[PAGE 1]
AGENDA
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
CITY HALL, 501 W MEADOW STREET
MONDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2025 5:30 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA
2. PROCLAMATIONS:
A. None
3. PRESENTATIONS:
A. Recognition of Pop Warner Football and Pop Warner Cheerleading teams for
Mid-Florida Championships
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
This section is reserved for members of the public to bring up matters of concern or
opportunities for praise. Please note that issues raised during this time will not be
discussed in detail during the current meeting. They will either be referred to the
appropriate staff or scheduled for consideration at a future City Commission Meeting.
Each speaker is allocated three minutes to provide their comments. Kindly adhere to this
time limit to ensure equal opportunity for all participants and to support the efficient
conduct of the meeting. Thank you!
5. CONSENT AGENDA:
Routine items are placed on the Consent Agenda to expedite the meeting. If the
Commission/Staff wish to discuss any item, the procedure is as follows: (1) pull the item(s)
from the Consent Agenda; (2) vote on remaining items with one roll call vote, (3) discuss
each pulled item and vote by roll call
A. CITY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES:
1. Regular meeting held December 8, 2025
B. PURCHASING ITEMS:

[PAGE 2]
Page 2
1. Resolution of the City Commission of the City of Leesburg, Florida
authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Services Agreement
with Professional Concessions, Inc. for alcoholic beverage services at
Bikefest; and providing an effective date.
C. RESOLUTIONS:
1. Resolution of the City Commission of the City of Leesburg, Florida,
accepting a Utility Easement to the City of Leesburg from Ryan Jacob
McCabe for the purpose of granting the City an Easement over the
property described therein; and providing an effective date.
2. Resolution of the City Commission of the City of Leesburg, Florida,
accepting a Utility Easement to the City of Leesburg from Gulfstream
Towers Holding Company V, LLC, for the purpose of granting the City an
Easement over the property described therein; and providing an effective
date.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NON-ROUTINE ITEMS:
During Public Hearings and Non-Routine Items, the Commission requests that those in
attendance respect the process and maintain order. As such, in accordance with Robert’s
Rules of Order, please refrain from speaking out, cheering, or applauding during these
proceedings. Your cooperation helps ensure a fair and respectful hearing.
A. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES:
1. None
B. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES:
1. An Ordinance of the City of Leesburg, Florida, changing the zoning on
approximately 7.80 +/- acres from City of Leesburg PUD (Planned Unit
Development) to SPUD (Small Planned Unit Development) to allow for
commercial and light industrial uses for a property generally located north
of Commander Road and east of U.S. Highway 27, lying in Section 11,
Township 20 South, Range 24 East, Lake County, Florida; and providing
an effective date. (Leesburg Flex)
C. NON-ROUTINE ITEMS:
1. None

[PAGE 3]
Page 3
7. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS:
The following reports are provided to the Commission in accordance with the
Charter/Ordinances. No action required.
A. None
8. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS:
9. CITY MANAGER ITEMS:
10. ROLL CALL:
11. ADJOURN:
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES NEEDING ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY
OF THESE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR, AT 728-9740, 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF
THE MEETING.
F.S.S. 286.0105 "If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Commission with
respect to any matter considered at this meeting, they will need a record of the
proceedings, and that for such purpose they may need to ensure that a verbatim record of
the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is to be based." The City of Leesburg does not provide this verbatim record.

[PAGE 4]
AGENDA MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
CITY HALL, 501 W MEADOW STREET
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2025 5:30 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
The City of Leesburg Commission held a regular meeting on Monday, December 8, 2025, at Leesburg
City Hall. Mayor Reisman called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. with the following members present:
Commissioner Allyson Berry
Commissioner Jimmy Burry
Commissioner Jay Connell
Commissioner Mike Pederson
Mayor Alan Reisman
Also present were City Manager (CM) Al Minner, City Clerk (CC) J. Andi Purvis, City Attorney (CA)
Grant Watson, Deputy City Clerk (DCC) Anna Rottermond, the news media, and others.
INVOCATION
Mayor Reisman gave the invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA
2. PROCLAMATIONS:
A. None
3. PRESENTATIONS:
A. Leesburg in Bloom Update
Sandi Moore, President of the Leesburg Chamber of Commerce, said she was there to provide an
overview of the Leesburg in Bloom initiative and to hopefully get the commission's blessing to move
forward.
Referring to the slides, she said the first slide was the new logo. They used the existing city logo and built
on that for continuity. They added the Leesburg in Bloom with a magnolia flower. She wanted to show a
couple of the projects they are currently working on. First is the storefront planner program. Then they
have the library pollinator garden and a community garden. They are planning to do an adopt a park

[PAGE 5]
Page 2
program where they are trying to get groups together, whether that be businesses or civic groups, to adopt
our parks in order to help keep the parks clean, because there are times when the public works
department cannot get out there. Then we also have the street banners. They are putting together a
volunteer database for all these projects. Some future projects being considered are the gateway
entrances, which include neighborhood entrances. They would like to make a more iconic entrance into
all the major corridors and then murals.
With the storefront planter program, they would have a couple of different planters for people to choose
from. The planters would be bought on their budget. These planters may not be exact colors because
there are other colors to be considered. However, they have a reservoir of water in them so they do not
have to be watered all the time. The intention here was that if any business wanted to have one of these
planters, they would fill out an application and the planter would be free, but they would have to agree to
water it. They would also have to put the plants in the planter. There will be uniform plants given as
suggestions for each quarter. They would have to agree to change the plants quarterly, but it would be
uniform so that the whole city would have the same kind of plants no matter where your business might
be. Whether they own a business in downtown Leesburg, the corridors or anywhere in Leesburg, if they
would like to do this planter program, they would be eligible. The only other thing about the planter
program is that they would have a specific number of planters purchased each year that they could have
entered into the program. It might be that they start with twenty planters and if all twenty go out, next
year, they would put twenty more out. That way they can keep the costs down initially.
With the library pollinator garden, if everyone can remember when the library was first built, they had a
butterfly garden in the back, and the intention of the library was to have that butterfly garden. However,
over the years and for different reasons, it lost the pollinators. It does look nice back there, but it does not
have the types of flowers that attract butterflies and bees. This was one of the things that they wanted to
reestablish. They felt it was an educational opportunity for the library to have, so they could teach about
it and its importance because it is obviously good for the environment. In addition to that, they are hoping
to work with the Lake County Bee Association. They have already talked to them about the potential of
putting hives on top of the library. That way they would have that in addition to the garden. If you were
to go to the help desk on the second floor, you would see it behind them. It will be there for people to
see.
When it comes to community gardens, we already have some community partners with this; Lowe's
Improvement has already donated money and plants which were planted in the town square, and it looks
very nice. There are different pots of money to be applied for at different times, and they have to spend
that. They have already talked to them about utilizing that for this pollinator garden, and they are willing
to donate seeds, plants and other things of that nature when they do come into stock. It is only certain
times of the year that they sell those types of plants. Then, of course, the Lake County Bee Association is
the other community partner for this. This is one of the projects that can be done at very little cost. The
first garden they would like to start would be located at the Leesburg Resource Center. They are hoping
to have multiple gardens around the city. They have a wonderful committee working on these projects
and one of the committee members is a master gardener. She has already done these gardens in the
schools. She provided a stock picture of what the raised beds would look like. They will need volunteers
to help, and they do anticipate doing farm-to-table events and educational opportunities to teach residents
or anyone how to be able to garden in minimal space. That way they can grow some of their own food
even if they have small spaces. The other thing they are hoping to do is address some food insecurities in
that neighborhood so that they could come and harvest in order to get food from that garden. Some of the
community partners that have been identified for this are RoMac, who offered to supply the wood and
supplies needed to construct the raised beds. Black Kow Fertilizer donated the fertilizer for these in
addition to the fertilizer for the planters. Then Kappa Alpha Psi fraternity volunteered their time to help

[PAGE 6]
Page 3
build the beds. They are excited about getting these projects started in the spring as soon as it is good to
plant. That way they could start harvesting in the summer. Mayor Reisman asked if there were any
comments or questions. There were none. He thanked Ms. Moore for her hard work on this.
B. Employee Service Award Recognitions:
Five Years: Thomas Devereaux, Fire; Brendin Evans, Police; David McClain,
Police; and Christopher Moering, Police
Ten Years: Ryan Owens, Fire; and Gabriel White, Police
Twenty Years: Timothy Patten, Public Works; and Sonja Shaffer, Information
Technology
Twenty-Five Years: James Green, Police
Human Resource Director (HRD) Melissa Arriaga and CM Minner recognized each employee for their
years of service and presented them with their service award. Mayor Reisman thanked all the employees
for their service because they are the backbone of the city.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
This section is reserved for members of the public to bring up matters of concern or
opportunities for praise. Please note that issues raised during this time will not be
discussed in detail during the current meeting. They will either be referred to the
appropriate staff or scheduled for consideration at a future City Commission Meeting.
Each speaker is allocated three minutes to provide their comments. Kindly adhere to this
time limit to ensure equal opportunity for all participants and to support the efficient
conduct of the meeting. Thank you!
Bill Polk of 600 Cascade Avenue in Leesburg, Florida wanted to give praise for the parade that was held
this past Saturday night. It was a wonderful event. He saw the mayor and the city manager handing out
candy to all the kids. However, he was concerned about the traffic in Leesburg. It has been atrocious for
some time, yet the city continues to annex property. If he goes to a restaurant or walks down the street, all
he hears are complaints about traffic. He mentioned that if they purchase a load of concrete today, they
will charge more to deliver concrete in Leesburg than they do in the county. The county has a delivery
charge, but Leesburg is charged about twenty percent more than the county. He wondered if that was just
because of the traffic. He wondered if FDOT had ever come in to talk because he did not see them here.
However, the city needs to get with FDOT to work with them on advancing the roads. It is almost
impossible to go from Leesburg to Eustis on CR 44. It is also impossible to Okahumpka. Leesburg, the
county, and the state need to figure out how to take care of the roads. Most of the roads in town have
potholes, and he did not know if the county was still giving the city money from the gas tax for the roads,
because that is what used to happen. It would be great if the city had a summit to talk about the roads
with the public. Listening to the public is a good thing, and he was not sure if the city had listened to the
public about traffic.
Elise Dennison of Legacy in Leesburg said she was there to discuss the communities that have been
approved over the past couple years. She wanted to discuss a sustainability impact assessment for each of
the projects. This assessment evaluates the environmental, social, and economic effects of proposed
projects or plans, ensuring informed decision-making for long-term sustainability. Among these are
roads, schools, medical facilities, job availability, business opportunity, civil protection, fire, police,
water supply and protection, possible flooding and pollution resulting from overbuilding. We have seen
approvals over the years, but we have not seen any plans for support or sustainability of the expansion.

[PAGE 7]
Page 4
There will be a time lag between the build start and the sale of the buildings, which would delay the new
property taxes coming into the city and the ever-increasing fire assessment fee. The commission should
not approve all the development without the sustainability assessments being done prior to each approval.
She respectfully requested a town hall meeting to be held after the new year to discuss the documents.
5. CONSENT AGENDA:
Routine items are placed on the Consent Agenda to expedite the meeting. If the
Commission/Staff wish to discuss any item, the procedure is as follows: (1) pull the item(s)
from the Consent Agenda; (2) vote on remaining items with one roll call vote, (3) discuss
each pulled item and vote by roll call
Commissioner Pederson moved to adopt the Consent Agenda as presented, and Commissioner Burry
seconded the motion.
The roll call vote was:
Commissioner Connell Yes
Commissioner Burry Yes
Commissioner Pederson Yes
Commissioner Berry Yes
Mayor Reisman Yes
Five yeas, no nays, the Commission adopted the Consent Agenda, as follows:
(Each item has its coordinated resolution number listed below the header)
A. CITY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES:
1. Regular meeting held November 24, 2025
B. PURCHASING ITEMS:
1. Requesting approval to purchase one (1) 2027 medium duty Mack truck,
model MD7 for the total amount of $214,561.00 from Nextran Truck
Center, contract holder under the Florida Sheriffs Association Contract
FSA 25-VEH23.0.
2. Purchase Request approval for computer equipment from High
Performance Technologies using Florida State Contract 43210000-
23-NASPO-ACS-FL.
3. Purchase request to approve the purchase to install a new Taraflex Class 3
Sports Flooring with heat welded seams and other updates to the Gym
from Southeastern Surfaces & Equipment (SSE) for the amount of
$199,000.00 using Sourcewell Contract ID# 060518-CS.

[PAGE 8]
Page 5
C. RESOLUTIONS:
1. Resolution of the City Commission of the City of Leesburg, Florida
authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Agreement to the
Florida Gas Transmission FTS-1 contract to provide Natural Gas
Transportation Services; and providing an effective date.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION 12,170
2. Resolution of the City Commission of the City of Leesburg, Florida
authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Flagpole Donation and
Dedication Agreement between the City of Leesburg and the Leesburg
Boating Club, Inc., a Florida not-for-profit corporation; and providing an
effective date.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION 12,171
3. Resolution of the U.S. Highway 441/27 Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Leesburg, Florida authorizing the Chairman and Clerk to execute an
agreement between the U.S. Highway 441/27 Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Leesburg and Habitat for Humanity of Lake-Sumter, Florida, Inc.,
for the Disbursement of Grant Funds; and providing an effective date.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION 53
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NON-ROUTINE ITEMS:
During Public Hearings and Non-Routine Items, the Commission requests that those in
attendance respect the process and maintain order. As such, in accordance with Robert’s
Rules of Order, please refrain from speaking out, cheering, or applauding during these
proceedings. Your cooperation helps ensure a fair and respectful hearing.
A. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES:
1. An Ordinance of the City of Leesburg, Florida, changing the zoning on
approximately 103.14 +/- acres from City of Leesburg PUD (Planned Unit
Development) to City of Leesburg PUD (Planned Unit Development) to
allow for 294 single-family detached units, consisting of 241 50’ lots and 53
60’ lots, for a property generally located east of County Road 48 and north
of North Austin Merritt Road, lying in Section 32, Township 20 South,
Range 24 East, Lake County, Florida; and providing an effective date.
(Banning 5 PUD)
ADOPTED ORDINANCE 25-72
Mayor Reisman asked that the city attorney perform the swearing-in ceremony. CA Watson asked

[PAGE 9]
Page 6
anyone wishing to provide testimony on agenda items 6.A.1 (Banning 5), 6.A.4 (Legacy Commerce) or
6.B.2 (Dominium Apartments) to stand and raise their right hand. He swore them all in.
Commissioner Burry introduced the ordinance to be read by title only. CC Purvis read the ordinance by
title only.
Commissioner Burry made a motion to adopt the ordinance and Commissioner Berry seconded the
motion.
Mayor Reisman requested comments from the Commission and the audience.
PZD Miller stated this was the Banning 5 project. It was for the rezoning of one hundred and three plus
or minus acres. It was generally located on the east side of CR 48 north of Austin Merritt Road. The
request was for the future development of a two-hundred and ninety-four single-family dwelling unit
community. Under the request, the application would go from a Planned Unit Development to a Planned
Unit Development with revised conditions. If approved, the project would interconnect CR 33 and CR 48
via the developments that run from the west side of CR 48 all the way to CR 33. City staff reached out
today to see if there were any additional comments from Lake County, and they have not heard back
from them. However, he would update the commission upon receipt of any comments received. The city
had no issues with this request. It is located outside the Leesburg electric area. The school board noted
that a mitigation agreement would be required. We received one response to the ads and letters which had
concerns about water supply and pollution, wildlife habitat, and increased traffic. Previously, this project
was known as the Zellwood property, but that PUD has expired. It allowed a total of three hundred units
as compared to the request tonight, which is for two hundred and ninety-four units. Under the previous
zoning (just for comparison) it was broken down into one hundred and fifty-two town homes and one
hundred and forty-eight single families. What we would be getting is essentially the same density with a
difference of six units. Under the terms of the proposed PUD agreement, there would be two hundred and
ninety-four single family units. There are no other uses. The site plan would allow for the exterior lots to
be sixty feet wide, seventy-five hundred foot lot size and the minimum house size is seventeen hundred
feet. The interior lots would be fifty feet wide with a minimum of sixteen-hundred square foot homes and
sixty-two hundred and fifty square foot lot sizes. The project proposal includes design standards, which
includes selecting five design features for each building frontage that come out of the design standards in
the PUD. There are buffers required around the entirety of the project, dark sky lighting, thirty-five
percent open space minimum, and a landscaping plan. The maximum height is two floors, which is
consistent with all the other developments in the area. Plus, the usual Bahia or Bermuda grass is required
in place of St. Augustine. There is site access through there on CR 48, which is under Lake County
authority, so the developer will be required to provide any and all upgrades, changes, widening, turn
lanes, signalization, anything like that and our PUDs are written to support that. There are 1.35 acres of
recreational uses that are required. That would be a primary recreational area with three amenities. In
other words, it would include a pool plus two other features, such as barbecue grills, play areas, ball
courts or picnic tables. The utilities are provided by the city except for electric, and there will be no wells
or septic. It would all be on city water and wastewater. At the present time, the departments are noting
that there is capacity to serve the development. Finally, they included the standard phasing/expiration
clause which would require this development to move forward within forty-eight months, or it would
revert to the RE-1 zoning standards. Again, it would remain a PUD zoning, just that the standards would
go to one acre per unit. This request was recommended for denial by a vote of four to one by the planning
commission. They cited lot sizes, densities and wanting more open space. Logan Opsahl of Lowndes
Law Firm was there to represent the case and answer any other questions.
Commissioner Pedersion questioned if the existing PUD had expired. PZD Miller replied yes. It had

[PAGE 10]
Page 7
expired several years ago. Commissioner Berry wanted to know if we were still waiting to hear from the
county. PZD Miller said that they normally send back the standard comments. However, staff did
contact them today to see if there were any additional comments that they wanted to add. CM Minner
added that since he had spoken with her, they had not heard back from the county.
Andrew McCown of GAI Consultants of 618 East South Street, Orlando, said he was there representing
the Hanover Land Group. He brought a presentation, but it was almost identical to the one they saw at
first reading. He did not want to go through everything again, but he was there to answer any questions.
At the last meeting, the topics were about the spine road and traffic. Referring to a slide, he said the Spine
Road would run through all five Banning phases from CR 48 to CR 33. As discussed last time, there were
some potential concerns on a number of fronts regarding this spine road, such as potential speed since
there were houses and neighborhoods that front and intersect with this road. Truck traffic was also
brought up, so he would like to address each one of those items along with any other items that the
commission would like to discuss. The Hanover Group obviously understands the concerns about the
potential speed between the two county roads and although this would be an alternative route, they would
not classify it as a cut through. The road is pretty circuitous and there will be stop signs and other types
of traffic-calming measures implemented along this road. They can discuss the specifics about any of the
traffic-calming methods that would be acceptable to staff and the commission as the project moves
forward through the permitting process. However, it would be to keep the speeds down on the road
because it is a two-lane road. It would not be designed to be a wide, fast road, so speeds would be kept to
neighborhood level speeds along the entire course of the road. Along with any additional measures that
would give the commission comfort in that regard. They are more than happy to discuss those.
Obviously, there will be measures taken along that road to reduce speeds. Mayor Reisman asked if there
were any questions or comments about the developer.
Commissioner Pederson mentioned that when he looked at this and other developments that are not
even this large, he would call it a boulevard. He thought they were proposing a four-lane boulevard, but
he just said two lanes. Mr. McCown replied that he believed it to be a two-lane road. CM Minner
clarified that it would be designed to be a boulevard entry. They will have four lanes at CR 48 and CR 33
where they enter the subdivision and then those pinch down to two lanes. The boulevard entry is used for
ingress and egress to get on and off CR 48 and CR 33. Commissioner Pederson added that he saw that
in some prior developments where the four lanes extended often times through the entire development.
When he looked at that road, he just assumed it was a four-lane road. Commissioner Burry commented
that when looking at the picture in the PUD, it does imply that there are four lanes. It was on page
twenty-two of the PUD in the packet. It makes it look like that, but it is just eight feet of entryways at CR
48 and CR 33. Commissioner Pederson remarked that he was not sure where to start because he hears
comments from the public, and he hears them everywhere he goes, but when he looks at this
development, if we have already done phases one through four, he hopes that phase five would help by
taking pressure off of CR 33 and CR 470. This one is tough for him, but we have already done one
through four, so he fells that they almost have to do five, and he did not take that comment lightly. Mr.
McCown said there was one last item he wanted to bring up. Referring to the slide, he wanted to remind
the commission that he brought this up at the previous hearing with regard to the minimum lot depth,
because they were requesting that it be changed from the draft ordinance of one hundred and twenty-five
to one hundred and fifteen, along with the subsequent changes to the minimum lot sizes. That would be
the depth and the overall lot size. He just wanted to get that back on the record. He would be happy to
answer any questions. The full team was there if there were any other questions. Mayor Reisman opened
public comments.
Bill Polk opposed the PUD application due to the lot sizes being fifty-foot and sixty-foot. They are
requesting two hundred and ninety-four homes, so that will not allow space to put trees between the

[PAGE 11]
Page 8
homes. There will be one house on top of the next house with a two-lane road running between two
county roads. It will not relieve any traffic between CR 48 and CR 33. If the speed is set at twenty-five or
thirty-five along with stop signs all along that road, nobody will go down that road. CR 33 is already
crammed, and during rush hour it runs all the way back to Austin Merritt Road. He wanted to know when
the city plans to build decent subdivisions. Where he lives in Palmora Park there are two lots; one is fifty
feet and the other is fifty-five feet and those houses are as wide as the lot. There is nothing between them.
He would like the city to beautify Leesburg, but this is not beautifying it. He would like to see a decent
subdivision put in here. Jack Banning used to own this property, so he knows there is swampland down
in there. They will need to build a bridge going across the water somewhere. They will have
environmental issues as well, because there are eagles, gophers, deer and turkeys. The developers should
increase the size of the lots to make this look pretty. Mayor Reisman asked if there were any other
public comments. There were none. He closed public comments.
Mr. McCown said he wanted to respond to the comments. The notion that they cannot get a decent
subdivision on fifty-foot lots was not true because some of the most desirable neighborhoods in the
region are on fifty-foot lots and smaller to incorporate townhomes and all types of units. He would
reference communities like Boldwin Park and Lake Nona to name a few examples. There are many
examples of well landscaped, well-designed and well-implemented neighborhoods all over the region.
They should not take fifty-foot lots as an indication of a poor-quality subdivision or poor-quality design.
Commissioner Connell said he felt like he had been beating a dead horse over the last five years, but he
had been talking about traffic problems in this town for the last five years, and it continues to get worse
because they continue to annex and rezone property. Again, this is on CR 33 and CR 48, which are two-
lane roads and the intersection of CR 48, CR 33, and CR 470 is awful. There is a conceptual plan by the
county that somewhat addresses it, but it will not do a lot because they will maybe add a couple of turn
lanes. That would help, but we cannot keep annexing property on these roads that dumps the traffic on
these two-lane roads. It is all being funneled back to the same intersection. It is awful and people are
cutting through now off of CR 33 down Industrial. They are going down industrial to Haywood Worm
Farm Road to hang a left back and that is becoming a major cut through. He did not believe they should
annex any more property or, in this particular case, approve any more development on these roads until
that intersection has been properly addressed and completed. We are creating a bigger problem every
time we do this. He hoped the commission would take that into consideration when voting. We do not
need any more traffic down there until the roads and that intersection are addressed. Commissioner
Pederson said he respected Commissioner Connell’s comments even though they have not been in
agreement for years. He said earlier that they had a lot to talk about. However, he does view this one a
little bit differently because we have already approved phases one through four. Yes, he was struggling,
but that is what sways him on this one. He wanted to reiterate that he was open to any and all ideas
because it is the talk of the town.
Commissioner Burry wanted to point out that this project is just like the Sunnyside project because this
is an expired PUD, it is located within the City of Leesburg, so the property is already there. Our
planning and zoning department has said this is what they can build, and it is within the comprehensive
plan, and it will have the same result if we say no to it. We can expect the same thing to happen that
happened with the Sunnyside property and that is just how it is. Commissioner Pederson thanked him
for that clarification and to clarify that it was because the property was already located in the city limits.
They did not have to annex it in. Commissioner Burry continued to say there was a neighborhood
within Sunnyside that is not developed yet, but it was within the City of Leesburg that had an existing
PUD to be built, but it was never built. That PUD expired, somebody else purchased that property, and it
is the same scenario as this. They came to our planning and zoning people, worked within our comp plan,
got the design, and they said no. So then they sued the city, and the special magistrate told us that we did

[PAGE 12]
Page 9
not have a case. He did not see any difference in this, and we would be wasting taxpayer money because
we would be on the losing end of it. Commissioner Berry said it was unfortunate that we have done the
various phases of Banning, and it is unfortunate that we have not heard back from the county as far as the
roads, because they are not city roads. She wanted to know if it was possible to table this until they got
further information. Commissioner Pederson commented that he wanted to piggyback off of
Commissioner Burry's comment because the issue is, if we turn down an annexation, we are shielded
because we have limited liability, but in this case, he is correct. We have the legal liability because it
meets all our code. We learned a valuable lesson with Sunnyside, and he appreciates him bringing that up
because this is a similar situation where it is already in the city and the case law did go against us on
Sunnyside. We ended up settling that after fighting it for a year or two. CA Watson explained if a
property owner demonstrates that they meet the code with their application, then it is on the city to bring
up information and evidence that would rebut their ability to develop the property as it is done. Typically,
that would be done through expert testimony and in this instance, the expert testimony would come from
staff or the developers' side. However, the staff’s recommendation was for approval because it meets the
code and all the requirements. It would be more challenging to turn it down and Sunnyside was a good
example to bring up because they all saw how that played out. Basically, they would need evidence to
refute that this is a good plan that works within the code. In the absence of that evidence, then there
would be a lack of competent substantial evidence to refute and rebut the developer's position.
Mayor Reisman thanked Commissioner Burry for bringing that up and for the city attorney clarifying
that. He asked if the only thing they were waiting for from the county was just additional
comments. PZD Miller answered that it was correct. Mayor Reisman wanted to confirm that they
looked over everything, and we just asked them for additional comments. PZD Miller
agreed. Commissioner Burry pointed out that he would like the whole Banning project to be in a
community development district (CDD) which the PUD indicated that they were willing to move in that
direction because that would make the development itself more responsible for their roads.
Ben Snyder of Hanover Land Company, 605 Commonwealth Avenue, Orlando, said yes, they were
planning to put the entire Banning development, which includes all five phases, into a single CDD.
Commissioner Pederson said during the first reading, he learned something because he pushed back and
asked if the developer could maintain the road, and he was told it was a city road. So, if there was a CDD
would they maintain the roads? PZD Miller explained that a CDD comes under Florida Statute Chapter
190, and they can be written in a multitude of ways. If they want that road to be there, it could be.
Commissioner Burry pointed out that for his vote it would have to be in there. Commissioner
Pederson said the reason he hesitated was because he would rather see that money spent on CR 33 and
CR 48. That was why he hesitated, but he would let other commissioners chime in. Commissioner Berry
wanted further clarification on whether it was necessary to have the road to go through because it is
joining each phase to another phase. What is the purpose? Is it just to drive through? Mr. Snyder
indicated that from a planning perspective, it is good to have the phases interconnected so that traffic can
flow in both directions. From a utility perspective, it is good to have the trunk lines on CR 48 connected
to CR 33 for looping. Then, from an infrastructure standpoint, it is objectively a better plan to create a
subdivision that is interconnected with multiple county roads rather than one entrance. Otherwise, there
would be dead-end subdivisions which are objectively bad planning. Mr. McCown added that the
amenities for all phases are shared, and they are scattered throughout the entire development, and the
residents are not precluded from using any of the amenities across all five phases. If there was a break in
any of the lines, they would have to go all the way around to access the other amenities. PZD Miller
remarked that the comprehensive plan requires the city to have interconnectivity between different
subdivisions, and he could not find a way not to interconnect these subdivisions.

[PAGE 13]
Page 10
CM Minner explained going back to Commissioner Burry's comment. With the CDD requirement, he
did not think they have ever put one of those into the PUD, and this PUD has some of the older language
where dedication is left open. In the more recent PUDs, it clearly states that we will accept dedication of
infrastructure. However, this one has the old language where it is open. It says that the city may accept; it
is not a guarantee. If there was a requirement for a CDD, we should add an extra paragraph to the PUD to
amend it and make it paragraph 16G, which would say something like the city commission will require
the development of a CDD for development and future maintenance of infrastructure.
CA Watson agreed that they should add that, and they could easily add that language into the PUD.
Commissioner Burry made a motion to amend the PUD by adding paragraph 16G, to require the creation
of a CDD to cover the development and future maintenance of PUD infrastructure for Banning Phases
One through Five, and Commissioner Pederson seconded the motion.
CM Minner reiterated that he was referencing back to Banning Phases One through Five.
Commissioner Burry indicated that they had that motion, but did they want to address changing from
one hundred and twenty-five to one hundred and fifteen? CM Minner stated his recommendation would
be to leave it where it is. They would have bigger lots, and they are asking the commission to make
smaller lots. The PUD that is being considered is paragraph 4E1d, which requires the minimum size be
6,250, and they are asking that the commission reduce the size. The draft ordinance is still that first
bullet. It is 6,250 for fifty-foot lots and 7,500 for sixty-foot lots. They are asking to make that a tick
smaller. If they were to oblige that request, they would need to amend it. However, if they do not want to
oblige that request to keep the lots a bit larger, then approve the PUD as presented. Commissioner
Pederson added that they want to take ten feet off the back of each lot. Mayor Reisman asked if there
were any further comments on the amendment. Commissioner Connell wanted to confirm the motion on
the floor was to amend the PUD. Commissioner Burry confirmed that the motion on the floor was to
add paragraph 16G. It would require that the entire Banning development phases One through Five be in
a CDD. CM Minner stated the motion on the floor is to add paragraph 16G, which requires that the PUD
put together a CDD for Banning Phases One through Five to develop and maintain infrastructure in the
future. Commissioner Connell wanted to confirm that they would be voting on that first before voting
on the PUD. CM Minner agreed because it would be an amendment to the PUD. A yes vote on this does
not mean they are approving the PUD. Mayor Reisman asked if there was any further discussion on the
amended motion. There were none.
The roll call vote was:
Commissioner Burry Yes
Commissioner Pederson Yes
Commissioner Berry Yes
Commissioner Connell Yes
Mayor Reisman Yes
Five yeas, no nays, the Commission approved the amendment.
Mayor Reisman indicated that they needed to go back to the original motion on the floor. CM Minner
agreed, unless they wanted to consider changing the lot sizes.
Commissioner Burry wanted to know why they would need the lot changes. PZD Miller pointed out
that staff is always trying to get the largest lots we can get, but the developers want smaller lots. That is
respectfully the answer. Commissioner Burry asked the same question of the developer. Why the
amendment, and why do they want to change that? Mr. Snyder said honestly, most of the lots are one
hundred and twenty and one hundred and twenty-five anyway. They would like the flexibility to go to

[PAGE 14]
Page 11
one hundred and fifteen when working around wetlands. That way, they do not end up having to impact
the wetlands or pay to mitigate them. It is really for a very limited number of lots where they are skirting
around wetlands, so that we are not pushing lots in the wetlands. However, the majority of the lots will be
designed as one hundred and twenty and one hundred and twenty-five anyway. They would appreciate
the flexibility. Commissioner Pederson added if they are going to do it, maybe they could put a small
number on it or just leave it like it is. CM Minner indicated that the staff recommendation is that they
leave it like it is because that is a developer problem. Mayor Reisman asked if there were any other
comments. There were none.
The roll call vote was:
Commissioner Pederson Yes
Commissioner Berry Yes
Commissioner Connell No
Commissioner Burry Yes
Mayor Reisman Yes
Four yeas, one nay, the Commission adopted the ordinance as amended.
2. An Ordinance of the City of Leesburg, Florida, annexing certain real
property consisting of approximately 7.3 +/- acres; and being generally
located west of U.S. Highway 27 and north of University Avenue, lying in
Section 24, Township 20 South, Range 24 East, Lake County, Florida;
providing that said property so annexed shall be liable for its proportionate
share of the existing and future indebtedness of said city; providing that
such annexed property shall be subject to all laws and ordinances of said
city as if all such territory had been a part of the City of Leesburg at the
time of passage and approval of said laws and ordinances; providing that
such annexed territory shall be placed in City Commission District 3; and
providing an effective date. (Legacy Commerce ANNX)
ADOPTED ORDINANCE 25-68
Commissioner Burry introduced ordinances 6.A.2, 6.A.3, and 6.A.4 to be read by title only. CC Purvis
read the ordinances by title only.
Commissioner Pederson made a motion to adopt the ordinance and Commissioner Burry seconded the
motion.
Mayor Reisman requested comments from the Commission and the audience.
PZD Miller said this was the Legacy Commerce project. It consists of an annexation, small-scale
comprehensive plan, and a rezoning of 7.3 plus or minus undeveloped acres. It is generally located on the
west side of US 27 and north of University Avenue. This is for a commercial/industrial type
development. There would be zero residential. It includes 50,200 square feet of multi-
use/office/warehouse-type buildings. Under the overall proposal, there would be annexation and future
land use which would go from Lake County Urban to City General Commercial. The zoning application
would request to go from Lake County Agriculture to City of Leesburg Small Planned Unit
Development. There were no public responses to the ads or letters and Lake County responded with a no
comment. Under the terms of the SPUD agreement there would be 50,200 feet of multi-use office and
warehouse buildings on the 7.3 acres. It includes offices, warehouses, mini warehouses, industrial flex

[PAGE 15]
Page 12
space, indoor light manufacturing, building trades and contractors with indoor storage such as
electricians, plumbers, AC contractors and then, of course, a daycare and private school, as the location is
near residential development. There are design standards including screening of mechanical equipment
and the standard thirty-five percent open space, dark sky lighting, landscape plan, etc. Two floors is the
maximum height and site access is shown on the site plan. The developer would be required to make any
and all upgrades to US 27, which is more than likely to be a deceleration lane improvement. The utilities
would be on city water and wastewater. There will be no wells or septic. It also has a four-year
substantial commencement clause. Attorney, J.B. Bricklemyer is here to answer any questions.
Mayor Reisman asked if any of the residential property was fenced that borders the mobile home
park? PZD Miller answered that, generally, when we have a residential to a commercial, city staff will
require a fence in the PUD.
J. B. Bricklemyer of 17032 John Lake Drive, Winter Garden, apologized for his voice. He was just
coming off surgery, so he was still a little weak still. He asked if the commission had any questions he
could answer. There were none. Mayor Reisman asked if there were any public or commission
comments. There were none.
The roll call vote was:
Commissioner Berry Yes
Commissioner Connell Yes
Commissioner Burry Yes
Commissioner Pederson Yes
Mayor Reisman Yes
Five yeas, no nays, the Commission adopted the ordinance.
3. An Ordinance amending the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive
Plan of the City of Leesburg, changing the Future Land Use Map
Designation of certain property containing 7.3 +/- acres from Lake County
Urban Low to City of Leesburg General Commercial, for a property
generally located west of U.S. Highway 27 and north of University Avenue,
lying in Section 24, Township 20 South, Range 24 East, Lake County,
Florida; and providing an effective date. (Legacy Commerce SSCP)
ADOPTED ORDINANCE 25-69
Commissioner Pederson made a motion to adopt the ordinance and Commissioner Berry seconded the
motion.
Mayor Reisman requested comments from the Commission and the audience. There were none.
The roll call vote was:
Commissioner Connell Yes
Commissioner Burry Yes
Commissioner Pederson Yes
Commissioner Berry Yes
Mayor Reisman Yes
Five yeas, no nays, the Commission adopted the ordinance.

[PAGE 16]
Page 13
4. An Ordinance of the City of Leesburg, Florida, changing the zoning on
approximately 7.3 +/- acres from Lake County A (Agriculture) to City of
Leesburg SPUD (Small Planned Unit Development) to allow for 50,200
square feet of Multi-use Office/Warehouse buildings for a property
generally located west of U.S. Highway 27 and north of University Avenue,
lying in Section 24, Township 20 South, Range 24 East, Lake County,
Florida; and providing an effective date. (Legacy Commerce SPUD)
ADOPTED ORDINANCE 25-70
Commissioner Pederson made a motion to adopt the ordinance and Commissioner Burry seconded the
motion.
Mayor Reisman requested comments from the Commission and the audience. There were none.
The roll call vote was:
Commissioner Burry Yes
Commissioner Pederson Yes
Commissioner Berry Yes
Commissioner Connell Yes
Mayor Reisman Yes
Five yeas, no nays, the Commission adopted the ordinance.
5. An Ordinance of the City of Leesburg, Florida, Amending Chapter 25 of
the Code of Ordinances to create Section 25-165 establishing procedures
for requests for reasonable accommodation for Certified Recovery
Residences and Other Persons with Disabilities; providing for purpose,
application, review, appeal, and enforcement procedures; providing for
annual recertification; providing for inclusion in the Code of Ordinances;
providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing an
effective date.
ADOPTED ORDINANCE 25-73
Commissioner Burry introduced the ordinance to be read by title only. CC Purvis read the ordinance by
title only.
Commissioner Pederson made a motion to adopt the ordinance and Commissioner Berry seconded the
motion.
Mayor Reisman requested comments from the Commission and the audience. There were none.
The roll call vote was:
Commissioner Pederson Yes
Commissioner Berry Yes
Commissioner Connell Yes
Commissioner Burry Yes

[PAGE 17]
Page 14
Mayor Reisman Yes
Five yeas, no nays, the Commission adopted the ordinance.
B. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES:
1. An Ordinance amending the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive
Plan of the City of Leesburg, changing the Future Land Use Map
Designation of certain property containing 18.71 +/- acres from City of
Leesburg Low Density Residential and General Commercial to City of
Leesburg General Commercial, for a property generally located west of
U.S. Highway 27 and north of Palm Drive, lying in Section 2, Township 20
South, Range 24 East, Lake County, Florida; and providing an effective
date. (Dominium Apartments SSCP)
Commissioner Burry introduced ordinances 6.B.1 and 6.B.2 to be read by title only. CC Purvis read the
ordinances by title only.
Mayor Reisman requested comments from the Commission and the audience.
Mayor Reisman stated for clarification that this is the first reading and these items will lay over till
January 12, 2026.
PZD Miller explained that this was the Dominium Apartment project. Again, a small scale
comprehensive plan and rezoning for the 18.71 acres. It is located on the west side of US 27, north of
Palm Drive and Armoyan Boulevard and south of CR 25A. The proposal is for the future development of
an apartment complex consisting of two hundred and seventy-six multifamily units. The future land use
request would go from General Commercial and Low Density to General Commercial. The zoning
application is a request to change from PUD to PUD with revised conditions. There were no substantive
comments from the city departments. The school board noted that the applicant will be required to obtain
a school concurrency reservation in order to reserve capacity and if, at the time of development, adequate
capacity is not available, they would be subject to a mitigation agreement. Lake County Public Works did
not have any comments on this project. We received a couple of written responses to the ads and letters.
The concerns included significant alteration of the character of the neighborhood, increased traffic, noise
and light pollution, and increased crime. There were concerns about stormwater runoff, and additional
noise, loose pets and children walking around. Under the terms of the SPUD agreement, the proposal
again was for two hundred and seventy-six multifamily units on 18.71 acres. It would include two, three,
and four-bedroom units provided in eight hundred, nine hundred, and one thousand square foot apartment
sizes. The project proposal does include design standards. There will be twenty-five-foot undisturbed
buffers all the way around. There is a four-foot-tall earthen berm along US 27 and CR 25A, which is
supplemented with plantings on the top to provide visual and noise buffers. Opaque fencing is required
where the property is adjacent to residential areas. We also have the requirement for thirty-five percent of
open space, dark sky lighting, code-compliant landscaping and Bahia or Bermuda grass. The maximum
height size for the buildings is three floors. There are facade samples of the proposal included in the
packet. There is access shown on the site plan which includes one primary access point and one
emergency access point on the south and east sides of the project. The PUD requires the developer to
provide all necessary upgrades to the roadways as required by FDOT or Lake County. As required, 1.3
acres must be recreational land, which may include a swimming pool, children's playground, and a dog
park. All utilities will be on city water and wastewater, there will be no wells and septic. There is the

[PAGE 18]
Page 15
phasing and expiration clause. There are a couple of different site plans that they may wish to talk about
that would impact the parking ratios. Mayor Reisman asked if there were any questions for the planning
and zoning director.
Commissioner Connell wanted to know what the original PUD was approved for. PZD Miller replied
that originally the property had two PUDs on it. One was for assisted living, which included two hundred
and fifty beds plus some commercials on the east side. The assisted living was on the west side of the
property, and there were two separate PUDs that came in around 2006 or 2008. Again, it had some
commercial development on the east portion of the property proposed and then two hundred and fifty
beds of assisted living on the western portion of the property. Commissioner Connell wanted to verify
that there were no residential facilities approved as part of the original PUD. PZD Miller agreed.
Commissioner Burry mentioned that it was said there would be two exits, but one is for emergencies
only. PZD Miller said that was correct. Commissioner Burry wanted to know if they were expecting to
have all the traffic from this to dump on to CR 25A. PZD Miller responded that it would come out on
CR 25A to US 27. Commissioner Burry wanted to know about the residents who would want to go
north. PZD Miller indicated that he believed they would be able to pull out on CR 25A to go
north. Commissioner Burry said he thought if they were moving south on CR 25A that there was no
way to get north because they would have to go north on CR 25A.
Logan Opsahl of 215 North Yola Drive said he would briefly review the project and the specifics that
they have. Briefly, Dominium is the proposed applicant/developer. He introduced Glenn Daniels of
Dominium, who would give a brief overview of who they are and what they do.
Glenn Daniels of Dominium, 375 Northridge Road, Suite 500, Sandy Springs, Georgia, said he was there
representing Dominium. Dominium is one of the largest owners, operators, and developers of attainable
housing in the nation. They have been in the business for fifty years and, in Florida alone, they have been
working, owning, and operating over thirty-three apartment communities for over a decade. He wanted to
introduce their company since this was the first time they would be working with the City of Leesburg.
They want to be partners working through the PUD that is proposed. In Florida alone, they have over
seventy-five hundred apartment homes housing over fourteen hundred residents. He stressed that they
want to partner with the City of Leesburg. They understand the city wants to maintain compatibility and
neighborhood compatibility, which they are here for. They are not a developer that builds, sells, and
leaves. They come and stay. They own and operate their properties for at least fifteen years. He was
looking forward to the partnership with the City of Leesburg.
Mr. Opsahl continued to say with project specifics this would include about eighteen acres. It was
previously annexed in 2011. They referenced some of the previous entitlements which he would discuss.
Referring to the slides, he said they were there for the PUD. He referred to some renderings to show what
was being proposed. This would be a fully amenitized residential community. They are really Class A
amenities. The benefit of having these types of uses is, quite frankly, we know that across the state,
specifically central Florida, there is an affordability and housing crisis. So, having a company like
Dominium come in and partner with the city to provide this type of development that is fully amenitized,
they see as an asset across the central Florida region. He showed a conceptual rendering of the
community, and they could also search to see that they are similarly situated because there are several
built across the state. This is a competitive market because folks have limitations regarding income and
rent. These folks are school teachers, firefighters, and police officers who will move into these
communities and stay. There will be four bedrooms, three bedrooms, and two bedrooms. Just to provide
an idea of the rent; four bedrooms would be $1,834, three bedrooms would be $1,644, and two bedrooms
would be $1,423.

[PAGE 19]
Page 16
With the history of the property, it was previously approved as a commercial and office park component
as well as a three hundred and five assisted living residence. Those were the two uses of the property that
are expired PUD ordinances. The City of Leesburg zoning map shows that it was annexed back in 2011
under the PUD with a split future land use for general commercial. So, comparing the two, that would
equate to the highway-commercial underlying zoning uses. There are some institutional, like government
facilities, a school and church, there are some utilities, but they also have what was previously approved
as an adult daycare facility. There is group living/multifamily allowable use, hotel/motel, and vehicle
sales. Those are the types of uses underlying the future land use and then the commercial front. He
showed language that was from the city code and for this SPUD there is an infill area that requires an
innovative site plan and a flexible approach to the buildout. Referring to the slide, he showed what the
property looks like today. There are some structures out there that are pretty dilapidated in their
condition. There are some storage and dumping ground areas, which is not ideal. He then showed the
conceptual plan which was taken from the planned development ordinance itself, and it was included as
part of the packet.
What he wanted to present as part of their request was a change to the parking. The city code requires
two parking spaces per unit and several jurisdictions throughout have different parameters as it relates to
these types of developments, and they have provided in the application package a study which was done
by Kimley-Horn. That study demonstrates that these types of developments simply require less parking.
They do not want to see an overparked, unnecessary imperious area on this property. They asked their
engineers to put together a site plan that was beyond the conceptual that they needed to do to meet
sufficiency in an application package. They asked them to build a community that met the parking
requirements, and he showed a rendering of what they were able to do. They had their community
meeting and some of the feedback that they received was that this was a wooded area. They also heard
about the berm and the existing vegetation. They are trying to install this community in such a way that it
will be tucked back and not really visible from US 27. Utilizing the study that was provided by their
engineer as well as real-world buildouts, they have these communities elsewhere, so they have seen the
parking and they have the data. They know the practicality of who is parking there and how much is
required. Their request as part of this PUD approval is for 1.6 parking spaces per unit as opposed to the
code requirement of two. Two parking spaces were included in the staff reports, but they were proposing
a 1.6 so that they could accommodate the specific requests that were received from their community
meeting. He showed a rendering of what meets the code requirement of two parking spaces and said that
there would be five hundred and fifty-five parking spaces. Again, it would meet all the performance
standards in the PUD ordinance, but the changes they would see are to the east and south where the
existing residential developments are and that would be about thirty-nine feet and thirty feet as shown.
What they are proposing meets their studies, and they have seen in other communities, is four hundred
and forty-two spaces. It does meet 1.6 spaces per unit and what it does is pretty striking because it allows
them to increase the setbacks to one hundred and forty plus on the east side, one hundred and twenty-nine
plus on the south side, and one hundred and forty-one plus on the north side. It allows them to have less
imperious areas. They do not want to unnecessarily over park this development because it would look
like some of the shopping malls that they see around town. It would allow for more green space,
buffering and setbacks from the existing developments, which ultimately provides for additional
compatibility. He brought the traffic engineer along with other representatives from the project team to
answer any questions.
In closing, it is powerful to note a few things and one is the limitations as it relates to income levels, the
folks who would move into these communities because they are highly competitive. In order to apply to
live in a Dominium community, they have to go through a background check, and they have to be a
citizen. They do a full review of income levels because they want to know who is moving in. For two
people, it is $56,400, for three people, it is $56,940, for four people, it is $63,240. He just pulled that

[PAGE 20]
Page 17
from their website, but there may be some additional detail that goes into this. However, a Leesburg
police officer's base salary starts at $62,000, the firefighters are $53,000, and Lake County schools start
at $49,500. These are the folks who would live and work here, so they will be catering to a highly
competitive market. That is important because they need to think about those real-world
practicalities. Mayor Reisman asked if there were any questions for the developers.
Commissioner Burry said he would like a list of the developments in Florida that Dominium owns before
second reading. Commissioner Pederson asked from a city staff standpoint which parking plan they
would support. PZD Miller answered that the data shows they could work it with 1.6. The issue staff has
is looking at the two site plans, that one is clearly superior to the other one in terms of buffering and the
use of the land. The emergency access and access points pretty much stay the same, but in terms of
buffers for the neighbors, that is a big deal to staff, and they have worked very hard with staff to come up
with something good. City staff are willing to bend on the parking in order to create something like this.
It is a tough call, and he respects whatever the commission decides on. Commissioner Pederson said
earlier he heard a comment that the ingress egress was off CR 25A and to him, it looks like it is off US
27. Mr. Opsahl commented that was what the planning and zoning director referred to as emergency
access. They have met with FDOT, and they are proposing full access to both to allow for better sight
circulation. Commissioner Pederson inquired if they would have a median cut there. Mr.
Opsahl replied that there was a median cut there already. However, all of that would have to go through
FDOT. Mayor Reisman asked if there were any further comments by the commission. There were none.
He opened public comments.
Bill Polk of 600 Cascade Avenue wanted to know where exactly this was located. Is CR 25A south of the
shopping center? Mayor Reisman said it was out there by the Lake Dunham Estates. Mr. Polk stated
there would be between four hundred and fifty to four hundred and eighty cars trying to get in and out of
there and that is just crazy. How are they going to get on the highway? They cannot get out CR 25A
unless they go south to where the trailer park is down there. There is a median cut there, but it is not wide
or long enough for a car. Are they going to put a stoplight there even though there is another one not far
from there at the Southside Shopping Center? There is no way to get four hundred and eighty cars out of
there a day because it is backed up all the way south of CR 48. They are talking about the old Lucan’s
property right off of CR 25A, right? Commissioner Burry agreed. Commissioner Pederson said he
believed the entrance matched up to English Road. Commissioner Burry pointed to the slide that
showed where the entrance would be. Mr. Polk continued to say that was the south end of CR 25A. So
they would go south on CR 25A to come out. Mr. Opsahl pointed out that they have to work with FDOT
on the signalization warrant study and all that. They have done a driveway permit study, and they met
with FDOT on that, so they will be looking at those things.
Trey Holiday of 905 North Shore Drive, wanted to confirm if the two, three, four bedrooms had a
maximum square footage of a thousand square feet. PZD Miller stated that was the minimum square
footage. Mr. Holiday asked if this was government-subsidized housing? Mr. Opsahl answered that it
was not subsidized housing. Mr. Holiday said that, basically, they are putting in government
housing. Mayor Reisman asked if there were any other public comments. There were none. He closed
public comments.
Mr. Opsahl said he appreciated the comments and feedback, but this will not be government housing.
There are certain tax incentives that give Dominium the fifteen-year outlook that they have and that they
build successful communities in. They want to see a successful community because they are going to
own it and operate it, and that is what they have seen. That is why we have such demand for these types
of communities, and he outlined the types of folks that they would see living here. Mayor Reisman
asked if there were any final comments from the commission.

[PAGE 21]
Page 18
Commissioner Pederson said he likes the project, but he was concerned about the ingress/egress and the
traffic. So, anything they can do to mitigate that would be good. Also, he was on a committee with the
Chamber years ago. It was an education committee, and they met with all the principals at the schools,
and they talked about their frustration about there not being any housing for the teachers. They would tell
him that they would hire a teacher that lived in Clermont, Eustis, and Mount Dora, and as soon as a
position came open in those areas, the teachers were gone. They were advocating for this type of housing.
So the project is great, but he was concerned about the traffic and the ingress/egress. He knows the city
does not have authority on a light, but those were his only concerns. Mr. Opsahl said that with this being
the first reading, they will have a traffic study and there are traffic engineers that they are working with.
They have met with FDOT, and they will continue to provide that information to the city, particularly at
second reading. Commissioner Connell said he had a couple of things he would like the commission to
think about. We are talking about ten three-story apartment buildings and at the last meeting the
commission approved three and four-story apartment buildings. How many more apartment buildings do
we need? Do we need ten three-story apartment buildings at this location? For him that is way too much.
Based on the number of units and the acreage, it comes out to about fifteen units per acre, which is a
pretty high density. The ingress and egress to get out of this location is awful. They are going to have
apartments, and some of them will be three bedrooms and some will be four bedrooms, so are we really
going to let them get away with 1.6 spaces? How many people realistically rent a three-bedroom or a
four-bedroom apartment with less than two vehicles? A lot of them will have three vehicles for a four-
bedroom apartment. Even remotely considering letting reduce the parking from 2 to 1.6 is craziness. This
is an expired PUD. It was approved for assisted living. It was never approved for apartments. In his
opinion, they have no type of vesting to come back and get ten three-story apartments with additional
traffic. These are some things he hoped the commission will consider when this comes back for a second
reading. These are issues, and to say the buildings will not be visible from US 27? How are they going to
hide ten three-story buildings? Mayor Reisman asked if there were any further comments. There were
none. He stated this item would lay over until January 12th.
2. An Ordinance of the City of Leesburg, Florida, changing the zoning on
approximately 18.71 +/- acres from City of Leesburg PUD (Planned Unit
Development) to City of Leesburg PUD (Planned Unit Development) to
allow for 276 multifamily units for a property generally located west of
U.S. Highway 27 and north of Palm Drive, lying in Section 2, Township 20
South, Range 24 East, Lake County, Florida; and providing an effective
date. (Dominium Apartments PUD)
C. NON-ROUTINE ITEMS:
1. None
7. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS:
The following reports are provided to the Commission in accordance with the
Charter/Ordinances. No action required.
A. Financial Reports as of September 2025

[PAGE 22]
Page 19
Mayor Reisman asked if anyone had questions relating to the financial reports. Commissioner Pederson
said he always goes through these reports, but one thing jumped out at him. He saw that the collection
amounts said it was for security. Do we need to have these people pay up front or do we need to have a
bigger security deposit, because he was surprised that the city had to hire attorneys to collect on
these? CM Minner answered that he would dig into this and get back with him.
8. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS:
CA Watson had no reports to address.
9. CITY MANAGER ITEMS:
CM Minner had no item to comment on.
10. ROLL CALL:
Commissioner Connell had no further comment.
Commissioner Burry had nothing to comment on.
Commissioner Pederson congratulated Mayor Reisman on receiving the Greg Padgett award at the
Leesburg Chamber. Greg was a personal friend of his. He was a great community advocate, so to receive
that award is quite an honor.
Commissioner Berry stated Commissioner Pederson stole her thunder. She then congratulated Sandi
Moore and Chevon along with all the new members of the chamber. She had a great night on Thursday,
and hoped more businesses would continue to join.
Mayor Reisman wanted to point out multiple grand openings this week. They have Wawa, and another
one that is behind the Town Place suites along with the Wastewater Treatment Plant grand opening.
Discover Leesburg is on the 12th. If anyone wants to come out to the Lone Oak Cemetery, they will have
their Wreaths across America on the 13th, and he will be the MC for that event. In closing, he hoped to
see everyone at the Chamber Sunrise Breakfast sponsored by the City of Leesburg on December 18th at 7
a.m. CC Purvis informed the commission that their next meeting is Monday the 15th due to the holidays.
11. ADJOURN:
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES NEEDING ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY
OF THESE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT, ADA COORDINATOR, AT 728-9740, 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF
THE MEETING.
F.S.S. 286.0105 "If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Commission with
respect to any matter considered at this meeting, they will need a record of the
proceedings, and that for such purpose they may need to ensure that a verbatim record of
the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is to be based." The City of Leesburg does not provide this verbatim record.

[PAGE 23]
Page 20
With a motion by Commissioner Pederson and a second by Commissioner Burry, the meeting adjourned
at 6:59 p.m.

[PAGE 24]
City of Leesburg
Lake Front City
Agenda Memorandum
Item No: 5.B.1.
Meeting Date: December 15, 2025
From: Travis Rima, (Recreation Director)
Subject: Resolution of the City Commission of the City of Leesburg, Florida
authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Services Agreement
with Professional Concessions, Inc. for alcoholic beverage services at
Bikefest; and providing an effective date.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends award of Request for Proposal (RFP 26-003-HG) to Professional Concessions, Inc.,
and approval of the Resolution authorizing the Services Agreement.
Analysis:
The Leesburg Bikefest is an annual three-day motorcycle and music festival held in the heart of
downtown Leesburg, Florida, taking place the last full weekend of April each year. Known as one of the
largest motorcycle events in the region, Bikefest is known for bringing high-energy entertainment,
roaring engines, and tens of thousands of visitors from across the country.
Procurement Analysis:
On October 21, 2025, the Procurement Division issued (RFP) 2502503 for Alcoholic Beverage Services
at Bikefest. On December 1, 2025, the Evaluation Committee met to independently review and score all
submitted proposals in accordance with the RFP criteria. Based on the final rankings, the committee
recommends awarding a contract to the top-ranked firm. The ranking is as follows:
Options:
1. Approve award of RFP 26-003-HG and approval of the resolution authorizing execution of the
agreement with Professional Concessions, Inc.; or

[PAGE 25]
2. Such alternative action as the Commission may deem appropriate.
Fiscal Impact:
This agreement will allow Professional Concessions, Inc. (PCI) to provide alcohol beverage services at
Bikefest. PCI will receive a $10,000 fee. In addition, PCI will receive 50% of all alcohol beverage sales
and 25% of non-alcoholic beverages less taxes. Based on the terms of the agreement, the City will
receive a check for the remaining Alcohol and non-beverage Sales. Based on last year's sales, under this
agreement the City would have received approximately $83,000.00.
Account No. 001-0000-347-2501

[PAGE 26]
RESOLUTION NO. ____________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LEESBURG,
FLORIDA AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A
SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PROFESSIONAL CONCESSIONS, INC. FOR
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SERVICES AT BIKEFEST; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LEESBURG, FLORIDA:
THAT the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute an agreement with Processional
Concessions, Inc., whose address is 9067 Southern Boulevard, West Palm Beach, FL 33411 for alcoholic
beverage services at Bikefest (RFP 26-003-HG).
THAT this resolution shall become effective immediately.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Leesburg, Florida, at a regular
meeting held on the 15th day of December 2025.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
City Clerk

[PAGE 27]
CONTRACT
Contract No. 26003
ALCHOLIC BEVERAGE SERVICES FOR BIKEFEST
THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the 15th day of December in the year 2025, between The
City of Leesburg, a Florida Municipal Corporation, whose address is 501 West Meadow Street,
Post Office Box 490630, Leesburg, Florida 34749-0630 (hereinafter referred to as the “CITY”),
and Professional Concessions, Inc. whose address is 9067 Southern Blvd, West Palm Beach,
FL 33411 (hereinafter referred to as the “VENDOR”).
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits accruing to the parties to
this Agreement, and for other good and valuable considerations, the parties agree as follows:
1. Contract Documents. The following documents and information are
incorporated by reference and made part hereof; and shall comprise the Contract Documents.
a. This Agreement; and
b. Request for Proposal (RFP) 26-003-HG, Alcoholic Beverage Services; and
c. VENDOR response to RFP 26-003-HG included as Attachment ‘A’; and
d. All addendums; and
2. Scope of Services. The VENDOR shall furnish the services generally described
in Attachment ‘A’. Nothing herein shall limit the CITY’s right to obtain these services from
other VENDORs for the same or similar work.
3. Terms of Agreement. The initial Term of the Agreement will be for three (3),
one (1) year term, beginning on the above contract date.
a. Option to Renew. The CITY may renew the Agreement for an additional
three (3), one (1) year term, if mutually agreed upon by the VENDOR and
the CITY. Contract not to exceed six (6) years.
4. Labor and Material. The VENDOR shall furnish all labor, material and
equipment necessary for satisfactory contract performance. When not specifically identified in
the technical specifications, such materials and equipment shall be of a suitable type and grade
for the purpose. All material, workmanship, and equipment shall be subject to the inspection and
approval of the CITY's representative.
5. Firm Fixed Price Period. All Pricing will be firm and fixed during the Initial
Term of the Agreement. For any Renewal Terms, the VENDOR may request a price adjustment
as provided for in the Cost Adjustments section.
6. Compensation. The VENDOR shall provide a percentage of the gross revenues
to the City of Leesburg Recreation Department as payment, in accordance with Attachment ‘A’.
Additionally, the Vendor is required to submit documentation to the City of Leesburg Recreation
Department within ten (10) calendar days following Bikefest, detailing their total gross sales and
the amount being forwarded to the City as compensation. Both the documentation and
compensation must be submitted to the City of Leesburg Recreation Department by the fifteenth
(15th) of the month following the event.
Page 1

[PAGE 28]
7. Termination for Convenience. The CITY may terminate this Agreement at any
time without cause by providing the VENDOR with SEVEN (7) calendar days advance notice in
writing, delivery by email is acceptable. In the event of termination for convenience, all finished
or unfinished deliverable items prepared by the VENDOR under this Agreement shall, at the
option of the CITY, become the CITY’s property. If the Agreement is terminated for
convenience by the CITY as provided herein, the VENDOR shall be paid for services
satisfactorily completed, less payment or compensation previously made. The VENDOR shall
not incur any additional expenses after receiving the written termination notice.
8. Termination for Default. If, through any cause, the VENDOR shall fail to fulfill
in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement, other than for the instances
listed below due to “Force Majeure,” the CITY shall thereupon have the right to terminate this
Agreement by providing a written notice (Show Cause Notice) to the VENDOR requiring a
written response due within FIVE (5) calendar days from receipt of the written notice as to why
the Agreement should not be terminated for default. The CITY’s Show Cause Notice shall
include an Agreement termination date at least SEVEN (7) calendar days subsequent to the due
date for the VENDOR’s response. Should the VENDOR fail to respond to such Show Cause
Notice, or if the CITY determines that the reasons provided by the VENDOR for failure of the
VENDOR to fulfill its contractual obligations do not justify continuation of the contractual
relationship, the Agreement shall be considered to have been terminated for default on the date
indicated in the Show Cause Notice. Should the CITY determine that the VENDOR provided
adequate justification that a termination for default is not appropriate under the circumstances;
the CITY shall have a unilateral option to either continue the Agreement according to the
original contract provisions or to terminate the contract for convenience. In the event that the
CITY terminates the contract for default, all finished or unfinished deliverable items under this
contract prepared by the VENDOR shall, at the option of the CITY, become CITY property, and
the VENDOR shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory
work completed on such materials. Notwithstanding this compensation, the VENDOR shall not
be relieved of liability to the CITY for damages sustained by the CITY by virtue of any breach of
this Agreement, and the CITY may withhold any payment due the VENDOR for the purpose of
set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the CITY from such breach can be
determined.
In case of default by the VENDOR, the CITY may procure the services from other sources and
hold the VENDOR responsible for any excess cost occasioned thereby, limited to 100% of the
purchased value.
In addition, in the event of default by the VENDOR under this Agreement, the CITY may
immediately cease doing business with the VENDOR, immediately terminate for cause all
existing Agreements the CITY has with the VENDOR, and debar the VENDOR from doing
future business with the CITY.
Upon the VENDOR filing a petition for bankruptcy or the entering of a judgment of bankruptcy
by or against the VENDOR, the CITY may immediately terminate, for cause, this Agreement
and all other existing agreements the VENDOR has with the CITY, and debar the VENDOR
from doing future business with the CITY.
Page 2

[PAGE 29]
The CITY may terminate this Agreement for cause without penalty or further obligation at any
time following Agreement execution, if any person significantly involved in initiating,
negotiating, securing, drafting, or creating the Agreement on behalf of the CITY is at any time
while the Agreement or any extension thereof is in effect, an employee or agent of any other
party to the Agreement in any capacity or consultant to any other party of the Agreement with
respect to the subject matter of the Agreement. Additionally, the CITY may recoup any fee or
commission paid or due to any person significantly involved in initiating, negotiating, securing,
drafting or creating the Agreement on behalf of the CITY from any other party to the Agreement.
Upon receipt of a termination action, for convenience or cause, the VENDOR shall promptly
discontinue all affected work (unless the notice directs otherwise) and deliver or otherwise make
available to the City all data, drawings, reports specifications, summaries and other such
information, as may have been accumulated by the VENDOR in performing this contract,
whether completed or in process.
9. Force Majeure. Neither party shall be deemed to be in default of its obligations
hereunder if and so long as it is prevented from performing such obligations by any act of war,
hostile foreign action, nuclear explosion, riot, strikes, civil insurrection, earthquake, hurricane,
tornado, or other catastrophic natural event or act of God. Should there be such an occurrence that
impacts the ability of either party to perform their responsibilities under this contract, the
nonperforming party shall give immediate written notice to the other party to explain the cause
and probable duration of any such nonperformance.
10. Insurance Requirements.
a. Scope of Insurance - The VENDOR shall procure and maintain at its own
expense, the following minimum insurance coverage, unless otherwise
specified in the Contract Documents.
i. All required insurance shall be provided by insurers acceptable to the
CITY with an A.M. Best rating of at least A: VII.
ii. The VENDOR shall require, and shall be responsible for assuring that any
and all of its subcontractors secure and maintain such insurance that are
required by law to be provided on behalf of their employees and others
until the completion of that subcontractor’s work.
iii. The required insurance shall be secured and maintained for not less than
the limits required by the CITY, or as required by law, whichever is
greater.
iv. The required insurance shall not limit the liability of the VENDOR. The
CITY does not represent these coverages or amounts to be adequate or
sufficient to protect the VENDOR’s interests or liabilities, but are merely
required minimums.
v. The provisions of the required insurance are subject to the approval of the
City’s Risk Manager, and upon request, the VENDOR shall make
available certified copies of the various policies for inspection.
vi. All liability insurance, except professional liability, shall be written on an
occurrence basis.
vii. The VENDOR waives its right of recovery against the CITY to the extent
permitted by its insurance policies.
Page 3

[PAGE 30]
viii. Insurance required of the VENDOR, or any other insurance of the
VENDOR shall be considered primary, and insurance of the CITY, if any,
shall be considered excess as applicable to any claims which arise out of
the agreement, Contract or lease.
b. Indemnification – The Proposer shall indemnify and hold harmless the City and
its officers and employees, from liabilities, damages, attorneys’ losses, and costs,
including, but not limited to, reasonable fees, to the extent caused by the
negligence, recklessness, or intentionally wrongful conduct of the Contract and
other persons employed or utilized by the Proposer in the performance of the
contract.
c. Certificate of Insurance - The VENDOR shall provide evidence of required
minimum insurance by providing the CITY an ACORD or other Certificate of
Insurance in forms acceptable to the Risk Manager for the CITY, before any
work under the agreement, Contract or lease begins. Except for workers’
compensation and professional liability, the VENDOR’s insurance policies
shall be endorsed to name the City of Leesburg as additional insured to the
extent of the agreement, Contract or lease.
i. The Certificate(s) of Insurance shall designate the CITY as certificate
holder as follows: City of Leesburg, Attn: Procurement Manager, P.O.
Box 490630, Leesburg, Florida 34749-0630.
ii. The Certificate(s) of Insurance shall include a reference to the project
and/or purchase order number.
iii. The Certificate(s) of Insurance shall indicate that the CITY shall be
notified at least thirty (30) days in advance of cancellation.
iv. The Certificate(s) of Insurance shall include all deductibles and/or self-
insurance retentions for each line of insurance coverage.
v. The VENDOR, at the discretion of the Risk Manager for the CITY, shall
provide information regarding the amount of claims payments or reserves
chargeable to the aggregate amount of the VENDOR's liability
coverage(s).
d. Comprehensive General Liability - The VENDOR shall purchase and maintain
Commercial General Liability coverage on forms no more restrictive than the
latest editions of the Commercial General Liability policies of the Insurance
Services Office (ISO). The Commercial General Liability policy shall provide
minimum limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence combined single limit that includes
coverage for bodily and personal injury and property damage liability for
premises, operations, products and completed operations*, independent
Contractors, Contractual liability covering the agreement, Contract or lease, broad
form property damage coverage, and property damage resulting from explosion,
collapse or underground exposures (x, c, u).
e. Business Automobile Liability - The VENDOR shall purchase and maintain
Business Automobile Liability coverage on forms no more restrictive than the
Page 4

[PAGE 31]
latest editions of the Business Automobile Liability policies of the Insurance
Services Office (ISO). The Business Automobile Liability policy shall provide
minimum limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence combined single limit that includes
coverage for claims for bodily injury and property damage arising from the use of
motor vehicles, including on-site and off-site operations, and owned, non-owned
and hired vehicles, and employee non-ownership use.
f. Workers’ Compensation - The VENDOR shall purchase and maintain Workers’
Compensation insurance for all workers’ compensation obligations imposed by
state law and with employer’s liability limits of at least $100,000 each accident
and $100,000 each employee with $500,000 policy limit for disease.
g. Liquor Liability – with limits of not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence and
$1,000,000 policy aggregate.
h. Liability – The Proposer shall hold and save the City of Leesburg, its officers,
agents, and employees harmless from liability of any kind in the performance of
or fulfilling the requirements of a Contract resulting from this solicitation.
11. All limits are per occurrence and must include Bodily Injury and Property
Damage. An insurance carrier must issue all policies with a financial stability that is acceptable
to the City’s Risk Manager.
12. All policies are to be considered primary to City coverage and shall not contain
co-insurance provisions.
13. Policies other than Worker’s Compensation shall be issued only by companies
authorized by maintaining certificates of authority issued to the companies by the Department of
Insurance of the State of Florida to conduct business in the State of Florida and which maintains
a Rating of “A” or better according to the A.M. Best Company. Policies for Worker’s
Compensation may be issued by companies authorized as a group self-insurer by F.S. 440.57.
14. Indemnification. The VENDOR agrees to make payment of all proper charges
for labor required in the aforementioned work and VENDOR shall indemnify CITY and hold it
harmless from and against any loss or damage, claim or cause of action, and any attorneys' fees
and court costs, arising out of: any unpaid bills for labor, services or materials furnished to this
project; any failure of performance of VENDOR under this Agreement; or the negligence of the
VENDOR in the performance of its duties under this Agreement, or any act or omission on the
part of the VENDOR, his agents, employees, or servants. VENDOR shall defend, indemnify,
and save harmless the CITY or any of their officers, agents, or servants and each and every one
of them against and from all claims, suits, and costs of every kind and description, including
attorney’s fees, and from all damages to which the CITY or any of their officers, agents, or
servants may be put by reason of injury to the persons or property of others resulting from the
performance of VENDOR’S duties under this Agreement, or through the negligence of the
VENDOR in the performance of its duties under this Agreement, or through any act or omission
on the part of the VENDOR, his agents, employees, or servants.
If, however, this Agreement is a “construction contract” as defined in and encompassed
by the provision of Florida Statutes § 725.06, then the following shall apply in place of the
aforementioned indemnification provision:
Page 5

[PAGE 32]
The VENDOR shall indemnify the CITY and hold it, its officers, and its employees
harmless from liabilities, losses, and costs, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s
fees to the extent caused by the negligence, recklessness, or intentional wrongful conduct of the
VENDOR and persons employed or utilized by the VENDOR in the performance of this
Agreement. The liability of the VENDOR shall, however, be limited to 100% of the purchased
value, and the obligation of the VENDOR to indemnify the CITY shall be limited to acts,
omissions, or defaults of the VENDOR; any contractors, subcontractors, sub-subcontractors,
material men, or agents or employees of any of them, providing labor, services or materials in
connection with the project; and the CITY, its officers, agents and employees, provided however
that the VENDOR shall not be obligated to indemnify the CITY against losses arising from the
gross negligence, or willful, wanton, or intentional misconduct of the CITY, its officers, agents
and employees, or against statutory violations or punitive damages except to the extent caused by
or resulting from the acts or omissions of the VENDOR, or any vendors, suppliers, contractors,
subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, material men, or agents or employees of any of them,
providing labor, services, or materials in connection with this Agreement.
15. No Waiver of Sovereign Immunity. Nothing herein is intended to waive
sovereign immunity by the City to which sovereign immunity may be applicable, or of any rights
or limits of liability existing under Florida Statute § 768.28. This term shall survive the
termination of all performance or obligations under this Agreement and shall be fully binding
until any proceeding brought under this Agreement is barred by any applicable statute of
limitations.
16. Severability of Illegal Provisions. Wherever possible, each provision of this
Agreement shall be interpreted in such a manner as to be effective and valid under the applicable
law. Should any portion of this Agreement be declared invalid for any reason, such declaration
shall have no effect upon the remaining portions of this Agreement.
17. Codes, Laws, and Regulations. VENDOR will comply with all applicable
codes, laws, regulations, standards, and ordinances in force during the term of this Agreement.
18. Permits, Licenses, and Fees. VENDOR will obtain and pay for all permits and
licenses required by law that are associated with the VENDOR'S performance of the Scope of
Services. All permits and licenses required by law or requirements of the Request for Proposal
will remain in force for the full duration of this Agreement and any extensions.
19. Public Records Retention. VENDOR shall keep and maintain public records that
ordinarily and necessarily would be required by the CITY in order to perform the services being
provided by VENDOR herein. VENDOR shall provide the public with access to public records
on the same terms and conditions that the CITY would provide the records and at a cost that does
not exceed the cost provided in Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. VENDOR shall ensure that public
records that are exempt or confidential and exempt from public records disclosure requirements
are not disclosed except as authorized by law. VENDOR shall meet all requirements for
retaining public records and transfer, at no cost, to the CITY all public records in possession of
the VENDOR upon termination of this Agreement and destroy any duplicate public records that
are exempt or confidential and exempt from public records disclosure requirements. All records
Page 6

[PAGE 33]
stored electronically must be provided to the CITY by VENDOR in a format that is compatible
with the information technology systems of the CITY.
IF THE VENDOR/SUPPLIER HAS QUESTIONS REGARDING THE
APPLICATION OF CHAPTER 119, FLORDIA STATUTES TO THE
VENDOR/SUPPLIER’S DUTY TO PROVIDE PUBLIC RECOREDS
RELATING TO THIS CONTRACT, CONTACT THE CUSTODIAN OF
PUBLIC RECORDS AT 352-728-9731, 501 W. MEADOW STREET,
LEESBURG, FLORIDA 34748.
20. Access to Records. The services provided under this Agreement may be funded
in part by a grant from a government agency other than the CITY. As a requirement of grant
funding VENDOR shall make records related to this project available for examination to any
local, state or federal government agency, or department, during VENDOR’S normal business
hours. Said records will be maintained for a period of five (5) years after the date of the invoice.
21. Contingent Fees Prohibited. The VENDOR warrants that he or she has not
employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely
for the VENDOR, to solicit or secure this Agreement and that he or she has not paid or agreed to
pay any person, company, corporation, individual, or firm, other than a bona fide employee
working solely for the VENDOR any fee, commission, percentage, gift, or other consideration
contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. In the event of a
breach of this provision, the CITY shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without
further liability and at its discretion, deduct from the contract price, or otherwise recover, the full
amount of any such fee, commission, percentage, gift or consideration paid in breach of this
Agreement.
22. Acceptance of Goods or Services. The goods delivered as a result of an award
from this solicitation shall remain the property of the VENDOR, and services rendered under the
Agreement will not be deemed complete, until a physical inspection and actual usage of the
product(s) and/or service(s) is (are) accepted by the CITY and shall be in compliance with the
terms herein, fully in accord with the specifications and of the highest quality.
Any goods and/or services purchased as a result of this solicitation and/or Agreement may be
tested and/or inspected for compliance with specifications. In the event that any aspect of the
goods or services provided is found to be defective or does not conform to the specifications, the
CITY reserves the right to terminate the solicitation or initiate corrective action on the part of the
VENDOR, to include return of any non-compliant goods to the VENDOR at the VENDOR's
expense, requiring the VENDOR to either provide a direct replacement for the item, or a full
credit for the returned item. The VENDOR shall not assess any additional charge(s) for any
conforming action taken by the CITY under this clause. The CITY will not be responsible to pay
for any product or service that does not conform to the contract specifications.
In addition, any defective product or service or any product or service not delivered or performed
by the date specified in the purchase order or contract, may be procured by the CITY on the open
Page 7

[PAGE 34]
market, and any increase in cost may be charged against the awarded VENDOR. Any cost
incurred by the CITY in any re-procurement plus any increased product or service cost shall be
withheld from any monies owed to the VENDOR by the CITY for any contract or financial
obligation.
This project will be inspected by an authorized representative of the CITY. This inspection shall
be performed to determine acceptance of work, appropriate invoicing, and warranty conditions.
23. Independent Contractor. The VENDOR agrees that he or she is an
independent contractor and not an agent, joint venture, or employee of the CITY, and nothing in
this Agreement shall be construed to be inconsistent with this relationship or status. None of the
benefits provided by the CITY to its employees, including but not limited to, workers’
compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, or retirement benefits, are available from the
CITY to the VENDOR. VENDOR will be responsible for paying his own Federal income tax
and self-employment tax, or any other taxes applicable to the compensation paid under this
Agreement. The VENDOR shall be solely and primarily responsible for his and her acts during
the performance of this Agreement.
24. Assignment. Neither party shall have the power to assign any of the duties or
rights or any claim arising out of or related to the Agreement, whether arising in tort, contract, or
otherwise, without the written consent of the other party. These conditions and the entire
Agreement are binding on the heirs, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto.
25. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement gives no rights or benefits to
anyone other than the VENDOR and the CITY.
26. Notices. All notices, certifications or communications required by this
Agreement shall be given in writing and shall be deemed delivered when personally served, or
when received if by facsimile transmission with a confirming copy mailed by registered or
certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested. Notices can be concurrently delivered
by e-mail.
If to VENDOR: Professional Concessions, Inc.
Sarah Carney
9067 Southern Blvd
West Palm Beach, FL
561-793-1971
sara@professionalconcessions.com
If to City of Leesburg: City of Leesburg
Hosea Goodwyn, Procurement Manager
501 West Meadow Street
Leesburg, Florida 34748
352-728-9880
Hosea.Goodwyn@leesburgflorida.gov
Page 8

[PAGE 35]
27. Governing Law. This Agreement is and shall be deemed to be a contract
entered and made pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida and shall in all respects be
governed, construed, applied and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida.
28. Jurisdiction and Venue. The parties acknowledge that a majority of the
negotiations, anticipated performance and execution of this Agreement occurred or shall occur in
Lake County, Florida. Any civil action or legal proceeding arising out of or relating to this
Agreement shall be brought only in the courts of record of the State of Florida in Lake County or
the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division. Each party consents
to the exclusive jurisdiction of such court in any such civil action or legal proceeding and waives
any objection to the laying of venue of any such civil action or legal proceeding in such court or
the right to bring an action or proceeding in any other court. Service of any court paper may be
affected on such party by mail, as provided in this Agreement, or in such other manner as may be
provided under applicable laws, rules of procedures or local rules.
29. Approval of Personnel. The CITY reserves the right to approve the contact
person and the persons actually performing the services on behalf of VENDOR pursuant to this
Agreement. If CITY, in its sole discretion, is dissatisfied with the contact person or the person or
persons actually performing the services on behalf of VENDOR pursuant to this Agreement,
CITY may require VENDOR assign a different person or persons be designated to be the contact
person or to perform the VENDOR services hereunder.
30. Disclosure of Conflict. The VENDOR has an obligation to disclose to the CITY
any situation that, while acting pursuant to this Agreement, would create a potential conflict of
interest between the VENDOR and his duties under this Agreement.
31. Warranty. The VENDOR agrees that, unless expressly stated otherwise in the
bid or proposal, the product and/or service furnished as a result of an award from this solicitation
shall be covered by the most favorable commercial warranty the VENDOR gives to any
customer for comparable quantities of products and/or services and the rights and remedies
provided herein are in addition to said warranty and do not limit any right afforded to the CITY
by any other provision of this solicitation.
The VENDOR hereby acknowledges and agrees that all materials, except where recycled content
is specifically requested, supplied by the VENDOR in conjunction with this Agreement shall be
new, warranted for their merchantability, and fit for a particular purpose.
32. Risk of Loss. The VENDOR assumes the risk of loss of damage to the CITY's
property during possession of such property by the VENDOR, and until delivery to, and
acceptance of, that property to the CITY. The VENDOR shall immediately repair, replace or
make good on the loss or damage without cost to the CITY, whether the loss or damage results
from acts or omissions (negligent or not) of the VENDOR or a third party.
The VENDOR shall indemnify and hold the CITY harmless from any and all claims, liability,
losses and causes of action which may arise out of the fulfillment of this Agreement. The
VENDOR shall pay all claims and losses of any nature whatsoever in connection therewith, and
Page 9

[PAGE 36]
shall defend all suits, in the name of the CITY when applicable, and shall pay all costs and
judgments which may issue thereon.
33. Employment Eligibility. The VENDOR is obligated to comply with the
provisions of Section 448.095, Fla. Stat., “Employment Eligibility.” This includes but is not
limited to utilization of the E-Verify System to verify the work authorization status of all newly
hired employees, and requiring all subcontractors to provide an affidavit attesting that the
subcontractor does not employ, contract with, or subcontract with, an unauthorized alien. Failure
to comply will lead to termination of this Agreement, or if a subcontractor knowingly violates
the statute, the subcontract must be terminated immediately. Any challenge to termination under
this provision must be filed in the Circuit Court no later than TWENTY (20) calendar days after
the date of termination. If this contract is terminated for a violation of the statute by the
VENDOR, the VENDOR may not be awarded a public contract for a period of ONE (1) year
after the date of termination.
34. Illegal Alien Labor - VENDOR shall comply with all provisions of the Federal
Immigration and Control Act of 1986 (8 U.S. Code § 1324 a) and any successor federal laws, as
well as all provisions of Section 448.09, Florida Statutes, prohibiting the hiring and continued
employment of aliens not authorized to work in the United States. VENDOR shall not knowingly
employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Agreement or enter into an
Agreement with a subcontractor that fails to certify to the VENDOR that the subcontractor
complies with the terms stated within. The VENDOR nor any subcontractor employed by him
shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this
Agreement. VENDOR agrees that it shall confirm the employment eligibility of all employees
through participation in E-Verify or an employment eligibility program approved by the Social
Security Administration and will require same requirement to confirm employment eligibility of
all subcontractors.
All cost incurred to initiate and sustain the aforementioned programs shall be the responsibility
of the VENDOR. Failure to meet this requirement may result in termination of the Agreement
by the CITY.
35. Counterparts. Original signatures transmitted and received via facsimile or
other electronic transmission of a scanned document, (e.g., PDF or similar format) are true and
valid signatures for all purposes hereunder and shall bind the parties to the same extent as that of
an original signature. Any such facsimile or electronic mail transmission shall constitute the
final agreement of the parties and conclusive proof of such agreement. Any such electronic
counterpart shall be of sufficient quality to be legible either electronically or when printed as
hardcopy. The CITY shall determine legibility and acceptability for public record purposes.
This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall for all
purposes be deemed to be an original and all of which shall constitute the same instrument.
36. Authority to Obligate. Each person signing this agreement on behalf of either
party individually warrants that he or she has full legal power to execute this Agreement on
behalf of the party for whom he or she is signing, and bind and obligate such party with respect
to all provisions contained in this agreement.
Page 10

[PAGE 37]
[Signature page follows.]
Page 11

[PAGE 38]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date
indicated in the preamble to the Agreement.
PROFESSIONAL CONCESSIONS, INC.
By: ________________________________
Printed: _S_a_r_a_h_ _C_a_r_n_e_y________________
Its: _M_a_n_a_g_e__r________________________
(Title)
CITY OF LEESBURG, FLORIDA
__________________________________
Alan Reisman, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
J. Andi Purvis, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
__________________________________
William Watson, City Attorney
Page 12

[PAGE 39]
Exhibit ‘A’
Page 13

[PAGE 40]
Page 14

[PAGE 41]
City of Leesburg
Lake Front City
Agenda Memorandum
Item No: 5.C.1.
Meeting Date: December 15, 2025
From: Brad Chase, (Electric Director)
Subject: Resolution of the City Commission of the City of Leesburg, Florida,
accepting a Utility Easement to the City of Leesburg from Ryan Jacob
McCabe for the purpose of granting the City an Easement over the
property described therein; and providing an effective date.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends accepting and approving the Resolution for a Utility Easement from Ryan Jacob
McCabe, on the property described therein.
Analysis:
Ryan Jacob McCabe is granting a Utility Easement to the City of Leesburg, Florida for the construction,
installation, alteration, operation, repair, maintenance, and replacement of utility improvements and
related facilities.
Procurement Analysis:
N/A
Options:
1. Approve as presented; or
2. Such alternative action as the Commission may deem appropriate.
Fiscal Impact:
None

[PAGE 42]
RESOLUTION NO. ____________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LEESBURG,
FLORIDA, ACCEPTING A UTILITY EASEMENT TO THE CITY OF
LEESBURG FROM RYAN JACOB MCCABE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
GRANTING THE CITY AN EASEMENT OVER THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED
THEREIN; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LEESBURG, FLORIDA:
THAT the Utility Easement granted to the City of Leesburg by Ryan Jacob McCabe, for the
purpose of granting the City a Utility Easement over, under, upon, across, through and within the real
property described in the document, is hereby accepted.
THAT this resolution shall become effective immediately.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Leesburg, Florida, at a regular
meeting held on the 15th day of December 2025.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
City Clerk

[PAGE 47]
City of Leesburg
Lake Front City
Agenda Memorandum
Item No: 5.C.2.
Meeting Date: December 15, 2025
From: Andi Purvis, (City Clerk)
Subject: Resolution of the City Commission of the City of Leesburg, Florida,
accepting a Utility Easement to the City of Leesburg from Gulfstream
Towers Holding Company V, LLC, for the purpose of granting the City
an Easement over the property described therein; and providing an
effective date.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends accepting and approving the Resolution for a Utility Easement from Gulfstream
Towers Holding Company V, LLC, on the property described therein.
Analysis:
Gulfstream Towers Holding Company V, LLC is granting a Utility Easement to the City of Leesburg,
Florida for the construction, installation, alteration, operation, repair, maintenance, and replacement of
utility improvements and related facilities.
Procurement Analysis:
N/A
Options:
1. Approve as presented; or
2. Such alternative action as the Commission may deem appropriate.
Fiscal Impact:
None

[PAGE 48]
RESOLUTION NO. ____________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LEESBURG,
FLORIDA, ACCEPTING A UTILITY EASEMENT TO THE CITY OF
LEESBURG FROM GULFSTREAM TOWERS HOLDING COMPANY V, LLC,
FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING THE CITY AN EASEMENT OVER THE
PROPERTY DESCRIBED THEREIN; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LEESBURG, FLORIDA:
THAT the Utility Easement granted to the City of Leesburg by Gulfstream Towers Holding Company
V, LLC, for the purpose of granting the City a Utility Easement over, under, upon, across, through and
within the real property described in the document, is hereby accepted.
THAT this resolution shall become effective immediately.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Leesburg, Florida, at a regular
meeting held on the 15th day of December 2025.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
City Clerk

[PAGE 51]
Exhibit "A"

[PAGE 54]
City of Leesburg
Lake Front City
Agenda Memorandum
Item No: 6.B.1.
Meeting Date: December 15, 2025
From: Dan Miller, (Planning and Zoning Director)
Subject: An Ordinance of the City of Leesburg, Florida, changing the zoning on
approximately 7.80 +/- acres from City of Leesburg PUD (Planned Unit
Development) to SPUD (Small Planned Unit Development) to allow for
commercial and light industrial uses for a property generally located
north of Commander Road and east of U.S. Highway 27, lying in
Section 11, Township 20 South, Range 24 East, Lake County, Florida;
and providing an effective date. (Leesburg Flex)
Staff Recommendation:
Planning and Zoning Staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to rezone the
subject property from City of Leesburg PUD (Planned Unit Development) to SPUD (Small Planned Unit
Development) to allow for commercial and light industrial uses.
Analysis:
The project site is approximately 7.80 +/- acres, and is generally located north of Commander Road and
east of U.S. Highway 27 as shown on the attached maps. At this time, the property is undeveloped
acreage. The proposal will allow for the construction of a commercial/industrial flex space with
commercial and light industrial uses. The existing land uses surrounding the property are vacant
commercial, residential, commercial, medical, and offices. City of Leesburg utilities are available nearby.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application on November 20, 2025, and
recommended approval.
Procurement Analysis:
N/A
Options:
1. Approve the proposed rezoning to SPUD (Small Planned Unit Development) or;
2. Other such action as the Commission may deem appropriate.
Fiscal Impact:
Future development of this site will create a positive fiscal impact on the City of Leesburg, in the form of
impact and utility fees, plus ad valorem taxes. The project is expected to bring in approximately fifty (50)

[PAGE 55]
jobs as well.

[PAGE 56]
ORDINANCE NO. ____________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LEESBURG, FLORIDA, CHANGING THE
ZONING ON APPROXIMATELY 7.80 +/- ACRES FROM CITY OF LEESBURG
PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) TO SPUD (SMALL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT) TO ALLOW FOR COMMERCIAL AND LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL USES FOR A PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF
COMMANDER ROAD AND EAST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 27, LYING IN SECTION
11, TOWNSHIP 20 SOUTH, RANGE 24 EAST, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (LEESBURG FLEX)
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LEESBURG, FLORIDA, that:
Section 1.
Based upon the petition of Blount Birchmier Leesburg Flex LLC for Senior Living Consulting Group
of the property hereinafter described, which petition has heretofore been approved by the City
Commission of the City of Leesburg Florida, pursuant to the provisions of the Laws of Florida, the said
property located in Lake County, Florida, is hereby rezoned from City of Leesburg PUD (Planned Unit
Development) to SPUD (Small Planned Unit Development), to-wit:
(Legal Description)
(See Exhibit A)
Section 2.
This ordinance shall become effective upon its passage and adoption, according to law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the City Commission of the City of Leesburg,
Florida, held on the _______ day of ______________ 2026.
THE CITY OF LEESBURG, FLORIDA
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
City Clerk

[PAGE 58]
Case #SPUD-25-704 EXHIBIT A
LEESBURG FLEX
SPUD (SMALL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT)
November 20, 2025
This Planned Unit Development Agreement for a SPUD (Small Planned Unit Development)
zoning district is granted by the City of Leesburg Planning Commission, Lake County, Florida to
Blount Birchmier Leesburg Flex LLC, c/o Rick Blount and Randy Birchmier,
"Permittee", 549 North Wymore Road, Suite 206, Maitland, FL 32751, on behalf of the Senior
Living Consulting Group, Owner, for the purposes described herein, and subject to the terms and
conditions as set forth in this document, pursuant to authority contained in Chapter 25 “Zoning”,
Section 25-278 “Planned Unit Development” of the City of Leesburg Code of Ordinances, as
amended.
BACKGROUND
The "Permittee" is requesting a Small Planned Unit Development (SPUD) zoning district to allow
future construction of proposed industrial flex uses consisting of approximately 7.80 +/- acres
generally located east of US 27 and north of Commander Road, on a site within the City of Leesburg
in accordance with their SPUD application and supplemental information.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this document is to provide appropriate zoning standards for a high-quality built
environment through the application of flexible and diversified land development requirements,
which shall be implemented in conjunction with a master site development plan and the City of
Leesburg Code of Ordinances, therefore allowing for more efficient and optimal use of the subject
property, and to increase the overall economic opportunity and employment base of Leesburg,
Florida.
CONDITIONS
The following conditions shall apply to the development proposed herein. If any instance where
the conditions of this document may conflict with the City of Leesburg Code of Ordinances, this
document shall prevail as the determining requirement.
1. PERMISSION is hereby granted to Blount Birchmier Leesburg Flex LLC, c/o Rick
Blount and Randy Birchmier, "Permittee", 549 North Wymore Road, Suite 206,
Maitland, FL 32751, to construct, operate, and maintain a Small Planned Unit
Development in and on real property in the City of Leesburg, in accordance with the
requirements set forth herein. The property is more particularly described below.
2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION
See attached Exhibit B, Legal Description.
Leesburg Flex – PC – SPUD-25-704 Page 1 of 16

[PAGE 59]
3. LAND USE
The above-described property, containing approximately 7.80 +/- acres, shall be used for
industrial/commercial development substantially consistent with the Conceptual Plan,
Exhibit C, attached hereto, pursuant to City of Leesburg development codes and
standards.
A. Permitted Uses
1. Industrial flex space and multi-tenant small-bay flex uses.
2. Warehousing, distribution, logistics, and e-commerce fulfillment (e.g., indoor
storage, inventory management, etc.).
3. Light manufacturing, fabrication, and assembly of non-hazardous products
(e.g., welding, building materials, clothing, machine parts, tools, etc.).
4. Contractor and trade offices/shops with associated indoor storage (e.g.,
plumbing, heating, electrical, etc.).
5. Business-to-business wholesale trade and accessory retail/showroom uses
(e.g., woodworking, cabinetry, furniture, upholstery, janitorial, vehicle parts
repair, etc., without daily customer foot traffic).
6. Printing, packaging, labeling, 3D printing, and related production services.
7. Technology services (e.g., data processing, server rooms, IT equipment
handling, electronics configuration, testing, etc.).
8. Artisan, maker, and vocational trade uses.
9. Food and beverage production in enclosed buildings.
10. Indoor storage, including mini-warehouse or self-storage integrated within
buildings.
11. Wholesale trade
12. Indoor recreation
B. Other Related Uses
Other uses, related to the primary use, may be included by written determination of
the Planning & Zoning Director. Such uses shall be consistent with the intent and
purpose of the zoning requirements set forth in this SPUD Agreement, and shall meet
the parking standards as required herein. Parking availability and daily trips generated
may limit the permitted uses.
C. Prohibited Uses
All uses not specifically permitted by Sections 3.A. are considered prohibited.
4. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Lot development standards shall be those of the C-3 (Highway Commercial) zoning
district, except as amended by these conditions, and may limit the permitted uses
based on site plan requirements.
B. Building Setbacks (as measured from the property lines).
1. North: 25-feet
2. South: 30-feet
Leesburg Flex – PC – SPUD-25-704 Page 2 of 16

[PAGE 60]
3. East: 15-feet
4. West: 15-feet minimum, 25-feet average from the wetland jurisdictional
boundary, or as permitted by the St. Johns River Water Management District.
5. Perimeter property boundary: See Section 9, Open Space, Landscaping &
Buffer Requirements
6. Accessory structures shall have a minimum rear and side setback of ten (10)
feet, and shall not occupy more than 15% of the required rear yard.
C. Open Space
1. A minimum of thirty-five (35) percent of the site shall be developed as open
space, including retention areas, buffer and landscaped areas. Parking areas and
vehicle access areas shall not be considered in calculating open space.
D. Height
1. Maximum building height shall not exceed two (2) stories with a maximum
height of 35-feet except for additional height approved by staff for roof,
elevators, air conditioning units, etc., as approved through the Development
Review process.
E. Maximum allowed Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR) of 65%.
F. All structure heights shall be measured from the first floor, finished floor elevation
on the site.
G. Easements:
1. As part of the development process, easements shall be provided as required
by the City of Leesburg and other utility providers, including but not limited to
water, wastewater, natural gas, electric, fiber, cable, and communications, for
installation and maintenance of utilities.
H. Final lot sizes and setbacks may be adjusted by Staff during the site plan review
process to meet the intent of this SPUD (Small Planned Unit Development).
I. Areas of property not occupied by structures, displays or paving shall be landscaped
and maintained in accordance with City of Leesburg Code of Ordinances, as
amended.
5. ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
A. Site Access
1. Access to the site shall be provided by an access point from the existing
contiguous paved roads adjacent to the property. Final determination of the
direction of traffic movement into and out of all permitted access points shall
be determined through the traffic/transportation study review process as
required by the City’s site plan review process, including review by Lake County
Public Works and/or Florida Department of Transportation.
Leesburg Flex – PC – SPUD-25-704 Page 3 of 16

[PAGE 61]
B. Internal Circulation
1. The development shall be constructed so that unencumbered access is available
among and between the industrial buildings.
C. Pedestrian Access
1. Sidewalks shall be installed along Commander Road per the City of Leesburg
codes and specifications.
2. All pedestrians crossing areas shall be visibly marked with appropriate
pedestrian crossing signage and striping.
6. PARKING
A. General
1. The permittee shall have off-street parking spaces within all areas of the property
per an approved site plan pursuant to the City of Leesburg Code of Ordinances.
All development shall include the required number of handicapped parking
spaces.
2. The location and design of the proposed parking areas will be reviewed during
the site plan review process to provide for adequate parking, which may limit the
permitted uses of the site.
B. Industrial
1. Parking lot landscape islands shall be at a total ratio of two hundred (200)
square feet per one hundred fifty (150) linear feet of parking or one (1) every
fifteen (15) spaces. All parking areas shall terminate with a minimum of one
hundred (150) square feet of landscaping area. Parking lot landscaping shall
consist of one (1) ornamental tree and five (5) shrubs per two hundred (200)
square feet of required landscaping.
7. ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS
A. Mechanical units and roof equipment should be screened from view with parapet
or other screening method so that the equipment is not seen from the public-right-
of way or residential property.
B. With the exception of building height and setbacks, spatial requirements set forth
herein for non-residential structures shall be deemed satisfied provided as-built
measurements do not deviate from such requirement by more than five (5) percent.
C. The Permittee shall utilize “Dark Sky” lighting principles when selecting lighting
fixtures for all street lighting. Such lighting shall achieve the overall effect of
containing and shielding excessive light pollution from adjacent properties.
Appropriate designs are shown on as Exhibit D, attached hereto.
Leesburg Flex – PC – SPUD-25-704 Page 4 of 16

[PAGE 62]
D. Other similar design variations meeting the intent of this section may be approved
by the Planning and Zoning Director or designee.
8. SIGNAGE
A. Ground signs
1. All ground signage for the property shall be monument style signs with design
and architectural style consistent with the overall development, and consistent
with the requirements of the sign regulations of the City of Leesburg.
B. Alternative Designs.
1. Alternative designs for the ground enclosure support and bases of a monument
sign may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Director where the
architectural style would be in keeping with the intent of these sign regulations.
C. Landscaping for ground signs
1. Landscaping around all monument signs shall comply with the standards and
requirements of the sign regulations of the City of Leesburg Code of
Ordinances, as amended.
D. Wall signs
1. All wall signage for the property shall be designed and constructed to comply
with the standards and requirements of the sign regulations of the City of
Leesburg Code of Ordinances, as amended.
9. OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING & BUFFER REQUIREMENTS
A. Open space may consist of buffers, wetlands, and retention areas.
B. Required Perimeter Landscape Buffers:
1. North – 10’
2. South – 10’
3. East – 10’
4. West – 15’ minimum, 25’ average, or as permitted by the St. Johns River Water
Management District.
C. Landscape buffers are to consist of natural existing landscaping where possible.
D. A master landscape plan shall be submitted for review by City staff for all landscaping,
buffer and boundary areas, parking lots, access roads, entry ways and new
construction. This plan shall be reviewed for consistency with this SPUD document
and the Conceptual Site Plan (Exhibit C), attached hereto, and City of Leesburg
landscape code requirements.
Leesburg Flex – PC – SPUD-25-704 Page 5 of 16

[PAGE 63]
E. All other landscaping and buffering shall be in accordance with regulations contained
within the City of Leesburg Code of Ordinances, Section 25-336, Landscaping
requirements for industrial district, and at a minimum shall contain the following plantings
as noted in Figures A and B below.
F. Wherever a residential district or use abuts the subject property, an opaque screen
is required on the subject property to conceal the development from the adjacent
residential property, at a minimum of six (6) feet, and no more than eight (8) feet
in height. A wall or opaque fence shall be considered to meet this requirement. No
such wall or fence shall be required in the front yard of the subject property adjacent
to Commander Road.
Figure A
Canopy Trees (per 100 l.f.) 2 per 100 linear ft
Tree CAL/Height 2" cal, 12' overall height
Optional Ornamental Trees (per 100 l.f.) 3 per 100 linear ft
Tree CAL/Height 2" cal, 7' overall height
Shrub Screen (per 100 l.f.)
Square Ft. of Shrubs (33) 3 gal plants, 18"—24" minimum at installation
(depending on species); hedges to be 36"—42" high by
thirty-six (36) inches wide hedge or continuous
landscape screen with a ninety (90) percent opacity
within one (1) year of planting
Container size 3 gal
Figure B
H. Variations to the landscape and buffering requirements of the code may be
approved by the Planning and Zoning Director or designee, to the extent that the
overall intent of the SPUD and the Landscaping Code are maintained, including
Leesburg Flex – PC – SPUD-25-704 Page 6 of 16

[PAGE 64]
consideration of existing fencing on adjacent properties and existing natural
vegetative buffers.
I. The surveying of trees on the property shall be conducted as follows:
1. All specimen, heritage and historic trees shall be surveyed. Staff will review the
tree survey and such trees shall be saved where possible during the site plan
review process. This may include amending the site plan to save specimen,
heritage and historic trees.
2. Site areas that are to preserve existing trees do not need to be included in the
survey unless the trees are to be used in preservation/replacement
requirements.
3. The tree survey shall be completed by a licensed surveyor.
10. UTILITIES
A. Prior to receiving final development approval, the Permittee shall submit a
stormwater management plan and utility plan acceptable to the City of Leesburg.
Water, wastewater and natural gas services will be provided by the City of Leesburg.
Prior to any clearing, grubbing, or disturbance of natural vegetation in any phase of
the development, the Permittee shall provide:
1. A detailed site plan that indicates all the provisions for electric, water, sewer,
and/or natural gas in accordance with the City of Leesburg Land Development
Codes.
2. Developer shall bear all responsibility, financial and otherwise, for the
construction and installation of all utility infrastructure and other improvements
related to the use and development of the property, consistent with the typical
pioneering agreement approved on new home projects in the city, including
such off-site improvements required by the City and all other appropriate
government agencies. All such requirements shall be constructed to the
applicable specifications imposed by the ordinances and regulations of the City
in effect at the time of construction.
3. The City of Leesburg intends to service the property with water and wastewater
services at this time. At the time of connection, all regulations in place at the
time of the request shall be required, including but not limited to impact fees,
connection and utility service deposit charges. The cost of supplying water and
wastewater lines and other necessary infrastructure such as lift stations to the
development shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
11. STORMWATER/DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT
A. All drainage shall be designed and constructed in a manner to meet all State of
Florida and City of Leesburg codes, including the requirement that all stormwater
runoff is contained within the boundaries of the properties, and does not create a
detriment to surrounding properties. Prior to receiving final development approval,
Leesburg Flex – PC – SPUD-25-704 Page 7 of 16

[PAGE 65]
the Permittee shall submit a stormwater management plan and utility plan
acceptable to the City of Leesburg. Prior to any clearing, grubbing, or disturbance
of natural vegetation in any phase of the development, the Permittee shall provide:
1. A detailed site plan that demonstrates no direct discharge of stormwater runoff
generated by the development into any wetlands or onto adjacent properties.
2. A stormwater management system designed and implemented to meet all
applicable St. Johns River Water Management District and City of Leesburg
requirements.
3. The property owner(s) shall be responsible for the maintenance of the
stormwater management system. Should the property be platted in the future,
an appropriate legal entity shall be responsible for the maintenance of the
stormwater management system. A property owners’, management company,
or similar association shall be considered an acceptable maintenance entity.
4. The existing 100-year flood plain on the property shall be shown on all plans
and lots.
5. The appropriate documentation that any flood hazard boundary has been
amended in accordance with Federal Emergency Management Agency
requirements, if the 100-year flood plain is altered and /or a new 100-year flood
elevation is established in reference to the applicable flood insurance rate map.
6. A copy of the Management and Storage of Surface Waters permit obtained
from St. Johns River Water Management District shall be provided to the City
during the site plan review process.
7. Should the Permittee desire to dedicate the proposed project’s stormwater
management system to the City of Leesburg; the City, at its discretion, may
accept or not accept the stormwater management system.
a. Prior to acceptance, the Permittee shall demonstrate to the City the
stormwater management system is in a suitable condition and meets City of
Leesburg and St. Johns River Water Management District requirements.
b. As a condition of accepting the system the City may create a special taxing
district or make other lawful provisions to assess the cost of maintenance
of the system to the residents of the project.
12. WETLANDS, FLOOD ZONES & WILDLIFE
A. All wetlands on the project site shall be identified by a jurisdictional wetland
boundary line, and the location and extent of each wetland shall be determined by
the Department of Environmental Protection, St. Johns River Water Management
District and/or U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. Each wetland shall be placed on a
suitable map, signed and sealed by a surveyor registered to practice in Florida and
shall be submitted as part of the site plan application process.
Leesburg Flex – PC – SPUD-25-704 Page 8 of 16

[PAGE 66]
B. To the extent practicable, wetlands shall be placed in a conservation easement,
which shall run in favor of, and be enforceable by, the St. Johns River Water
Management District or another legal entity such as a property owner’s association.
The conservation easement shall require that the wetlands be maintained in their
natural and unaltered state. Wetlands shall not be included as a part of any platted
lot, other than a lot platted as a common area, which shall be dedicated to the St.
Johns River Water Management District or another legal entity such as a property
owner(s) association for ownership and maintenance.
C. Buildings or structures shall meet the requirements per St. Johns River Water
Management District for any wetland jurisdictional boundary.
D. Wetlands shall have an average upland buffer of 25 feet, with a minimum of 15 feet
or the upland buffer established by St. Johns River Water Management District
and/or U.S. Army Corp of Engineers; whichever is more restrictive. All upland
buffers shall be naturally vegetated and upland buffers that are devoid of natural
vegetation shall be re-planted with native vegetation or as required by St. Johns
River Water Management District and/or U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.
E. Land uses allowed within the upland buffers for wetlands are limited to stormwater
facilities as permitted by St. Johns River Water Management District.
F. If wetland alteration is permitted by St. Johns River Water Management District
and/or U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, wetland mitigation shall be required in
accordance with permit approvals from St. Johns River Water Management District
or U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, whichever is more restrictive.
G. A wildlife management plan for the project site shall be prepared based on the
results of an environmental assessment of the site and any environmental permit
required from applicable governmental agencies. The wildlife management plan
shall be submitted to the City as part of the site plan application process.
H. A map indicating the location of the 100-year flood plain.
I. The appropriate documentation that any flood hazard boundary has been amended
in accordance with Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements, if the
100-year flood plain is altered and/or a new 100-year flood elevation is established
in reference to the applicable flood insurance rate map.
J. Through the Site Plan Review process, the developer shall coordinate with the City
of Leesburg, Lake County and all impacted government agencies regarding
elevation determinations, compensatory storage and overall design of the
subdivision within and near flood hazard boundary areas, to ensure compliance
with all regulations.
13. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
A. Traffic/Transportation Study
Leesburg Flex – PC – SPUD-25-704 Page 9 of 16

[PAGE 67]
1. Traffic/transportation studies shall be submitted for new
developments/phases during the site plan review process, for review and
determination of any access improvements as required by FDOT, Lake County,
the Lake-Sumter MPO or the City of Leesburg. Any required improvements
will be the responsibility of the Permittee.
B. Approvals for Improvements
1. All transportation improvements shall be contingent upon site plan approval
by City of Leesburg staff during development review/permit application. Said
approval shall also be contingent upon review and approval by the Lake-Sumter
MPO, Lake County and the Florida Department of Transportation where
required.
2. Improvements required may include, but are not limited to, traffic signals, turn
lanes, acceleration/deceleration lanes, etc.
C. Roadway Improvements
1. The Applicant shall provide all necessary roadway and intersection
improvements within the development and its connection to US-27.
2. Any offsite improvements required by FDOT, Lake County, Lake-Sumter
MPO and the City of Leesburg shall be based on a current traffic analysis, shall
be the developer’s responsibility and shall be reviewed by City staff during the
site plan review process. Approval of all necessary permits and improvements
as required by the City of Leesburg, the Lake-Sumter MPO, Lake County and
FDOT shall include any needed right-of-way, signalization and improvements
required to support the development.
D. Internal Circulation
1. Drives and accesses shall be constructed within the interior of the development
such that continuous vehicular assess is available among and between all
structures within the development.
E. Bus Stop
1. Because the proposed development lies along and near major transportation
routes, a covered bus stop, located such that it meets the approval standards,
codes and requirements of the City of Leesburg, Lake County and Lake-Sumter
MPO, shall be provided by the developer if requested by the Lake-Sumter MPO
during the site plan review process.
2. If recommended by the Lake-Sumter MPO, the bus stop shall be constructed
prior to certificate of occupancy for the first building on the site.
Leesburg Flex – PC – SPUD-25-704 Page 10 of 16

[PAGE 68]
14. IRRIGATION & WATER USAGE
A. All landscaped areas shall be irrigated and designed to meet Section 25-327,
Waterwise and Florida Friendly Landscaping, City of Leesburg Code of
Ordinances.
B. The use of St. Augustine grass, or other varieties of grass which require significant
amounts of water are prohibited. The use of Bahia, Bermuda, Zoysia or other
grasses which are more drought tolerant are permitted.
15. MAINTENANCE
A. With the exception of any public utilities, maintenance of all site improvements,
including but not limited to roadways, drives, internal sidewalks, landscaping and
drainage shall be the responsibility of the property owner. A property owner’s
association shall serve as an appropriate entity for all common properties within the
development.
16. DEVELOPMENT PHASING & IMPLEMENTATION
A. The proposed project may be constructed in phases in accordance with the Planned
Unit Development Conditions and Conceptual Plan. Changes to the development
conditions or conceptual plan, other than those conditions described in this
agreement, shall be revised in accordance with the Planned Development review
process, City of Leesburg Code of Ordinances.
B. As part of the overall development review process, if the project is constructed in
phases, the plat of the lots for each approved phase shall contain only portions of
the development approved under the Site Plan Review Process, i.e. each phase
platted shall match each phase submitted for site plan review.
C. Upon approval of this SPUD by the City Commission, a development permit or
building permit application must be submitted with the City for work related to one
or more phases of the SPUD within four (4) years of this approval becoming final
with no appeal pending or the SPUD will automatically expire, unless otherwise
lawfully extended by the City or Section 252.363, Florida Statutes. In the event the
PUD expires, the Property shall be governed by the zoning regulations applicable
to the RE-1 (Estate Density Residential) zoning district.
17. MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS
A. The uses of the proposed project shall only be those uses identified in the approved
Small Planned Unit Development Agreement. Any other proposed use must be
specifically authorized in accordance with the Planned Development amendment
process.
B. No person, firm or corporation shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, remove,
improve, move, convert, or demolish any building structure, or alter the land in any
manner without first submitting the necessary plans and obtaining appropriate
approvals in accordance with the City of Leesburg Codes.
Leesburg Flex – PC – SPUD-25-704 Page 11 of 16

[PAGE 69]
C. Construction and operation of the proposed use(s) shall at all times comply with
the Small Planned Unit Development Agreement set forth herein, and with all City
and other governmental agencies rules and regulations.
D. The transfer of ownership or lease of any or all of the property described in these
SPUD Agreement of Approval shall include in the transfer or lease agreement, a
provision that the purchaser or lessee is made good and aware of the conditions
pertaining to the Planned Unit Development established and agrees to be bound
by these conditions. The purchaser or lessee may request a change from the existing
plans and conditions by following the procedures as described in the City of
Leesburg Land Development Code, as amended.
E. This SPUD Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and shall constitute a covenant
running with the land and the terms, conditions, and provisions hereof, and shall
be binding upon the present owner and any successor, and shall be subject to each
and every condition as set forth herein.
18. LEVELS OF SERVICE
A. Levels of Service
1. As submitted, the development resulting from the proposed zoning change may
result in demands on public facilities which would exceed the current capacity
of some public facilities, such as, but not limited to water, wastewater, roads,
drainage, and solid water. No final development order (site plan and building
permits) shall be granted for proposed development until there is a finding that
all public facilities and services required for the development have sufficient
capacity at or above the adopted level of service (LOS) to accommodate the
impacts of the development, or that improvements necessary to bring facilities
up to their adopted LOS will be in place concurrent with the impacts of the
development.
B. Utilities
1. Projected Capacities
a. The City’s utility planning efforts draw upon phasing, capacity and service
requirements, based upon information provided by the applicant. The City
develops its plans consistent with sound engineering principles, prudent
fiscal practices and due regard for regulatory compliance.
C. If the development requires construction of new distribution or collection lines, or
other infrastructure needed to develop the subdivision, the developer will be
required to construct such facilities to provide service. The developer will bear the
cost of design, permitting and construction. Any such facilities must be constructed
in a fashion consistent with the City’s master plans and to the City standards and
specifications.
Leesburg Flex – PC – SPUD-25-704 Page 12 of 16

[PAGE 70]
D. Commitment of Capacity
1. There are no previous commitments of any existing or planned excess capacity
for this property.
E. Ability to Provide Services
1. At this time, the City intends to provide water, wastewater and reclaimed water
services within its service area for the foreseeable future.
2. Future development within the City of Leesburg utility service areas may impact
the provision of utility services.
Leesburg Flex – PC – SPUD-25-704 Page 13 of 16

[PAGE 71]
EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Leesburg Flex – PC – SPUD-25-704 Page 14 of 16

[PAGE 72]
EXHIBIT C CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
Leesburg Flex – PC – SPUD-25-704 Page 15 of 16

[PAGE 73]
EXHIBIT D DARK SKY LIGHTING (Acceptable designs)
Leesburg Flex – PC – SPUD-25-704 Page 16 of 16

[PAGE 74]
BUILDING ID PARKING SPOTS ACREAGE PERCENTAGE OF SITE
1 15 OPEN SPACE ± 1.47 AC 19.11%
2 20 WETLAND ± 3.56AC 46.29%
3 15 RETENTION POND ± 0.53AC 6.89%
4 20 TOTAL SITE ± 7.69AC
5 15 TOTAL PERCENTAGE 72.29%
6 17
Applicant:
TOTAL 102
Rick Blount
352-516-8468
SQUARE FOOTAGE TOTAL= 60,000
5688 C. Thomas Rd, Suite 307
Wildwood, FL 34785
4
'
'
'
'
''
'
' 2
'
'
''
'
'
'
.
''
'
.
'
.
COMMANDER ROAD
CJ
SETBACKS POND
A
c=J CJ
BUILDINGS OPEN SPACE
Blount Birchmier N
� PAVEMENT TREES 0 60
c=J WETLAND Flex Space Feet
28034 US Hwy 27, Leesburg 1 inch = 60 feet
OCFBI"'"'"
BAIILEY
Date: 8/22/2025

[PAGE 75]
CITY OF LEESBURG PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
DATE: November 20, 2025
OWNER: Senior Living Consulting Group
PETITIONER: Blount Birchmier Leesburg Flex LLC
PROJECT: SPUD-25-704 Leesburg Flex (AK # 1294142)
REQUEST: A Request to Rezone from C-3 (Highway Commercial) and PUD (Planned Unit
Development) to the City of Leesburg SPUD (Small Planned Unit
Development).
CASE NO.: SPUD-25-704
THE PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS:
APPROVAL of the request
for the following reason(s):
1. The proposed request for a SPUD (Small Planned Unit Development) zoning is compatible
with the current surrounding zoning districts, including Lake County RM (Mixed Home
Residential), and R-6 (Urban Residential) and the City of Leesburg C-3 (Highway Commercial)
and PUD (Planned Unit Development).
2. The current Future Land Use designation of General Commercial, is compatible with the
proposed zoning of SPUD.
3. The proposed request does not appear to create a detriment to surrounding properties, based
on the location, proximity to compatible development, and the indoor industrial/commercial
flex use.
Action Requested:
1. Vote to approve the proposed rezoning from C-3 (Highway Commercial) and PUD (Planned
Unit Development) to the City of Leesburg SPUD (Small Planned Unit Development) and
forward this recommendation to the City Commission for consideration.

[PAGE 76]
CITY OF LEESBURG PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW SUMMARY
DATE: November 20, 2025
OWNER: Senior Living Consulting Group
PETITIONER: Blount Birchmier Leesburg Flex LLC
PROJECT: SPUD-25-704 Leesburg Flex (AK # 1294142)
REQUEST: A Request to Rezone from C-3 (Highway Commercial) and PUD (Planned Unit
Development) to the City of Leesburg PUD (Planned Unit Development).
CASE NO.: SPUD-25-704
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM EACH DEPARTMENT:
POLICE
No comments – As of 11/14/2025
FIRE
No comments – As of 11/14/2025
ELECTRIC
Leesburg Electric has no objections. This is outside of Leesburg Electric Service Territory. – Steve
Davis 11/03/2025
GAS
No comments – As of 11/14/2025
GIS
GIS has no comments. – Nicholas Tota 11/03/2025
BUILDING
No comments – As of 11/14/2025
PUBLIC WORKS
No comments – As of 11/14/2025
ADDRESSING
No comments – As of 11/14/2025
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
No comments – As of 11/14/2025
Leesburg Flex (AK # 1294142) Page 1 of 2
Case #: SPUD-25-704

[PAGE 77]
LAKE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
No comments – As of 11/14/2025
LAKE COUNTY SCHOOLS
No comments on this project for commercial flex space. – Heather Croney 11/03/2025
PUBLIC RESPONSES
Approval
No comments – As of 11/14/2025
Disapproval
No comments – As of 11/14/2025
Notice of Appearance filed:
No comments – As of 11/14/2025
PUBLIC COMMENTS (APPROVAL)
No comments – As of 11/14/2025
PUBLIC COMMENTS (DISAPPROVAL)
No comments – As of 11/14/2025
PUBLIC COMMENTS (UNDECIDED)
No comments – As of 11/14/2025
Leesburg Flex (AK # 1294142) Page 2 of 2
Case #: SPUD-25-704

[PAGE 78]
CITY OF LEESBURG PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
STAFF SUMMARY
DATE: November 20, 2025
OWNER: Senior Living Consulting Group
PETITIONER: Blount Birchmier Leesburg Flex LLC
PROJECT: SPUD-25-704 Leesburg Flex (AK # 1294142)
REQUEST: A Request to Rezone from C-3 (Highway Commercial) and PUD (Planned Unit
Development) to the City of Leesburg PUD (Planned Unit Development).
CASE NO.: SPUD-25-704
GENERAL LOCATION: North of Commander Road and East of US Highway 27.
FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: General Commercial.
SURROUNDING FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION:
North – Lake County Urban Low Density.
South – Lake County Urban Low Density
City of Leesburg General Commercial, Low Density Residential, and Conservation.
East – Lake County Urban Low Density.
West – Lake County Urban Medium Density.
City of Leesburg General Commercial.
PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: No Change.
EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATION: City C-3 (Highway Commercial) and PUD (Planned Unit
Development)
SURROUNDING ZONING DESIGNATIONS:
North – Lake County RMRP (Mobile Home Rental Park), RM (Mixed Home Residential).
South – Lake County Mixed Home Residential and R-6 (Urban Residential).
City of Leesburg C-3 (Highway Commercial) and PUD (Planned Unit Development).
East – Lake County RM (Mixed Home Residential), R-6 (Urban Residential)
West – Lake County RMRP (Mobile Home Rental Park), CP (Planned Commercial), R-6 (Urban
Residential), and C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial).
City of Leesburg C-3 (Highway Commercial).
PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: City of Leesburg (SPUD) Small Planned Unit
Development
EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped Acreage.
SURROUNDING EXISTING LAND USE:
North – Manufactured Home Park, Residential 55+.
South – Vacant Commercial; Medical, Commercial, Car Wash, Single Family Residential,
Residential 55+.
East – Single Family Residential
West – Manufactured Home Park (Rental), Vacant Commercial, Auto Parts
PROPOSED LAND USE: Commercia Flex Space.
SPUD-25-704 Leesburg Flex (AK # 1294142)

[PAGE 79]
Extended Aerial
IJ
33
Subject Property
01
27
IJ
48
/
SPUD-25-704 Leesburg Flex
Planning &
28034 US Highway 27, Leesburg, FL 34748
Zoning
Alternate Key #: 1294142
Department Section 11 | Township 20 South | Range 24 East
0 180 360 540 720
September 12, 2025
Feet

[PAGE 80]
Aerial
U U
S S
H H
W W RIVER RUN DR RIVER
Y Y RUN DR
2 2
7 7
TURN
LANE HAWTHORNE BV
U
S
H
W
Y
2
VICTOR
B
7
V HAWTHORNE BV
HAWTHORNE BV
Subject Property
U
S
H
W
Y
U 2
S 7
H
W
Y
2
7
01 T
27 H
A
T
S
T
TURN COMMANDER
AVIA LP LANE RD COMMANDER RD
P
U O
S CP
H W
TP
Y R
J D
Y
2 7 P O
A
S M L M
AVIA LP P P IN P A
U
S
H
Y
C
T
E C
IR
Y
A
L
O
W
R
Y
U
S 2 7
H
W P
O
Y
2
P
P
7 Y C T O C O V E L A Y R D M
A D OL
O C RA
AV P
/
SPUD-25-704 Leesburg Flex
Planning &
28034 US Highway 27, Leesburg, FL 34748
Zoning
Alternate Key #: 1294142
Department Section 11 | Township 20 South | Range 24 East
0 60 120 180 240
September 12, 2025
Feet

[PAGE 81]
Locator
U U
S S
H H
W W RIVER RUN DR RIVER
Y Y RUN DR
2 2
7 7
TURN
LANE HAWTHORNE BV
U
S
H
W
Y
2
VICTOR
B
7
V HAWTHORNE BV
Subject Property
HAWTHORNE BV
U
S
H
W
Y
U 2
S 7
H
W
Y
2
7
01 T
27 H
A
T
S
T
TURN COMMANDER
AVIA LP LANE RD COMMANDER RD
P
U O
S CP
H W
TP
Y R
J D
Y
2 7 P O
A
S M L M
AVIA LP P P IN P A
U
S
H
Y
C
T
E C
IR
Y
A
L
O
W
R
Y
U
S 2 7
H
W P
O
Y
2
P
P
7 Y C T O C O V E L A Y R D M
A D OL
O C RA
AV P
/
SPUD-25-704 Leesburg Flex
Planning &
28034 US Highway 27, Leesburg, FL 34748
Zoning
Alternate Key #: 1294142
Department Section 11 | Township 20 South | Range 24 East
0 60 120 180 240
September 12, 2025
Feet

[PAGE 82]
City of Leesburg Zoning
U U
S S
H H
W W RIVER RUN DR RIVER
Y Y RUN DR
2 2
7 7
TURN
LANE HAWTHORNE BV
U
S
H
W
Y
2
VICTOR
B
7
V HAWTHORNE BV
HAWTHORNE BV
Subject Property
U
S
H
W
Y
U 2
S 7
H
W
Y
2
7
01 T
27 H
A
T
S
T
TURN COMMANDER
AVIA LP LANE RD COMMANDER RD
P
U O
S CP
H W
TP
Y R
J D
Y
2 7 P O
A
S M L M
AVIA LP P P IN P A
U
S
H
Y
C
T
E C
IR
Y
A
L
Legend: O
W
R
Y
Zoning
U
S 2 7
H
Zoning Codes W P O
Y
2
P
P
C PU -3 D 7 Y C T O C O V E L A Y R D M
A D OL
O C RA
AV P
/
SPUD-25-704 Leesburg Flex
Planning &
28034 US Highway 27, Leesburg, FL 34748
Zoning
Alternate Key #: 1294142
Department Section 11 | Township 20 South | Range 24 East
0 60 120 180 240
September 12, 2025
Feet

[PAGE 83]
Proposed Zoning
U U
S S
H H
W W RIVER RUN DR RIVER
Y Y RUN DR
2 2
7 7
TURN
LANE HAWTHORNE BV
U
S
H
W
Y
2
VICTOR
B
7
V HAWTHORNE BV
Subject Property HAWTHORNE BV
U
S
H
W
Y
U 2
S 7
H
W
Y
2
7
01 T
27 H
A
T
S
T
TURN COMMANDER
AVIA LP LANE RD COMMANDER RD
P
U O
S CP
H W
TP
Y R
J D
Y
2 7 P O
A
S M L M
AVIA LP P P IN P A
U
S
H
Y
C
T
E C
IR
Y
A
L
O
W
R
Y
U
S 2 7
H
W P
O
Y
2
P
P
Legen P d r : oposed Zoni 7 ng - SPUD (Smalled Planned Uni Y C t T Development) A D O C O V E L A Y O R D M L
O C RA
AV P
/
SPUD-25-704 Leesburg Flex
Planning &
28034 US Highway 27, Leesburg, FL 34748
Zoning
Alternate Key #: 1294142
Department Section 11 | Township 20 South | Range 24 East
0 60 120 180 240
September 12, 2025
Feet

[PAGE 84]
City of Leesburg Future Land Use
U U
S S
H H
W W RIVER RUN DR RIVER
Y Y RUN DR
2 2
7 7
TURN
LANE HAWTHORNE BV
U
S
H
W
Y
2
VICTOR
B
7
V HAWTHORNE BV
HAWTHORNE BV
Subject Property
U
S
H
W
Y
U 2
S 7
H
W
Y
2
7
01 T
27 H
A
T
S
T
TURN COMMANDER
AVIA LP LANE RD COMMANDER RD
P
U O
S CP
H W
TP
Y R
J D
Y
2 7 P O
A
S M L M
AVIA LP P P IN P A
U
S
H
Y
C
T
E C
IR
Y
A
L
O
W
R
Y
Legend: U S 2 7
H
LOW DENSITWY RESIDENTIAL P O
Y
2
P
P
G CO EN N E S R E A R L V A C T O I 7 O M N MERCIAL Y C T O C O V E L A Y R D M
A D OL
O C RA
AV P
/
SPUD-25-704 Leesburg Flex
Planning &
28034 US Highway 27, Leesburg, FL 34748
Zoning
Alternate Key #: 1294142
Department Section 11 | Township 20 South | Range 24 East
0 60 120 180 240
September 12, 2025
Feet

[PAGE 85]
Lake County Future Land Use
U U
S S
H H
W W RIVER RUN DR RIVER
Y Y RUN DR
2 2
7 7
TURN
LANE HAWTHORNE BV
U
S
H
W
Y
2
VICTOR
B
7
V HAWTHORNE BV
HAWTHORNE BV
Subject Property
U
S
H
W
Y
U 2
S 7
H
W
Y
2
7
01 T
27 H
A
T
S
T
TURN COMMANDER
AVIA LP LANE RD COMMANDER RD
P
U O
S CP
H W
TP
Y R
J D
Y
2 7 P O
A
S M L M
AVIA LP P P IN P A
U
S
H
Y
C
T
E C
IR
Y
A
L
Legend: W O
R
Y
LC FLU
U
S 2 7
H
LC FLU W P O
Y
2
P
P
U U r r b b a a n n L M o e w d i D um e7n D si e ty nsity Y C T O C O V E L A Y R D M
A D OL
O C RA
AV P
/
SPUD-25-704 Leesburg Flex
Planning &
28034 US Highway 27, Leesburg, FL 34748
Zoning
Alternate Key #: 1294142
Department Section 11 | Township 20 South | Range 24 East
0 60 120 180 240
September 12, 2025
Feet

[PAGE 86]
Lake County Zoning
U N
N UU
SWIFT RUN DR M
O
A M E S H W S H W U N T A L O F
D R D Y 2 7 Y 2 7 RIVER RUN DR IN D T R R U IV N E D R R
R
HAWTHORNE BV
U
S
H
W
Y
VICTOR BV 2
7 HAWTHORNE BV
BILLY LN
HAWTHORNE
Subject Property BV
U
S
H
W
Y
SANJAY LN U
S 2
H
7
W
Y
2
SAMIR LN 7 T
01 H
27 A
T
S
T
BRENDA AV
AVIA LP COMMANDER RD COMMANDER RD
P P U
A
L
A
L S
H
VI VI
W
A A J R
Y P A D
L
A
P
VIA
AVIA LP
2
7
O
P
P Y
S
M
IN E A L
M
U
C
T
C
IR
A
L
P
S Y
H
O
R
W
ALVIeAg LePnd:
Y
2 P
7 O
Lake County Zoning U RM P
S P
P IS
N
E L
O
L E I
R
C
Z
D
T
A R
OH
N
NIN
R
G
-6
H W
Y 2 7
C
C
-
P
1 Y C
T A V O C
C
O
A
V
D
E
O L A
Y O R
R D
M L A P
RMRP
/
SPUD-25-704 Leesburg Flex
Planning &
28034 US Highway 27, Leesburg, FL 34748
Zoning
Alternate Key #: 1294142
Department Section 11 | Township 20 South | Range 24 East
0 70 140 210 280
September 12, 2025
Feet

[PAGE 87]
Developments
Leesburg
Convenience
Store-0
IJ
33
Subject Property
Avia Skilled
Nursing Facility-
01
27 Fox Pointe-56
Brightleaf
CR 48-254
IJ
48
Wendys-0
Spring
Creek-124
The Parc at
48 Blount Legend:
Birchmier-246
Developments
/
SPUD-25-704 Leesburg Flex
Planning &
28034 US Highway 27, Leesburg, FL 34748
Zoning
Alternate Key #: 1294142
Department Section 11 | Township 20 South | Range 24 East
0 180 360 540 720
September 12, 2025
Feet

[PAGE 88]
Surrounding Land Uses
U U
S S
H H Manufactured
W W RIVER RUN DR RIVER
Y Y Home Park RUN DR
2 2
7 7
TURN
LANE HAWTHORNE BV
U
S
H
W
Y
2 Residential 55+
VICTOR
B
7
V
Commons AHreAaWTHORNE
BV
HAWTHORNE BV
U VVaaccaanntt CCoommmmeerrcciiaall
S
H
W
Y
U S 2 7 Medical
H
W
Y
2 Subject Property
7
01 T
27 Offices H
A
Vacant T
S
Commercial T Single Family Residential
VVaaccaanntt
CCoommmmeerrcciaiall
TURN COMMANDER
AVIA LP LANE RD COMMANDER RD
P
U Medical O
S CP
V C a o c m a m nt e rcial H W TP Y R
J D
Y
2 7 P O
S
R
i
e
n
s
g
i
l
d
e
e
A
S
F
nM
a
tia
m
l
ily
L M
AVIA LP Commercial P P IN ResidentiaP A l
Vacant
U
S
H
Y
C
T
E C
IR
55+
O Y
A
L
W
R
Commercial Y
U S 2 7
H
W P
O
Y
2 Car Wash
P
P
7 Y C T O C O V E L A Y R D M
A D OL
O C RA
AV P
/
SPUD-25-704 Leesburg Flex
28034 US Highway 27, Leesburg, FL 34748
Alternate Key #: 1294142
Section 11 | Township 20 South | Range 24 East
0 60 120 180 240
September 12, 2025
Feet
Commons
Area
Residential
55+
Manufactured
Home Park
(Rental)
Single Family
Residential
Commercial Auto Parts
Planning &
Zoning
Department

[PAGE 89]
Flood Zone
U U
S S
H H
W W RIVER RUN DR RIVER
Y Y RUN DR
2 2
7 7
TURN
LANE HAWTHORNE BV
U
S
H
W
Y
2
VICTOR
B
7
V HAWTHORNE BV
Subject Property
HAWTHORNE BV
U
S
H
W
Y
U 2
S 7
H
W
Y
2
7
01 T
27 H
A
T
S
T
TURN COMMANDER
AVIA LP LANE RD COMMANDER RD
P
U O
S CP
H W
TP
Y R
J D
Y
2 7 P O
A
S M L M
AVIA LP P P IN P A
Legend:
U
S
H
Y
C
T
E C
IR
Y
A
L
O
W
R
Flood Zones 2012 Y
U
S 2 7
FLD_ZONE H
W P
O
0.2 PCT ANNUAY
2
L CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD P
P
A 7 Y C T O C O V E L A Y R D M
AE A D OL
O C RA
AV P
/
SPUD-25-704 Leesburg Flex
Planning &
28034 US Highway 27, Leesburg, FL 34748
Zoning
Alternate Key #: 1294142
Department Section 11 | Township 20 South | Range 24 East
0 60 120 180 240
September 12, 2025
Feet

[PAGE 90]
Wetlands
U U
S S
H H
W W RIVER RUN DR RIVER
Y Y RUN DR
2 2
7 7
TURN
LANE HAWTHORNE BV
U
S
H
W
Y
2
VICTOR
B
7
V HAWTHORNE BV
HAWTHORNE BV
Subject Property
U
S
H
W
Y
U 2
S 7
H
W
Y
2
7
01 T
27 H
A
T
S
T
TURN COMMANDER
AVIA LP LANE RD COMMANDER RD
P
U O
S CP
H W
TP
Y R
J D
Legend: Y
2 7 P O
A
S M L M
WetAlaVnIAd LsP P P IN P A
VEG
U
S
H
Y
C
T
E C
IR
Y
A
L
O
W
Hardwood SwamYp R
U
S 2 7
Shallow Mars
H
h
W P
O
Uplands Y
2
P
P
Water 7 Y C T O C O V E L A Y R D M
Water (Excavated) A D OL
O C RA
AV P
/
SPUD-25-704 Leesburg Flex
Planning &
28034 US Highway 27, Leesburg, FL 34748
Zoning
Alternate Key #: 1294142
Department Section 11 | Township 20 South | Range 24 East
0 60 120 180 240
September 12, 2025
Feet

[PAGE 91]
Community Redevelopment Area
U U
S S
H H
W W RIVER RUN DR RIVER
Y Y RUN DR
2 2
7 7
TURN
LANE HAWTHORNE BV
U
S
H
W
Y
2
VICTOR
B
7
V HAWTHORNE BV
HAWTHORNE BV
Subject Property
U
S
H
W
Y
U 2
S 7
H
W
Y
2
7
01 T
27 H
A
T
S
T
TURN COMMANDER
AVIA LP LANE RD COMMANDER RD
P
U O
S CP
H W
TP
Y R
J D
Y
2 7 P O
A
S M L M
AVIA LP P P IN P A
U
S
H
Y
C
T
E C
IR
Y
A
L
O
W
R
Y
U
S 2 7
Legend: H
W P
O
Y
Community Redev
2
elopment Area P
P
CRA 7 Y C T O C O V E L A Y R D M
27/441 A D OL
O C RA
AV P
/
SPUD-25-704 Leesburg Flex
Planning &
28034 US Highway 27, Leesburg, FL 34748
Zoning
Alternate Key #: 1294142
Department Section 11 | Township 20 South | Range 24 East
0 60 120 180 240
September 12, 2025
Feet

[PAGE 92]
Commission District
U U
S S
H H
W W RIVER RUN DR RIVER
Y Y RUN DR
2 2
7 7
TURN
LANE HAWTHORNE BV
U
S
H
W
Y
2
VICTOR
B
7
V HAWTHORNE BV
HAWTHORNE BV
Subject Property
U
S
H
W
Y
U 2
S 7
H
W
Y
2
7
01 T
27 H
A
T
S
T
2
TURN COMMANDER
AVIA LP LANE RD COMMANDER RD
P
U O
S CP
H W
TP
Y R
J D
Y
2 7 P O
A
S M L M
AVIA LP P P IN P A
U
S
H
Y
C
T
E C
IR
Y
A
L
O
W
R
Y
Legend:
U
S 2 7
H
W P
Leesburg Commission_Districts O
Y
2
P
P
DIST 2 7 Y C T O C O V E L A Y R D M
A D OL
O C RA
AV P
/
SPUD-25-704 Leesburg Flex
Planning &
28034 US Highway 27, Leesburg, FL 34748
Zoning
Alternate Key #: 1294142
Department Section 11 | Township 20 South | Range 24 East
0 60 120 180 240
September 12, 2025
Feet

[PAGE 93]
SIGN POSTING PHOTOS Leesburg Flex (AK # 1294142)
Posted on 11/07/2025 SPUD-25-704
Closeup of Sign from Commander Road
Looking North onto Subject Property from Commander Road
Page 1 of 3

[PAGE 94]
SIGN POSTING PHOTOS Leesburg Flex (AK # 1294142)
Posted on 11/07/2025 SPUD-25-704
Looking East along Commander Road from Subject Property
Looking South across Commander Road from Subject Property
Page 2 of 3

[PAGE 95]
SIGN POSTING PHOTOS Leesburg Flex (AK # 1294142)
Posted on 11/07/2025 SPUD-25-704
Looking West along Commander Road from Subject Property
Page 3 of 3