01.24.2022 - City Council MinutesCity of Clermont
MINUTES
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
January 24, 2022
CALL TO ORDER
The City Council met in a special meeting on Tuesday, January 24, 2021 in the Clermont City Council
Chambers. Mayor Murry called the meeting to order at 6:30pm with the following Council Members
present: Council Members Pines, Entsuah, and Purvis.
Absent: Council Member Bates
Other City officials present were City Manager Bulthuis, City Attorney Mantzaris, and City Clerk Howe.
NEW BUSINESS
Prior to hearing the agenda item Mayor Murry informed the public that due to the nature of the special
meeting, public discussion would be limited specifically to the item on the agenda.
The Mayor then led the Council and attending public in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ITEM NO. 1 — REQUEST FOR REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR LILLY'S ON THE LAKE LOCATED AT 846/848 W.
OSCEOLA STREET
City Attorney Mantzaris informed the Council that there are two separate items for the Council to consider:
the first being the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and the second being the Certificate of Occupancy (CO)
for Lilly's on the Lake. The items are being considered in compliance with the City Code (14-62, 86-146).
Since this is a quasi-judicial matter, all witnesses will be sworn in by the City Clerk and must only speak
to the items being presented. The Council can ask questions at any time. The City's position will be
presented by Attorney Patrick Brackins of Shepard, Smith, Kohlmyer and Hand. City Attorney Mantzaris
advised the Council that he will serve as legal counsel to the Council.
Patrick Brackins — City's Advocate. Attorney Brackins informed the Council that City Attorney Mantzaris
cannot serve both as prosecutor andver advisor to the Council; this is why Attorney Brackins is before them
this evening. Attorney Brackins reviewed the rules and regulations governing quasi-judicial proceedings.
He informed the Council that due to children being present, salacious materials have been provided to the
Council in a packet form and will not be displayed on the screen. He informed the public that these materials
are public record and can be requested by the public. He informed the Council that their decision needs to
be based on evidence and not emotional testimony; and, they need to determine if the evidence provided is
sufficient enough to support the City Manager's recommendation to revoke both the CUP and CO for the
facility.
City Clerk Howe swore in all witnesses from the City and the respondent who planned to speak. Attorney
Brackins informed those present that public comment is different than testimony and only those who wished
to testify as a witness needed to be sworn in.
For the record, Attorney Brackins informed the defendant that he was not her attorney, but did explain who
would need to be sworn in for the defendants side.
City Attorney Mantzaris informed those in attendance that before the City Council takes final action, the
public will be provided an opportunity to comment.
Attorney Brackins called Curt Henschel, Planning & Development Services Director, as his first witness.
City of Clermont
MINUTES
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
January 24, 2022
Attorney Brackins directed Director Henschel to turn to Tab 2 in the binder which was the City Manager's
Notice to Revoke the Certificate of Occupancy and Conditional Use Permit. Attorney Brackins informed
the Council that the City does not have to establish that Lilly's violated each of accused items; they only
need to establish a violation of one in order to revoke them.
Director Henschel provided testimony to the nature of the Certificate of Occupancy and its purpose as well
as a Conditional Use Permit and its purpose.
Attorney Brackins directed the Council's attention to Tab 3 and asked if a CUP was similar to a special
exception in purpose and intent. Director Henschel confirmed that it was. He continued that Lilly's on the
Lake received a CUP in July 2012 and confirmed that it was document contained under Tab 5.
Attorney Brackins asked Director Henschel if adult entertainment activities were permitted in the City.
Director Henschel informed the Council that the nudity code prohibits adult entertainment. He also
confirmed that the CUP provided to Lilly's does not provide any special exception to allow for a deviation
from the code requirements as related to adult entertainment or nudity.
Attorney Brackins asked if Lilly's has a history of code complaints against them. Director Henschel stated
that Code Enforcement has had to interact with Lilly's over the years on code compliance issues.
Attorney Brackins asked Director Henschel to review Tab 6 and asked if there are zoning requirements
contained within the chapter. Director Henschel confirmed that there were.
Attorney Brackins concluded his questioning of Director Henschel. He informed the Council that the
recommendation to revoke the CO and CUP comes with a unanimous recommendation for approval from
the City's own Planning & Zoning Commission who had a hearing on the issue the prior week.
Attorney Brackins yielded the witness for cross examination. Ms. Verneka Strom, who is the property
owner and representing pro se for Lilly's on the Lake, indicated that she did not have any questions. The
City Council also indicated that they did not have any questions.
Attorney Brackins called Evie Wallace, Code Enforcement Officer, as his next witness. Officer Wallace
informed those in attendance that she is the ranking code compliance officer in the department and
supervises the other officers. She has approximately six (6) years of supervisory experience with the City
of Clermont.
Attorney Brackins asked if Lilly's had a history of code violations. Officer Wallace responded that there
have been several complaints of noise, unpermitted structures, property, and fire code violations.
Attorney Brackins asked Officer Wallace to turn to Tab 5 and verify the CUP for Lilly's on the Lake; he
also asked her if she was familiar with the CUP. Officer Wallace answered both questions in the affirmative.
Attorney Brackins asked if Officer Wallace was familiar with the city's adult entertainment and nudity code
provisions and if either code was provided for in the Lilly's CUP. Officer Wallace responded that she was
familiar with both codes and that the CUP did not provide for an exemption from either code.
Attorney Brackins asked Officer Wallace if straddle dancing was prohibited by the code. Officer Wallace
confirmed that it was. He asked Officer Wallace to read the second definition of straddle dancing into the
record. Officer Wallace read the definition into the record from the code.
2
City of Clermont
MINUTES
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
January 24, 2022
Attorney Brackins asked Officer Wallace if she was familiar with the city codes prohibition on the sale of
alcohol at an adult entertainment facility. She confirmed that she was.
Attorney Brackins asked Officer Wallace a series of questions related to the events on November 30'', 2021.
Office Wallace stated that at approximately 7:30/8:00 PM she met the Fire Marshall at Lilly's on the Lake
on a Tuesday evening and witnessed adult entertainment activities as defined by the code which she
proceeded to document by camera. She clarified for the record that she only took pictures and no video.
She stated that she was unaware if video was taken that night. She informed the Council that upon arrival
she went straight to the dining room area which had approximately sixty (60) chairs set up. When the show
started, it was standing room only; it was hard to walk around and was very crowded. She continued that
several dancers were straddling the patrons. The dancer known as Maximus was in the nude exposing his
buttocks and had a black sock covering his front genital area. She testified that she witnessed Maximus
touching patrons while straddling them, and that he had the patrons touch him as well.
Officer Wallace used a floor plan of the facility to show the council where she was when she witnessed the
events occurring.
Attorney Brackins directed Officer Wallace to Tab 10 and asked her what the city's nudity code prohibits
with regards to males. Officer Wallace read the code prohibitions into the record; which includes exposure
of the buttocks. Attorney Brackins asked Officer Wallace if she witnessed nudity as defined by the code at
Lilly's. Officer Wallace replied in the affirmative.
Attorney Brackins directed the Council to turn to Tab 7 which was a selection of photographs followed by
two (2) documents. Since the photos contained nudity, they were not described, but Attorney Brackins
informed those in attendance that they are public record and can be requested.
Attorney Brackins asked Officer Wallace if the photos provided were accurate depictions of the events she
witnessed, contain nudity, contain straddle dancing, and contain simulated sexual activity. Officer Wallace
answered in the affirmative to each item.
Attorney Brackins asked Officer Wallace if Lilly's was in violation of their CUP on November 30, 2021.
Officer Wallace answered in the affirmative due to having adult entertainment activities not allowed by
their permit and having nudity onsite.
Attorney Brackins asked Officer Wallace if she witnessed any non -simulated sexual activity on November
30, 2021. Officer Wallace stated from her viewpoint in the back of the dining hall, she was able to witness
contact on contact interaction between the dancer and patron. It appeared to her like some sort of sexual
performance was being done to the dancer based on his moves and motions.
Attorney Brackins asked how many people were present that evening. Officer Wallace stated that at one
point she counted between 70 and 75 people which are fairly and accurately reflected in the photographs
under Tab 8. She clarified that additional patrons showed up after the photos were taken. It was described
as a shoulder -to -shoulder, packed house. Officer Wallace indicated that she was at the event from
approximately 8:00 PM and left at 10:30 PM while the event was still going on.
Attorney Brackins asked Officer Wallace if she returned to the property for a different event after the events
of November 30, 2021. Officer Wallace replied that she accompanied the Fire Marshall to the site due to a
fire call out and assisted in taking pictures.
City of Clermont
MINUTES
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
January 24, 2022
Attorney Brackins yielded the witness for cross examination by Ms. Strom. Ms. Strom indicated she had
no questions for the witness. The City Council also indicated that they did not have any questions.
Attorney Brackins continued the questioning of Officer Wallace. He asked her about the event that occurred
after the November 30, 2021 incident and what she observed. Officer Wallace clarified for the record that
she was there, but was not on duty at the time so there is not much she can say. She confirmed that she did
take pictures and the pictures show what she witnessed.
Mayor Murry asked Officer Wallace what made her go to Lilly's on the night of November 30, 2021 and
if she received a complaint. Officer Wallace stated that she was directed by her department director to assist
the fire department with their inspection of the event. She added that it is not uncommon for code
enforcement officers to assist other departments to serve as a witness if required and to make sure
compliance is met. Additionally, she felt that it was in the best interest of the City to remain there for the
event so that Fire Marshall Pierce was not alone at the event.
Attorney Brackins asked Officer Wallace what brought herself and other members of city staff to the event.
Officer Wallace informed the Council that they were informed via social media about the event which
included phrasing "Magic Mike" and stated it was a sold out show.
Attorney Brackins asked Officer Wallace to define "Magic Mike". Officer Wallace defined "Magic Mike"
in relation to the movie.
Attorney Brackins asked Officer Wallace to describe the surrounding area as shown in the photos under
Tab 7.Officer Wallace stated that the area was to the right of the establishment and was where the dancers
were prepping. The bar area, which were not patrons of the event, could clearly see the show through the
glass. It was unclear if the patrons in the bar were also patrons to the event.
Attorney Brackins placed into the record that public safety officials came onsite because of potential public
safety issues including fire code violations and potential for law enforcement intervention.
Council Member Entsuah asked in relation to the nudity code at whose discretion is it to determine if genital
coverage meets the code.
City Attorney Mantzaris replied that if this was being brought to the Special Magistrate as a code violation
case, it would be the officer's interpretation of the code provision. However, the City Council is sitting in
that role tonight and will need to determine if the code has been satisfied.
City Attorney Mantzaris informed the Council that as they are sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity it is on the
Council to interpret the facts as presented to determine if the City Code has been violated.
Attorney Brackins allowed Officer Wallace to step down and called Fire Marshall Pierce as his next witness.
Attorney Brackins asked Fire Marshall Pierce to state her name and position for the record. Fire Marshall
Pierce stated that she serves as the Assistant Fire Chief for Prevention and as Fire Marshall for the City of
Clermont.
Attorney Brackins asked if the Florida Fire Prevention Code was incorporated into the Clermont City Code.
Fire Marshall Pierce stated that the Florida Fire Prevention Code is made up of two (2) different codes
which are handed down from the State of Florida for all municipalities; these codes are adopted via
ordinance and then are regulated by the City.
4
City of Clermont
MINUTES
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
January 24, 2022
Attorney Brackins directed Fire Marshall Pierce to turn to the Notices of Revocation under Tab 2. Attorney
Brackins admitted for the record that the two notices are largely identical. The documents assert that there
was a lack of egress at Lilly's that night. Fire Marshall Pierce defined egress for the Council and stated that
it is a violation of both the Fire Code and the City Code to lock a designated egress.
Attorney Brackins asked a series of questions regarding the Fire Code as it relates to certificates of
occupancy. Fire Marshall Pierce confirmed that a business owner must consider the Fire Code during their
site plan submission as part of their life -safety plan. For the life -safety plan for Lilly's on the Lake, Fire
Marshall Pierce indicated that she conducted the original review of the site plan and at that time expressed
concerns with regards to the life -safety plan. She expressed occupant load concerns with regards to the
room designated as the "meeting room" and had a conversation with the facility architect. She informed
him that there were certain fire protection needs that would be required if they wanted to do anything above
what was submitted in their original site plan. She was very clear that if they did not wish to install the
enhanced fire safety measures they would be limiting the use of the building. In the "meeting room", the
site plan showed a layout of tables and chairs for thirty-six (36) which is the occupant load. A comment
was made on the site plan that this layout was to never change.
Attorney Brackins clarified that an additional thirty-four (34) occupant load is available in the dining room.
Attorney Brackins directed the Council to Tab 12 which has two letters addressed to Fire Marshall Pierce.
After confirming her familiarity with the letters, Fire Marshall Pierce explained that the letters were in
regards to her concerns with the occupant load and the architect's response. In the letter, the architect
clarified that the "meeting room" was only to be used for private meetings which would be closed off by
the use of barn doors. The architects letter also states that live music will only be performed outdoors and
that there is no provision for indoor live music.
Attorney Brackins asked Fire Marshall Pierce to explain the letter dated June 26, 2016. Fire Marshall Pierce
stated that the letter is from the principal architect to the building owner with copies sent to the general
contractor and the Clermont Fire Marshall. The letter indicates that the layout of the seating arrangement
cannot be moved for any reason in order to stay in compliance with the Fire Code.
Attorney Brackins asked if it was fair to assume that the restaurant would want greater capacity. Fire
Marshall Pierce responded that the facility as a whole has a current occupant capacity limit of 250, but that
she would understand if they wanted a greater capacity. The aforementioned letter indicates what
architectural elements would need to be redesigned in order to increase the capacity. These included
upgrading fire protection elements, additional AudioNideo, and additional requirements.
Attorney Brackins asked if Fire Marshall Pierce was present at the events on November 30, 2021. Fire
Marshall Pierce stated that she was present and arrived at 7:45 PM. She continued that she had met with
multiple managers about events that were being held inside. This specific event was being advertised as an
event where masks would be required which indicated to her that this was going to be an indoor event. She
made the decision, which is not an uncommon practice, for her to investigate the event for compliance
purposes. She also made a request for assistance from Code Enforcement as they typically work together.
Attorney Brackins asked if city police officers were onsite for the event. Fire Marshall Pierce confirmed
the Clermont Police Department's presence.
5
City of Clermont
MINUTES
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
January 24, 2022
Attorney Brackins asked a series of questions related to the setup of the event. Fire Marshall Pierce informed
the Council that upon her arrival the event was set up to be an indoor event inside the middle room where
the max capacity is thirty-six (36). In the dining room, there was a locked door with a large sign that said
"Ladies Night Out". Out in the bar area, there was an area cordoned off with plastic sheeting for the
performers. The door to the far left had a sign to use the other entrances. The parking was two cars deep
and allowed no room for emergency access. She also noted that other means of egress were locked at that
time.
Attorney Brackins asked what happens if a fire breaks out in situations like she described. Fire Marshall
Pierce responded that generally there is first a sense of panic and typically people will want to exit via the
door that they came in. In the case of Lilly's that night, the common means of egress were either locked or
blocked. Other issues observed included the use of live music and the absence of any certified crowd
managers, which is required at any event of fifty (50) or more patrons.
Attorney Brackins asked if Lilly's was in compliance with the fire code upon Fire Marshall Pierce's arrival.
She replied in the negative.
Attorney Brackins asked how long Fire Marshall Pierce stayed at the event. She replied that she spoke with
the manager on duty. The patrons of the event had no idea they were in violation of the fire code. She talked
with the staff and it was decided that she would stay and act as the crowd manager and fire watch. She
informed the manager that there would be an associated fee for her to serve as fire watch and the manager
stated she would need to confirm with the owner. Ultimately, the owner agreed to the proposal and to pay
the fee. She stated that after it was agreed, she had staff unlock the doors, move cars, and do other items to
make it safe. City staff did the best they could to make it as safe as possible.
Attorney Brackins asked if Fire Marshall Pierce had any foreknowledge of what the show would entail. She
replied in the negative. He asked if she had a suspicion of what the show might entail. She replied in the
affirmative. She also confirmed that she witnessed the entire performance, and that she is familiar with both
the City's nudity code and the adult entertainment code.
Attorney Brackins asked if she witnessed any nudity and straddling as described by the code at the event.
Fire Marshall Pierce confirmed that she did. She also confirmed for the Council that the pictures under Tab
7 accurately portray the events she witnessed. Attorney Brackins had Fire Marshall Pierce describe and
discuss each of pictures.
Attorney Brackins asked Fire Marshall Pierce if the violated fire codes she witnessed that night violate the
terms of their CUP and CO. She replied in the affirmative to both.
Attorney Brackins asked if the owner was present at the site. Fire Marshall Pierce replied that the owner
was not onsite.
Attorney Brackins asked for clarification on whether the agreement reached between Fire Marshall Pierce
and the staff at Lilly's erased the violations. She replied in the negative. He continued by asking if she had
been compensated for the arrangement that was reached to provide fire watch and crowd management
services. Fire Marshall Pierce replied that she was paid last week.
Attorney Brackins asked if Fire Marshall Pierce had been to Lilly's since the event on November 30, 2021.
She replied that she was present for an outdoor micro -wrestling event that occurred on December 9. 2021
N.
City of Clermont
MINUTES
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
January 24, 2022
which was the second time such an event had occurred at the location. She confirmed for the Council that
the pictures contained under Tab 11 accurately portray what she witnessed.
Attorney Brackins asked if there was anything about the December 9, 2021 event that violated the fire code.
Fire Marshall Pierce stated that the requirement for a certified crowd manager was not met. She also
described how fire protection was set behind a barrier. She made a comment that she also witnessed that
the path of egress was blocked off on the path around the restaurant. She remained at the event for 1.5-2
hours.
Attorney Brackins asked if there was live music at the event. Fire Marshall Pierce confirmed that there was
as part of the show. This event occurred on a Thursday evening and lasted past 10:00 pm.
Attorney Brackins had Fire Marshall Pierce read into the record paragraph 13 of the Lilly's CUP which
states that there will be no outdoor music past 10:00 pm. She confirmed for Attorney Brackins that the
event on December 9, 2021 also violated the terms of the CUP.
Attorney Brackins yielded the witness for cross examination by Ms. Verneka Strom.
Ms. Strom asked Fire Marshall Pierce if she noticed any outside set up when she arrived on November 30,
2021. Fire Marshall Pierce replied that there was a 10 x 10 tent with picnic tables set up in the same area.
She continued that when Ms. Strom spoke with the fire department, the event was supposed to be outside.
The promoter informed her on November 30, 2021 that the event was always planned to be inside.
Ms. Strom submitted emails into the record indicating that the event was supposed to be outside and was
never meant to be held indoors.
Ms. Strom asked Fire Marshall Pierce about her comments regarding upgrades to the fire prevention and
suppression system and if the Fire Department has ever received calls from vendors related to quotes for
Lilly's. Fire Marshall Pierce confirmed that she has spoken with several fire suppression vendors that called
in regards to Lilly's on the Lake. She added that the purpose of the calls was in regards to the City's
requirement that Lilly's has a voice evacuation system which is typically only for businesses with a capacity
greater than 300 people. The City has consistently held that if the tables and chairs are rearranged, it
increases the occupant load. If Lilly's wants to increase their occupant load to 300, than the voice evacuation
system is required.
Ms. Strom submitted for the record quotes to upgrade the system. City Attorney Mantzaris informed Ms.
Strom that she would be able to elaborate during her testimony.
Ms. Strom asked what Fire Marshall Pierce's experience has been working with the staff each time she has
come to Lilly's. Fire Marshall Pierce stated that she has met with multiple managers, and each new manager
states that they are unaware of the event requirements.
Ms. Strom asked if Fire Marshall Pierce noticed the security personnel at either of the events. Fire Marshall
Pierce responded that when she spoke to the security guards, none were able to produce their state approved
certification card which is required for all events. Ms. Strom asked if that information had ever been relayed.
Fire Marshall Peirce stated that the information was relayed in the past and further stated that even for city
events the certification is required. This is why all Arts & Recreation Center staff are certified crowd
managers. Ms. Strom asked if this is a service provided by the City. Fire Marshall Pierce replied that
7
City of Clermont
MINUTES
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
January 24, 2022
businesses can supply their own staff, they just have to be state certified and that she has spoken to Mr.
Warner about this several times.
Ms. Strom wished to clarify for the record that staff was present for crowd control, but were not certified.
With regards to the event on December 9, 2021, Ms. Strom asked if Fire Marshall Pierce was confident that
the music went past 10:00 pm. Fire Marshall Pierce responded that she was confident and clarified that live
music does not just mean with a performer, but music associated with a show as well.
Ms. Strom concluded her questioning.
Council Member Entsuah asked if Fire Marshall Pierce could expand on the requirements for crowd
management and certification. Fire Marshall Pierce responded that any assembly over fifty (50) attendees
is required to have a certified crowd manager. The city offers a free class for certification periodically. For
every 250 attendees, the location is required to have additional certified crowd control management.
Council Member Purvis asked Fire Marshall Pierce to enter into the record her education and appointments
to qualify her as an expert witness. Fire Marshall Pierce informed the Council of her qualifications.
Council Member Pines asked how many doors were locked at the event on November 30, 2021. Fire
Marshall Pierce stated that one (1) door was locked and two (2) were blocked. Council Member Pines asked
what kind of lock was used on the locked door. Fire Marshall Pierce stated that it is an unapproved locking
mechanism on the west side door that is not normal for a restaurant.
The City Council concluded their questioning.
Attorney Brackins clarified for the record that the CUP does not differentiate between live music and non -
live music. The text in Tab 5 Paragraph 13 states outdoor music.
Attorney Brackins asked Fire Marshall Pierce about the last photo in Tab 8 that shows a City of Clermont
Officer in patrol uniform and asked how many law enforcement personnel were present. She responded that
two (2) officers were present at the event, but not at the same time. She also confirmed that the employees
and talent were aware that law enforcement and other city personnel was present.
Attorney Brackins concluded his questioning and allowed the witness to step down. He informed the
Council that this concludes his witnesses, and that he will reserve time after the respondent for closing
arguments.
City Attorney Mantzaris informed Ms. Strom that this was her opportunity to call witnesses in support of
her case.
Ms. Strom called Sandy Pyne to testify. Ms. Pyne serves as the general manager for Lilly's on the Lake.
Ms. Strom asked Ms. Pyne to describe what was supposed to happen for the event held on November 30,
2021. Ms. Pyne responded that the event was supposed to be held outside. With the assistance of
maintenance, she set up two (2) 12x12 canopies and purchased plywood for the event. Approximately four
hours of staff time was used to set up for the event outside.
Ms. Strom asked if there was any discussion of nudity with the performance group once they arrived onsite.
Ms. Pyne replied that there was never any discussion as this was supposed to be an outside event. It was
8
City of Clermont
MINUTES
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
January 24, 2022
never intended to be an inside event; moving it inside was a last minute decision. Ms. Pyne apologized for
making that decision.
Ms. Strom asked if Lilly's has ever hosted any nudity groups. Ms. Pyne responded that they have never had
anything like this. She added that she was threatened and pressured by the promotional company to make
a decision when she could not reach the owners.
Ms. Strom asked how many staff does Lilly's employ. Ms. Pyne responded that there are approximately
thirty-seven (37) employees. Ms. Strom asked if Ms. Pyne believes the Lilly's ownership would jeopardize
their staff s livelihoods in order to have a nude event. Ms. Pyne responded in the negative.
Ms. Strom yielded the witness for cross examination by Attorney Brackins.
Attorney Brackins asked if Lilly's advertised the event that took place on November 30, 2021. Ms. Pyne
stated that Lilly's promoted the event in accordance with their agreement, but they did not collect any ticket
funds as those were handled by the promotions company. She added that she was unaware of how much
the tickets were for the event.
Attorney Brackins asked if Lilly's made any money that night. Ms. Pyne responded that the business did
make money, but not as much as they were expecting.
Attorney Brackins.asked Ms. Pyne if she is the General Manager and if she was present for the event. She
confirmed that she is the General Manager and was onsite for the event. He asked if there were sixty (60)
people in the dining room. She confirmed that was a fair number, but was not aware she was in violation
as she was going by the building occupancy and not the room occupancy. He asked if she was aware of the
CUP. Ms. Pyne stated she was not aware of it until this incident occurred and had never seen it before and
did not know that it was the source of the rules for the restaurant.
Attorney Brackins informed Ms. Pyne that the City Code prohibits the exposure of the male buttocks and
another section prohibits straddle dancing. He asked Ms. Pyne if she witnessed either of those that evening.
Ms. Pyne responded in the affirmative to both.
Attorney Brackins asked Ms. Pyne if she had knowledge of the Facebook post. Ms. Pyne responded that
she has no knowledge of the Facebook post and does manage the page.
Attorney Brackins concluded his questioning of Ms. Pyne.
Council Member Purvis asked who booked the event. Ms. Pyne responded that they employ an events
person. Council Member Purvis asked if the events employee is compensated. Ms. Strom replied that
employee works remotely and is contacted by different promoters.
Council Member Purvis asked if the events employee arranged the wrestling matches. Ms. Strom replied
in the affirmative.
Council Member Entsuah asked Ms. Pyne if she was able to get a hold of Ms. Strom to agree for the Fire
Marshall Watch Fee. Ms. Pyne said she did not speak with Ms. Strom that evening and she made the
decision herself to engage with the Fire Department.
Mayor Murry asked if the contract for the group included any reference to nudity. Ms. Strom replied in the
negative.
9
City of Clermont
MINUTES
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
January 24, 2022
Mayor Murry asked why an effort was not made to shut it down at that time. Ms. Strom stated that she was
not there. She repeated that this event was supposed to be outside and that is was supposed to be light
hearted, choreographed dancing.
Mayor Murry asked Ms. Pyne to confirm that she was pressured to make a decision. Ms. Pyne replied in
the affirmative and that she was threatened by the entertainments onsite management.
Council Member Purvis asked Ms. Pyne to expand on the threat. Ms. Pyne stated that the performers refused
to perform outside and began carrying their equipment inside without permission. They threatened to walk
off and charge a cancellation fee if the event was not moved inside. Ms. Pyne stated that when she was
approached by the Fire Marshall and realized that the fee to have safety personnel onsite was significantly
less than the cost of the cancellation fee, so she made a judgement call.
Mayor Murry asked again why the event was not shut down when the nudity occurred. Ms. Strom replied
that they had no impression that nudity was part of the performance.
Council Member Purvis asked if the entertainment were paid for their services. Ms. Strom replied that they
were not paid by the location and made their money through ticket sales. Lilly's revenue was to be realized
through food and drink sales. She clarified for the record that no portion of the ticket sale proceeds were
received by Lilly's.
Mayor Murry wanted to clarify for the record that the sale of alcoholic drinks at an adult entertainment
event is not allowed under the code either.
Council Member Entsuah asked the name of the promotions group. Ms. Pyne said that she could not recall
the name of the promoter, but she did receive a contact to communicate with.
Mayor Murry asked if the contact was onsite the night of the event. Ms. Pyne replied in the negative.
Council Member Purvis asked Ms. Pyne if she was on duty the night of the wrestling match and asked why
the event went longer than 10:00 pm. Ms. Pyne replied that the event was over by 10:00 pm, but they were
there after that hour wrapping up and taking down their stage.
Council Member Purvis stated that he has on his phone a message received at 10:20 pm that includes the
ongoing sounds of the event on the loud speakers. He asked where the management was that night. Ms.
Pyne replied that she was there onsite.
Council Member Pines asked Ms. Pyne to confirm her prior statement that she has no knowledge of the
CUP. Ms. Pyne replied that she had no prior knowledge. Council Member Pines asked if the CUP had ever
been reviewed with her. Ms. Pyne said that there are many papers in the office that she has not reviewed.
The Council concluded their questioning of the witness.
Ms. Strom called Lisa Fox as her next witness to testify.
Ms. Strom asked how long Ms. Fox has worked for Lilly's on the Lake. Ms. Fox responded that she has
been employed for approximately three (3) years.
Ms. Strom asked if they have ever held an event like this in the past or that the ownership would ever choose
to hold a nudity event. Ms. Fox replied in the negative to both questions.
10
City of Clermont
MINUTES
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
January 24, 2022
Ms. Strom asked how the event was described to staff in preparation. Ms. Fox replied that it was supposed
to be an outdoor event with light dancing and men wearing briefs.
Ms. Strom yielded the witness for cross examination by Attorney Brackins.
Attorney Brackins stated that he did not have any questions for the witness.
Council Member Entsuah asked about Ms. Fox's position at Lilly's. Ms. Fox stated that she is a server and
cook.
Mayor Murry asked if Ms. Fox had a chance to review the pictures in the book in front of her. She responded
that she has seen the pictures. Mayor Murry asked if she had witnessed the activities as shown in the pictures
under Tab 7. Ms. Fox stated that she did not see those activities, but admitted the she was not there for the
full event. She also testified that while she was there the male entertainers were wearing briefs.
Mayor Murry asked if she was surprised to see the event being held inside. She replied in the affirmative.
Council Member Entsuah asked if Ms. Fox was familiar with the term "Magic Mike" and asked her to
describe it. Ms. Fox replied that she believes it has to do with male strippers.
Mayor Murry asked if there were children present that night as the location is continuously described as a
family restaurant. Ms. Fox stated that there were no children present.
The Council concluded their questioning of Ms. Fox.
Ms. Strom called James Anjani as her next witness.
Ms. Strom asked Mr. Anjani what his position with Lilly's is and how long he has been employed. Mr.
Anjani stated that he is the head cook and has been employed since August 2020.
Ms. Strom asked if the event was supposed to be held inside. Mr. Anjani stated that the event was directed
to be held outside and that he assisted with the setup of the plywood for it.
Ms. Strom asked if there was ever any talk of nudity. He replied in the negative.
Ms. Strom asked if the staff knew that the event was going to proceed as it did. He replied in the negative
and stated all the staff knew was that it was to be a "Ladies Night Out."
Ms. Strom asked Mr. Anjani what types of events he has seen at Lilly's and the preparations that go into
events. He replied that he has seen wrestling, luaus, and bands. He added that all events have been held
outside and precautions are always made to make sure there is onsite staff and security.
Ms. Strom yielded the witness for cross examination by Attorney Brackins.
Attorney Brackins asked if Mr. Anjani was familiar with the pad lock on the door. He replied that he is not
familiar with that lock.
Attorney Brackins concluded his questioning of the witness.
Council Member Purvis asked the witness to restate his last name for the record, he then asked what Mr.
Anjani's expectation for serving food that night was seeing that all the tables and chairs had been removed.
11
City of Clermont
MINUTES
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
January 24, 2022
Mr. Anjani responded that at the time, they were still serving food at the outside dining areas and in the bar
area, but then there was no more food after that.
The Council concluded their questioning of the witness.
City Attorney Mantzaris asked if Ms. Strom had any additional witnesses. She indicated that she had no
one further, but would like to make a statement herself.
Ms. Strom made a statement acknowledging everything that has been brought forth against the restaurant
and she takes full responsibility. She offered a sincere apology and stated that what happened was an
embarrassment to herself, her staff, and to the City of Clermont. She asked the Council to focus on all the
good things that Lilly's does in the community. She informed the Council of steps that they have taken to
come into compliance with the fire code and prevent a similar situation from occurring. She presented for
the record emails with the promotional company as well as supplementing emails confirming that the event
was never meant to be held indoors. They have updated their contract for events so that adult entertainment
and nudity codes are strictly adhered too.
She asked the Council to consider the forty (40) plus employees that are employed with Lilly's who serve
hundreds of patrons every week. Their oldest employee is 72 years old and has difficulty finding alternative
work. She also asked the Council to consider the number of charities that they partner with and the
opportunities they provide to local artists and musicians as a venue location to showcase their talents. She
reiterated that she deeply apologizes for this incident and does understand the severity of the situation.
Attorney Brackins acknowledged that Ms. Strom also apologized at the Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting. He also stated that nothing said to the Council conflicts with things that were presented
to the Planning & Zoning Commission.
Attorney Brackins asked Ms. Strom if she denies that the violations occurred as described in the Notices of
Revocation. Ms. Strom responded that the event was never meant to be an indoor event.
Attorney Brackins asked Ms. Strom if the same event had occurred outside and not inside does she believe
that there would not have been a violation. Ms. Strom responded that there was not supposed to be any
nudity.
Attorney Brackins stated that he is not asking about what was supposed to happen, but was asking about
what did happen. He asked the question again. Ms. Strom responded that there was not supposed any nudity
indoors or outdoors.
Attorney Brackins asked Ms. Strom if she is responsible for her restaurant which she replied in the
affirmative. He then stated that by apologizing both tonight and at the prior Planning & Zoning Meeting
that she is acknowledging that violations occurred. Ms. Strom acknowledged that violations did occur.
Attorney Brackins asked Ms. Strom if it is true that she has been aware of the fire code violations since
2014. Ms. Strom replied that any time an issue has come up with the Fire Marshall, they have taken steps
to rectify it immediately. She entered into evidence email correspondence with Jay Sexton of American
Fire Company who asserts that in his conversation with the Fire Marshall it was stated that a voice
evacuation system is not required.
Attorney Brackins asked when the quotes were received. Ms. Strom stated that the quote was obtained
recently, but she has received other verbal quotes in the past that questioned the voice evacuation system.
12
City of Clermont
MINUTES
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
January 24, 2022
Attorney Brackins stated that Tab 12 includes a drawing of the floor plan layout, he asked Ms. Strom if the
image was true and accurate. Ms. Strom confirmed that it was to the best of her knowledge.
Attorney Brackins asked if the event was held outdoors was there an intention to sell alcohol at the event.
Ms. Strom refused to answer the question.
Attorney Brackins asked about the comment made by Ms. Strom that capacity signs were added. He asked
when those signs went up. Ms. Strom replied that they have always been there, what she did was multiply
the signs for increased visibility.
Attorney Brackins asked if the signs put up are for each room, specifically, if the dining room says it has a
capacity of thirty-six (36). Ms. Strom replied that the signs indicated the capacity of the building not each
room.
Attorney Brackins asked for clarification on how Lilly's is now communicating no nudity. Ms. Strom
replied that it is in the contract for events. She entered the contract into evidence.
Attorney Brackins asked Ms. Strom if the quotes she received were received after November 30, 2021. Ms.
Storm stated that the quotes she received were from years ago.
Attorney Brackins asked about the Fire Code violations that occurred at the December 9, 2021 wrestling
event. Ms. Strom stated that she was not made aware of any violations until she heard the testimony today.
She stated that Lilly's makes sure that security is onsite for every event. She was unaware of the certification
requirement.
Attorney Brackins asked if Lilly's has held other events that has required the Fire Marshall to come out.
Ms. Strom stated that she has not been under the impression that they were there to bust them, but to monitor
the situations. She testified that she has never been emailed or called.
Attorney Brackins asked if Ms. Strom was testifying that she is compliant with the Code. Ms. Strom
responded that they have their regular inspections, and she has always made sure to follow up on inspection
findings.
Attorney Brackins asked if Ms. Strom is aware of the floor plan layout requirement. Ms. Strom stated that
if something is found to be deficient she will make it right. Attorney Brackins asked his original question
again. Ms. Strom replied that she has supplied quotes into evidence that shows they are in the works to
make required changes.
Attorney Brackins asked if Ms. Strom is aware what the document showing the floor plan layout requires
as related to the maximum occupancy of the dining room. Ms. Strom responded that she has already
answered the question and supplied proof into evidence.
Attorney Brackins concluded his questioning of the respondent.
City Attorney Mantzaris asked if the Council had any questions for Ms. Strom.
Council Member Pines asked Ms. Strom if she understood that voice evacuation was not required if she did
not exceed her room occupancy, but that also came with the requirement that the floor plan layout remain
unchanged which was a requirement laid down by the City. Ms. Strom replied that she is not an engineer
or architect. Council Member Pines rhetorically asked if Ms. Strom did not receive the guidelines when she
13
City of Clermont
MINUTES
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
January 24, 2022
received her Certificate of Occupancy stating that as the owner it is her responsibility to educate her staff
on the requirements. Ms. Strom stated that she still does not understand the full requirements and is asking
for help as to what is needed.
Council Member Entsuah directed Attorney Brackins to Tab 2 and asked about the violation regarding the
unauthorized use of storage structure and why there has been no testimony or questioning. Attorney
Brackins stated that he did not present evidence because as stated at opening, they have to prove that Lilly's
violated only one of the multiple conditions in order to move forward with the revocation.
Council Member Entsuah asked Ms. Strom about their event contract and if what was entered into evidence
is a template of what they use. He also asked if she has a signed contract with the event companies from
the two events. Ms. Strom stated she does not have a signed contract as there was just an agreement through
email. Before this incident, they did not feel they needed a formal contract and were safe with just email or
verbal agreements. This was a lesson learned and that a contract needs to be in writing.
Attorney Brackins asked if Lilly's did not have a signed contract with the event company on November 30,
2021 how would they have been able to come back with a cancellation fee. Ms. Strom responded that she
did not know how to answer that question.
Council Member Pines asked if the agreement entered into evidence was drafted by an attorney. Ms. Strom
replied that it was not.
Mayor Murry asked if they have any scheduled events for the future. Ms. Strom stated that they do have a
Valentine's event scheduled with musicians. Mayor Murry advised Ms. Strom to make sure her staff
understands the requirements of the city code and CUP. Ms. Strom stated that they all understand now.
Seeing no further comments from the Council, Mayor Murry opened the floor for comments from the
public.
Those in the public who spoke in favor of revocation:
Charlene Forth, 939 W. Desoto Street
Those in the public who spoke in opposition of revocation:
Ashley Morgan, 2045 Crosshairs Circle, Orlando
Kevin Morgan, 2045 Crosshairs Circle, Orlando
Jenna Schambee, 840 S Grand Highway, Apt 22C
At this time a recess was requested by Council Member Purvis to allow the public to view the pictures.
Mayor Murry denied the request and continued with Public Comment.
14
City of Clermont
MINUTES
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
January 24, 2022
Those in the public who spoke in favor of revocation:
Dani Page, Tuscany Ridge, Clermont
Those in the public who spoke in opposition of revocation:
O. Krinitine, 9117 Jack Conduit Road, Clermont
Chedrick Cotton, 9636 Waterfront Circle
Hedrick Morales, 475 Westlap Place, Groveland
Jennifer Van Giller, 14236 Maxus Road, Clermont
Rob Mercer, 331 Pine Street, Orlando
Sandy Pyne, 13549 Hartle Grove Place, Clermont
James Anjani, 10413 Lakeview Drive, Clermont
Lisa Fox, 909 Palm Forrest Lane, Minneola
Tracy Martin, 24025 Reeding Road, Howey in the Hills
Seeing no further speakers, Mayor Murry closed the floor from further comments.
At 9:16 PM, the Council took a recess.
At 9:25 PM, the meeting resumed.
City Attorney Mantzaris informed the Council that they would hear closing arguments from Attorney
Brackins and the respondent.
Attorney Brackins began his final argument by stating that this is a very straightforward issue. The primary
question is will these people be affected by the Council's decision; the answer is no. The decision was
already made by City Manager and it is the Council's responsibility to determine if they will uphold the
code or not. If the decision does somehow affect those that testified or gave public comment, they should
only be looking to the business owner for answers. Beginning in 2014, the business owners were made
aware of fire code violations. but they still allowed an event to take place where more than sixty (60) people
were crammed into a room with locked doors. Attorney Brackins argued that even if the event had occurred
outdoors it still would have violated section 95 of the City Code, and the code violations from the event
seven (7) days later would have still justified the hearing tonight. There were multiple violations of the
adult entertainment, nudity and fire safety codes. The City Administration is asking the Council to sit as
judges who get to weigh the credibility of witnesses and testimony. Attorney Brackins admitted that he
truly believes the owner is apologetic and that the manager is very apologetic for being put in a terrible
position, but the Council has received overwhelming competent, substantial evidence to support the actions
of the City Manager. He pointed the Council back to Tab 1 and stated that if the Council were to determine
against the City Manager that they themselves are not following the requirements of the law. He left the
Council with the question of if Lilly's had no contract, why were they so concerned about a cancellation
fee.
15
City of Clermont
MINUTES
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
January 24, 2022
Ms. Strom began her argument accepting responsibility for what happened stating that it was a sincere
mistake. She feels that she did bring and enter into evidence showing that they have made attempts to rectify
the city and this event. She stated that they will never partner with this group again. With regards to some
of the assertions made by opposing Counsel. She explained that the doors that were locked and blocked
were done so by the promotional company and not by her staff. She requested mercy from the Council and
asked that they not close the restaurant. She concluded stating that this incident has been a significant
learning experience.
Having heard the closing arguments, Mayor Murry brought the issue to the Council for consideration.
Council Member Purvis stated that he does not see a winner in this decision. The owner will lose; the
employees may lose; the City itself has already lost as social media is blowing up and Channel 9 news is
running with a story of the Council possibly closing down a business. He asked City Attorney Mantzaris if
there were any alternatives to revocation.
City Attorney Mantzaris stated that the CUP does have language that allows for the Council to reopen the
permit for further consideration. The Council does have the ability to change some of the terms. He
informed the Council that if they agree with the presentation, every term of the original CUP is now open
for amendment or revision. If the Council chooses to not support the decisions made by the City Manager
for revocation, they would move forward by not revoking the Certificate of Occupancy and focus on
amending the Conditional Use Permit.
Council Member Purvis asked if the Council could amend the CUP at this meeting. City Attorney Mantzaris
stated that they can, but he would need to prepare an appropriate resolution based on their actions. The
Council could also suspend the CUP and require the respondent to return with a new CUP, but that would
require a shutdown in the interim.
Council Member Purvis asked that revocation be taken off the table and that the CUP be amended so that
no outdoor event can take place effective immediately; he would ask that the Council discuss amplified
music; and he would ask that outdoor events be brought to Council for review. He stated he does not want
to see them shut down as a means to show compassion to the forty (40) employees they have on staff.
Mayor Murry stated his agreement with Council Member Purvis and stated he would like to stop indoor
events as well as outdoor.
Council Member Pines spoke in opposition stating that this establishment has shown for years examples of
not following fire and safety codes. She cited a kitchen fire that occurred just last month and stated that the
Council has a responsibility to protect the people.
Council Member Purvis stated that it is his understanding that locked doors has not been an issue in the
past. He believes what this restaurant has had is poor management by the business owners. He critiqued
Ms. Strom's past interactions with the city. He feels that she needs to be put on probation with this CUP.
Council Member Pines asked what that would look like for Code Enforcement and Fire Safety. She does
not want city staff to babysit a business.
Council Member Entsuah stated that while he feels for the employees, something needs to change.
16
City of Clermont
MINUTES
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
January 24, 2022
City Manager Bulthuis informed the Council that Tab 5 is the existing CUP for Lilly's on the Lake. He
informed the Council that their goal is not to shut a business down, but to provide safety for the public. He
asked that the Fire Marshall come back up as there are ongoing issues that need to be addressed. Fire
Marshall Pierce presented a letter dated May 2021 that demonstrates violations that have not been
addressed.
City Attorney Mantzaris informed the Council that regardless of anything that is done now, there are other
means of enforcement that can be exercised for these violations. These are not the issues that are before
them tonight and were not part of the presentation. These can be used for information purposes if the
Council decides to amend provisions within the CUP.
Council Member Purvis asked the Council to reach a determination as to whether Lilly's on the Lake is in
violation of the CUP. If the answer is yes, then a discussion can occur about what action should be taken
next, whether it is action tonight or postponement until staff can return with an amended CUP.
MOTION TO DETERMINE that Lilly's on the Lake is in violation of their existing CUP based
on the presentation of cijy staff made by Council Member Purvis: Seconded by Council Member
Entsuah. Passed unanimous) 4/0 with all members Rresent voicing aye.
MOTION TO IMPOSE immediate restrictions, by amending the current CUP for Lilly's on the Lake in
that all outdoor events and activities, except for dining on the porch, be suspended until staff brings back a
report on the current CUP for the Council, and that this revised CUP shall only be good for 12 months or
until such time that the applicant come back with a new CUP application made by Council Member Purvis;
Motion Died for Lack of Second.
City Attorney Mantzaris asked for clarification on outside activities with regards to dining on the porch.
Council Member Purvis amended his motion to allow for continued dining activity.
City Attorney Mantzaris asked for clarification as to if this Council Member Purvis was doing this as an
amendment to the CUP or not. Council Member Purvis amended his motion to clarify that he was amending
the current CUP.
City Attorney Mantzaris asked for clarification if there was time frame established when the applicant must
come back with a new CUP. Mayor Murry recommended 12 months. Council Member Purvis amended his
motion to clarify that the applicant has 12 months to come before them with a new CUP.
Council Member Entsuah stated he is not in favor of the proposal under discussion.
MOTION TO REVOKE the Conditional Use Permit and Certificate of Occupancy for Lilly's on the Lake
as presented by staff made by Council Member Entsuah; Motion Died for Lack of a Second.
City Manager Bulthuis asked if the Council was good with them continuing to operate as a restaurant, but
with no music inside because of fire code. They would have to keep the set up as is with no live music
inside or outside. If they upgrade, the can do a small event inside.
Council Member Purvis asked City Clerk Howe to recite his original motion with all the amendments. After
hearing the motion, Council Member Purvis restated his motion for second consideration.
MOTION TO IMPOSE immediate restrictions, by amending the current CUP for Lilly's on the Lake in
that all outdoor events and activities, except for dining and beverages on the porch, be suspended until staff
17
City of Clermont
MINUTES
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
January 24, 2022
brings back a report on the current CUP for the Council, and that this revised CUP shall only be good for
12 months or until such time that the applicant come back with a new CUP application made by Council
Member Purvis; Motion Died for Lack of Second.
Council Member Pines asked Fire Marshall Pierce what the City would do to make sure the business is
complying with all fire codes. City Attorney Mantzaris stated that inspections are a routine part of the
activities of the Fire Marshall. Fire Marshall Pierce informed the Council that they would conduct and
investigation and then would follow up on violations. For repeat offenders, such as Lilly's on the Lake,
they are required by Code to follow up quarterly, but she would follow up monthly.
Council Member Entsuah stated he was going to try his motion again.
MOTION TO FOLLOW staff s recommendation and revoke the Certificate of Occupancy and Conditional
Use Permit for Lilly's on the Lake made by Council Member Entsuah; Seconded by Council Member Pines.
Motion Fails due to Tie Vote (2/2).
Council Member Purvis asked for the record where Council Member Bates was. The Council was informed
that he was out of state.
Council Member Pines stated that she never wants to shut a business down, but she feels these owners need
a wakeup call. They can come back when they are ready to apply for a new CUP and CO.
Mayor Murry stated that shutting them down is too extreme.
Council Member Entsuah stated that he thought the goal of this Council was to be different than prior
councils. Mayor Murry stated that they are being different by bringing this to a hearing as other councils
had not done that.
Council Member Purvis asked what would happen if the Council took no action. City Attorney Mantzaris
stated he would have to take a deeper look at the issue, but for the moment, the CUP would remain as is.
Council Member Pines asked about timing for reapplication. Mayor Murry responded that he did not think
they should have the option to return for 12 months. This was supported by Council Member Purvis
Council Member Purvis brought back his motion with the new time amendments for consideration a third
time.
City Attorney Mantzaris informed the Council that the motion would be drafted as a CUP resolution and
placed on file. If passed, it would be active immediately upon conclusion of the vote.
MOTION TO IMPOSE immediate restrictions by amending the current CUP for Lilly's on the
Lake so that all outdoor events and activities. except for dining and beverages on the porch. be
sus ended that staff brings back a report on the current CUP for the Council and that this revised
CUP shall be in place for 12 months after such time that the applicant may return with a new CUP
application made by Council Member Purvis: Second made by Council Member Pines. Passed 3/1
with Council Member with Council Member Entsuah oonosinp-.
CLOSING COMMENTS
City Attorney Mantzaris announced there will be a closed litigation session on January 25, 2022 as part of
tomorrow's regular Council meeting.
18
City of Clermont
MINUTES
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
January 24, 2022
ADJOURN: With no further comments, this meeting adjourned at 10:41 pm.
Tracy Ackroyd Howe, MMC
City Clerk
19
APPROVED: