Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM080392 MINUTES WEEK OF AUGUST 3, 1992 The meeting was called to order by Commissioner B.G. Brown in the absence of Chairman Larry W. Dennison. Commissioner Richard E. Wojt was present. Discussion of Board's Response to Port Ludlow Watershed Plan: Community Services Director David Goldsmith reported that the Port Ludlow Watershed Committee is in the process of drafting the final watershed action plan. He and Teresa Barron, Water Quality Planner, have reviewed the Committee's recommendations to be implemented by the Board of Health and the Commissioners and have developed responses to those recommendations. The draft response letter to the Committee regarding each of their recommendations was then reviewed. For the Board of Health: The Health Department has reviewed the recommendations and the proposed responses by the Board of Health. The total fiscal implications of the five recommendations is estimated at $16,000 per year in existing staff and budget. R-13 Require mandatory on-site septic system inspection at time of property sale. The Board of Health is suggesting that the wording of this recommendation be changed to say, "The Board of Health shall develop a program to address the time of sale inspection of properties for which bank financing is not available." Commissioner Brown suggested that the reference to bank financing be eliminated. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth suggested that the word "existing" be added. Mter further discussion of the intent of this goal, the wording was changed to: "The Board of Health shall develop a prOf!ram to address the time-of-sale inspection of existinf! septic svstems." M-8 Develop an incentive program for voluntary pumping of on-site septic systems. The suggested revision of this goal would read: "The Board of Health and Public Utility District #1 shall jointly develop a program for the maintenance of conventional on- site septic systems including incentives for voluntary pumping." Commissioner Brown noted that he will have to review this goal further to see what type of incentives could be offered. Mter further discussion the Board asked that this goal be rejected at this time. R -14 Provide inspection ports for voluntary installation on Ludlow Watershed on-site septic systems. Revise to say: "The Board of Health shall (1) develop policy concerninf! the installation of inspection ports for all new on-site septic svstems. and (2) evaluate the financial assistance available from the Jefferson County Water Ouality Improvement Fund for owners of existinf! svstems to install inspection ports." Vû: 18 í~t~~€ 00 835 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 3, 1992 Page: 2 The Board concurred that this revision be submitted to the Committee. R-15 Require installation of low-flush toilets in all new or rehabilitated on-site septic systems. It is recommended that the Board of Health concur with this recommendation as written. Commissioner Brown asked why there is an increase cost in staff time for this recommendation? Teresa Barron answered that the Health Department indicated that amount. She will discuss this cost figure with them further. MN-5 Submit an Implementinf! Af!ency Evaluation Report annually from date of plan approval, to evaluate progress and revision needs of Ludlow Watershed Action Plan recommendation/s for which your agency is responsible. The recommendation is that the Board of Health concur with this provision and that the Planning and Building Department be designated coordinating entity for the annual reports. Teresa Barron then began reviewing the recommendations that are the primary responsibility of the Board of Commissioners. For the Board of Commissioners: These 13 recommendations would have a total estimated implementation cost of $65,000 in existing staff time for the Planning and Building and Public Works Departments. There are no new costs anticipated, but there is a question if the existing staff can take on this additional work. R -1 Freeze additional net pen aquaculture in the Ludlow Watershed until more is known about its effects on water quality. The recommended revision is to ask the State Department of Ecology to develop and adopt Best Management Practices for net pen aquaculture. Teresa Barron noted that the County has already responded to the Committee's recommendation by approving a six month extension of the moratorium on salmon net pen applications. The recommended wording would ask the State DOE to develop the guidelines and criteria for net pen aquaculture. The Board concurred with the suggested revision. The Board concurred that the balance of these recommendations will be reviewed next week. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: There was discussion of the variances granted on the Harwood Long Plat, and the application for funding of Phase I and II of the Olympic Discovery Trail (from City of Port Townsend to Adelma Beach). APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Wojt moved to delete items 3 and 5 and then to adopt and approve the balance of the consent agenda items as presented. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. Adopt Findings and Conclusions; Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision; Loomis Properties 2. Request for Payment of Third Quarter Allocation; Jefferson County Conservation District 3. DELETE ITEM CONTRACT re: Pavement Marking 1992 MT01048; As awarded Using Small Works Roster Procedures; Stripe Rite, Ine. Auburn 4. Application to Open Right-of-Way; E. Price Street in Irondale; David Hensel, Applicant 5. DELETE ITEM ISTEA Enhancement Application; ROO918, Olympic Discovery Trail, Phase I & II; Washington State Department of Transportation VOL 18 r~t;t 00 839 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 3, 1992 Page: 3 6. Authorization of Payment; Allocation of the Clallam/Jefferson Housing Rehabilitation Trust Fund; City of Port Townsend $50,000.00 7. CONTRACT #1440-83458(3), Amendment re: County Community Oient Substance Abuse Services, Human Services Department; State Department of Social and Health Services 8. Approval of Application for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund; Philip Boyer Raiguel $200.00; Bruce William Barker $500.00 9. Notice of Public Hearing; On Proposed Amendment to Ordinance 5-89, Planning and Building Department Fee Schedule; Fees for New Services; Setting Hearing Date for August 17, 1992 at 2:30 p.m. 10. CONTRACT re: Work on the Domestic Violence Planning Grant from the Department of Social and Health Services; Jefferson County Domestic Violence Sexual Assault Program BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PUBLIC WORKS Discussion of Information Received by Frederick Tuso from the from State Department of Ecoloey re: Franchise Application: Aericultural Irrieation Line: Gardiner Beach Road: G.A.B.. Inc.. Applicant: (See also Minutes of January 27, 1992) Fred Tuso, representing G.A.B., Inc., reported that the State will only grant water rights at the time water is actually taken. The State has given permission for construction and diversion of the water for this project. He added that he doesn't feel the franchise can be held up until the water rights are granted because the State will not issue water rights until the system is in place. Commissioner Brown asked Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth how to proceed with this matter? Mark Huth suggested that the Board not re-open the hearing until the State issues the permit and a copy of it is submitted by Mr. Tuso. Fred Tuso reported that he was told he will have the permit this week. Commissioner Wojt moved to re-open this hearing on August 10, 1992 at 10:30 a.m. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Application for Franchise: Construct. Operate and Maintain a Water Line: AI Schoenfeld. Applicant (Tabled on Julv 27. 1992): Public Works Administrative Assistant Eileen Simon reported that a letter has been received from AI Schoenfeld asking that his application for franchise for a water system be withdrawn. This water system is being made part of the Bridgehaven Water System. Application for Franchise: Water System: Brideehaven and Trails End Vicinity: Brideehaven Community Club Association. Applicant: (See also Minutes of December 23, 1991) Commissioner Wojt moved to bring the matter of the Bridgehaven water system franchise off the table. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. This franchise application was tabled, Mark Huth reported, until a determination on whether it should undergo SEP A review was made by the Planning Department. The franchise area includes environmentally sensitive areas. The Planning Department has reviewed this question and reports that franchises are categorically exempt from SEPA review. Commissioner Brown asked if there is any further public comment. Hearing none he closed the hearing. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the franchise application as submitted by the Bridgehaven Water District. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. .VGL 18rA~£ 00 840 Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: I I I Week of lUgust 3, 1992 Page: 4 Mark Huth reported that the bond for the fr~nchise needs to be addressed. The bond is required as assurance that any damage to thel water line will be repaired and the right-of- way will be put back into an acceptable c~ndition. The Board can waive the bonding requirement and the applicant has asked that this be done. Byron Swiggart reported that the Bridgehaven Water System does carry insudnce to cover any repairs that might become necessary. He added that the Bridgehaven wetter system has a franchise for another part of the system on which a bond was not requi~ed. Mark Huth stated that the insurance is probably better than the bond, but suggested that the County be given a copy of the policy. Commissioner Wojt moved to waive the bond r~equirement and to request that a copy of the Water systems insurance policy be submitted tp the County. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. I I I I PLANNING ~ BUILDING ! I I i i HEARING re: Proposed Buildine ~ode Ordinance: Assistant Planner Eric Toews reported that the proposed draft of the BUildin~ Code Ordinance is to bring the County into conformance with the 1991 edition of the Uni orm Building Code which went into effect in all Counties of the State on July 1, 1992. Tb¡is draft ordinance also includes provisions for residential building setbacks and height restrictions. Usually setbacks and height restrictions are part of a County's Zoning Code, but Jeffeíson County doesn't have a traditional zoning code in place at this time. The County's Emer ency Zoning Ordinance has height and setback requirements but they only pertain tocomm rcial and industrial developments and not to residential structures. In order to implement re~idential setback provisions which are intended to further the public health, safety and welf*e, they are being included in this proposed building code ordinance. In the future they wir be included in a more appropriate ordinance such as the new development code. I Building Inspector Mike Ajax reviewed the ~ther codes adopted by this ordinance which include: the Uniform Mechanical Code, the Unrorm Fire Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code, the Washington State regulations for Barrier ree Facilities, the State Energy Code and the State Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Code. The draft code also includes Appendix 2F of. the Uniform Fire Code which allows the USð of above ground tanks for storage of fuels dispensed to motor vehicles. This appendix ha~ been reviewed by the local Fire Districts who added wording to it that says that above groun~ tanks are not allowed for retail establishments selling fuel to motor vehicles. I i ! Commissioner Brown asked what alternative , retailer would have to sell gasoline if they could not put in a below ground tanks that wo~ld meet the standards? Mike Ajax stated that there is no other alternative but that was discu~sed by the Fire Chiefs in the County and they felt that this restriction for the use of above ground tanks is appropriate. I Eric Toews noted that Chapter 70 of the UBC (addresses clearing and grading) is not being considered for adoption with this ordinance. The rationale for height restrictions and residential building setbacks was reviewed (see bemo of July 9, 1992). The height regulations proposed are to address fire safety concerns b~cause most of the rural Fire Districts have a maximum 28 foot high fire fighting capability Iwith the equipment they have. Side and rear yard setbacks are for the appropriate spacing of buildings so that fire does not spread quickly from structure to structure. Front yard setbac~s are required for traffic safety. Most of the suggested setbacks are consistent with the samr regulations in adjacent counties. He then added that Section 4.10 does not eXPïcitly state what types of roads the front yard setbacks apply to. It could be inferred from the language used in this section that these setback restrictions apply with equal force to a y legally described right-of-way, even if it is only an easement crossing one parcel to allow ~ccess to another parcel. This is not the intent of this ordinance. He suggested that the wor~ing of this Section be amended to clarify the front yard setbacks to be applied to the variouf road classifications. Kitsap County's I I . VOL ! 18 fAtE 00 841 Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 3, 1992 Page: 5 ordinance states that their front yard setback regulations apply to (a) all public dedicated roads and (b) to all private roads which are the principle means of access to five or more lots or to properties which are legally capable of division into five or more lots. Eric Toews then reminded the Board that they directed the Planning Department staff to include the fence setback provisions in the draft ordinance and to do research on how other counties regulate fences. He reported that he has reviewed ordinances from other counties and none of them address fence setbacks. He noted that if the Board wants to include fence setbacks in the ordinance, wording needs to be added to clarify that closed barrier type fences are being addressed in this ordinance. Commissioner Brown opened the hearing for public comment. Leon Lopeman asked who would replace a fence when the County widens a County road? Commissioner Brown reported that if the fence is on the County's right-of-way the cost of replacing it is the property owner's responsibility. He added that a wire fence that doesn't obstruct view can be on the property line, and the setback does not apply. Mr. Lopeman then asked about the setbacks from collector roads which the Ordinance says is "twenty feet from the property line, or seventy feet from the centerline, whichever is greater." He added that he owns some 40 by 100 foot lots. The proposed setbacks would not allow any building on them. There would be no room for a house or a septic system. If these setbacks aren't changed in some form or another his property won't have any value at all. Bill Marlow stated that there are many lots in and around Irondale that are 25 by 100 feet and are served by local access roads (as defined in the Emergency Zoning Ordinance) with fifty foot rights-of-way. These setbacks would be especially hard on corner lots. Properties located on collector roads would not be useable if all of these setbacks are applied. He is concerned with the residential and fence setbacks. Rebecca Lopeman stated that she owns a lot on the corner of Old Hadlock Road and Morrisey that is 1.4 acres in size (60,900 square feet). Both of these roads are County roads, not collectors, which means that an 80 foot setback is required from them. The setbacks in this ordinance would take over an acre of her property (43,700 feet). If this is for safety why is so much setback necessary from the roadway? She feels these amounts are extreme. Dale Leavitt asked why Chapter 70 of the UBC (which is the grading and excavating provision) is it not exempted out of the ordinance? Eric Toews explained that Chapter 70 is an appendix to the Code and would have to be specially referenced to be adopted. This appendix is not being adopted. She then asked if agricultural structures, attached garages and carports are exempt under this edition of the UBC? Mike Ajax reported that agricultural buildings are still exempt from the UBC, but storage sheds, tool sheds, etc. over 120 square feet in size are not. He checked the UBC and reported that it is his understanding that agricultural buildings are exempt as this ordinance has been drafted. Eric Toews clarified for Mrs. Leavitt that any changes to the wording of the actual text of the UBC must be submitted and approved by the State Building Code Council. Section 4 of the ordinance, Dale Leavitt continued, does not clarify what constitutes residential construction. Are items such as tool sheds, play houses, rose arbors, swing sets, etc., considered residential construction? She suggested that this be clarified in the ordinance. Eric Toews added that under the provisions for fence setbacks (page 4, Section 4.10) the second sentence states that fences on front yards and roads shall not exceed four feet in height within the twenty foot (20') setback area. This should be corrected to say "within the required setback area." Commissioner Brown asked how this would change the setbacks discussed? Eric Toews clarified that this applies to fences only and the setback amount is tied to the County road classification. If the property is adjacent to a local access or unclassified street within a plat, a front yard fence would have to be 15 feet from the property line or 40 feet from the centerline of the road. The setbacks would intrude on the property, especiaµ'y a corner lot, as pointed out by the testimony today, Eric Toews added. He noted that the ordinance lacks a specific variance procedure for relief from the setback requirements. He VOL 18 rA~E 00 842 Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 3, 1992 Page: 6 feels one way to address the problems raised today is to add a variance section which would set out criteria to allow a lesser setback in cases such as described, where a great deal of the buildable area is taken up by the setbacks. Gene Seton asked why a double standard is being proposed in this ordinance? It is very confusing. He asked why a specific setback footage can not be set? He suggested that the provisions of the Development Code (Implementing Ordinance) be reviewed and adopted. Leon Lopeman added that with the setback proposed in the ordinance for County arterial roads there would be in effect a 160 foot right-of-way while on County collector roads there would be a 140 foot right-of-way and on local access roads or unclassified streets within plats it would mean an 80 foot right-of-way. Commissioner Brown explained the setback area is not right-of-way. The road right-of-way will be whatever it is prescribed to be. The setback defines how much of the property the property owner can use next to the right-of-way. Eric Toews reiterated that a variance procedure would address some of the problems pointed out today. The rationale for the setbacks being different based on different classifications of roads is for vehicle safety and adequate sight distance. The front yard setback needs to be greater on more heavily travelled roads because vehicle speeds are increased and sight distance is a critical issue. Commissioner Brown noted that the plats in the Irondale area were done at the turn of the century and these proposed setbacks may not allow any use of some of the lots. These regulations could be applied to new plats, but a significant number of variances may be required to address the number of old platted lots in the County, which will create a lot of work for the property owners, staff and the Board. Gene Seton asked if this type of land control is an appropriate way to address auto safety? He stated that there are speed limits to control auto safety. The discussion continued regarding speed limits and the impact of the number of daily trips on a road. Mr. Seton added that just requiring a setback will not assure better sight distance unless the property owner clears the setback area. He feels that a specific setback amount should be set for each classification of road. Rebecca Lopeman pointed out that with the ordinance worded as it is there could different setback amounts on the same road, because the amount of setback changes if the road is adjacent to platted property or undeveloped property. She feels the setback should be stated as a specific number of feet from the road right-of-way. Fred Tuso said that the County and the State will not allow cutting of trees on the right-of- way and he questioned if the true purpose of these setbacks is for sight safety. Cutting trees on the right-of-way needs to be addressed if safety is the concern. Bill Marlow stated that the streets in the Irondale area, where there are thousands or platted lots, will not allow fast traffic and he stated that he doesn't see the need for any setbacks in that area at all. Franz Grover stated that he is concerned about the matter of privacy fences. He doesn't see what is wrong with having a privacy fence along his front yard. He added that if sight safety is really the need, then he suggested that the County clear or purchase the right-of-way. He agreed with others that the setback should be stated as a specific distance from the right-of- way. He noted that this draft ordinance states that fences should not project beyond the top of the bank. He asked for a definition of bank. He also asked that the section on fences be eliminated. Dale Leavitt asked if a fence is considered residential construction and are subject to the side and rear yard setbacks? She explained that fences are many times placed on property lines and are one of the items used in adverse possession disputes to determine property ownership. Eric Toews stated that the side and rear setbacks were not meant to be applied to fences. Gene Seton clarified that he feels the residential setbacks should be simply the number of feet from the property line for the road classification with the reference to the number of feet from 18 On 843 VGt rAGE U- Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 3, 1992 Page: 7 the centerline taken out. He then questioned the need for a 35 foot height limit. He suggested that wording be included in the ordinance that says 35 feet unless otherwise approved by the local fire department. Bill Leavitt stated that many people want to build a Victorian type homes in the County and 35 feet would not given them much leeway. He feels there should be a way for people to build a residence over that height without putting an additional burden on the property owner. Eric Toews reported that the Planning Department has letters from four Fire Districts supporting the 35 foot height limitation. One Fire District responded that no height limitation was needed. Commissioner Brown suggested that the 35 foot limit be left in the ordinance but that a process be added to allow a property owner to get permission from the Fire District if they wanted to build over that height. Mark Huth stated that the Board can not defer their regulatory power to a Fire District, and he feels a variance procedure should be developed to address this. Leon Lopeman stated that he feels the height limitation should be deleted. The Fire Districts are run by elected Fire Commissioners and they should be upgrading the equipment of the district, when it becomes necessary. Fred Tuso suggested that criteria be developed for a variance which could include that stone structures or structures with sprinkler systems be allowed to go over the 35 foot limit. Bill Marlow stated that the problem with variances is that they are another procedure to go through. Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to see that everything possible be addressed in the ordinance to limit the need for variances. However, he knows that variances will always be needed. Dale Leavitt asked how the Fire District's would handle a fire in a commercial structure that is allowed to be 50 feet in height? Commissioner Brown asked Mike Ajax how that is dealt with? Mike Ajax reported that the UBC handles sprinkling systems in different ways for various types of commercial buildings. She then asked at what point the 35 feet would be measured from? The ordinance states that the measurement can be taken from any point on the finished grade of the foundation line to the highest part of the structure above that point. Mike Ajax explained the way the measurement is made according to the UBC. Rebecca Lopeman said the penalties section says that violations of this ordinance are a misdemeanor and the violator can be fined up to $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than ninety days and each and every day can be considered a separate violation. She asked if that means that the maximum is $1,000 (and/or 90 days in jail) or a $1,000 for every day in violation? Mark Huth reported that the penalty can be assessed for every day the property owner is in violation of the ordinance. The judge would make the determination on the penalty to be applied. He added that this is standard language in County ordinances and State law. Dale Leavitt asked that the UBC method of measuring the height of the structure be placed in this ordinance. Elmer Hardin~ asked if the fence setbacks mean that the property owner can not define his front property line with a fence? Commissioner Brown stated that is true. Eric Toews clarified that fences less than four feet in height do not require a building permit and can be placed within the setback area. He added that vegetation does not require a building permit and can be any height. Fred Tuso asked that all of the items discussed today by the public be addressed at another public hearing. VlìL 18r~GE 00 844 Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 3, 1992 Page: 8 Commissioner Brown noted that the Board will have to take all of the comments made today into consideration and see how they can be addressed in the ordinance. If substantive changes are made to the ordinance another public hearing must be held. Mark Huth suggested that this public hearing be continued and when the changes are made to the ordinance an advertisement can be put in the paper of the date of the continuation of the hearing. Leon Lopeman suggested that this ordinance be re-written and re-advertised and that hearings be held at various places in the County so more of the public can come to the hearing and comment. Commissioner Brown asked how much time the staff will need to re-draft the ordinance to address the public comments received today? Eric Toews reported that the process used on past ordinances has been to have the Planning Department meet with the Board following the public hearing to review the public testimony and be given direction on how to amend the ordinance. Commissioner Wojt moved to continue this hearing to 2:00 p.m. on October 5, 1992. Mark Huth suggested that the hearing continuation be advertised along with the text of the proposed ordinance. Mter discussion of the best way to proceed, Commissioner Brown closed the hearing. Commissioner Wojt changed his motion to set a new public hearing for review of the revised draft of this ordinance on the date previously stated. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Teal Lake Center Master Plan: Intersection of Teal Lake Road and State Route 104: Dean Reynolds. Proponent: Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that the Board directed the proponent and staff to draft performance standards in response to several issues raised during the comment period on the draft EIS. Those issues were storm water management, groundwater quality, the impact of a commercial project at this location and fire protection. The performance standards are listed on page 10 of the final EIS. The project proponent has revised the project plan and deleted references to motel and lodging uses. It is not known if the local Fire District concurs with the performance standard for fire protection which says that employees of the commercial project will be used as daytime Fire District volunteers. There is also a performance standard for a 100 foot buffer along the west border of the property to address the strip commercial issue. He added that it needs to be further clarified that this is a phased development and site specific environmental review will occur. Greg Waddell, consultant for the project proponent, reported that the Fire District has a problem providing fire protection during the day more than during the night because of the availability of volunteers. The project proponent has suggested that he would allow his employees to be Fire District volunteers during their daytime work schedules. The Fire District had a concern about fire flow and the project proponent has suggested a mitigation that would require that building design and material selection be focused on the reduction of fire suppression equipment and fire flow. Jerry Smith reported that he will contact the Fire District and ask them to submit a letter stating that they agree with the suggested mitigation on these two issues. Mark Huth reported that this is a non-project EIS and its purpose is to be used as a reference for environmental review when the phases of the project are reviewed before development. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the final Environmental Impact Statement for Teal Lake Center contingent on a letter from the Fire District being submitted to the Planning Department. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. VOL 18 fAt}t 00- 845 Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 3, 1992 Page: 9 Patricia Warren. Peter Simpson. and Lynn Anderson of the Jefferson County Historical Society re: Tourism Coordinatine Council Fundine: Lynn Anderson, President of the Jefferson County Historical Society thanked the Board for the support the County has given the Historical Society. Peter Simpson, Secretary, reported that he served on the committee that worked on the Tourism Marketing Plan, and the discussions of the Tourism Coordinating Council (TCC) handling the budget for tourism is a concern. The Board reported that the County's funding for the Historical Society will be provided from the Hotel Motel funds before the amount for the TCC is determined. A representative of the Historical Society will be invited to serve on the TCC. Peter Simpson asked if the Society could ask the TCC for funding of special projects? The Board indicated that they can submit a request for funding for a special project to the TCC if they wish. MEETING ADJOURNED JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ...... '"'I,,:""<'f;.''i-t . 'II ~ y,.~ '0 :".~,. ~~.. .... +, '. , ."oS" ." 4 \\ ". .":".'J _ ',_ ,', "t _ .. - \_ .> <-"-'\< ~~. -. ~ :,':¡ ; ~ f 4 í ..~. '- ',' ..... ".. I .~_-:-_ .,. - ~ :' t . ..... " " , ," .'. ",' t:,' '/ / '\III, ',' . . ~ 7V' · ~f ~.. -~-., , -'" L~ ·f . -- ,. . '... ../" A TrES:r..~ ---:, . ~J! 11P~ Lorna L. Delaney, q Clerk of the Board VOL 18 r~~f 00 846