) Innovative Parkway 2) Progressive Parkway 3) Champions Choice Parkway City staff will forward the chosen name to Lake county staff who will then present the name to the Lake County Board of County Commissioners for approval. Mayor Murry opened floor for comments from the public. Seeing none, the floor was closed. MOTION TO APPROVE a recommendation of Champions Choice Parkway and Ray Good Tame Parkway with preference riven to Ray Good -game Parkwa made by Council Member Bates. Seconded by Council Member Pines. Passed unanimously with all members present voicing, aye. Item No. 12 — Parking Garage Update Assistant Director of Public Services Maiworm made the staff presentation. He provided a brief history of the project and went through each of the results for the selections the Council had previously made. • Minneola Avenue & 71h Street o Total Cost $8.267 Mil ■ Construction — 6.3 mil ■ Design — 945,000 ■ Land Acquisition — 1.022m • City Hall Parking Lot o Total Cost: $10 Mil ■ Construction - $10 Mil ■ Design - $1.5 Mil ■ Land Acquisition - $0 • Osceola Avenue & 71h Street Site o Total Cost: $13.685 Mil ■ Construction - $9.9 Mil ■ Cost Design - $1.485 Mil ■ Land Acquisition - $2.3 Mil 15 City of*Clermont MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 Mayor Murry opened the floor for comments from the public. Keith Mullins — Does not want to see the trees cut down in City Hall parking lot. Darren Johnson — Any location is better than no location, but he is opposed to the City Hall lot. Encouraged the Council to look at where the development is happening which is on the west side of town. Patrick Bianchi — Agrees with the Darren Johnson about choosing a site where development is happening. Does not feel that City Hall is a good primary site for a parking garage. Charlene Forth, 939 Desoto Street — Does not believe that it should be a public private partnership. Seeing no further comments, the Mayor closed the floor. Council Member Bates asked if the properties that were studied are available for purchase. Mr. Maiworm said that he is unaware. Council Member Pines strongly indicated that City Hall is the only appropriate location. Council Member Entsuah talked about adding diagonal parking and one way streets. Council Member Purvis would like to permanently close Montrose Street. The Council gave a consensus that staff should bring back additional City Hall information including concept plans. 16 City of Clermont MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 ADJOURN: With no further comments, this meeting adjourned at 11:26 pm. ATTEST: Tracy Ackroyd n City Clerk 17 APPROVED: �y Tim Murry, May 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO: 2020 CA 1009 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES, LLC, Plaintiff, VS. THE ART DISTRICT, LLC, Defendant. THE ART DISTRICT, LLC, Counter -Plaintiff, VS. VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES, LLC, and CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the state of Florida, Counter -Defendants. WA MEETING OF THE BOARD OF THE CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL June 22, 2021 10:00 p.m. - 10:45 p.m. Stenographically Reported By: Soon Britt, Notary Public and Florida Professional Court Reporter 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 3 Proceedings taken before Soon Britt, Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large, in the above cause. P R O C E E D I N G S MR. MANTZARIS: Okay. We're going to start the closed session meeting now. So as you know, there's a couple -- a couple of times that you can meet out of the Sunshine law. This is one of the exemptions and has to do with ongoing litigation that the City is involved in. Pursuant to the law, what we have to do is, we have to have this meeting in closed session, as we announced and as the Mayor read. The court reporter is going to take everything down. So the first thing about any of these things is, it's very difficult for her to talk (sic) when you've got -- to get it all down when we've got -- there's eight of us in this room, so please do not talk over each other so that she can get it all down. At the end of the day, she's going to have to transcribe this meeting and it will be a part of the record. And someone will have the right to look at it once the litigation is completed. 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 4 1 So with that, we have to focus on a couple of 2 things today under the statute and the exception. 3 There's only two real reasons we can meet, that is 4 to discuss litigation expense related to the 5 pending litigation and possible settlement related 6 to the pending litigation. 7 As part of that, though, we recognize we have 8 to give you a little discussion about the 9 underlying issues in the litigation that's going 10 on. 11 This is Tom Neal. You've all met him. He is 12 1 the City's lead litigation counsel on this matter, 13 and we're going to go through a little bit of the 14 litigation. I'm going to turn it over to him in a 15 1 second. 16 So I just want to make sure that we stay 17 focused on the issues of possible settlement and 18 litigation expense. And we'll go through a little 19 discussion about where we are with the third -party 20 complaint that's been filed against the City by the 21 Art District and the involvement of VP Development 22 in this issue. 23 And then we'll have an opportunity to ask some 24 questions -- you guys to ask some questions about 25 things and then we'll -- and then we'll move on ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS Esquire Solutions. com CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 5 1 into possibly -- a discussion regarding possible 2 resolution for it, okay? 3 So with that, I'll turn it over to Tom and let 4 him move forward. 5 MR. BATES: Have we already gone around the 6 room and introduced -- typically you do that. 7 MR. MANTZARIS: I think she's got -- 8 THE COURT REPORTER: I've got everybody. 9 MR. MANTZARIS: She's got everybody. 10 MR. NEAL: I gave her a list of everybody's 11 names so she is ready to go. 12 So good evening, everybody. 13 MR. PURVIS: Can we take notes? Are we 14 allowed to take notes? 15 MR. MANTZARIS: You can take notes, but 16 make -- but they are con- -- they are going to be 17 confidential. So please make sure you don't -- 18 MR. PURVIS: Okay. So as long as we retain 19 them -- 20 MR. MANTZARIS: Yeah. And you don't -- 21 MR. PURVIS: -- confidentially it's okay? 22 MR. MANTZARIS: Yes. 23 MR. NEAL: So once again, good evening. This 24 is an opportunity to talk, like Dan said, outside 25 of the Sunshine to talk about the litigation ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS Esquire Solutions. com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 6 settlement. The good news is we're early on in this case. And it will only take me a little bit of time to bring you up to speed on where the pleadings are in the case, all with the mind of what are we going to do to try to resolve this case, if it's time to resolve it. So I have brought -- and you don't have to read these right now, but if you want to pass them around, the only pertinent pleadings at this point is what's been filed by the Art District against the City and against VP Development. They have amended their counterclaim. So the original litigation, VP sued the Art District. The Art District then brought a counterclaim against VP Development. The counterclaim was amended to add the City and to bring a third -party complaint. So I'll go through the causes of action so you have an idea of what's been alleged. In count I, the Art District sued VP Development for temporary and permanent injunctive relief. Count II, they sued VP for trespass. Count III is the first cause of action against the City, and that's for declaratory judgment. Count IV is breach of contract against the City. Then 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 7 Count IV and V are allegations, causes of actions alleging that we have violated our ordinances. We filed a motion to dismiss and we do not feel that these causes of action are well taken, well pled. And the motion to dismiss is attached. It's shown there as Exhibit B. And without going into a lot of the legal issues involved in it, we don't believe they properly stated a cause of action. Most -- most of the -- the gist of the motion to dismiss has to do with standing. At this point, we say it's premature to sue the City because there has not been a resolution of the issues between VP and the Art District. What the counterclaim and third -party complaint against the City pretty much says is, well, if this happens in the litigation between VP and the Art District, then the City is responsible because of things they claim the City has done. None of that has come to fruition, so we think it's premature. That's the reason for the motion to dismiss. The way that works is that at some point the Court will set a hearing -- or the parties will agree to have a hearing and then the judge will decide, 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 8 does the counterclaim and the third -party complaint state a cause of action. If the judge says, no, it doesn't allege properly what it should have, he will give them a chance to amend. So it doesn't mean the case will be over. The case won't -- you don't -- win on motions to dismiss very rarely. So what happens is the judge will give them an opportunity to amend their complaint -- their counterclaim and restate it. So that's as early as we are into that litigation. You know, there is some other litigation between VP and the Art District and they've been setting depositions in that, which we know that is an effect and -- a cause and effect that we have to deal with. When we -- what we need to talk about today is what can we do to resolve this to get out of the litigation. And so what you need to hear from us is, as you know, the cost and time of litigating. It's very expensive to litigate and it's very time-consuming. It's taking the City's time away from other things you can be doing. So to the extent that there's settlement offers on the table -- and, I don't know, Dan, if you want to jump back in on that. 0 ESQUIDEPOSITIORE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com 1 2 3 4 5 6 13 17 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 9 MR. MANTZARIS: Well -- and I will in a second. MR. NEAL: Okay. MR. MANTZARIS: And then there's some -- well, of course, what you want to talk about is litigation expense, and there's always expenses associated with litigation. I know you're all cognizant of that. But the key about the pleadings and where we are in the pleadings, it really focuses down to the two issues you've heard about for a long time, right, the access piece to the VP Development building. Because the very nature of the complaint that the Art District filed against the City is that -- VP Development is arguing that the City guaranteed access to the building and that's impacting the Art District, all right? That's the genesis of their claim. So access is a big point. The other point that's also referenced, and that Tom mentioned compliance with the City codes, is the allegation of the stormwater issue between the two neighboring properties and what's happening with the -- with the stormwater and how it flows across the properties. So the key component to the lawsuit that's lj� ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 10 filed against the City really has to do with problems associated with the issues -- not necessary problems, but issues associated with the VP Development buildings, right? So it's clear (sic) to remember that for purposes of what we're talking about tonight. So we've been looking at this and we've been discussing this with City staff and we've been trying to work on them. And we thought, well, one way to possibly move into potentially resolving this issue is to see what we -- what the City could do to address the issues related to the VP Development. The structure -- you know there's two buildings on the VP Development site next door. There's the back building, which is newer, and there's the front building, which is referred to as the Montrose Street -- which I'm going to refer to as the Montrose Street building, which is unoccupied right now as far as we know. So as you know, the City and -- to try to alleviate the problems -- VP Development has entered into, basically, a deferral of enforcement agreement to allow for temporary access of the rear building to deal with the access issue that was lg� ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 11 being experienced because of the fact that the -- VP Development couldn't have rear access onto the Art District property, right? So we've got that issue out there. So we've looked at that issue and we thought what's the quick -- what's the easiest way to be able to address that? Well, I think I sent you an e-mail that showed you the -- gave you the pleadings in the ancillary case that Tom talked to you about and about how VP Development has argued in that case that that front building on Montrose has been basically irreparably damaged to the point that it has to be demolished. That's their allegation that they put in it. So one of -- one of the first steps that we felt was a way to resolve it, and it's one of the things we want to get council's direction on, is if the City would be willing to essentially compensate VP Development to demolish the Montrose Street building. If the Montrose Street building is demolished, and talking with City staff and talking with the building department -- then that would be able to -- for the back building, VP Development to have direct access to Montrose. So it would have its 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 12 direct handicap -accessible access into its building. And, therefore, the access issue that's been alleged in the complaint filed against the City by Art District would no longer be an issue. Now, Tom mentioned the complaint. So really their breach of contract claim against the City is related to the fact that when the City sold the property to Art District, the City signed off on a typical seller's affidavit that says there's no liens, there's no encumbrances, there's no unrecorded easements or any of that. So their position is, if VP Development is right and if the City guaranteed them access -- which we don't believe the City guaranteed access. But if VP Development is right and the City guaranteed them access across that property that the City sold to the Art District, then the City has breached its contract for sale because we sold them a piece of property without telling them about this unrecorded access easement. So that's where I'm trying to tie -- what we're trying to explain to tie it all together. So we think that if the VP Development building comes down, the front Montrose Street building, then that would provide the direct access. ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 13 Removing that building would also provide for stormwater options to address the other part of the stormwater issue, and to keep the water that the Art District is complaining is coming off of the VP Development building onto their site and keep Street and into the Montrose Street system to be able to address that. So that's why we think if that -- that part -- removing that building will resolve or could be Now, the key component there from the City Council's perspective, and this is the direction that we really want to get (sic), we believe from a risk perspective and exposure perspective, even though we believe that the City did not guarantee access, I have to believe... We've looked at a lot of the documents. There was a lot of discussion early on when the properties were being considered to be sold to Art District between, essentially, City management and individuals, frankly, in the City manager's office at the time about commitments to guaranteeing access to VP Development. It didn't show up -- it's not shown up on the -- obviously it wasn't a lg� ESQUIRE 800.211. DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 14 1 matter of record, but there is some issue and 2 exposure there to the City on that -- on that part 3 of it all. 4 So what does that mean when I say exposure? 5 Well, you've heard this -- you've heard the claim 6 all along or you've heard the contention all along 7 that the City has to give him access -- give VP 8 Development access across the Art District 9 property. 10 Well, we can't do that. We can't make -- so 11 we can't give access across somebody else's 12 property. However, in theory, from an exposure 13 perspective, the City could be responsible for 14 damages associated with -- if VP Development takes 15 the position that, well, you can't make the access 16 happen, but I've been damaged now because I don't 17 have access. 18 So that's one of the reasons -- another reason 19 why we felt that a potential -- to consider 20 removing that first -- the building on Montrose. 21 Now, the fainters (phonetic), we've -- Susan 22 and I've talked about them. Mr. Purvis has been 23 involved in discussions. And so the rest of the 24 council is aware, was actually involved in a 25 discussion with VP Development about this as a ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS Esquire Solutions. com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 15 possibility early on MR. PURVIS: With Dan and Susan. MR. MANTZARIS: Yeah, exactly, the four of us were in there, and Mr. Bianchi's attorney was on the phone, as I recall. And we've had discussions about it. So what we're asking the council -- we don't have anything official and you can't -- you're not approving anything here tonight. All we're talking about is trying to get some direction about a possible resolution. Whatever comes out of this meeting would have to be potentially negotiated, brought back to you as the City council and you'd be able to have an opportunity to review it and make a final decision on that. So what we're proposing is that the City approach VP Development and the City essentially enter into an agreement where the City would absorb the cost of removing the Montrose Street building, demolishing it completely. We think for a couple reasons that that's -- that that's a good alternative. Obviously, it will address the access point we're talking about. It also -- as you know, that Montrose Street building has there been a long time. It's not being used. ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 16 It's not necessarily -- I can't tell you if it's a blight on the community, but it's not the nicest place there. And it would only do better for the downtown area if it gets redeveloped. If that's removed, then the onus would be on VP Development to basically develop whatever access they're going to use, the Montrose Street. They would do -- they would then have the ADA compliant access needed for the rear building and the access issue would go away. We also understand, from talking to City staff and the engineers that have looked at it, that the removal of that building and the redesign of the existing gutter system on the -- on the new building could be done fairly inexpensively to allow for the stormwater to flow towards Montrose Street. And, therefore, the stormwater issue would go away. So that would essentially involve all three of the complaints that are in the Art District's complaint against the City. They -- and just to recap, so if the access is no longer an issue for VP Development, then VP Development no longer is arguing that they have a right to access. And the City -- and the breach of contract claim related to the sale of the property lg� ESQUIRE 800.211. DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 17 goes away because there is no longer an issue over whether access was guaranteed. That's the tie-in between the two -- between the two claims. And so even though it appears that you're providing benefit to VP Development, what actually is happening is, it's a way for the City to possibly extricate itself from this litigation at a -- at a fairly reasonable cost. We believe -- and, Susan, correct me if I'm wrong, I think we believe that the cost of that demolition would probably be in the 25 to $40,000 range. I think that's the general idea about it. However, if council gives us direction tonight to move in that -- in that -- towards that end, we obviously would be able to -- we'd firm those numbers up before you had to take any final action on it. So I'll stop right there. If there's any questions or any -- MS. PINES: Would that satisfy them to demolish it? I mean, are they going to expect something more after that? MR. MANTZARIS: Well, we -- MS. PINES: I mean, I know that would be part of the agreement -- 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 011 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 18 MR. MANTZARIS: Well, I can't guarantee that because -- MS. PINES: Yeah. MR. MANTZARIS: -- part of this is, it's always been somewhat of a moving target. MS. PINES: Yeah. MR. MANTZARIS: Mr. Mayor, we need to make sure that we're getting this all. So it's always been somewhat of a moving target. We have had preliminary discussions with Tyler Van Voorhees, who is the attorney for VP Development. And his biggest concern was the impact of demolishing this building on the other lawsuit that they have in which they -- where VP Development has sued the Art District for damage to that building. MS. PINES: Right. MR. MANTZARIS: And Tom is the litigator, so he can further clarify, but there's a way to protect their claim to that building. In other words, they filed a lawsuit on a day and said that that building is damaged. Well, that building was damaged on a day prior to today. MS. PINES: Yeah. MR. MANTZARIS: So they should be able to ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 19 document all that before the building is demolished and they should be able to protect their claim to do that. We wouldn't be part of that, of course. So that was one of the discussions -- preliminary discussions we've had with them. They have also -- they have also asked, as part of this, that if the City is going to consider this, that the City's building official make a determination that the building is structurally unsound, that the -- the Montrose building. And the City's building official has looked at it and he is prepared to make that determination due to some of the issues associated with it. And there's a lot more to that, that I recently found out, about what happened during the ongoing construction of the Art District property and that building and some things that were done to try to shore up a foundation by the Art District to right it. So we think those are the two main issues from them. Whether they want something else or not, I can't -- I can't tell you about it. I can't tell you -- MS. PINES: That's what it seems like, you know, because we would take care of one thing, and then, okay, well, then now we want this, and then ESQUIRTE 800.211. DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 20 now we want that. And then it's just going to keep going. MR. MANTZARIS: Right. MR. PURVIS: This is Jim Purvis, for the court reporter. You're correct, it's not just the demolition of the building. They are going to be looking for some compensation for loss of rent, loss of future rent, whatever. I can't -- I can't promise that this is a good number, but in the few conversations that I've had with Mr. Bianchi, I get the feeling that this is about 130 to $150,000 settlement in total. We just bought a boat for $135,000 tonight, folks. I think we need to seriously think about Dan's, I guess, recommendation that we give this some serious thought about moving forward and getting off of the dime. Because we're not serving ourselves, the City or the taxpayers any good with this continuing. MR. BATES: We'll end up spending twice that much if we just let it -- MR. PURVIS: And that was my next -- follow-up question to Tom. Tom, what would the litigation be if we took lg� ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 21 1 this to the Supreme Court? 2 MR. NEAL: Well, we can't go to the Supreme 3 Court, but this type of litigation, you're talking 4 six figures once it's all said and done. 5 MR. MANTZARIS: And just to be -- the 6 conversations that we've had with VP Development's 7 attorney did not talk about any other -- any other 8 compensation levels about it, so we haven't heard 9 any of that. 10 And I'm not saying that that's not out there. 11 I always -- we always have to assume that once you 12 open the door to negotiations they're going to -- 13 MR. PURVIS: Well, I asked the question. 14 MR. MANTZARIS: Okay. 15 MR. PURVIS: I mean, I actually broached the 16 subject. 17 MR. MANTZARIS: Okay. So -- 18 MS. PINES: Where would the money come from? 19 Do we have any idea where it would come from? 20 MR. MANTZARIS: Well, we can -- we can get to 21 that point before you have to make a final 22 approval. 23 MS. PINES: Yeah. 24 MR. MANTZARIS: And I'd sort of hold off on 25 1 that and give Susan the opportunity to do that. ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS Esquire Solutions.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 22 MS. PINES: Yeah. MR. MANTZARIS: I mean, there's -- MR. PURVIS: Are there any insurance funds -- MR. MANTZARIS: No. MR. PURVIS: -- available for this at all? MR. MANTZARIS: No. This is not covered -- MR. PURVIS: I think that was your question really. MR. MANTZARIS: No. They -- MS. PINES: Yeah, I think I had heard that it wasn't covered by insurance already, so -- because I'm kind of just -- MR. MANTZARIS: Yeah, the -- MS. PINES: -- pushing to just do something -- just get rid of the building and that'll be it. MR. MANTZARIS: And so we can -- we can -- if we get to the point where we can resolve this and we can present a settlement agreement that deals with -- then at that point -- before we get to that point, then, you know, we can work with Susan in the finance department and figure out what -- where the money is going to come from to be able to address it, to deal with it. So for tonight what we're looking at is really -- looking at, if the council is okay, with lg� ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com 1 oil 5 6 7 : 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 23 us opening up negotiations to try to resolve it along the lines that we're talking about and to see what it is. Now, we also have to tell you that we did receive today, about -- I don't know, about 2:00 o'clock this afternoon, a settlement offer from the Art District for the same litigation we're talking about. And the Art District and -- I'm not sure of the timing of it all. We take very much -- very great pride in the attorneys in our firm that are working on this. But we did send them, and you'll see it, a fairly exhaustive motion to dismiss that basically attacks them on a lot of their legal issues. I'm not -- I'm not going to say that's what motivated the settlement offer. But I'm going to say it's probably more than a coincidence that they came back with an offer that essentially says, if you, the City, agree to pay Art District the attorneys' fees they've incurred in this part relating to the City and agree, basically, to move forward, then they'll settle the case. Now, we are not recommending that. I'm just communicating to you that that is also -- ESQUIDEPOSITIORE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com lim 2 3 M 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 18 19 20 21 lox 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 24 MR. PURVIS: Cost more -- MR. MANTZARIS: Yeah. And we wouldn't do that, because we have no idea what the amount is. The other -- the other pieces of the settlement have to do with things like -- respectfully, I have to tell you, they want the council to leave them alone. I believe -- they believe -- they believe that the council has been beating them up. They want to -- and they want to address some of the other issues that are floating around. And as you know, with the Art District property, there are some other issues. You heard the issue about the outdoor -- the outdoor seating cafes, those issues. There are some issues about them wanting to put some benches on there. There is an issue -- a final issue related to the final reimbursement payment that's due to Art District on it, which we've explained to them in no uncertain terms that the City is ready to pay that. That's all been vetted out. The finance department has looked at it, however, we need an easement agreement from you to -- before we can do that. And that's what's holding up the final payment. It's not anything the City has done, but ESQUIDEPOSITIORE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 25 they want to just wrap it all up and resolve it. Again, we haven't really digested that because we only just got it a few hours ago. Couldn't tell you what their number is, but that would be a -- in my -- in my view, and Tom can correct me if I'm wrong, that would sort of be a secondary path to do that. One of the reasons why we are -- again, we're willing to recommend the demolition of the Montrose Street building is because we think it offers an overall improvement to the downtown. It's money that's spent to take down a building that ultimately gets redeveloped. And if the VP Development folks are who they say they are, then maybe they'll redevelop it. MR. BATES: Do we got the means to do that internally ourselves or MR. PURVIS: I was just going to -- MR. MANTZARIS: We possibly have the means to do that. The only issue with it is that it's an old building and it probably has an asbestos piece in it. So I do not think -- I think we'd have to do an -- I think an outside company would have to do the asbestos remediation, or however that's done, before staff comes with a front end loader 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com 1 2 3 IR 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I., 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 26 and tears it down. MR. PURVIS: Just speaking from my 30-plus years in insurance, primarily claims, we don't want to be the demo guy because, allegedly, Art District underpinned part of that foundation. If that's true, the underpinning is probably going to be impacted, if not removed. And sure enough, Art District is going to come back and say, well, now you've damaged my building because that underpinning also went under my foundation. We just don't want to deal with it. Hire a third party with good insurance and wish them well. MR. MANTZARIS: And I think that's typically how it -- I think our first prong on that would be to come to an agreement as to an amount and to let Art District have those funds and let -- I'm sorry, VP Development have those funds and let them hire the person to tear it down. I think that would be the first way to address it. This way, all the responsibility is -- MR. PURVIS: We don't want to be the demo guy. MR. MANTZARIS: Right. Exactly. So we'll work towards that end. Again, the settlement offer from the Art District piece is something we really haven't vetted out too well and we're not even sure 0 ESQUIDEPOSITIORE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 27 1 what that really means. 2 Although we think this is an approach that 3 might -- I guess, this might -- it might really gut 4 their claims in their third -party complaint, which, 5 of course, would give Art District really very 6 little to argue with the City about and to deal 7 with that. 8 1 There is also another option on the stormwater 9 1 piece that we would want to explore. Because as 10 you recall, we negotiated -- and I think this is 11 one of the first big meetings that Susan was 12 involved in as interim City manager, we worked with 13 the parties to try to negotiate a tri-party 14 agreement that included a connection of the 15 stormwaters -- the stormwater outflow from the VP 16 Development site to the Art District site. 17 There's still an option to reconsider that if 18 the parties might -- might do it. The City agreed 19 to do -- pay for the connection piece at that 20 point -- at that time. 21 Obviously that never happened because that 22 agreement was never completed, but -- then that's 23 still another option out there. We might want to 24 do that, depending on what City staff is -- I think 25 City staff's current position is that with the -- ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS Esquire Solutions. com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 28 with the anticipated improvements to the stormwater system from Montrose, it might still be better to have all the water from those buildings -- those new buildings run into the new Montrose collection system when it's put in place. However, that's, what, two years away, probably, two -plus years away. So that's kind of where we are with it. That's our plan, to hopefully try to get it -- get it resolved. It does -- it requires, obviously, direction from the council, that you want us to try to work towards a resolution. Again, you obviously get -- not going to act on it until you see the devil in the details and then -- and be able to vote on it at a council meeting after you have public input and be able to address it. MR. PURVIS: I'm in complete favor of moving forward at this point. MS. PINES: Me too. MR. ENTSUAH: Absolutely. MR. BATES: I think we're being kind of worked. I think this may be, you know, his plan all along to some degree. MR. PURVIS: We learned a good lesson on this ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 29 1 venture. 2 MR. BATES: We have, but I'm ready to cut our 3 losses and move forward. I'm tired of dealing with 4 it. 5 MR. MANTZARIS: Mr. Mayor, do you have 6 something? 7 MAYOR MURRY: Well, I tend to agree with 8 Mr. Bates there. And I've been saying all along 9 the real devil here is Mr. VP. 10 I know for a fact -- I've been around here too 11 many years. I know for a fact that building was 12 damaged. And that's the reason he built the 13 building -- the second building, why he did, 14 because he knew if he had connected that building, 15 the two buildings together, he would have had to do 16 something with that first building. 17 So he done -- he erected the second building 18 with the little space in between. Now he's forcing 19 us to pay for his demolition. And, yes, it does 20 have asbestos. I mean, that building was here when 21 I was a kid. And I knew the owner when he moved 22 out of there a few years ago. 23 The reason he left was because it was going to 24 cost him too much money to do the fix on the 25 building, all right? He used to be my insurance ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS Esquire Solutions. com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 30 agent, Lindenbaum (phonetic), okay? So I know. He bought it and now he's finagled us. And he's doing all of this here, just like he did us tonight, okay? We just got used again tonight. MR. MANTZARIS: Mr. Mayor, you don't want to talk about that. MAYOR MURRY: But anyway -- MR. MANTZARIS: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR MURRY: -- I'm like Mr. Bates there, I think we've been used in this whole thing and he's going to get what he wanted. The cheapest way out is to go ahead and settle this, but I'm not -- I'm not sure if that's going to solve the whole issue. MR. MANTZARIS: Well, we're going to give it a shot. And -- and -- MAYOR MURRY: If we do and then we come back later and we do this, what's the next thing on the agenda? What are we going to be caught up with next? MR. MANTZARIS: Well, first of all, we're -- we are not going to recommend that the City pay any money towards anything unless we are able to negotiate a complete release of all issues associated with VP Development and then possibly the Art District if we're doing any negotiation. 0 ,,00, ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 31 Again, even though the lawsuit has been filed by Art District against the City, we believe that the resolution of the VP Development site and -- guts the lawsuit from Art District. So that's how they're intertwined. And so the idea would be, and Susan told me this from the very beginning when we talked about this, is we're not offering -- we're not going to agree to give them any money unless we completely end this, because obviously -- MR. PURVIS: Positively. MS. PINES: Right. MR. BATES: I'm in agreement there. MR. MANTZARIS: And so we want to make sure we do that. MR. NEAL: If you look at the pleadings, the cause of action is declaratory damage, the cause of action against us. And what that says is -- the Art District saying, we don't agree with VP, but if VP is right in what they're saying, then we transfer to the City. And so if the problem with VP goes away, we should be able to put the whole thing to bed. And as Dan said, there is no reason for us to piecemeal a settlement. If we're going to settle 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 32 this, we're going to put it all to bed to the extent possible. MAYOR MURRY: But it wasn't VP that brought us into the lawsuit, was it? MS. PINES: No. MR. NEAL: No. No. MR. MANTZARIS: But, again, their -- for lack of a better term, if this issue gets resolved with VP Development and VP Development is no longer demanding the access piece, then that part of the complaint that they filed against the City goes away. It kind of falls like a house of cards, because it's all -- it's all predicated on the access piece. MR. NEAL: Right. MR. MANTZARIS: That's the -- the declaratory judgment that Tom is referring to is they're asking the Court to make a determination about whether the City promised them access towards Minneola, right? And that's the determination. Now, it's out of the rear of VP Development, which is -- I still don't understand why it's addressed Minneola, but -- I still don't understand that. MR. PURVIS: They got an address from the post 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 33 1 1 office. 2 MAYOR MURRY: That was all part of the plan, 3 1 you know. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MANTZARIS: So this is where -- I think this is where we're headed. This is going to take a little bit of work and our office -- we'll try to -- we'll try to get it done and do this. And as we go through this, hopefully we can get a resolution. Tom has already reached -- we've reached out to the attorneys for the other side, at least to try to talk about possible resolution of this. I've had initial conversations with the VP Development attorney with regard to the demolition of this building. We will flat out talk about the other monetary issues so we get a handle on those right from the beginning, so that's not something that gets thrown at us. We'd like to move very quickly. We obviously have this issue with the delay and the enforcement of the issue related to access, for them not having a CO. That expires in September. So we're hoping that we can -- we can get this thing all resolved by then so that they have direct access to their rear building, which 0 ESQUIRE ON (3376) DEVOSI TION SOLUTIONS Esquire Solutions. com CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 34 1 would be the only building on the site at the time. 2 They can get their permanent certificate of 3 occupancy. And then this third -party complaint 4 that's been filed against the City essentially goes 5 1 away. 6 Ebo, did you have a question? 7 MR. ENTSUAH: No. 8 MR. MANTZARIS: Okay. All right. So -- 9 MS. PINES: Well, this should all work out 10 because we're all good neighbors and we're all in 11 this together, right? 12 MR. MANTZARIS: Well, I can -- 13 MS. PINES: Since we are, we're trying to work 14 together, then we should get it resolved very 15 quickly. 16 MR. MANTZARIS: I will tell you -- I will tell 17 you this -- and I'm -- because I want the council 18 to remember this, and I say this respectfully, 19 we've looked -- we've been through all the 20 documents on this thing. We spent a lot of -- 21 we've got -- attorneys in our office that have been 22 diving through all this stuff. 23 The best thing I can tell you about this whole 24 situation is that both of these parties were given 25 1 a lot of leeway by upper management staff here at ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS Esquire Solutions. com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 35 the City. MS. PINES: By people no longer here. MR. MANTZARIS: Exactly. MAYOR MURRY: Yes. MR. MANTZARIS: And both of them took advantage of it at different times and at different levels and that's where we are now. So even though there's a lot of back and forth about a lot of stuff, I think for lack of a better expression, they're probably equally at fault for where we -- for where we are on this thing. MAYOR MURRY: As I told you before, Mr. Mantzaris, I think the City has a part to play in it, we do, we did some wrong there and both of them did some wrong as well. All three of us did some wrong. But I just -- I just hate -- hate just settling with someone when I know that they helped create a lot of the problem and everything. And we are all neighbors, but it don't seem like we can play in the same sandbox together, so -- MS. PINES: Well, what we have to do is make sure this council and our new staff that we have doesn't create these issues anymore. MAYOR MURRY: That's true. 0 ESQUIRE 800.211. DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 36 MR. MANTZARIS: And I assure you, Tom and I, we wouldn't be recommending that the City do anything on this but for the fact that there is... As I say, I think there is some risk exposure maybe not from a legal perspective exactly, but from definitely a political perspective of the activities that happened prior -- at the time with regard to this access issue. I mean, there is a clear trail of e-mails that talk about, don't worry about your access, don't worry about your access. And from -- you know, nobody, that's -- Michele pointed out, nobody that's with the City anymore, so... MAYOR MURRY: At this point, I tend to agree with you. Best thing right now is to go ahead and try to pursue this avenue. Like I say, I -- I know -- just what I've read, I know the City has some responsibility. And how much and how the courts look at it, I don't know. MR. MANTZARIS: Okay. So any -- MS. PINES: Is that it? MR. MANTZARIS: -- any other questions on this. MR. PURVIS: No. I just want to say thank you to both of you. 0 ,,0j ESQUIDEPOSITIORE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 37 And, Dan, especially your staff at your office. This is a sticky wicket on a good day and it's just time for us to suck it up and get past it. MR. MANTZARIS: Well, truthfully, Tom is running lead on that piece -- MR. PURVIS: Okay. MR. MANTZARIS: -- with a very talented young associate in our office. And so -- and they're doing -- they're doing a great job on it, getting us to this point. MR. PURVIS: As the cable guy says, get her done. MAYOR MURRY: Get her done. MR. MANTZARIS: Okay. Anything else? MS. PINES: Nope. MR. MANTZARIS: Okay. So now we are off the record. Don't talk about anything else except for how tired you are. (Remote proceedings concluded at 10:45 p.m.) 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT 38 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, SOON BRITT, a shorthand reporter and notary public, within and for the State of Florida, do hereby certify that that this transcript is a true record of the proceedings. I further certify that I am not related to any of the parties to this action by blood or marriage, and that I am in no way interested in the outcome of this matter. Dated this 1st day of July, 2021. 6. SOON BRITT, Court Reporter Notary Public - State of Florida ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS Esquire Solutions. com CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT Index: $135,000..assure Exhibits A 7198163 Mee ting. of the Boar d.EXHIBITA 7198163 Mee ting. of the Boar d.EXHIBITB 7:6 $135,000 20:14 $150,000 20:13 $40,000 17:11 F1 130 20:13 2 25 17:11 2:00 23:5 3 30-plus 2 6 : 2 Absolutely 2 8 : 2 1 absorb 15:18 access 9:12,16, 18 10:24, 25 11:2, 25 12:1, 2,13,14, 16,20,25 13:17,24 14:7,8, 11,15,17 15:23 16:7,9, 10,21,24 17:2 32:10,14, 19 33:21, 25 36:8, 10,11 act 28:13 action 6:18,23 7:4,9 8 : 2 17:16 31:17,18 actions 7:1 activities 3 6 : 7 ADA 16:8 add 6:16 address 10:12 11:7 13:2,8 15:23 22:23 24:10 26:19 28:17 32:25 addressed 32:23 advantage 35:6 affidavit 12:9 afternoon 2 3 : 6 agenda 30:18 agent 30:1 agree 7 : 2 5 23:20,22 29:7 31:9,19 36:14 agreed 27:18 agreement 10:24 15:18 17:25 22:18 24:23 26:15 27:14,22 31:13 ahead 30:12 36:15 allegation 9:21 11:14 allegations 7:1 allege 8:3 alleged 6:19 12:3 allegedly 2 6 : 4 alleging 7 : 2 alleviate 10:22 allowed 5:14 alternative 15:22 amend 8:5,9 amended 6:13,16 amount 24:3 26:15 ancillary 11:9 announced 3:14 anticipated 28:1 anymore 35:24 36:13 appears 17:4 approach 15:17 27:2 approval 21:22 approving 15:9 area 16:4 argue 27:6 argued 11:11 arguing 9:15 16:23 Art 4:21 6:11,14, 15,20 7:13,17 8:13 9:14,17 11:3 12:4,8,17 13:4,20 14:8 16:19 18:15 19:16,18 23:7,9,20 24:12,18 26:4,7, 16,24 27:5,16 3 0 : 2 5 31:2,4,19 asbestos 25:21,24 29:20 associate 37:9 assume 21:11 assure 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS Esquire Solutions. com CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICTndex: attached.. company 3 6 : 1 attached 7:5 attacks 23:14 attorney 15:4 18:11 21:7 33:14 attorneys 23:11 33:11 34:21 attorneys' 2 3 : 2 1 avenue 36:16 3 0 : 9 31:13 beating 24:9 bed 31:23 32:1 beginning 31:7 33:18 benches 24:16 benefit 17:5 Bianchi 20:12 Bianchi's 15:4 aware big 14:24 9:18 - 27:11 B back 8:25 10:16 11:24 15:13 23:19 26:8 30:16 35:8 basically 10:23 11:12 16:6 23:14,22 Bates 5 : 5 2 0 : 2 1 25:16 28:22 29:2,8 biggest 18:12 bit 4:13 6:3 33:6 blight 16:2 boat 20:14 bought 20:14 3 0 : 2 breach 6 : 2 5 12:6 16:24 breached 12:18 bring 6:4,17 broached 21:15 brought 6:8, 15 15:13 3 2 : 3 building 9:13, 16 10:16,17, 19,25 11:12,20, 21,23,24 12:2,23, 24 13:1, 5,10 14:20 15:19,24 16:9,13, 15 18:13, 16,20,22 19:1,8,9, 10,11,17 20:7 22:15 25:10,12, 21 26:9 29:11,13, 14,16,17, 20,25 33:15,25 34:1 buildings 10:4, 15 28:3,4 29:15 built 29:12 C cable 37:12 cafes 24:15 cards 32:12 care 19:24 case 6:2,5,6 8:5,6 11:10,11 2 3 : 2 3 caught 30:18 certificate 34:2 chance 8:4 cheapest 30:11 City 3:11 4:20 6:12,17, 24,25 7:12,16, 18,19 9:14,15, 20 10:1, 8,11,21 11:18,22 12:4,6,7, 8,13,14, 15,17 13:12,16, 21,22 14:2,7,13 15:13,16, 17,18 16:11,20, 24 17:6 19:7 20:19 23:20,22 24:20,25 27:6,12, 18,24,25 3 0 : 2 1 31:2,21 32:11,19 34 :4 35:1,13 36:2,13, 17 City's 4:12 8:21 19:8,11 claim 7:19 9:18 12:6 14:5 16:25 18:20 19:2 claims 17:3 2 6 : 3 27:4 clarify 18:19 clear 10:4 3 6 : 9 closed 3:7,13 codes 9:20 cognizant 9:8 coincidence 23:18 collection 28:4 commitments 13:23 communicati ng 2 3 : 2 5 community 16:2 company 1�� ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS Esquire Solutions. com CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISff" 515mpensate..Development 2 5 : 2 3 compensate 11:18 compensatio n 2 0 : 8 2 1 : 8 complaining 13 :4 complaint 4:20 6:17 7:16 8:1, 9 9:13 12:3,5 16:20 27:4 32:11 34:3 complaints 16:19 complete 28:18 3 0 : 2 3 completed 3 : 2 5 27:22 completely 15:20 31:9 compliance 9:20 compliant 16:9 component 9:25 13:12 con- 5:16 concern 18:12 confidentia 1 5:17 confidentia lly 5:21 connected 29:14 connection 27:14,19 considered 13:20 constructio n 19:16 contention 14:6 continuing 20:20 contract 6 : 2 5 12:6,18 16:25 conversatio ns 20:11 21:6 33:13 correct 17:9 20:6 25:5 cost 8:19 15:19 17:8,10 24:1 29:24 council 14 : 24 15:7,13 17:13 22:25 24:7,8 28:11,15 34:17 35:23 council Is 11:17 13:13 counsel 4:12 count 6:20,22, 23,24 7:1 counterclai m 6:13,15, 16 7:15 8:1,10 couple 3:8 4:1 15:21 court 3:15 5:8 7:24 2 0 : 4 21:1,3 32:18 courts 36:19 covered 22:6,11 create 35:19,24 current 27:25 cut 29:2 D damage 18:15 31:17 damaged 11:13 14:16 18:22,23 26:9 29:12 damages 14 : 14 Dan 5:24 8:24 15:2 31:24 37:1 Dan Is 20:16 day 3:22 18:21,23 3 7 : 2 deal 8:15 10:25 22:23 26:11 2 7 : 6 dealing 29:3 deals 22:18 decide 7 : 2 5 decision 15:15 declaratory 6:24 31:17 32:16 deferral 10:23 degree 28:24 delay 3 3 : 2 0 demanding 32:10 demo 26:4,21 demolish 11:19 17:21 demolished 11:13,21 19:1 demolishing 15:20 18:13 demolition 17:11 20:6 25:9 29:19 33:14 department 11:23 22:21 24:22 depending 27:24 depositions 8:14 details 28:14 determinati on 19:9,12 32:18,20 develop 16:6 Development 4:21 6:12,16, 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS Esquire Solutions. com CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICffidex: Development's..fact 21 9:12, 4:4 documents 3:22 7:6 15 10:4, discussing 13:18 17:14 existing 13,15,22 34:20 20:21 10:8 16:14 11:2,11, 25:25 19,24 discussion door 26:23 expect :15 12:12,15, 4:8,19 31:10 17:21 23 13:5, 5:1 13:19 2112 21. 24 14:8, 14:25 downtown enforcement expense 10:23 4:4,18 14,25 discussions 16:4 33:21 9:6 15:17 14:23 25:11 16:6,22, 15:5 due engineers expenses 23 17:5 18:10 19:12 16:12 9:6 18:12,15 19:4,5 24:18 enter expensive 25:14 15:18 8:20 26:17 dismiss 27.16 7:3,5,11, E entered experienced 30:24 22 8:6 10:23 11:1 31:3 23:13 e-mail ENTSUAH expires 32:9,21 District 11:8 28:21 33:22 33:14 4 21 e-mails 34:7 explain Development 6:11,14, 36:9 equally 12:22 Is 15,20 21:6 7:14,18 early 35:10 explained 8:13 6:2 8:11 erected 24:19 devil 9:14,17 13:19 29:17 explore 28:14 11:3 15:1 29:9 essentially 27:9 12:4,8,17 easement 11:18 difficult 13:4,21 12:20 13:21 exposure 3:17 14:8 24:23 15:17 13:15 18:15 14:2,4,12 digested 19:16,18 easements 16:18 36:4 25:2 23:7,9,20 12:11 23:19 34:4 expression dime 24:12,18 easiest 35:10 20:18 26:4,8, 11:6 evening 16,24 5:12,23 extent direct : Ebo 8:23 32:2 11:25 34:6 everybody's 12:1,25 30 :25 5:10 extricate : 31:2,4,19 effect 17:7 exception direction District's 8:14,15 4:2 11:17 16:20 else's g exemptions 13:13 diving 14:11 3:10 15:10 34:22 encumbrance fact 17:13 s exhaustive 11:1 12:7 28:11 document 12:10 23:13 29:10,11 19:1 discuss end Exhibit 36:3 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS Esquire Solutions. com CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT Index: fainters..idea fainters 14:21 fairly 16:15 17:8 23:13 falls 32:12 fault 35:10 favor 28:18 feel 7:4 feeling 20:12 fees 2 3 : 2 1 felt 11:16 14:19 figure 2 2 : 2 1 figures 21:4 filed 4:20 6:11 7:3 9:14 10:1 12:3 18:21 31:1 32:11 34 :4 finagled 30:2 final 15:15 17:16 21:21 24:17,24 finance 22:21 24:21 firm 17:15 23:11 fix 29:24 flat 33:16 floating 24:10 flow 13:6 16:16 flows 9:23 focus 4:1 focused 4:17 focuses 9:10 folks 20:14 25:14 follow-up 2 0 : 2 3 forcing 29:18 forward 5 : 4 20:17 23:23 28:19 29:3 found 19:15 foundation 19:18 26:5,10 f rankly 13:22 front 10:17 11:11 12:24 25:25 fruition 7:20 funds 2 2 : 3 26:16,17 future 20:8 G gave 5:10 11:9 general 17:12 genesis 9:18 gist 7:10 give 4 : 8 8:4,8 14 : 7 , 11 20:16 21:25 27:5 30:14 31:9 good 5:12,23 6:2 15:22 20:10,19 26:12 28:25 34:10 37:2 great 23:11 37:10 guarantee 13:16 18:1 guaranteed 9:16 12:13,14, 16 17:2 guaranteein g 13:23 guess 20:16 27:3 gut 27:3 guts 31:4 gutter 16:14 guy 26:4,21 37:12 guys 4:24 H handicap - accessible 12:1 handle 33:17 happen 14:16 happened 19:15 27:21 3 6 : 7 happening 9:22 17:6 hate 35:17 headed 33:5 hear 8:18 heard 9:11 14:5,6 21:8 22:10 24 : 13 hearing 7:24,25 helped 35:18 hire 26:11,17 hold 21:24 holding 24 : 24 hoping 33:23 hours 25:3 house 32:12 I idea 6:19 17:12 21:19 24:3 31:6 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) DEVOSI ESQUIRE Esquire Solutions. com CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT June 22, 2021 Index: Il..make II 3 1 : 5 --- 32:4 2 1 : 3 2 3 : 7 6:22 introduced LT lead litigator III 5:6 4:12 37:6 18:18 6:23 involve Jim learned loader impact 16:18 20:4 28:25 25:25 18:13 involved job leave long impacted 3:11 7:7 37:10 24:7 5:18 9:11 26:7 14:23,24 judge 15:25 leeway impacting P g 27:12 7:25 8:3, 34:25 longer 9:17 involvement 8 12:4 left improvement 4:21 judgment 2923 16:22,23 25:11 irreparably 6:24 17:1 32:9 11:12 32:17 legal 35:2 improvement 7:7 23:14 s issue �P 36:5 looked 28:1 4:22 9:21 8:25 11:5 10:,5 - - lesson 13:18 included 28:25 16:12 27:14 11:4 K 12:2,4 ---- levels 19:11 incurred 13:3 14:1 21:8 35:7 24:22 23:21 16:10,17, key 34:19 9:9,25 liens individuals 22 141 13:12 12:10 loss 13:22 24:1,17 20:8 25:20 kid Lindenbaum inexpensive P 30:13 29:21 30:1 losses ly 32:8 kind lines 29:3 16:15 33:20,21 22:12 23:2 lot initial 36:8 28:8,22 7:7 33:13 issues 32:12 list 13:18,19 5:10 19:14 19:14 injunctive 4:9,17 knew litigate 6:21 7:7,13 29:14,21 8:20 34:20,25 9:11 input 10:2,3,12 litigating 35:8,9,19 28:16 13:11 L 8:19 - insurance 19:13,20 M 22:3,11 23:15 lack litigation _-- 26:3,12 24:10,13, 32:7 35:9 3:11,25 29:25 15 30:23 4:4,5,61 main 33:17 law 9,12,14, 19:19 interim 35:24 3:9,12 18 5:25 make 27:12 6:14 7:17 4:16 internally IV lawsuit 9:25 8:12,18 5:16,17 25:17 6:25 7:1 18:14,21 9:6,7 14:10,15 intertwined 31:1,4 :7 1717:25 15:15 18:7 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS Esquire Solutions. com CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRIGTex: management.. options 19:8,12 21:21 31:14 32:18 35:22 management 13:21 34:25 manager 27:12 manager's 13:22 Mantzaris 3:6 5:7, 9,15,20, 22 9:1,4 15:3 17:23 18:1,4,7, 18,25 20:3 21:5,14, 17,20,24 22:2,4,6, 9,13,16 24:2 25:19 26:13,22 29:5 30:5,8, 14,20 31:14 32:7,16 33:4 34:8,12, 16 35:3, 5,13 36:1,20, 22 37:5, 8,15,17 matter 4:12 14:1 Mayor 3:14 18:7 29:5,7 30:5,7,8, 9,16 32:3 3 3 : 2 35:4,12, 25 36:14 37:14 means 25:16,19 27:1 meet 3 : 9 4:3 meeting 3:7,13,23 15:12 28:16 meetings 27:11 mentioned 9:20 12:5 met 4:11 Michele 36:12 mind 6:5 Minneola 32:19,23 monetary 33:16 money 21:18 22:22 25:11 29:24 30:22 31:9 Montrose 10:18,19 11:12,19, 21,25 12:24 13:6,7 14:20 15:19,24 16:7,16 19:10 25:9 28:2,4 motion 7:3,5,10, 21 23:13 motions 8 : 6 motivated 23:17 move 4:25 5 : 4 10:10 17:14 2 3 : 2 2 29:3 33:19 moved 29:21 moving 18:5,9 20:17 28:18 MURRY 29:7 30:7,9,16 3 2 : 3 3 3 : 2 35:4,12, 25 36:14 37:14 N names 5:11 nature 9:13 Neal 4:11 5:10,23 9 : 3 2 1 : 2 31:16 32:6,15 necessarily 16:1 needed 16:9 negotiate 27:13 3 0 : 2 3 negotiated 15:12 27:10 negotiation 3 0 : 2 5 negotiation s 21:12 23:1 neighboring 9:22 neighbors 34:10 35:20 newer 10:16 news 6 : 2 nicest 16:2 notes 5:13,14, 15 number 20:11 2 5 : 4 numbers 17:16 re, occupancy 34:3 offer 23:6,17, 19 26:23 offering 31:8 offers 8:24 25:10 office 13:22 33:1,6 34:21 37:2,9 official 15:8 19:8,11 ongoing 3:11 19:16 onus 16:5 open 21:12 opening 23:1 opportunity 4:23 5:24 8:9 15:14 21:25 option 27:8,17, 23 options 13:2 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) DEVOSI TION SOLUTIONS Esquire Solutions. com CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICIIndex: ordinances.. Purvis ordinances 29:19 22:1,10, Positively problems 7:2 30:21 14 28:20 31:11 10:2,3,22 original payment 31:12 possibility promise 6:14 24:18,25 32:5 15:1 20:10 34:9,13 outdoor pending 35:2,22 possibly promised 24:14 4:5,6 36:21 5:1 10:10 32:19 outflow people 37:16 17:7 27:15 35:2 place 25:19 prong 26:14 30:24 owner permanent 16:3 28:5 properly 29:21 6:21 34:2 plan Post 7:8 8:4 32:25 person P 28:9,23 Properties p 26:18 33:2 potential 9:22,24 - -- 14:19 perspective Play 13:20 part 13:13,15 35:13,21 potentially property 3:23 4:7 14:13 pleadings 10:10 11:3 13:2,9 36:5,6 6:4,10 15:12 12:8,16, 14:2 pertinent 9:9,10 predicated 19 14:9, 17:24 6:10 11:9 32:13 12 16:25 18:4 31:16 preliminary 19:16 19:3,7 phone 24:13 23:21 15:5 pled 18:10 26:5 7:5 19:4 proposing phonetic 15:16 32:10 14:21 point premature 33:2 30:1 6:10 7:12,21 protect 35:13 7:11,23 prepared 18:20 parties piece 9:18,19 19:12 19:2 7:24 9:12 12:19 11:13 provide 27:13,18 15:23 present 12:25 25:21 21:21 22:18 34:24 26:24 13:1 22:17,19, pretty art party 27:9,19 20 27:20 7:16 providing 26:12 32:10,14 28:19 17:5 37:6 36:14 pride pass 23:11 public 6:9 piecemeal 37:11 28:16 past 31:25 pointed primarily 36:12 26:3 purposes 37:3 pieces 10:5 path 24:4 political Prior pursuant 25:6 PINES 36:6 18:23 3:12 36:7 17:20,24 position pay 18:3,6, 12:12 problem Pursue 23:20 17,24 14:15 31:22 36:16 2: 27:19 19:23 27:25 35:19 Purvis 21:18,23 5:13,18, ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS Esquire Solutions. com CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT Index: pushing.. running 21 14:22 15:2 20:4,23 21:13,15 22:3,5,7 24:1 25:18 26:2,21 28:18,25 31:11 32:25 36:24 37:7,12 pushing 22:14 put 11:14 24 :16 28:5 31:23 32:1 question 20:24 21:13 22:7 34:6 questions 4:24 17:19 36:22 quick 11:6 quickly 33:19 34:15 R range 17:12 rarely 8 : 7 reached 33:10 read 3:14 6:9 36:17 ready 5:11 24:20 29:2 real 4:3 29:9 rear 10:24 11:2 16:9 32:21 33:25 reason 7:21 14:18 29:12,23 31:24 reasonable 17:8 reasons 4:3 14:18 15:21 25:8 recall 15:5 27:10 recap 16:21 receive 2 3 : 5 recently 19:15 recognize 4:7 recommend 25:9 3 0 : 2 1 recommendat ion 20:16 recommendin g 23:24 36:2 reconsider 27:17 record 3:24 14:1 37:18 redesign 16:13 redevelop 25:15 redeveloped 16:4 25:13 refer 10:18 referenced 9:19 referred 10:17 referring 32:17 regard 33:14 3 6 : 8 reimburseme nt 24:18 related 4:4,5 10:12 12:7 16:25 24:17 33:21 relating 23:22 release 30:23 relief 6:22 remediation 25:24 remember 10:5 34:18 removal 16:13 removed 16:5 26:7 removing 13:1,10 14:20 15:19 rent 2 0 : 8 , 9 reporter 3:15 5:8 20:5 requires 28:10 resolution 5:2 7:13 15:11 28:12 31:3 33:9,12 resolve 6:6,7 8:17 11:16 13:10,11 22:17 23:1 25:1 resolved 28:10 32:8 33:24 34:14 resolving 10:10 respectfull y 24:6 34 : 18 responsibil ity 26:20 36:18 responsible 7:18 14:13 rest 14:23 restate 8:10 retain 5:18 review 15:14 rid 22:15 risk 13:15 36:4 room 3:19 5:6 run 2 8 : 4 running 3 7 : 6 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS Esquire Solutions. com CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT Index: sale -tears 3 1 : 2 5 speed 27:8,15 13:7 S settling 6:4 28:1 16:14 35:18 spending stormwaters 28:2,5 sale shore 20:21 27:15 - - - 12:18 19:18 spent Street T 16:25 - shot 25:12 10:18,19 sandbox 30:15 34:20 11:19,21 table 35:21 staff 12:24 8:24 satisfy show 10:8 13:7 takes 17:20 13:24 11:22 15:19,24 14:14 showed 16:11 16:7,17 seating 11:8 25:25 25:10 taking 24:14 8:21 shown 27:24 structurall secondary 7:6 13:25 34:25 y talented 25:6 35:23 19:9 37:8 seller's sic 3:17 10:5 37:1 structure talk 12:9 13:14 staff's 10:14 3:17,20 send 27:25 stuff 5:24,25 23:12 side 33:11 standing 34:22 8:16 9:5 21:7 30:6 September 7:11 35:9 signed 33:12,16 33:23 12:8 start subject 36:10 serving 3:6 21:16 37:18 site 20:18 10:15 state suck talked session 13:5 8:2 37:3 11:10 3:7,13 27:16 stated sue 14:22 set 31:3 34:1 7:8 7:12 31:7 7:24 situation statute sued talking setting 34:24 4:2 6:14,20, 10:6 8:13 sold stay 22 18:1 5 11:22 15:9,23 settle 12:7,17, 4:16 Sunshine 16:11 23:23 18 13:20 steps 3:9 5:25 21:3 30:12 solve 11:15 Supreme 23:2,7 31:25 30:13 sticky 21:1,2 target settlement sort 37:2 Susan 18:5,10 4:5,17 21:24 stop 14:21 taxpayers 6:1 8:23 25:6 17:18 15:2 17:9 20:19 20:13 21:25 22:18 space stormwater 22:20 tear 23:6,17 29:18 9:21,23 27:11 26:18 24:5 speaking 13:2,3 31:6 tears 26:23 26:2 16:16,17 26:1 system 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) DEYOSI ESQUIRE SOLUTIONS Esquire Solutions. com CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT Index: telling.mords telling 12:19 temporary 6:21 10:24 tend 29:7 36:14 term 32:8 terms 24:20 that'll 22:15 theory 14:12 thing 3:16 19:24 30:10,17 3 1 : 2 3 33:24 34:20,23 35:11 36:15 things 3:16 4:2, 25 7:18 8:21 11:17 19:17 24:5 third -party 4:19 6:17 7:15 8:1 27:4 34:3 thought 10:9 11:5 20:17 thrown 33:18 tie 12:21,22 tie-in 17:2 time 6:3,6 8:19,21 9:11 13:23 15:25 27:20 34:1 36:7 37:3 time- consuming 8:20 times 3 : 9 3 5 : 6 timing 23:10 tired 2 9 : 3 37:19 today 4:2 8:16 18:23 23:5 told 31:6 35:12 Tom 4:11 5:3 9:20 11:10 12:5 18:18 20:24,25 25:5 32:17 33:10 36:1 37:5 tonight 10:6 15:9 17:13 20:14 22:24 3 0 : 3 , 4 total 20:13 trail 3 6 : 9 transcribe 3 : 2 3 transfer 31 :21 trespass 6:22 tri-party 27:13 true 26:6 35:25 truthfully 3 7 : 5 turn 4:14 5:3 two -plus 28:6 Tyler 18:11 type 21:3 typical 12:9 typically 5 : 6 26:13 U ultimately 25:13 uncertain 24:19 underlying 4:9 underpinned 26:5 underpinnin g 26:6,10 understand 16:11 3 2 : 2 2 , 2 3 unoccupied 10:20 unrecorded 12:11,20 unsound 19:10 upper 34:25 V Van 18:11 venture 29:1 vetted 24:21 26:25 view 25:5 violated 7:2 Voorhees 18:11 vote 28:15 VP 4:21 6:12,14, 15,20,22 7:13,17 8:13 9:12,15 10:4,12, 15,22 11:2,10, 19,24 12:12,15, 23 13:4, 24 14:7, 14,25 15:17 16:6,22 17:5 18:11,14 21:6 25:13 26:17 27:15 29:9 30:24 31:3,19, 20,22 32:3,9,21 33:13 W wanted 30:11 wanting 24:16 water 13:3 28:3 wicket 3 7 : 2 win 8 : 6 words 18:21 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS Esquire Solutions. com CLERMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 22, 2021 VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES vs THE ART DISTRICT Index: work..younq IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES, LLC Plaintiff, V. THE ART DISTRICT, LLC Defendant. THE ART DISTRICT, LLC, Counter- Plaintiff and Third -Party Plaintiff, V. VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES, LLC, and CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the state of Florida, Counter- Defendant and Third -Party Defendant. CASE NO: 2020 CA 1009 F IT 2212021 AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD -PARTY COMPLAINT Counter- Plaintiff and Third -Party Plaintiff, THE ART DISTRICT, LLC ("Art District"), sues Counter- Defendants VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES, LLC ("VP Development") and City of Clermont, Florida (the "City"), a political subdivision of the state of Florida, and Third -Party Defendant, City of Clermont, Florida (the "City"), a political subdivision of the state of Florida, and alleges as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court because the counts in this action seek damages that exceed $15,000.00, exclusive of interest, attorney's fees and costs. See Fla. Stat. § 34.001. 2. All causes of action aucd upoti aruse in Lake County, Florida. 3. VP Development is a Florida limited liability company. 4. Art District is a Florida limited liability company. 5. The City is a municipal corporation located in Lake County, Florida, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. Page 1 of 11 6. VP Development is the owner of the property and commercial building located at 752 W. Montrose Street, Clermont, FL 34711 with the Alternate Key 1614490 located within the City with the legal description: The East 30 feet of Lot 12, Block 80, in the City of Clermont, as represented on the Official Map of the City of Clermont, duly recorded in Plat Book 8, at Pages 17- 23, inclusive, Public Records of Lake County Florida ("VP Development Property") 7. Art District owns real property immediately adjacent to VP Development's real property more particularly described as follows: Lot 11, Block 80, OFFICIAL MAP OF THE CITY OF CLERMONT, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 8, Page 17, Public Records of Lake County, Florida. AND The West 20.00 feet of Lot 12, Block 80, OFFICIAL MAP OF THE CITY OF CLERMONT, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 8, Page 17, Public Records of Lake County, Florida. LESS the East 0.45 feet of the South 61.99 feet thereof. AND The East 33.00 feet of Lot 14, Block 80, OFFICIAL MAP OF THE CITY OF CLERMONT, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 8, Page 17, Public Records of Lake County, Florida. LESS the East 18.00 feet of the West 20.00 feet of the East 33.00 feet of said Lot 14, Block 80 ("Art District's Property"). 8. Art District's Property is located within the City at 756 W. Montrose Street, Clermont, FL 34711 with Alternate Key 1087210. 9. All conditions precedent to filing this action have been performed or have been waived. Count I TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (VP DEVELOPMENT) 10. This is an action by Art District against VP Development for temporary injunctive relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610 and for permanent injunctive relief. 11. Art District re -alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 9 as if fully set forth herein. Page 2 of 11 12. At all times relevant to this action, VP Development has constructed a defective stormwater runoff system that causes flooding and damage on Art District's Property. 13. VP Development has known about the damage from the stormwater runoff, but refuses to adjust VP Development's system. 14. VP Development is aware that VP Development's stormwater system is not satisfactory. 15. VP Development has no legitimate legal reason or authority to cause VP Development's stormwater runoff to drain directly onto Art District's Property or damage Art District's Property. VP Development has no legitimate reason or authority to impair Art District's quiet enjoyment of Art District's Property. 16. Art District does not have an adequate remedy at law. 17. If VP Development is not first temporarily enjoined and restrained and then permanently enjoined and restrained from causing VP Development's stormwater runoff to drain directly onto Art District's Property, damaging Art District's Property, and impairing Art District's quiet enjoyment of Art District's Property, VP Development will continue to engage in such behavior. 18. In addition to the foregoing, VP Development's actual construction encroaches upon Art District's Property. VP Development's plans indicate that VP Development intended to build a five foot wide sidewalk between VP Development's building and VP Development's property line bordering Art District's Property. However, VP Development constructed VP Development's building too close to the property line, so that there is not room for a sidewalk with a width of five feet. Instead, VP Development intentionally built VP Development's sidewalk on Art District's Property. 19. Irreparable injury will result if Art District is not granted a temporary and then a permanent injunction. VP Development should be obligated to prevent VP Development's stormwater from flowing directly onto Art District's Property, and VP Development should be required to remove VP Development's sidewalk on Art District's Property. 20. Art District has a clear legal right to the remedy requested. 21. The public interest will be served by a temporary and then a permanent injunction. WHEREFORE. Art District respectfully requests this Court (i) impose a temporary injunction enjoining and restraining VP Development from causing VP Development's stormwater runoff to drain directly onto Art District's Property, damaging Art District's Property, and impairing Art District's quiet enjoyment of Art District's Property, (ii) impose a permanent injunction enjoining and restraining VP Development from causing VP Development's stormwater runoff to drain directly onto Art District's Property, damaging Art District's Property, and impairing Art District's quiet enjoyment of Art District's Property, and (iii) grant an award of costs and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Page 3 of 11 Count II TRESPASS (VP DEVELOPMENT) 22. This is an action for trespass against VP Development. 23. Art District re -alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 9 as if fully set forth herein. 24. At all times relevant to this action, VP Development has constructed a defective stormwater runoff system that causes flooding and damage on Art District's Property. 25. VP Development has known about the damage from the stormwater runoff, but refuses to adjust VP Development's system. 26. VP Development is aware that VP Development's stormwater system is not satisfactory. 27. VP Development has no legitimate legal reason or authority to cause VP Development's stormwater runoff to drain directly onto Art District's Property or damage Art District's Property. VP Development has no legitimate reason or authority to impair Art District's quiet enjoyment of Art District's Property. 28. VP Development has no contractual or legal right to cause VP Development's stormwater runoff to drain directly onto Art District's Property. 29. Such stormwater runoff constitutes a trespass on Art District's Property. 30. In addition to the foregoing, VP Development's actual construction encroaches upon Art District's Property. VP Development's plans indicate that VP Development intended to build a five foot wide sidewalk between VP Development's building and VP Development's property line bordering Art District's Property. However, VP Development constructed VP Development's building too close to the property line, so that there is not room for a sidewalk with a width of five feet. Instead, VP Development intentionally built VP Development's sidewalk on Art District's Property. 31. As a result of VP Development's continuing trespass on Art District's Property, Art District has suffered damages. WHEREFORE, Art District, respectfully requests: 1) Judgment against VP Development for damages in an amount to be proven at trial; 2) Mesne profits; 3) Costs of suit; and, 4) Such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. Count III Page 4 of l 1 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (CITY OF CLERMONT AND VP DEVELOPMENT) 32. This is an action against VP Development and the City of Clermont for declaratory judgment, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 86, to determine the existence of a legal right of ingress and egress across Art District's Property. 33. Art District re -alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 9 as if fully set forth herein. 34. In January 2019, VP Development submitted a site plan to the City of Clermont for the construction of a new commercial building. 35. VP Development maintains that VP Development's site plan contemplated and included ADA compliant access from the rear of VP Development's proposed building, along the northern boundary with Art District's Property. 36. VP Development maintains that VP Development's ADA compliant access was part of VP Development's site plan and approved by the City of Clermont. 37. On or about March 15, 2019, Art District purchased Art District's Property from the City of Clermont by Special Warranty Deed. See Special Warranty Deed, attached hereto as Exhibit "A„ 38. In VP Development's Complaint, VP Development maintains that VP Development's ADA compliant access was part of VP Development's site plan and approved by the City of Clermont. See VP Development Plan Exhibit, attached hereto as Exhibit `B". 39. In VP Development's Complaint, VP Development further maintains that Art District's development efforts on Art District's Property removed VP Development's ADA compliant access. 40. In VP Development's Complaint, VP Development asserts that Art District's site plan created a legally cognizable interest for ADA access on Art District's Property in favor of VP Development. See Art District Plan Exhibit, attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "C". 41. In VP Development's Complaint, VP Development asserts that Art District's Use License and Cost Sharing Agreement with the City of Clermont created a legally cognizable interest for ADA access on Art District's Property in favor of VP Development. See Agreement Exhibit, attached hereto as Exhibit "D". 42. According to VP Development, the VP Development Plan Exhibit, Art District Plan Exhibit and Agreement Exhibits all provide VP Development with an express easement over Art District's Property in favor of VP Development. 43. Art District maintains that the Site Plans and Agreement Exhibits do not create any sort of Page 5 of 11 legally cognizable interest in favor of VP Development on Art District's Property. Art District further maintains that there is certainly no express easement or other ingress and egress right in favor of VP Development on Art District's Property. 44. The City of Clermont, in approving VP Development's site plan, did not vest VP Development with any express easement or other ingress and egress right in favor of VP Development on Art District's Property. 45. The City of Clermont, in approving Art District's site plan, did not vest VP Development with any express easement or other ingress and egress right in favor of VP Development on Art District's Property. 46_ The VP Development Plan Exhibit, Art District Plan Exhibit and Agreement Exhibits did not vest VP Development with any express easement or other ingress and egress right in favor of VP Development on Art District's Property. 47. This court has jurisdiction to resolve this dispute pursuant Section 86.021 Florida Statutes and Section 86.101 Florida Statutes as there exists a doubt and uncertainty among the parties as to their legal rights, especially whether VP Development has any express easement or other ingress and egress right on Art District's Property. 48. There is a present, actual, bona fide need for declaratory relief Further, the declaration sought involves a present, ascertainable state of facts ripe for adjudication. 49. Art District's rights are dependent upon a resolution of this controversy. In event that declaratory relief is not granted as requested, Art District will suffer irreparable harm. 50. There is no adequate remedy at law to determine whether VP Development has any express easement or other ingress and egress right on Art District's Property. WHEREFORE, Art District respectfully requests the Court to declare (i) VP Development has no express easement or other ingress and egress right on Art District's Property, (ii) the VP Development Plan Exhibit, Art District Plan Exhibit and Agreement Exhibits do not create any sort of legally cognizable interest in favor of VP Development on Art District's Property, and (iii) and reserving jurisdiction for supplemental relief pursuant to Section 86.061 Florida Statutes. Count IV BREACH OF CONTRACT (CITY OF CLERMONT) 51. This is a cause of action for damages against the City of Clermont in amount in excess of $30,000 exclusive of attorneys' fees and costs, pled in the alternative to Count III. 52. Art District re -alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 9 as if fully set forth herein. 53. In January 2019, VP Development submitted a site plan to the City of Clermont for the Page 6 of 11 construction of a new commercial building. 54. VP Development maintains that VP Development's site plan contemplated and included ADA compliant access from the rear of VP Development's proposed building, along the northern boundary with Art District's Property. 55. VP Development maintains that VP Development's ADA compliant access was part of VP Development's site plan and approved by the City of Clermont. 56.On or about March 15, 2019, Art District purchased Art District's Property from the City of Clermont by Special Warranty Deed. See Special Warranty Deed, attached hereto as Exhibit «A„ 57. In VP Development's Complaint, VP Development maintains that VP Development's ADA compliant access was part of VP Development's site plan and approved by the City of Clermont. 58.In VP Development's Complaint, VP Development further maintains that Art District's development efforts on Art District's Property removed VP Development's ADA compliant access. 59. In VP Development's Complaint, VP Development maintains that VP Development's ADA compliant access was part of VP Development's site plan and approved by the City of Clermont. See VP Development Plan Exhibit, attached hereto as Exhibit `B". 60. In VP Development's Complaint, VP Development further maintains that Art District's development efforts on Art District's Property removed VP Development's ADA compliant access. 61. As part of Art District's purchase of Art District's Property from the City of Clermont, the City of Clermont provided a Seller's Closing Affidavit, in which the City of Clermont represented to Art District that there were no unrecorded easements, claims of easement or rights of way affecting all or any portion of Art District's Property. See Affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit "E„ 62. Although Art District disputes VP Development's assertion, in the event that VP Development has a cognizable express easement or other ingress and egress right in favor of VP Development on Art District's Property as a result of the City of Clermont's actions, the City of Clermont's representations in the Seller's Closing Affidavit are false. 63. In the event that VP Development has a cognizable express easement or other ingress and egress right in favor of VP Development on Art District's Property as a result of the City of Clermont's actions, Art District has been damaged by the City of Clermont's representations in the Seller's Closing Affidavit that are false. 64. As part of Art District's purchase of Art District's Property from the City of Clermont, Art Page 7 of 11 District identified that a backflow preventer and other elements of a potable water service servicing VP Development were located in an easement encumbering Art District's Property. The City of Clermont had the legal right to demand that VP Development relocate the foregoing. However, the City of Clermont was unable to get VP Development to relocate prior to closing. Therefore, the City of Clermont entered into a Closing Agreement with Art District in which the City of Clermont agreed to obtain an amendment to the easement with VP Development and relocate the potable water service. See Closing Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "F". 65. Under the Closing Agreement, Art District was obligated to give the City of Clermont a sixty day notice of the alternate route for the potable water service, and then the City would be required to secure the amendment to the easement with VP Development and relocate the potable water service. Art District provided such notice on May 12, 2020, but the City has delayed in taking action on this in order to coerce Art District into taking other courses of action favorable to the City, VP, or a combination thereof, unrelated to the Closing Agreement. See Notice Letter attached hereto as Exhibit IV% 66. Art District has suffered damages caused by the City of Clermont's breaches. 67. Art District has fully performed its obligations herein. 68. Art District has become obligated to BowenlSchroth for its reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs, in prosecuting Art District's rights. 69. Under the Closing Agreement, Art District is entitled to recover its costs and attorney's fees upon successful prosecution of this action. WHEREFORE, Art District, demands judgment against the City of Clermont for damages, pre- judgment interest, attorneys fees and costs of this action, as well as such other relief as this Court deems appropriate. Count V Iniunctive Relief under Section 122-36 of the Code of Ordinances for the City of Clermont _Termination of VP's Improper Permit (City of Clermont) 70. This is an action by Art District against the City of Clermont and VP Development for temporary injunctive relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610 and the City of Clermont's Code of Ordinances and for permanent injunctive relief. 71. Art District re -alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 9 as if fully set forth herein. 72. Pursuant to Section 122-36 of the Code of Ordinances for the City of Clermont, Florida, "If any building or structure is erected, constructed, reconstructed, repaired, converted or Page 8 of 11 maintained or any building, structure or land is used in violation of this land development code, the planning and zoning department or other appropriate authority, or any adjacent or other property owner who would be rlamaQed by such violation, in addition to other remedies, may institute injunction, mandamus or other appropriate action in proceeding to stop the violation in the case of such building, structure or land." (emphasis added). 73. In January 2019, VP Development submitted a site plan to the City of Clermont for the construction of a new commercial building. 74. The City of Clermont is aware that the construction of VP Development's building is in violation of the City of Clermont's Code of Ordinances, zoning code, land development code, and a combination thereof, as well as applicable state and federal building, access, and fire codes. 75. The City of Clermont fully acknowledges that VP Development's building violates the City of Clermont's land development code as well as state and federal building, access, and fire codes. 76. Despite the foregoing, the City of Clermont has entered into a written agreement with VP Development, which acts to stay the City of Clermont's employees and other parties from enforcing local, state, and federal building, access and fire codes. 77. The Art District is damaged by the City's refusal to enforce local, state, and federal building, access and fire codes. 78. The Art District is damaged by VP Development's building being in violation of the City of Clermont's Code of Ordinances, zoning code, land development code, and a combination thereof, as well as applicable state and federal building, access, and fire codes.. 79. This action or inaction by the City is the sort of damage contemplated by Section 122-36 of the Code of Ordinances for the City of Clermont. 80. The public interest is served by a temporary and then permanent injunction forcing the City of Clermont to enforce the law, and compelling VP Development's building be brought into compliance. WHEREFORE, Art District respectfully requests this Court (i) impose a temporary injunction enjoining and restraining the City of Clermont from continuing to allow VP Development to develop and operate VP Development's building in violation of the law, (ii) impose a permanent injunction enjoining and restraining the City of Clermont from continuing to allow VP Development to develop and operate VP Development's building in violation of the law, and (iii) grant an award of costs and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Count VI lniunctive Relief under Section 122-36 of the Code of Ordinances for the City of Clermont Resolution of VP's Stormwater System (City of Clermont) Page 9 of 11 81. This is an action by Art District against the City of Clermont for temporary injunctive relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610 and the City of Clermont's Code of Ordinances and for permanent injunctive relief. 82. Art District re -alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 9 as if fully set forth herein. 83. Pursuant to Section 122-36 of the Code of Ordinances for the City of Clermont, Florida, "If any building or structure is erected, constructed, reconstructed, repaired, converted or maintained or any building, structure or land is used in violation of this land development code, the planning and zoning department or other appropriate authority, or any adiacent or other property owner who would be damaged by such violation, in addition to other remedies, may institute injunction, mandamus or other appropriate action in proceeding to stop the violation in the case of such building, structure or land." (emphasis added). 84. At all times relevant to this action, and as part of VP Development's construction of VP Development's building, VP Development has constructed a defective stormwater runoff system that causes flooding and damage on Art District's Property. 85. The City of Clermont has known about the damage from the stormwater runoff, but refuses to enforce the City of Clermont land development code against VP Development to force VP Development to adjust VP Development's system. 86. The City of Clermont is fully aware that VP Development has no right of conveyance of its stormwater beyond the boundaries of its property. 87. As part of VP Development's construction efforts, VP Development has changed the property grade and implemented a defective stormwater system, causing stormwater to dump onto Art District's Property. 88. The City of Clermont has, in the past, issued a code violation against VP Development related to stormwater issues. 89. VP Development's stormwater system has not improved since the City of Clermont issued the aforementioned codes violation against VP Development. Inexplicably, the City of Clermont closed the code proceedings. 90. The City of Clermont has openly refused to enforce applicable codes with respect to VP Development's stormwater system. 91. The City ofClermont's refusal to enforce applicable codes with respect to the violations caused by VP Development's stormwater system has damaged and continues to damage the Art District. Page 10 of 11 92. This action or inaction by the City of Clermont is the sort of damage contemplated by Section 122-36 of the Code of Ordinances for the City of Clermont. 93. The public interest is served by a temporary and then permanent injunction forcing the City of Clermont to enforce applicable codes with respect to VP Development's stormwater system. 94. The public interest is served by a temporary and then permanent injunction forcing the City of Clermont to enforce the law, and compelling VP Development's stormwater system be brought into compliance. WHEREFORE, Art District respectfully requests this Court (i) impose a temporary injunction enjoining and restraining the City of Clermont from continuing to allow VP Development to develop and operate VP Development's stormwater system in violation of the law, (ii) impose a permanent injunction enjoining and restraining the City of Clermont from continuing to allow VP Development to develop and operate VP Development's stormwater system in violation of the law, and (iii) grant an award of costs and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. BOWENISCHROTH 600 Jennings Avenue Eustis, Florida 32726 Telephone (352) 589-1414 Facsimile (352) 589-1726 E-mail Addresses: zbroome@bowenschroth.com jyoung@bowcnsclu-otli.com /s/Zachary T. Broome ZACHARY T. BROOME Florida Bar No. 0091331 Page 11 of 11 Filing # 129176901 E-Filed 06/21/2021 03:50:47 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES, LLC, Plaintiff, V. THE ART DISTRICT, LLC, Defendant. THE ART DISTRICT, LLC, Counter -Plaintiff and Third -Party Plaintiff, V. VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES, LLC, and CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Counter -Defendant and Third -Party Defendant. Case No.: 2020-CA-1009 EXHIBIT Exhibit B - 6/22/2021 THIRD -PARTY DEFENDANT, CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA'S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT III THROUGH COUNT VI OF THE ART DISTRICT LLC'S AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD -PARTY COMPLAINT Third -Party Defendant, CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA ("Clermont"), through its undersigned counsel and pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.140(b)(6), hereby files and serves its Motion to Dismiss Count III through Count VI of The Art District, LLC's Amended Counterclaim and Third -Party Complaint. In support thereof, Clermont respectfully states as follows: FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, VP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES, LLC ("VP"), owns real property located at 752 West Montrose Street, Clermont, Florida 34711 ("VP's Property"). (Art District Compl. 16). 1 2. Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, THE ART DISTRICT, LLC ("Art District"), owns real property located at 756 West Montrose Street, Clermont, Florida 34711 ("Art District's Property"), (Art District Compl. ¶ 8). 3. Art District's Property lies immediately adjacent to VP's Property. (Art District Compl. ¶ 7). 4. As development ensued on VP's Property, a dispute arose between VP and Art District regarding a five -foot -wide sidewalk allegedly constructer) by VP on Art District's Property. E.g., (Art District Compl. 118). 5. A dispute also arose between VP and Art District concerning VP's allegedly "defective stormwater runoff system that causes flooding and damage on Art District's Property." (Art District Compl. ¶ 12). 6. Based on these disputes, VP fled its Verified Complaint to Establish and/or Enforce Easement and for Declaratory Relief ("VP Complaint") against Art District on or about June 6, 2020. E.g., (Art District Compl. IN 38-41). 7. VP asserts no claims against Clermont in the VP Complaint. 8. Nevertheless, on or about May 7, 2021, Art District filed its Amended Counterclaim and Third -Party Complaint (the "Art District Complaint") against both VP and Clermont, asserting the following six amalgamation of counterclaims and third -party claims: (1) Count I for Injunctive Relief against VP; (2) Count 1I for Trespass against VP; (3) Count III for Declaratory Judgment against VP and Clermont; (4) Count IV for Breach of Contract against Clermont: (5) Count V for Injunctive Relief against Clermont seeking termination of VP's permit; and (6) Count VI for PA Injunctive Relief against Clermont seeking code enforcement against VP for VP's allegedly defective stormwater system.' 9. The March 25, 2019 Agreement between Clermont and Art District —attached as Exhibit "P to the All District Complaint —provides that the prevailing party in "any action at law or equity between the parties [t]hereto occasioned by a default [t]hereunder ... shall be entitled to collect its reasonable attorney's fees actually incurred in the action from the non -prevailing party." (Art District Compl. Ex. F, § 7). LEGALSTANDARD For motions to dismiss, courts may only consider allegations set forth in the four corners of the complaint and the attachments thereto. Enlow v. E.C. Scott Wright, P.A., 274 So. 3d 1192, 1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019). When a complaint impliedly incorporates by reference the terms of a legal document, courts may also review the contents of such document. Id. at 1194 (quoting One Call Prop. Servs. Inc. v. Sec. First Ins. Co., 165 So. 3d 749, 752 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)). Courts may, therefore, consider a defense raised in a motion to dismiss when the basis for such defense appears on the face of the complaint or its exhibits. Id. Because Art District's Complaint facially demonstrates its failure to state a cause of action against Clermont, as further detailed below, the Court should grant this Motion to Dismiss. See id. ARGUMENT WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW I. THE ART DISTRICT LACKS STANDING BECAUSE ITS CLAIMS AGAINST CLERMONT ARE PREMATURE OR SPECULATIVE. "Standing is a threshold inquiry that must be addics5ed before considering the merits of a cause of action." E.g., Cruz v. Cmty. Bank & Trust of Fla., 277 So. 3d 1095, 1097 (Fla, 5th DCA t Citations made herein to Art District's Amended Counterclaim and Third -Party Complaint will accordingly feature the following abbreviation: "Art District Compl." 3 2019); see also Matheson v. Miami -Dade Cnty., 258 So. 3d 516, 519 (Fla- 3d DCA 2018). It requires an "actual controversy" exist between the plaintiff and defendant wherein each litigant maintains "a direct and articulable interest in the controversy." See id. Such interest "must be legally cognizable and not `conjectural or merely hypothetical."' Cruz, 277 So. 3d at 1097 (citing Centerstate Bank Cent. Fla., N.A. v. Krause, 87 So. 3d 25, 28 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)) (emphasis added). As such, when no legally cognizable interest exists, courts should dismiss claims. See id. Here, Art District asserts immaterial and conjectural claims against Clermont. See generally id. For example, Art District's declaratory judgment claim expressly predicates on the underlying lawsuit instituted by the VP Complaint —which brings no claims against Clermont — thereby evidencing Clermont's lack of a "direct and articulable interest in the controversy" at issue. See id.; (Art District Compl. IN 38-41). Second, Art District's breach of contract claim against Clermont repeatedly details its basis on a hypothetical scenario arising "in the event that VP Development has a cognizable express easement or other ingress ... on Art District's Property as a result of the City of Clermont's actions." See id.; (Art District Compl. IN 62-63) (emphasis added). Third, Clermont has yet to cause any damages that would afford Art District standing as an aggrieved person capable of seeking injunctive relief against Clermont. See generally Alger v. U.S., 300 So. 3d 274, 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (discussing legal standing necessary to challenge the action or inaction of a municipality). Thus, the Court should dismiss Counts III through VI of the Art District Complaint improperly brought against Clermont. See generally id. II. COUNT III FAILS TO ALLEGE A SUFFICIENT NEED FOR DECLARATORV JUDGMENT AGAINST CLERMONT. The test for sufficiency of a declaratory judgment claim examines whether a party demonstrates entitlement to a declaration of rights. Wildflower, LLC v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 179 So. 3d 369, 372-73 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). A plaintiff must accordingly allege "a 4 bona fide, actual, present practical need for the declaration." Syfrett v. Syfrett-Moore ex rel. Estate ofSyfrett, 115 So. 3d 1127, 1130 (Fla. I st DCA 2019). Conclusory allegations of such need, absent further support, fail to satisfy the pleading standard required. Id. Moreover, only those with an "`actual, present, adverse[,] and antagonistic interest in the subject matter' should be before the court" in a proceeding seeking declaratory relief. Yanes v. OCI'ood & Beverage LLC, 300 So. 2d 798, 801 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (quoting Dept of Educ. v. Glasser, 622 So. 2d 944, 948 (Fla. 1993)); see also Syfrett, 115 So. 3d at 1330 (quoting May v. Holley, 59 So. 2d 636, 639 (Fla. 1952)). In Count III, Art District fails to establish that Clermont maintains an "actual, present, adversej. I and antagonistic interest" in the right of use VP supposedly claims over Art District's Property. See id. (emphasis added); (Art District Compl. ¶1I 43-45). Clermont not only holds no legally cognizable property interest in the disputed five -feet -wide section of Art District's Property, but Art District fails to allege any such present interest of Clennont—let alone one adverse and antagonistic to Art District's Property. See, e.g., id. The prayer for relief in Count III of Art District's Complaint underscores Clermont's immateriality to such declaratory judgment by making no reference to Clermont. See (Art District Compl. at 6). Furthermore, much like the plaintiff in Syfrett, Art District fails to support its conclusory allegations of a present, actual, bona fide need for declaratory relief against Clennont. See Syfrett, 11.5 So. 3d at 1130; (Art District Compl. ¶ 47). As pled, Art District seeks a declaratory judgment "to determine the existence of a legal right of ingress and egress across Art District's Property.„ (Art District Compl. 132). It expressly predicates the need for such judgment on the controversy created by the VP Complaint —a controversy to which Clermont is not a party. (Art District Compl. IN 38-41). As such, Art District alleges no basis upon which to reasonably infer that 5 Clermont maintains an actual, present, adverse, and antagonistic interest in a determination of rights to the disputed property —when Clermont neither holds nor claims any present right to such. See S}frett, 115 So. 3d at 1130; (Art District Compl. IN 32-50). The Court should accordingly dismiss Count III to the extent it improperly seeks relief against Clermont. See id. III. ART DISTRICT FAILS TO PLEAD ALL ELEMENTS NECESSARY FOR ITS BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM IN COUNT IV. "The elements of a breach of contract action are: (1) a valid contract; (2) a material breach; and (3) damages." E.g., J.J. Gumberg Co. v. Janis Servs., Inc., 847 So. 2d 1048, 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (quoting Abbott Lab., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Cap., 765 So. 2d 737, 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)). When a party fails to establish that a breach or damages occurred, the court must dismiss the claim. See, e.g., Detwiler v. Bank of Cent. Fla., 736 So. 2d 757, 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (dismissing breach of contract claim where plaintiff failed to establish breach); Nat'l Airlines, Inc. v. Edwards, 336 So. 2d 545, 546 (Fla. 1976) (dismissing breach of contract claim where plaintiff only alleged speculative damages). Here, Art District alleges a breach and damages that it expressly premises on a hypothetical circumstance, thereby establishing that such breach and damages have not yet occurred. See generally id.; (Art District Compl. IT 61-63). Art District expressly predicates its breach of contract claim on breaches and damages arising "in the event that VP Development has a cognizable express easement or other ingress ... on Art District's Property as a result of the City of Clermont's actions." (Art District Compl. 61-63) (emphasis added). Because no such easement or other right of access conclusively oniais on Art District's Property per Art District's own allegations, Art District prematurely asserts a breach of contract claim. See id. As such, the Court should dismiss Count IV of the Art District Complaint for failure to state a claim for breach of contract. See, e.g., id.; Detwiler, 736 So. 2d at 758. 0 W. ART DISTRICT FAILS TO PLEAD ALL ELEMENTS NECESSARY TO THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IT SEEKS IN COUNT V AND COUNT VI. To obtain a temporary injunction, a party must set forth: (1) a sufficient likelihood of irreparable harm should the court defer injunctive relief, (2) the inadequacy of all other remedies available at law; (3) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) consideration of the public interest. Naegele Outdoor Advert. Co. v. City of Jacksonville, 659 So. 2d 1046, 1047 (Fla. 1995). First, "irreparable harm is not established where the potential loss can be adequately compensated for by a monetary award." B.G.H. Ins. Svndicate, Inc. v. Presidential Fire & Cas. Co., 549 So. 2d 197, 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Second, an adequate remedy at law exists where the party could obtain monetary damages through another cause of action, such as breach of contract. Id. Third, a substantial likelihood of success on the merits requires showing a "prima facie, clear legal right to the relief requested." Naegele, 659 So. 2d at 1048. Lastly, consideration of the public interest prevents issuance of injunctions detrimental to paramount public interests. Wilson v. Sandstrom, 317 So. 2d 732, 736 (Fla. 1975). Failure to allege facts supporting each afore -described prerequisite to injunctive relief renders a complaint insufficient to state such cause of action. See, e.g., State Road Dept. of Fla. v. Frugoli, 123 So. 2d 473, 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960) (finding a complaint pled all elements requisite to injunctive relief). Though Art District specifically alleges each element in Count I for Injunctive Relief against VP, Counts V and VI for Injunctive Relief against Clermont lack those same allegations. See, e.g., (Ail District Compl. ¶ 16, TJ 19-20). Thus, because Art District failed to establish all prerequisites to injunctive relief in Counts V and Vl, as further explained herein below, the Court should dismiss them. See generally, e.g., B. G.H. Ins., 549 So. 2d at 198. A. Art District Fails to Demonstrate to a Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits of Count V. 7 Standing to enforce local land development codes only exists for parties aggrieved or adversely affected by the inconsistent enforcement. E.g., Save Homosassa Raver Alliance, Inc. v. Citrus Cnty., 2 So. 3d 329, 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Fla. Rock Props. v. Keyser, 709 So. 2d 175, 176-77 (Fla. Sth DCA 1998). Property ownership alone, therefore, fails to confer such standing. E.g., Fla. Rock Props., 709 So. 2d at 177. Instead, a plaintiff must allege: (1) it holds interests protected by the land development code, (2) those interests "exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons," and (3) those interests will be adversely affected by the challenged decision. Save Honosassa River Alliance, 2 So. 3d at 337. Therefore, an adjacent landowner may only bring an action to enforce local land development codes upon alleging adverse impact specific to his property interest. Fla. Rock Props., 709 So. 2d at 177 (citing Southwest Ranches Homeowners Assn, Inc. v. Broward Cnty., 502 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 511 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 1987)); see also O'Connell v. Fla. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs, 874 So. 2d 673, 676-77 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (finding no standing where the plaintiffs failed to state "how" the action will adversely affect them). Art District makes no allegation that code enforcement inaction on VP's Property adversely affects its interests exceeding "the general interest in community good shared by all persons." See, e.g., Save Homosassa River Alliance, 2 So. 3d at 337; (Art District Compl. T 70-80). Though Art District alleges it owns property adjacent to VP's Property, Art District proffers nothing beyond conclusory allegations of unspecified "damage" from the non -enforcement. See rla. Rock Props., 709 So. 2d at 177; (Art District Compl. ¶ 7, ¶¶ 77-79). Because Art District never specifies the type or extent of such damagc, the allegations in Count V necessarily fail to demonstrate that Art District maintains an interest beyond that commonly held by the general public, as Art District pleads no basis to infer it suffers damages beyond those experienced by all who share an interest 8 in the community good. See, e.g., O'Connell, 874 So. 2d at 677; (Art District Compl. IN 70-80). The Court should accordingly dismiss Count V, pursuant to Art District's failure to establish a clear legal right to the relief it seeks.' See, e.g., id.; Naegele, 659 So. 2d at 104748. B. Art District Fails to Plead All Elements Requisite to the Iniunetive Relief It Requests in Count VI. "Irreparable harm and lack of an adequate remedy at law are both prerequisites to injunctive relief." B.G.H. Ins., 549 So. 2d at 198. When a party maintains the ability to bring a cause of action that provides money damages for its loss, the party satisfies neither afore -mentioned prerequisites to injunctive relief. Id. Such circumstance exists here. See id. Li Count II, Art District brings a trespass claim against VP, seeking money damages for the same defective stormwater system at issue in Count VI. (Art District Compl. at 4). Thus, akin to the plaintiff in B. G.H. Insurance, by accepting all its allegations as true, Art District necessarily fails to establish its entitlement to injunctive relief in Count VI because it demonstrates an adequate remedy at law and the ability to obtain adequate monetary compensation for the damages caused by the defective stormwater system, as evidenced by its trespass claim in Count II. See 549 So. 2d at 198, CONCLUSION WHEREFORE Third -Party Defendant, CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court: (1) dismiss with prejudice THE ART DISTRICT, LLC's Amended Counterclaim and Third -Party Complaint as to all counts against CITY OF CLERMONT, FLQK1DA, or alternatively, dismiss any combination of Counts III through Vl therein with or without prejudice; (2) award CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA its attorneys' fees a An District also fails to allege a lack of adequate remedy at law, which notably contrasts its allegation of a lack of such remedy in its claim for injunctive relief against VP in Count T. Compare (Art District Compl. 41 16; TT 70-80). 9 and costs, pursuant to Section 7 of the March 25, 2019 Agreement between CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA and THE ART DISTRICT, LLC; and (3) award any such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 21st day of June, 2021, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed with the Clerk of Court through the Florida Courts' E-Filing Portal, which will send notice of electronic filing and complete service of the foregoing, as required by Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.516, to: Tyler S. Van Voorhees, Esq., The Reed Law Firm, Post Office Box 120280, Clermont, Florida 34712-0280, (tyler@wmrlegal.com, thefirm@wmrlegal.coin); and Zachary T. Broome, Esq., Bowen & Schroth, P.A., 600 Jennings Avenue, Eustis, Florida 32726 (zbroome@bowensehroth.com, jyoung@bowenschroth.com, dmorton@bowenschroth.com), Respectfully submitted, /s/ Thomas F. Neal THOMAS F. NEAL tneal@dsklawgroup.com Inovak@dsklawgroup.com Florida Bar Number: 603368 CAITLIN N. EMLING cemling@dsklawgroup.com Florida Bar Number: 1026551 de Beaubien, Simmons, Knight Mantzaris & Neal, LLP 332 North Magnolia Avenue Post Office Box 87 Orlando, Florida 32802-0087 Telephone: (407) 422-2454 Facsimile: (407) 849-1845 Attorneys for City of Clermont 10