Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLD1989-00579 f3UI NG', 'ECIMIT*A,PPLICATION 4 Jefferson County Building DepartmentIP .O. Box 1220iPort Townsend. WA 98368 LOCATION / / SPECIFIC LOCATION SITE ADDRESS r722O 1 5 ,4, `l-7/ POSTAL DISTRICT /SUBI5IVISION LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT BLOC DIVISION TAX NUMBER PARCEL NUMBER 5o . 31'3 0')8 1 / 4 SECTION PLANNING AREA SECTION `31 TOWNSHIP ,2A NORTH RANGE a(-,(.3 WM BUILDING INFORMATION BUILDING TYPE TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT SQUARE FOOTAGE SINGLE FAMILY (p NEW BUILDING MAIN FLOOR / h`,/ g- ❑ MOL? I LE HOME 0 ADDITION 2ND FLOOR ❑ MODULAR HOME 0 ALTERATION BASEMENT j046 ❑ DETACHED/ATTACHED 0 REPAIR CARPORT GARAGE 0 REPLACEMENT GARAGE W WOODSTOVE 0 WRECKING/DEMOLITION COMMERCIAL ❑ MULTI - FAMILY 0 RELOCATION/MOVING INDUSTRIAL NUMBER OF UNITS ❑ COMMERCIAL MOBILE HOMES1.620 47°21 -) 0 INDUSTRIAL SIZEq`� $35 ❑ HOTEL/MOTEL/DORMITORY YEAR @ $ 16 MAKE /2/17 /V El $8 6! Q--(?= NUMBER OF UNITS ❑ OTHER - SPECIFY ESTIMA D COST OF 0 aEl $8 IMP- 4VEMENTS ITOTJTOTAL_,_EA4 MARKET VALUE UBC OCCUPANCY GROU $ $ Cl / SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF BUILDING PRINCIPLE TYPE OF FRAME PRINCIPLE TYPE OF HEATING FUEL pf WOOD FRAME 0 ELECTRICITY 0 COLLECTIVE SOLAR ❑ MANUFACTURED 0 WOODSTOVE 0 PASSIVE SOLAR O STRUCTURAL STEEL 0 GAS 0 COAL 7�� ) r 0 REINFORCED CONCRETE 0 OIL OTHER - SPECIFY [C / f/p O MASONRY ( WALL BEARING ) DIMENSIONS r[ �ti'' i ❑ OTHER - NUMBER OF STORIES / TOTAL LAND AREA -C/C-.1: DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW H ALT/ . ARTMENT TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL NUMBER OF PROPOSED BEDROOMS 1 N ❑ PUBLIC OR PRIVATE NUMBER OF EXISTING BEDROOMS ((( ( INDIVIDUAL ( SEPTIC ) NUMBER OF PROPOSED BATHROOM `- APPROVED DATE INDIVIDUAL WELL NUMBER OF EXISTING BATHROOM oppeeerw PUD TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY O PUBLIC ( NAME OF WATER SUPPLY ♦ APPROVED DATE 0 PRIVATE ( NAME OF WATER SUPPLY ♦I,.;,, r� — �= ;L 111 PLANNING DEPT . WIT IN SHORELINE JURISDICTION YES NAME OF ADJACENT WATER BOD ❑ NO APPROVED DATE BANK HEIGHT SETBACK PUBLIC WORKS DEPT ROAD RIGHT-OF -WAY WIDTH Ol'Pr NAME OF PUBLIC ROAD INAME OF PRIVATE ROAD APPROVED DATE ROAD ACCESS PERMIT REQUIRED 0 YES ❑ NO IDENTIFICATION 1 NAME,� � -�,.��/' ��/' Q� MAILING� ,{�J, / A D D( ....IL-)REES S ZIP T E L NO O W E R 4 1�f�lJ 3O lit_D� J `t"l I�.l TT 1.___.4,. ...,..T \ � :2,3c,, 1 1>'i •�NT (j..P/It---------' S ('ATE L 1 CEN.Ir NO ARCH THE OWNER OF THIS BUILDING AND THE UNDERSIGNED AGREE TO CONFORM TO ALL APPLICABLE LAWS, G� 611 QTURE 1�I '. ZAPCT APTC T T 1ATE ' RECEIPT NUMBER I CHECK E /- CASH 1 APP-�� _• =Y PERMIT FE,,E `../( A P ' fin `CJJ((�J BASE FEE INSPECTION C 'Y 2 6 1989 — / ,; 13) BLDG SURCHARGE PLAN CHECK C ENERGY SURCHARGE � 7.. , .0JEFFERSON COUNTY $ TOTAL P«NVNfi A FROGMI 811 NUMBER D REFUND DATE SSUED BUILDING OFFICIAL 0 / March 27, 1989 • To: David Goldsmith, Planning Director RE: Application or Variance of Setback On Monday, March 13, 1989, Mr. Pearson presented to the Planning Commissioners our request for a variance set back for a proposed private home. The set back was disapproved. We have reason to believe that not all of the problems associated with the land use problem was presented. The purpose of this letter is to furnish more information to you and the commissioners for reconsideration of the project. Our plan was to continue to live in our present home until construction of the new home was complete. Estimated time for completion is seven months from initial start. Upon completion the old residence is to be torn down and removed Following reasons are furnished for request of shoreline variance as per plot plan of the property of James and Bette Aylesworth. Note Tidelands are also included in the property ownership. 1. Present residence to be torn down and removed was originally constructed • as a weekend camping cabin. Construction did not conform to building codes and workmanship is extremely poor. Electric wiring is a fire hazard; innerwalls are insulated with asbestos, posing a severe health problem. In short to bring the house up to county codes not to mention the removal of the asbestos in the walls is not financially feasible. The structure is 34 years old. 2. Can the proposed new home be constructed 30 ' from bank? -answer- NO - reason The guidline of 30' from bank would locate the building into the existing drain field. Refer to plot plan dimensions. 3. Can the existing drain field that was inspected on February 10, 1989 and passed for new construction by the Health Department be moved? -Answer- NO reason - The existing well is located in the middle of the property 75' from existing drain field. If a new drain field could be constructed because of property size and layout it would be less than 75 ' from the well. 4. Can well be relocated? -NO- reason - If a new well would be considered it would have to be relocated in the upper West end of the property. This area has been approved and set aside for the reserve drain filed. A well relocated at the East end of the property would be down grade and less than 75' from the drain field. • 5. Can we change the design of the building from one story to two story thus compressing outside diamensions to allow for 30 ' set back. -Answer- NO - reason My wife suffers a severe back problem caused from an accident and has extreme difficulty with stairs. (Can be attested to by _her doctor) . A narrow two story would not blend in with the natural surroundings as well as a low profile ons story structure. (ij 6. Will the construction of this new home inhance the goals of the planning department of Jefferson County? Answer -YES- The new home will improve • energy conservation through the use of solar panels, insulation, heat pump, improved electrial, plumbing and general construction improvements. 7. Will the new construction improve Jefferson County Tax base short and long range -answer- YES. 8. Will the variance set back adversly effect the shoreline and its enviorn- ment? -Answer- NO - In fact the proposed new construction will pose less roof water run off than existing house and carport due to less square footage of roof. (see plot plan) . 9. Will the new construction with variance set back of 18' project out past the adjacent property owners home? -Answer- NO. The variance request will allow the proposed one bedroom residence to set well back of the home on adjacent property. 10. The proposed site and its planned location has been discussed with property owners on each side and they are in agreement with the plan and its location. 11. Will the proposed building site have construction problems such as bank instability, erosion, or sluffing off? Answer -NO- reason- Bank formation is solid rock twelve feet in height. • 12. Will the passing of this particular and specific variance request set a precedent and as a result flood the office of planning with set back 'variance requests? -Answer- NO. It would be an extreme rarity perhaps never to have similar corresponding circumstances as exist in this variance request. 13. A model of the proposed home has been constructed. Design is an attractive low profile. Natural cedar siding to blend with the intrinsic characteristics of the surrounding property and shore line. Dwelling will not distract or stand out from the natural lush green of existing firs and cedars. 14. If the variance set back request of the proposed home construction posed an adverse impact on the shore line and its environment or if the design and appearance of the structure was not compatible with surrounding terrian and its natural plan and tree growth, or if it was in conflict with our neighbors, or if it was not going to comply with state and county codes, or if it posed a problem with the health department, septic tank drainfield, well, etc. or that we did not have a land use hardship problem we would have no requirement for a variance set back. On four separate occasions during the period starting mid January 1989, my wife and I requested that Mr. Pearson inspect our property for a variance set back. Three of these times we traveled from Brinnon to the Court house to speak • directly to Mr. Pearson. The fourth request was made by letter. In all cases Mr. Pearson told us that he did not have the time. On March 14, 1989 Mr. Pearson called us and informed us that our request was denied. We again traveled to Port Townsend and talked to Mr. Pearson. On March 15,. 1989, Mr. Pearson inspected the site. I suspect this inspection was prompted when we asked him what was our rights of appeal. Without personal 0 knowledge of Mr. Pearson's workload it may well be that he is overloaded. 4, In any event we are very reluctant to become embroiled in a no win confrontation in regards to Mr. Pearsons handling of this matter. We perfer to refrain from further comments on what we consider to be an extremely unfair environmental and land use assessment. In Summary, I am 68 years old, my wife 65, and building this proposed new home is not a nice to have situation, but a necessity. We are justifiably concerned about the real possibility of having a major fire due to faulty wiring. We have very ligitimate worries about our health due to existing asbestos throughout the house. Last year I had a tumor removed from my throat. My wife is presently having throat problems, neither of us smoke. Our funds for building are very limited and will require a bank loan as well as our savings and will necessitate doing much of the work ourselves. Limited finances will require us to live in our present home until the new one is complete. A lot more reasons and words can be written as to why this variance be given favorable consideration, but to shorten this already lengthy letter it boils down to this. If reconsideration of this request is disapproved it will be impossible for us to build the home. This would force us to continue to live in a very hazardous enviornment. The best that we can hope for is a fair consideration and evaluation of a unique land use problem.. S'tE rely Yours, James T. Aylesworth Enclosures 2: 1. Evaluation sewage disposal 2. act plan • 8 April 1989 TO: David Goldsmith, Planning Director Jefferson County Planning and Building Dept. RE: Application of Varience of Setback for Jefferson County Planning Commission We, James and Bette Aylesworth, are requesting a 14 foot setback on our property to allow construction of a one bedroom, single family home on Hood Canal . The follow- ing reasons are listed under the criteria of Section 7 Variences, 7.103 Review and 7.104 Criteria (1) through (6) of the Master Plan and the letter of application of Varience of Setbacks on March 27, 1989 to David Goldsmith. The 14 foot Setback would allow the home to be constructed 10 feet from the existing drain field. a minimum al- lowance by the Jefferson County Health Department. (1) The guideline of a 30 foot setback from the bank would locate the build- ing into the existing drainfield. The drainfield and reserve drain field was approved for new construction on 10 February 1989. The septic tank was pumped on 7 April as suggested by Steve Rice, Inspector. (2) The proposed construction of the home and its planned location has been discussed with the property owners on each side of the site, and they are in accord with the plan and location. The proposed site will have no con- struction problems related to bank instability, erosion or sluffing off. The bank formation is solid rock (12) feet in height. • The home will be constructed of rough cedar siding and natural color to blend with the intrensic characteristics of the surrounding area and shore- line. The dwelling will not distract or stand out from the natural green of rhododendrons, firs and cedars. (3) It would be an extreme rarity, perhaps never to encounter similar corres- ponding circumstances as exist in the varience request (4) Although we are not prone to lying on railroad tracks or engaging in en- vironmental protests, we are sincerely interested in maintaining and im- proving our surrounding environment. This is to include awareness and active stewardship of our aquatic land. We keep our beach and tideland clean and free of plastic debris. We are proud of our beautiful setting and maintain it as such. Keeping our yard neat and clean, grass mowed, and in general being good neighbors, is what we strive to do. If we thought that our proposed new home was not in harmony with our neighbors or that the public interests would suffer, we would be the first to abort our plan. (5) The planned home and its proposed varience setback will be in harmony with the Master Plan. There will be an improvement in energy conservation through the use of solar panels, insulation, heat pump, electrical , plumb- ing and other general construction improvements. There will be no addi- tional burden to a good existing septic system. Page 2 (6) There are no other planned developments in this area with similar cir- cumstances or that would present problems of building such as presented here. In no way will this varience request have an adverse effect on the environmental integrity of the Shoreline, sea life, aesthetics, or the Master Program. Sincerely yours, 7 iffeui.04441 - JAMES T. FLESWORTH BETTE AYLESWORTH Enclosures: is Letter of Application of Varience Setback, March 27, 1989 2. Evaluation of sewage disposal . • 3. Revised plot plan (14' Setback) 4. Statement of approval from adjacent property owners. JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT / PO. Bo\ 1220 :jAe, Port Townsend, «'ashington 9S:368 • i'` ''i Planning (20(i) :385 )140 , ? 1 - — M1-' Building (200) :385 01 1 JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE David Goldsmith, Director ME,Ai A 'BUM James & BettyA 011; h TO : FROM: David Goldsmi 41), DATE : April 5 , 1989 SUBJECT: Shoreline Setbac• Enclosed please find a copy of the variance review criteria the Board of Commissioners used in not approving your request for a variance from the shoreline setback standard. In order for them to review your appeal and in supplement to your letter of March 27 , 1989 , please respond in writing to the Review Criteria of Section 7 . 104 . Mr . Ajax will be by to get exact measurements based on your staking. Once I receive your response and Mr . Ajax' s report , I will schedule an appointment with you and the Board. It would be helpful to indicate concurrence with your variance request with your neighbors . Thank you for your cooperation. 0 , , . I SHORELINE SETBACK EVALUATION APPLICANT: ,p,),-.7kne,..s. / Ai je_swo\,- --\- \--, ADDRESS: 40 0 ,.- 1 / /0 / a j- I Vl /) 0 vi TELEPHONE: (home) 79 business PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PROPERTY SITE NUMBER: 400 ((� 3 izict 10 / e - i `, Pt c /I LEGAL: Owner : idpn .6' S 'ls 3e. *e 4 /eoL Address: 410 O 6 a_ W ( (` j 1 i3I-.I fi h o Tax Parc e L Number: 7-1 /� ReaL Property Description: &-C.. ,.8 1 �„v 4 ` "— , , 07,),..(„„ye,f---- 1 ADJACENT WATER BODY: -_„.t0 C' 1 a i EVALUATION i BLUFF HEIGHT: i,2 SOURCE: c7C/i./ / ke 4 S tL r H -(- BLUFF STABILITY: c0 (l i (L,k SOURCE: C'-E., 4 73.. STANDARD SETBACK: .Q feet This minimum setback shaLL be measured from the ordinary high water mark to the most waterward edge of the proposed structure . ❑ BLUFF SETBACK: feet This minimum setback shaLL be measured from the bank' s edge to the most waterward edge of the proposed structure . 44 3 3/7/s? 4 , ❑ AVERAGE SETBACK: feet This minimum setback shaLL be measured from the bank ' s edge to the most waterward edge of the proposed structure. This setback is based on the foLLowing caLcuLations of adjacent residential structures . Right House (facing waterward) : • Setback from bank or ordinary high water : feet • Distance to the proposed structure: feet Left House (facing waterward) : • Setback from bank or ordinary high water : feet • Distance to the proposed structure: feet ❑ SUBDIVISION SETBACK: feet This minimum setback shaLL be measured from: This setback was estabLished by the approvaL and filing of the pLat . VARIANCE REQUEST: ��% //G ✓ 14-e t---, APPROVED ❑ DENIED DATE: /7 0 / ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The above evaLuation was determined on information provided by the applicant. ShouLd any of this information be found inaccurate, the setback requirement may be re-evaluated . / 7- (177 p l.,nner (date Commissioners ' Meeting Minutes : Week of April 17, 1989 Page : 13 gone unheeded. It 's important to look at the work that was done previously. There was discussion saying that maybe the Sartains brought this upon themselves due to the fact that they already had this work done. That work was done, as stated earlier, by Tom McClannahan. He had presented a contract to them to do some leveling, site preparation and establish a septic system and he did that . He left the situation that was a can of worms that we 've had to work from. It was not correct . Everybody agrees with that . Correct measurements were not taken. Fill was improperly placed. It is true that the diagram presented does not show the extent of the fill , it shows the slope where the fill is readily ascertainable. Again, what we ' re looking at today is the area which is not fill . It is clearly hardpan. It is clearly address significantly by Mr . Kegel 's report . We get into that when we talk about what does the Board need to approve the variance. Mr. Kegel 's observations as to the height of the bank were not guesses . They were actual field work. When a certified Engineer put his stamp on a report, it is not done, saying maybe this is right . He has to say this is done to the best of my knowledge according to the expertise that I have or he is liable. He doesn' t do it by guesswork. The same thing with the perk test . He is required to go by law and to state truthfully in his report to the Board. He has a lot more to lose than you and I do. In regard to bank stability there is a lot presented in terms of the criteria use to determine Mr . Kegel 's recommendation. There is old growth or significantly older growth timber on the bank. He looked at various aspects of the composition of the soil and the substrate in the area and he made a well calculated professional determination in regard to the slope . In regard to the septic system it has been approved. The variance granted on that system was approximately 3 to 5 feet . There were within that far from being 100 feet from the river. They went ahead and processed the variance just to be sure, but in fact the requirement is 100 feet . The department of Health has the authority to grant a permit if you' re outside 100 feet . They were at about 96 feet . The substrate is well documented and proper for the system. The Sartain's are going on top of that , adding a pressure system which cuts down significantly on a possibility of a con- tamination intrusion into the soil . Bernice Phillips : Assuming that the septic system will be put in how will it be done without cutting trees and causing erosion? Jim Pearson stated that the Shoreline process has very little to say about timber harvesting unless it is being done on a shoreline of statewide significance. The Little Quilcene River has not been determined to be a shoreline of statewide significance. The Shoreline Plan does not address in regulation, cutting tree to either put in a home or a septic system. Barbara Fisk: If you grant this variance Barbara Fisk asked if all of the property owners could all get together and develop some conditions that could be placed on that lot so that the protection would be written in there then everybody would be a lot happier. After more discussion of the measurement of the bluff, Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to table action on this matter until he has time to review the information presented today. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote . The adjacent property owners will be notified when this matter will be discussed by the Board again. James Aylesworth..- re:.._, Shoreline Setback Variance Re est, 40063 Highway lOi-South, Brinnon:-/ Mr. & Mrs . Aylesworth were present when Planning and Build ' Department Director David Goldsmith reported that they are proposing to build a residence near the Jefferson/Mason County line. The standard shoreline setback in this area would be 30 feet . They are request- ing a variance of 14 feet . The Aylesworths wish to build a new home on the waterward side of an existing drainfield. There is a house on the site currently that they plan to live in while the new residence is being built and then it will be removed. The adjacent property owners have no objection to this shoreline setback variance being issued. III III Commissioners ' Meeting Minutes : Week of April 17 , 1989 Page: 14 The 30 ' foot setback requirement was established to protect the aesthetics of the shoreline and for bluff protection. This bluff is on solid rock. Commissioner Dennison then asked for review of this request in accordance with the variance criteria. Mr. Aylesworth provided a letterto the Board e ard on i whichpril 8 , 1989 speaks to the criteria for granting thevarian Commissioner Dennisonaskedif Mr . Aylesworth the Aylesworths could build where the existing house is? liancle would stated that would require they hat all of would have toeir furniture rent somewhere dto aAlive while the phaaveeto be stored house was being built . related to the property or could the Criteria #1: Is the hardship ro Prt applicant do this differently stated and thatbe he able doesn' t know wYiat to use his J the Commissioner B. G. Brown alternative would be Dennison added.to Wb�hldhwhere ell and existing house is Commissioner the septic system placement they could not build doat39h sfoot house where the existing house is located. Mr. Ay the house cannot be put at the back of the lot because that is the reserve drainfield area. Criteria #3: Constitute a special privilege: Neighboring properties are setback lot next than them thatfeet . is unbuildableorth and stated that there is one there are two boat houses before at re built out the Shorelinee Plan was adoptedP boat houses were builtthe averaging method to determine There isn' t a provision for using setback in this case because there isn' t a residence on each side of this property. Commissioner Dennison stated that omsees issioner B that his G rear st does Brown stated not thatcomply he with criteria 1 , 3 , 4 and 5 . Commissioner believes that the request meets the general intent of the criteria and moved to grant the variance. Commissioner Brown B G seconded Brown and Commissioner called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner George Brown voted for the motion with Commissioner Dennison voting against the motion. The motion carried. April 18, 1989: ....._ Subdivision A royal- Port Ludlow Recreational Vehicle Park;) Final Rachel Oak Bay Road _and Paradise Ba ) Road- Po a Resources, Senior rtPlaen Port Ludlow Nathanson reported that this is the final approval Recreational Vehicle Park, Phase 1 . This 40 unit RV park is located at the corner of Oak Bay Road and Paradise Bay Road. Phase 1 includes 22 RV spaces, a restroom facility which is built . Fire hydrants are in place and the roads have been approved to County standards . The park is on the The existing County Health disposal system and the Port Ludlow the useyof by the Department and the State have approvedthoses facilities the Health en Department The project has Planning Department eand the1ewed and Public Works Department . Department , Commissioner B. G . Brown moved to grant final subdivision approval of the Port Ludlow Recreational Vehicle Park Phase 1 as submitted by Pope Resources . Chairman George Brown seconded the motion n (Commissioner ried by a unanDennimou son was not present during this review) . The motion Retie t for Variance- Street Setback 31 er Road Ch macum- David Clevenger Mr. Clevenger, who lives at 31 Tyner Road _(Lot`'6 Irondale of 15 Orchard Tracts) is requesting ttback hrust, RacheleNa Nathansonet for a reparted.24There Tt foot o be built next to his shop is an existing easement that runs through his lot for utilities an access . A twenty foot setback is required into the from seasement . Allhvfe are the lots in garages in the area built right out the area have access to their properties off of existing, county roads . All \ o\SCV Lt 4-13 *An c34- N ct-s\-\c, teC JEFFERSON ivry ANNING&OLGA I t 6 3 - e_S - - F'Ve5 /70 141,e oe_ 7- S' - (JO ck_ _Ls_Lt 6/517q0 , 7)ce,,(pvt zi1S-i/A5, 5/4}p 0 /5-/ — "A/1/1/V17‘ r-cm 0-1-tfrikat, Gr' V L7 aerhc D) 3So" Ylerr I-ioase 3A, LLJ 0 D.a w F1'e!J Sept" N /douse ?a 66 7 no fi"OYC4 s R9' ie DraLK �«I� --- --- --- - T-e ifan Core 3So' 91 I$ �'!®W Noase 32 39, i �rd�h m F/e/6 ( a (louse to �e (D 7 � -D ReMoYed �T{-RR 29 P rz e a' /6 o54ap 16 Gara9 e T �\esaFve Drag �ie�c� 7s' A 1!9fsJ Set bac. ya'From 4e 3101-(Z Ilhe IS 1-c Qes4e� fcoi suHe �a4 eke 470cLYl8,it10h 0 f , 4 � e pFopose�l new home cce.s ncD4 Invade and dar,la�e 4 e �X«-F;ny dram 4'teId. T� pho�osecl se4 18 fee-4 wil� i Sye 1j0 adverse Ivnpar-4 cm IA op i�e Iv)YI�-04men+ 7Ae batik Is cw siral�r�tu p and is apphoX ray i2 -ree4 1„ 1, exd consls�s of Solid I-ock PdSltlq Vic �Iu� cnq 0�'C oosl(nn 1p1� bleh1 s, Wa4r i-q h O-r�- - F-om h oo a7 �-ed Wt Hff �e lesS 4�dK II i C �e .s e h 4- S 4 I^ c.� c t� r e 5 ho w p i- e y e )1 ' e Propea-tL� v as a ciePe o-�' c"7fr\-0X. / foo- per c9O I I 'he_ i8 �o�� Ya1-I e�jce Fe jL,-cs4 W, H a Lco 4�---, hC5Fn ed 1 bed y,OOVK jo se-4 Weli1 b�cic c p }�,e f10YG Y1oln F1�e O�opelr�L( a \c��3ceu( 7'ke F�-0Fosej Cl- e 6-C i�e hG'CO- hoVYie a/Ih,c /g -rcy64 irrcgv �avL`C �as be.eX A,scc..cssecL wIT �r+y caw vte�-5 ( 0 h mac k 51 le 2k8 1QI I�-e 11l greelVnex� 4Jf�v� ��e (J�Sn a Yl[i of ��e �oc$�iot1 F/Ol 151clpz roh /-roper[y of cJa7Pnes 'Y BeHe A lesu)or t h 110063 //c✓y /0/ - .8rinnon, t&h, NY (o/