The Lowndes Drosdick Network
How one regional law firm represents both poles of every controversy across the south Lake corridor
Lowndes Drosdick Doster Kantor Reed, P.A. — an Orlando-based regional firm — represented Pointe Grande, the Live Local Act application Minneola was legally forced to accept in January 2024, and the same firm represented Hills of Minneola Town Center / Crooked Can, the project Minneola most wanted, in January 2025. Tara Tedrow filed both. The firm represents Crystal Cove townhomes, Citrus Grove Road Commercial / Citrus Ridge, and Camp Lake Industrial Park in Minneola; Silver Springs, Old Mill, Venice at Lake Harris, Oak Ridge, and Dominium Apartments in Leesburg; Plaza Collina amendments in Clermont. The firm appears on both sides of the controversy axis in every city it operates. The cities are local; the legal-economy is regional. By the time a case arrives at a Planning Commission dais, the most consequential decisions about what gets filed and what doesn't have been made at the firm's pre-application read.
The Signal
Lowndes Drosdick Doster Kantor Reed, P.A. is the substrate of the south Lake County development pipeline. The firm operates from Orlando, employs at least three attorneys actively filing in the corridor (Tara L. Tedrow, Logan Opsahl, Jonathan Huels), and represents projects across at least three cities — Minneola, Leesburg, Clermont — at every position on those cities' controversy axes. The firm represents the project the city was forced to accept and the project the city most wanted. The firm represents the projects the city denies and the projects the city approves. Same firm. Same lead attorneys. Symmetric distribution across both poles of every contested case.
The political-economy implication: the firms ARE the regional legal-economy. Cities respond to filings; the firm shapes filings to cities. The most consequential decisions about what gets filed and what doesn't are made at the firm's pre-application read, before the case ever reaches a Planning Commission dais. Cities are local; the legal-economy is regional. There is no opposition firm. There is no "pro-Minneola" or "anti-Leesburg" attorney. The legal infrastructure that mediates the development pipeline does not have a contestable adversarial structure. It has a single firm operating at scale across the corridor.
The Evidence
The filing record across three cities spans 2024-2026 and surfaces three attorneys.
| Date | City | Project | Attorney | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-01 | Minneola | Pointe Grande Live Local Act (forced acceptance) | Tara L. Tedrow | Approved (legally required) |
| 2024-09 | Minneola | Pointe Grande variance (Phase 2 reduction track) | Logan Opsahl | Negotiated downward |
| 2024-12 | Leesburg | Silver Springs (337 ac, withdrawn-then-returned) | Tara L. Tedrow | Approved with revisions |
| 2025-01 | Minneola | Hills of Minneola Town Center / Crooked Can | Tara L. Tedrow | Approved 4 items |
| 2025-02 | Leesburg | Old Mill (postponed for community engagement) | Logan Opsahl | Postponed |
| 2025-04 | Leesburg | Venice at Lake Harris (47→26 units) | Logan Opsahl | Denied 5-2 |
| 2025-05 | Minneola | Crystal Cove townhomes | Tara L. Tedrow | Approved |
| 2025-07 | Leesburg | Oak Ridge (596 acres, ~894 homes) | Logan Opsahl | Denied 5-2 |
| 2025-11 | Leesburg | Dominium Apartments (18.71 ac, US-27) | "Joseph, Lowndes Law Firm" | Denied 4-2 |
| 2026-04 | Minneola | Citrus Grove Road Commercial PUD (15.878 ac) | Tara L. Tedrow | Tabled to May 4 |
| 2026-05 | Minneola | Citrus Ridge Commercial PUD (17.878 ac, rebrand + 2 ac upward) | Tara L. Tedrow | Pending |
| 2026-05 | Minneola | Camp Lake Industrial Park (preliminary plat at same intersection) | Tara L. Tedrow (likely) | Pending |
| (multi) | Clermont | Plaza Collina amendments | Jonathan Huels | (multiple dispositions) |
Three structural facts emerge.
First, the firm represents both poles of Minneola's emotional ledger. Pointe Grande was the Live Local Act application that City Attorney Scott Gerken told the Commission flat-out "the City cannot say no" to. Five residents spoke against it in January 2024. The city built its strongest defensive ordinance — Minneola Live Local Act 2024-10, restricting future LLA eligibility to I-1 and B-1 districts only, capping density at 8 du/acre and height at 35 feet — directly afterward. Tedrow brought the case the city was forced to accept. One year later, January 2025, Tedrow returned with Hills of Minneola Town Center / Crooked Can — the $300M anchor of the corridor's southern transformation, the project the city had been waiting on since the original Hills PUD was approved years earlier. Four approvals in one meeting (two variances, two site plans). Crooked Can opened April 2026 as a 42K sq ft food hall with 12 tenants. Same firm, same lead attorney, both poles of the controversy axis. The legal-economy does not split between "pro-Minneola" and "anti-Minneola" representation. The same firm operates both functions.
Second, the firm's distribution across cities is not symmetric in disposition. In Minneola, Lowndes' filings cluster in the approval track — Pointe Grande (forced accept), Hills Town Center / Crooked Can (city-wanted), Crystal Cove (approved), Citrus Ridge (pending). Minneola's "shape, don't deny" mode absorbs Lowndes filings through conditioning rather than refusal. In Leesburg, Lowndes' filings cluster in the denial track — Venice at Lake Harris denied 5-2, Oak Ridge denied 5-2, Dominium denied 4-2, Old Mill postponed. The firm is the same. The cities' dispositions are different. That is not coincidence; it is the firm reading the cities and filing accordingly. Lowndes' Leesburg filings are political-economy bets that the City Commission's second-and-third readings will save the project after the Planning Commission denies. Lowndes' Minneola filings are pre-cleared cases the firm expects the conditioning instinct will carry to approval. The firm's strategic distribution is sharper than the disposition record suggests.
Third, the firm's representation in the most contested 2026 cases shows real-time recalibration. Citrus Grove Road Commercial PUD was tabled at Minneola on April 6, 2026. The motion to table came from Rose; McCoy seconded — the same pair that had dissented on Whispering Winds five weeks earlier. The case returned on the May 4 agenda as Citrus Ridge Commercial PUD with acreage revised upward from 15.878 to 17.878 acres. The name changed; the footprint grew. Inside 28 days. The rebrand distances the project from the existing Citrus Grove residential PUD on the same road — the 17-stipulation case from prior corpus synthesis. The acreage adjustment is a calibration to the new dynamic Tedrow saw forming on March 2 (Whispering Winds 3-2) and April 6 (the tabling motion). The firm reads the dais. The firm adjusts. By the time Citrus Ridge returns on May 4, the case has been re-shaped to the new Minneola decision-environment Tedrow has been observing in real time.
The Lowndes pattern compares directly against the LPG / Land Planning Group / Mike Rankin pattern in Leesburg. Rankin's Cronin-Dewey Robbins original (November 2024) was denied 7-0 — the most decisive bloc vote of the prior period. Tanner Kalebaugh of Land Planning Group brought the Cronin-Dewey Robbins II re-filing on January 22, 2026; the bloc denied again 4-2 (after Sanders' motion to approve died for lack of a second). LPG / Rankin run a different distribution strategy. They are concentrated in Leesburg, file at smaller scales, and pursue the City Commission override bet aggressively — denial at the Planning Commission becomes a staging ground for the second-and-third reading. They keep filing because the bet works enough of the time. Their record is the most denied-attorney signature in the corpus. Lowndes does not have a comparable denial signature in Minneola. The firms are running different regional strategies. Lowndes has read the entire corridor; LPG operates within a tighter strategic radius.
The Pattern
When a regional firm operates at-scale across a multi-city corridor and represents both poles of every contested case, the firm becomes the substrate of the development pipeline. Three structural consequences follow, and the third is the deepest.
First: the firm pre-filters which projects reach the dais. Every case Lowndes brings to Minneola has been read against the city's known disposition gradient before filing. Tedrow knows what failed in Pointe Grande because she filed it; she knows the conditioning instinct because she watched it operate on Hills Town Center / Crooked Can. The firm carries the institutional memory of every prior filing. The cities do not. Minneola sees only its own filings. Leesburg sees only its own filings. Clermont sees only its own filings. Lowndes sees all of them. The intelligence asymmetry between the firm and the cities compounds over time. By 2026, the firm operates a regional learning system the cities cannot replicate.
Second: the firm's geographic distribution is a forward indicator of where the development pipeline will land. When Lowndes files in Leesburg, the firm has calculated that the City Commission can likely override the Planning Commission's denial. When Lowndes files in Minneola, the firm has calculated that the city's conditioning instinct produces approvals at-scale even on contested cases. The firm's strategic distribution tells the corridor where the real entitlement risk is — high in Leesburg, where the bloc's denial discipline accumulates against staff recommendations; lower in Minneola, where the body shapes rather than refuses. The Lowndes Leesburg filings are political-economy bets; the Lowndes Minneola filings are pre-cleared cases. The same firm running both strategies in parallel is the regional intelligence operating at full discipline.
Third — and this is the deepest pattern — the same legal infrastructure represents both poles of a city's emotional axis. Tedrow brought Pointe Grande and Hills Town Center / Crooked Can. The first was the project Minneola was forced to accept; the second was the project Minneola most wanted. Same firm. Same lead attorney. The legal-economy does not have an opposition firm. There is no "pro-resident" attorney filing against Tedrow's Pointe Grande. There is no "anti-development" attorney filing against Tedrow's Hills Town Center. The contestable adversarial structure most civic-tech accounts of land-use representation assume exists at the regional scale does not exist in south Lake County. Lowndes is the substrate. Cities respond to the firm's filings; the firm does not respond to a contesting firm.
This is a structural feature, not a bug. Cities cannot organize around an opposing legal-economy because none exists at the regional scale. The legal infrastructure that mediates land use in south Lake County is operationally a single-firm system on the developer side, with smaller firms (LPG / Mike Rankin, Bret Jones, Jimmy Crawford) operating at narrower geographic radii. Residents and resident-groups do not have access to comparable firm-level representation. The asymmetry is structural and durable.
What does this mean for how the corridor's development pipeline really works? It means that by the time a case arrives at a P&Z dais, the most consequential decisions about what gets filed, in which city, with which entitlement strategy, against which precedent, have already been made — at the firm's pre-application meeting, before the city ever sees the proposal. The dais is the public-facing surface of decisions made elsewhere. Public testimony at the meeting can shape conditions, can occasionally flip a vote (the Hancock gas station denied 4-0 after Del Webb residents brought PowerPoints), can in unusual cases produce a denial against staff recommendation (Lake Bright-Brighurst, where Hanover's $2.3M intersection mitigation did not move the bloc). But the case-selection has happened upstream of the dais. The corridor's development pipeline is shaped at the firm level before it is contested at the city level.
The corollary: planning boards' effective reach is bounded above by the firm's pre-application read. A board can deny a case the firm filed. The board cannot file a case the firm did not bring. The cases the firm chose not to file in 2024-2026 — projects the firm read as too contested, too high-risk, too misaligned with the city's disposition — are invisible to the public record. The cases the firm did file represent the firm's strategic distribution. The dais sees the visible portion. The firm operates the invisible portion.
The Six-Month Board Flip in Clermont (the Krzyminski-to-Bain transition, three new commissioners, professional procedural infrastructure) demonstrated that planning-board character can change inside one calendar quarter. The Lowndes Drosdick pattern is the structural counterpoint: when boards change, attorney networks remain stable. Tedrow filed in Minneola through the Henderson chairmanship and continues to file under Calderon's acting chairmanship. Opsahl filed in Leesburg under Sennett's chairmanship before the bloc consolidated and continues to file as the bloc's denial discipline accumulates. The firm reads the new dynamic and adjusts the filing strategy. The cities reorganize their boards; the firm reorganizes its calibration. The substrate stays the same.
For developers, this is the operational reality of land-use entitlement in the corridor. For residents, it is the structural feature that explains why opposition organizing succeeds at the conditioning level (more stipulations, better buffers, stricter design standards) but rarely at the case-rejection level (cases the firm chose to file generally end up entitled in some form). For investors, it is the legal-economy substrate that compounds with every cycle — the firm's pattern-detection capacity grows; the cities' boards rotate. For attorneys outside the firm, it is the market topology — Lowndes, LPG / Rankin, Crawford, Jones, Drage operate at different geographic radii with different dispositional calibrations, and a competing regional firm at Lowndes' scale would change the corridor's representation structure materially. None has emerged.
Why It Matters
The Lowndes Drosdick Network is the structural counterpoint to The Six-Month Board Flip. Boards change in months; attorney networks compound across years. The pattern names a feature of advisory-board governance that civic-tech accounts of land-use representation do not surface: the legal-economy that mediates land use at regional scale is not adversarially structured. A single firm operating across multiple cities with multiple attorneys at every position on each city's controversy axis becomes the substrate of the development pipeline. The firm pre-filters which projects reach the dais; the firm's geographic distribution is a forward indicator of entitlement risk; the same firm represents both poles of every city's emotional axis. The corridor's development pipeline is shaped at the firm level before it is contested at the city level. The boards rotate; the firm calibrates. The cities are local; the legal-economy is regional. The dialectical tension the lens surfaces: the firm is not a neutral conduit (the political-economy reading), and the firm is also not malicious (the disposition record is mixed across cities, with strategic distribution rather than adversarial posture). The deeper insight is that the firm is operating a regional learning system the cities cannot replicate, and the asymmetry compounds with every filing. The pattern is durable through board changes, through SB 180, through corridor formation events, because the substrate is the firm's pattern-detection capacity, not any single city's planning posture.
A development team operating in the south Lake corridor is reading against a legal substrate the team must understand structurally. Three operational rules apply. First: firm-level institutional memory is the most consequential pre-application input. Tedrow's reads on Minneola's conditioning instinct, the bloc's filter in Leesburg, the form-based code regime in Clermont compound across every prior filing. A team retaining Lowndes for a south Lake project receives the firm's pattern-detection capacity by default; a team retaining a smaller firm operating at narrower geographic radius does not. The basis-point edge sits in firm selection, not just in case strategy. Second: case-selection should match the firm's strategic distribution. Lowndes' Leesburg practice is built around the City Commission override bet on Planning Commission-denied cases. A team filing rural-arterial residential in Leesburg under any firm should underwrite the second-and-third reading bet with explicit downside scenarios. The firm's pre-application read is the leading indicator of whether the bet is winnable. Third: the firm's recalibration cycle is fast. The Citrus Grove → Citrus Ridge rebrand and 2-acre upward revision between April 6 and May 4, 2026 demonstrates the firm's responsiveness to dais dynamics in real time. A development team's project can be re-shaped between agendas; the firm operates that calibration cycle as a default. Plan against the firm's calibration; the dais is the visible portion, the firm is the operating portion.
Capital allocation against a corridor mediated by a single regional firm operating at-scale carries a different asset-selection profile than a corridor with adversarial firm structure. Three vectors apply. First: pre-cleared cases the firm chooses to file in approval-disposed cities (Minneola's conditioning instinct mode) carry a higher base-rate probability of entitlement than cases filed in denial-disposed cities (Leesburg's bloc filter). The firm's geographic distribution is a forward indicator. A capital deployment in a corridor city where Lowndes is filing actively (Minneola) is weighted differently than one where Lowndes is filing aggressively against a denial bloc (Leesburg). Second: the firm's calibration cycle reduces entitlement timeline variance for cases the firm chooses to file. The Citrus Ridge rebrand-and-revision cycle inside 28 days demonstrates the firm's ability to compress recalibration; cases not retaining the firm operate on slower iteration cycles. Third: the firm's regional learning system compounds with every cycle. A 36-month investor view in the corridor reads the firm's pattern-detection capacity as a structural feature of the entitlement environment. As Lowndes' filing record compounds, the firm's pre-application read becomes more accurate; the cases the firm chooses to file have higher selectivity, and the cases the firm chooses not to file are filtered out before they reach any underwriting. The information substrate sharpens across years.
The legal infrastructure that decides what kind of project arrives at your Planning Commission's dais is operationally a single regional firm with offices in Orlando. Lowndes Drosdick represents the project the city was forced to accept (Pointe Grande in Minneola) and the project the city most wanted (Crooked Can / Hills Town Center). The same firm. The same lead attorney. There is no "pro-resident" firm operating at comparable scale; there is no opposition firm. The legal-economy that mediates land use in your corridor is not adversarially structured at the regional level. What this means practically: opposition organizing at the case level — neighbors, livestock owners, abutting property owners, signature petitions like the 1,500 that arrived for Cronin-Dewey Robbins — succeeds at shaping conditions and occasionally flipping a vote (Lake Bright-Brighurst on January 22, 2026 was denied despite $2.3M intersection mitigation; the Hancock gas station denied 4-0 after Del Webb residents brought PowerPoints). It does not succeed at the case-selection level — the cases the firm chooses not to file are invisible to public organizing because they never appear on a public agenda. Showing up to meetings remains the operational variable for the cases that do appear. Reading the firm's filing distribution across cities — Tedrow's name appearing on a 17.878-acre commercial PUD at the Citrus Grove / N. Hancock corner is a forward indicator that more filings will follow at that intersection — gives residents an early-warning instrument the public meeting calendar does not.
Counsel operating in the south Lake corridor on either side of a contested case faces a structural feature of the legal-economy that conventional civic-tech accounts do not surface. Three observations apply. First: Lowndes Drosdick's three principal corridor attorneys (Tedrow, Opsahl, Huels) operate a regional caseload that exceeds the institutional memory of any city's Planning and Zoning office. The firm's pattern-detection capacity is the most concentrated repository of corridor-specific land-use knowledge in the regional legal-economy. Counsel retaining Lowndes inherits that institutional memory; counsel filing against Lowndes-represented cases is filing against a firm that has read every prior filing in the corridor across multiple cities. Second: the firm's strategic distribution is observable from the public record. Tedrow's Minneola caseload (Pointe Grande / Hills Town Center / Crooked Can / Crystal Cove / Citrus Ridge) is approval-track; Opsahl's Leesburg caseload (Old Mill / Venice / Oak Ridge / Dominium) is denial-track. The firm operates both strategies in parallel, calibrated to each city's disposition. Counsel for an aggrieved party challenging a Lowndes-represented case can use the firm's strategic-distribution record as litigation evidence of the firm's pre-application calibration — the firm chose to file in this city because it calculated the City Commission would override the Planning Commission's denial; therefore the Planning Commission's denial is the operationally-expected outcome, and the firm's filing is the political-economy bet. Third: a competing regional firm at Lowndes' scale would change the corridor's representation structure materially. None has emerged in 2024-2026. The legal-economy is operationally single-firm at the developer-representation level. Whether that structure persists or fragments through the SB 180 sunset window (October 2027) is the open question for corridor counsel posture.
</Lens>The replication question for the Lowndes Drosdick Network pattern is whether other Florida growth corridors operate under similar single-firm regional legal-economy substrates, and whether the civic governance toolkit can be adapted to that structural feature. Three observations apply. First: the pattern likely generalizes. Other growing corridors — the I-4 corridor through Polk and Osceola, the Apopka-Mount Dora corridor in northwest Orange and southeast Lake, the West Volusia growth front — likely have analogous single-firm or small-firm-cluster representation substrates that civic operators can identify by reading the public filing records across multiple cities. Second: the pattern is durable through board changes. Clermont's Six-Month Board Flip changed the chair, three commissioners, and the city attorney inside one calendar quarter. Tedrow continued to file in Minneola through the Henderson-to-Calderon transition; Opsahl continued to file in Leesburg through the bloc's consolidation. The firm reads the new dynamic and adjusts the filing strategy. Civic governance reform that changes a board's composition without changing the firm's substrate produces planning-disposition shifts at the case level but does not change the case-selection upstream of the dais. Third: civic governance can sharpen its instruments around the firm-level pattern by making firm distributions visible. The corridor's filing records — which firms file in which cities, in what disposition tracks — is publicly observable but rarely surfaced. Reading the firm distribution alongside the board's voting record is the corridor-scale instrument the civic-leader audience can build. The public meeting calendar is one input; the firm's filing record is another.
The corridor's development pipeline is shaped by which firm files where, in what disposition track. Three operational implications apply for business operators selecting sites and building site-selection methodologies in south Lake County. First: a Lowndes-represented filing in Minneola at the Citrus Grove / N. Hancock intersection — Citrus Ridge Commercial PUD pending May 4, 2026, with the Camp Lake Industrial Park preliminary plat at the same intersection — is a forward indicator that the corridor's eastern Minneola gateway is becoming a commercial-and-industrial node. Site-selection methodologies that read firm filings as forward indicators identify corridor-formation events 18-36 months before they appear in comparables. Second: the firm's recalibration cycle compresses entitlement variance for retained cases. A retail or commercial operator pursuing a corridor pad with Lowndes representation receives the firm's pre-application read on the city's conditioning instinct and the bloc's filter; the operator's underwriting can incorporate the firm's calibration as a base-rate input. Third: the firm's distribution maps the corridor's friction surface. Lowndes' Leesburg practice is denial-track; the rural-arterial conversion typology in Leesburg is closed for the duration of the bloc's discipline. Lowndes' Minneola practice is approval-track; the conditioning instinct produces approvals at-scale on contested cases. A site-selection methodology that maps the corridor against the firm's strategic distribution generates a regulatory-friction surface the comparables-driven market does not yet price.
Watch Next
The pattern is structurally durable. Three indicators determine its trajectory.
- Citrus Ridge Commercial PUD substantive disposition (May 4, 2026, Minneola). Tedrow filed the rebrand-and-revision; the Rose/McCoy faction tabled the prior version. Approval validates the firm's calibration cycle; denial signals a Minneola dynamic the firm has not yet absorbed.
- Lake Bright-Brighurst City Commission second reading (March 23, 2026, Leesburg). Lowndes-related representation surfaces in the Leesburg denial track via comparable filings; the City Commission override outcome on the Planning Commission's $2.3M-mitigation denial calibrates the Leesburg political-economy bet that anchors the firm's denial-track filings.
- First competing regional firm at Lowndes' scale. None has emerged in 2024-2026. A new entrant would change the corridor's representation structure materially.
- Camp Lake Industrial Park preliminary plat disposition (May 4, 2026, Minneola). First industrial filing at the Citrus Grove / N. Hancock intersection; tests whether the corridor-formation event accelerates with adjacent industrial entitlement.
- Lowndes' next Leesburg filing post-bloc-consolidation. Whether the firm continues filing rural-arterial residential under the bloc's discipline tests the political-economy bet's continued viability.
- Firm-level filing rate by city through 2026. A meaningful increase in Lowndes' Minneola filings, alongside a decrease in Leesburg filings, signals the firm is reweighting toward approval-disposition cities. A capital reweighting follows.
- Firm calibration cycle observation in Citrus Ridge (May 4 vote). A successful approval after the rebrand-and-revision validates the firm's calibration discipline; a denial signals the corridor's planning-disposition dynamics outpacing the firm's read.
- Firm filing distribution observable on city websites. Reading attorney-of-record across multiple cities' agendas as a forward indicator gives residents earlier warning of corridor-formation events than the comparables-driven public discourse provides.
- Lake 100 Magistrate proposal trajectory in Leesburg. A Magistrate replacing the Planning Commission would change the firm's political-economy bet structure; the corridor's representation substrate would adjust.
- First quasi-judicial procedural challenge to a Lowndes-represented denial. Tests the firm's procedural posture under contested-record conditions and the city's procedural-compliance regime.
- SB 180 sunset window (October 2027). Post-sunset code-writing across all four cities would reshape the firm's calibration substrate; the firm's response is the corridor-scale signal.
Source Trail
- Governance Stream — IGNITION-DELTA Extension:
_regional/streams/governance-stream.md(NLAA, 2026-05-09) - City of Minneola Planning & Zoning Commission, January 2024 minutes:
minneola-pzc-2024-01— Pointe Grande Live Local Act / Tedrow filing - City of Minneola Planning & Zoning Commission, January 2025 minutes:
minneola-pzc-2025-01— Hills Town Center / Crooked Can / Tedrow filing - City of Minneola Planning & Zoning Commission, May 4, 2026 agenda:
minneola-pzc-2026-05— Citrus Ridge Commercial PUD rebrand and 2-acre upward revision / Tedrow filing - City of Leesburg Planning Commission, November 2025 minutes:
leesburg-pc-2025-11— Dominium Apartments 4-2 disapproval / Lowndes Law Firm representation - City of Leesburg Planning Commission, April 2025 minutes:
leesburg-pc-2025-04— Venice at Lake Harris 5-2 denial / Opsahl filing - Connected brief: The Six-Month Board Flip — boards change; firm networks remain stable
- Connected brief: The Quiet Revolution on Highway 27 — corridor-scale generalization
This brief connects to
- Governance Stream IGNITION-DELTA ExtensionMAY 9, 2026
- Master Regional SynthesisMAR 4, 2026
- Minneola PZC Jan 2024 (Pointe Grande LLA — Tedrow)JAN 9, 2024
- Minneola PZC Jan 2025 (Hills Town Center / Crooked Can — Tedrow)JAN 7, 2025
- Minneola PZC May 2026 agenda (Citrus Ridge 17.878 ac — Tedrow)MAY 4, 2026
- Leesburg PC Nov 2025 (Dominium 4-2 deny — Lowndes Law Firm)NOV 20, 2025
- Leesburg PC Apr 2025 (Venice at Lake Harris 5-2 deny — Opsahl)APR 17, 2025
- The Six-Month Board Flip (representation stability when boards change)APR 8, 2026
The pattern is named so the field can be read.