Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 05C_01/11/2001 T f G_Y�. � , � v � � VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA � DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTTY DEVELOPMENT � Q Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive �3 `'� o � Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 •(561) 575-6220 �,� � � y 4 " F�: (561) 575-6239 N Co BQARD OF ADJLTSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING MEETING P�I'ES NOVEl�ER 20, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CP,LL The Village of Tequesta Board of Adjustment held a regularly scheduled Public Hearing at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Monday, November 20, 2000. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chair Kevin Kinnebrew. A roll call was taken. Boardmembers present were: Chair Kevin Kinnebrew, Vice Chair James Humpage, Jon Newman, and Steve Pullon. Also in attendance were Kara Irwin sitting in for Scott D. I,add, Clerk of the Board, and Village Attorney John C. Randolph. Boardmember David Owens was absent from the meeting. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chair Humpage moved that the Agenda be approved as submi.tted. Boardm�ember Newman seconded the motion. The vote on the rrbtion was : Kevin Kinnebrew - for Jam�s Humpage - for Jon Newman - for Steve Pullon - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the Aqenda was approved as submi.tted. III. P,PPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES Vice Chair Hum�age moved that the mi.nutes for the meeting of June 19, 2000 be approved as submitted. Boardm�ember Newma.n Recycled Paper 1 . Board of Adjustment Meetinq Minutes November 20, 2000 Page 2 ----------------------------------- seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Kevin Kinnehrew - for James Hum�age - for Jon Newrnan - for Steve Pullon - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the minutes were approved as submitted. N. NEW BUSINESS 1. An application from Thomas M. and Ila Mae Gocke, owners of the property located at 3 Yacht Club Place, Lot 1, Tequesta Subdivision, requesting the following varianees to the terms of the Official Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Tequesta, Ordinance No. 355, as amended, Section VII, Schedule of Regulations and Application of Regulations, Subsection (Cj, Schedule of Site Requirements, R-lA Single-Family Dwelling District, Maximum lot coverage, and Section X, Supplemental Regulations, Subsection (A}, General Provisions, Paragraph (8), Floor elevation above sea level, to allow the construction of an additional 37 square feet of livinq area to the front of the house with an existing lot coverage of 39.6� for a proposed total lot coverage of 40� in lieu of a maximurn 37� lot coverage, the addition to match the existing finish floor elevation of 8.0', in lieu of a mi.nimum finish floor elevation above mean sea level (MSL) for all new construction, additions and substantial improvements to existing structures being 8. 5� MSL or 18" above the crown of the road, whichever is more stringent, all as required by the Zoning Code. A. Swearing-In of Witnesses, if Required Acting Clerk of the Board Kara Irwin swore in all those intending to speak. 2. Disclosure of Ex-Parte Corcmunications Boardmember Newman reported no ex-parte Board of Adjusti�ent Meeting Minutes November 20, 2000 Page 3 ----------------------------------- communication. Chair Kinnebrew, Vice Chair Humpage, and Boardmember Pullon reported they had visited the site and had had no communications with anyone. 3. Testimony of Witnesses and Cross Examination, if any Thomas and Ila Mae Gocke presented their request, and explained they wanted to improve the look of their house when they added a new roof. M�. Gocke commented his lot was a little smaller than the others in his neighborhood and the percentage of coverage was probably a little higher than others when it was originally built. Mrs. Gocke explained that the additional inside space would be used for a window seat in front ot the new window. Chair Kinnebrew explained that approval would be canditioned upon a waiver qiven to the Village so that if the property flaoded in the future the progert�r owners could not go back to the Village. Chair Kinnebrew questioned whether anything extra was required since this property was already non- conforming. Village Attarnsy Randolph explained that the Board would be �ansid�ring a variance to grant lot coverage of 40o in lieu of a maximum of 370. Vice Chair Humpage indicated he agreed with Chair Kinnebrew that a waiver �tould need to be given to the Village. Boa�dmember Pullon questioned a neighbor of Mr. and Mrs. Gocke who was in the audience as to whether he was in support of the rec�ues.t, to which he respond�cl he was very much in support since it �rould improve �he neighborhood. D) Finding of Fact Based Upon Competent Substantial Evidence Vice Chair Humpage made a moti.on to approve the application from Thomas M, and Ila Mae Gocke, owners of the propert� located at 3 Yacht Club Place, Lot 1, Tequesta Subdivision, requesting the following variances to the terms of the Official Com�rehensive Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Tequesta, Ordinance 1�Io. 355, as �mended, Section VII, Schedule of Regulations and Application of Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 20, 2000 Page 4 ----------------------------------- Regulations, Subsection (C), Schedule of Site � Requirements, R-lA Single-Fami.ly Dwelling District, Maximum lot coverage, and Section X, Supplem�ental Regulations, �ubsection (Aj General Provisions, Paragraph (8), Floor elevation above sea level, to allow the construction of an additional 37 square feet of living area to the front of the house with an existing lot coverage of 39.6� for a proposed total lot coverage of 40$ in lieu of a maximum 37� lot coverage, the addition to match the existing finish floor eleva.tion of 8.0�, in lieu of a I[Ll nimum finish floor elevation above mean sea level (MSL) for all new construction, additions and substantial improvements to existinq structures being 8.5' MSL or 18" above the crown of the road, whichever is trwre stringent, as submitted. Boardmember Newman seconded the motion. The vote on the nation was: Kevin Kinnebrew - for �Tames Hunq�age - for Jon Newrr�n - for Steve Pullon - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. B) An application from Florida Trend Developm�ent Corp., owner of Lots 12 and 13, Coconut Cove Subdivision, requesting a variance to the terms of the Official Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Tequesta Ordinance No. 355, as am�ended, Section X Supplemental Regulations, Subsection (A), General Provisions, Paragraph (1)(cj, Walls and Fences, to allow the erection of the following: A) Six foot high decorative wal�.s with six foot high pillars along the north property line of Lot 12 and the south property Iine of Lot 13, B) Five foot high gated decorative walls with six foot high pillars across the front of each propertg and located nine feet forward of the � Baard of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 20, 2000 Page 5 ----------------------------------- proposed building front, in lieu of no �nrall or fence being permi.tted to extend forward of the building front on any lot or parcel, as required by the Zoning Code. A. Swearing-In of Witnesses, if Required Acting Clerk of the Board Kara Zrwin swore in all those intending to speak. 2. Disclasure of Ex-Parte Co�nications Boardmember Newman reported no ex-parte cQmmunication. Boardmember Pullon reported he had visited the site and had spoken to the neighbor to th.e north. Chair Kinnebrew visited the site and had all spoken.briefly befo.re the meeting to make sure everyon� was familiar with �Y�e site location. Vice Chair Hum�age reported he had visited the site and had no communications.with anyone. 3. Testinbny of Witnesses and Cross Exami.nation, if any GQrdon Ripma 142 Pine Hill Trail, stated he was the applic.ant. Mr. Ripma p.r.esented the variance request from r�rhat he described as the Village's antiquated code to allow .the front wall of the courtyard area of the �wo hQUSes to be in front of the structures by 9 feet to allow a security wall sQ that a. passage gate would not have to be placed in the wa11 af each hause in order to get around the house. Mr. Ri�ma pointed out the area he was dis.cussing on the plan.. Mr.. Ripma described the loca�ion of the proposed �rall, the proposed landscaping for both s_ides, the wall proposed for one side of the lift station and the proposed chain link. £ence for the other sides and the landscaping around the lift station. IIsing only a hedge as oppased to a wall �ith landscaping was discussed by Chair Kinnebrew, who noted that a hedge would be less obtrusive to the eye, pravide less of a feeling that everyone else was being walled out, and qo along more with the intent of the code. Mr. e Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Navember 20, 2000 Page 6 ----------------------------------- Ripma commented they could put a hedge there if that was the desire of the Board. Mr. Ripma described other lacations throughout the Village where there were other examples of �,ralls forward of the constructian line such as he was requesting, to show he was not asking for something that did not exis.t in the area. Vice Chair Humpage requested Mr. Ripma review the lift station, which was descr.ib€d, and it was clarified that no part of the wall would be on the easement but was set back 5 fe.et tQ allow access all the way around it plus there y+ras access from the frQnt. The fire hydrant location was poin�ed out on the plan. Mr. Ripma verified that if Fire Rescue had any problems acc�e.ssing the fire hydrant the liability would be with the owner. Vice Chair Humpage questioned whether. the Community Apgear_ance Board would be part of this process� to which �he response was that the Community.Appear.anc.e Board did not review residential prQ�erties. Mx.. Pullon questioned wheth�s the 6' wall an the sQUth side of Lot 16 had alread�r been a�proved, tQ �rhich the response was yes. Jay Fisher, 3F Goconut I�ane, commented he had purchas.ed his lot and.built a hom� approximately a year ago, and had �een attracted to the property because o.f the open.area, but no�z Mr. Ripma wanted to erect a�all to �rhich he was opposed. Mr. Fished indicated he �ould nat Qhj.ect to shrubs, but erecting a�rall �rould �eparate the properties f�om the rest of the neigY�borhood and he strongly objected to closing in the whole �rea. Mr. Fisher explained that his view of th.e Intracoastal would lae obstructed by the propQSed �r�l1s. The view going down the road and from Mr. Fisher's property was discussed. Jean Immucci 32 CocQnut Lane commented she did not want to see a wall, and preferred beautiful landsCaping. Chair Kinnebrew mentioned security as the reason for the wa11 but that a hedge would be easier on the eye. Mr. Fisher c�uestioned why these two houses should be more secure than his home and Ms. Immucci's home, and stated his belief that the « Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 20, 2000 Page 7 ----------------------------------- reason for the walls was to make those houses different. Mr. Ripma conunented that the applicant already had the ahility to provide a wall but the question was whether it would be forward of the building line or with the line. Vice Chair Humpage commented that the Board was trying to make a decisian based upon all the facts, and if the Board disapproved the request Mr. Ripma could still put a wall up from the �ouse to tY�� property line which wau�d al�o black Mr. Fisher's 4iew. Vice Chair Humpage no.ted that Mr. Ripma's. request was to move the wall forward, Mr. Hum�age commented he did not think safet.y was an issue, but that the purpose was to enhance that area. Vice Ghair Humpage expressed his opinion that the wall would be less attractive coming off the side of th� house. Mr. Ripma cQmmented. that placing the T,aall one place would not block any more of the view than if it were in the other location. Village Attorney Randolph ad�rised that this Board sat tQ grant uariances frQm the code and not to make changes to the code. Attorney Randolph stated he wished to point out reasons given by the a�plieant, that the a�plicant during his presentation had given a. reason that the Village code �ras antiquated, that in ane reason he stated that this was a normal c.Qndition in any other municipalities and, that the. Qrdinance should be re-�rritten for today's. realities. The Village Attorney ad�ised t.he BQard.that if the ordinance was to kae re-written it must.be done by the Village Council and not l�y thi� Boaxd, I�ut that this Board mu�t lnok at the ordinance that was in place, listen t.o the applicant, and make a determination whathes there was some unique or special hardship relating to his pie�e of �ropert�r that would allow the Baard to grant a varianc.e-not because the Board felt it would be more aesthetic�.11g pleasing or becaus,e the Bo�rd belie�ed the ordinance was outdated. Village AttQrney Rand4�.lph advised the Board must look at the criteria �et forth in the ord.inanc� �o �ake the�r determin.at�on as to whether there �zas some unique hardship.this.property owner had that other propert�Z owner� did not have. � Board of Adjust,m�ent Meeting Minutes November 20, 2�00 Page 8 ----------------------------------- Mr. Ripma commented he believed the Board should also consider the fact that this same variance had been granted numero�ta.s times in the Village of Tequesta and was not a precedent setting matter, and cammented.that if the Building Official were present tonight he could probably cite many, many cases where it had been.aggroved. Chair Kinnebrew coznmented after reading the code subparagraph (c} pertaining to walls he �ras still not sure the intent of the code. Village Attorney Randolph read from subparagraph (c) of the. code: ......No wall or fence shall be permitted to extend forward of the building front on any lot or parcel, except for I.ots or parcels located along an�at fronting upon Country Club Drive, wa11s not exceeding five (5) feet in height may be located forwaz�d of the building front and fences associated only with accessory structures provided said fence is screened ....., which Attorney Randolph interpreted to be that on Country Glub D�ive, walls not exceeding 5 feet in height may be located forward of the building front, and stated that however this are.a did not fit within that exception. The Village Attorney advised that accessory structures were any s.tr.uctures. other than the primary structure, such as garaqes, cabanas, etc. Boardmember Pullon requested that the neighbors present look at the dra�rings to be sure they understood what Mr. Ripma �ras.allowed to do-that he could place a urall at the house front without a variance.. Discussion ensued_ Vi.ce Chair Humpage expressed his vie�r that the key wprds in the code were anly with accesso.r�r structures, etc., and since he sa�r no accessory structu�es he believed this did not fall inta th.e purview of the code which a1los,aed coming forward, so that he believed the Board must stay within the way the code was rr.rritten stating ......IVo wa11 or fence sha11 be permitted to extend forward of the building front on any Iot or parcel. Vice Chair Humpage indicated he did not feel this wall �ell into any of the e.xceptions. Village Attorney Randolph explained the only reason this was before the Board was because it did nQt fit �rithin the code and it was r Board of Adjust,ment Meeting Minutes November 20, 2000 Page 9 ----------------------------------- not for the Board to look at the code and determine it did not fit within the code, which had already been determined bg the Building Department and had told Mr. Ripma he needed to go befoze the Board of Adjustment to see if he could get a variance from the code. The Building Department had told Mr. Ripma this did not fit within the code, but if he could convince the Board of Adjustment by meeting the cri.teria set.forth under the code for granting variances that the Board might grant this, even though an ordinanc.e precluded it, but the Board must lister� to the reasons given by the applicant. Village Attorne�r B,andolph advised that Mr. Ripma had submitted his reasons on a piQCe of paper that �aas attached tc�. his applicatinn, and the Board must make a determination that. there was a unique hard�� �hich would a11ow the applicant to be treated differently than other properties. Mr. Bipm.a. stated prec.adent �rauld not be set by granting this variance. Chair Rin�.ebrew commented he t�nrlPr�tood th� concerns of the other residents, discussed the property and noted they had purchased it in.. an undeveloped state,. and wYlen the two houses were built the houses and landscaping and mangroves would.blo.ck some.af the view, and the only way he would consider this was if a hedge were placed against the wall. Chair Ki.nnebrew expressed his view that Mr. Ripma had bought the property and worked hazd. to develap it and was trying to sell and he b.elieved it would be ve�y nice looking architecturally. Chair. Kinneb�ew commented he agreed with the neighbors there would be a feeling of exclusinn but the. neighbors �rnuld not be able to walk out onto the dock anyway onc� the houses were built, and. �rhat they would see �.it�h or without the wall would be no different. Mr. �'isher commented that landscaping in front of a�,r�ll was different than landscaping without a wal�. Boardmember Pullon questianed the applicant as to whether he planned to reside in this neighbo�hood once it was full�r developed, to which Mr. Rig�na responded that was an option, and he was not contemplating it at the present time, but he had not made a decision. Vice Chair Humpage stated he disagreed with Chair r Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 20, 2000 Paqe 10 ----------------------------------- Kinnebrew and in reading each of Mr. Ripma's comments he could not find a reason to give a variance from the code. Ms. Immucci questioned what was meant by hardship, to which Boardmember Pullon responded that the code presented some specific hardship to this type o� de4elopment in this s�.o.t so if the applicant could show it was unfair because of the confiiguration of the land or some other situation that constituted a hardship to him, which was what the Board had to decide. Village At.tarney Randolph advised that in response to the question., the hardships were listed in the code, which were that special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, structure or building invc�lved, which are not applicable to other lands,.structu�es, or bu,ildings in the same zoning district; that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the app.Licant; th�.t granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any s�ecial privileqe that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zaning district; that literal interpretation of the provisions of the ordinance would de�rive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties.in the same zoning district; that the Qaria.nce granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building. or structure; and that the grant of the variance will be in harmony with the genaral intent and.purgose of the ordinance and that si.z�h variance will .not be �njurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Village Attorney Randolph indi�a.ted the code alscz �tated that in granting any Qariance the Board must giue consic�eration to those provisions. Jerilee Ripma was sworn in and indicated she was a real.e.s.tate broker and the hauses were being built with intent to sell an.d it was important to keep up with what other communities were doing and privacy walls.were what buyers expected. Mrs. Ripma stated they wanted this to be a successful project. r Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 20, 2000 Page 11 ----------------------------------- Chair Kinnebrew questioned whether Acting Clerk of the Board Irwin was familiar with the other properties within the Village r�rhich had been cited by the applicant as having thes.e types of walls forward. of the building line.,. to which Ms. Irwin responded she did not work with individual building permits_. Chair Kinnebrew guestioned the applicant as to whether the properties .he had cited were individual homes located autside Tequesta Country Club. Mr. Ripma responded that 331 Tequesta Drive was a multi-family building, several individual lots in Ba.y Harbor, Point Drive, Riverside Drive, and Yacht �1ub all had r�aalls forward of the building line which he had compiled that day just driving.aro.und.for an hnur.. Acting Clerk of the Board Irwin.guestioned the Villag� Attorney as to whether.each �ariance.application must stand on its own, not based on precedent, sinc� the lots cited could have irrsgularit.ie.s,. etc _ Village Attorney Randol�ah responded each application did stand on its.a`an and each one Qf the aggli�ations would have to be e�amined to find out if any were grandfathered or.under what cir.�umstances they had built the walls forward of the building line. Chair Kinnebrew expressed.cnnc�er� that with respect to the five conditions just r�ad by Attorney Rando_1ph, if the Board. denied this applicant something that had already been g�anted to someone els� that des.er_ved con.�id.eration. Village Attorney Randolph questioned whether Chair Kinn�hr_�w knew that. to be_ true., to which Chair Kinnebrew responded he did not and therefore reca.mmPnded tabling this.reguest and going to look at some of the proper�ties to se� what had been done_ Mr.. gipma statecL the Board could refer to the Building Official, who zafluld confirm what he hacL indicated. Mr. Ripma stated he would like a vote on his request tonight witih the Board to c.Qnfer. subs�rn�Pn.tly with the Buil�ling Official for confirmation that there were other pzQperties with walls forward of the huilding line. Chair Kinnebrew explained that was no� possible, and r.e�gQnd.ed that a representative of the Building Department was present to Mr. �ipma's question asking if the Building Official was required to be � Board of Adjustm�ent Meeting Minutes November 20, 2000 Page 12 ----------------------------------- present. It was clarified that Mr, Ladd had suffered a heart attack, which was why he was not in attendance. Mr. Ripma commented the Building Official would v.erify what he was saying and could cite case situatiQns. Mr. Ripma �larified that his houses had not been built but he w�as getting ready to submit plans to the Building Depaztment. Boardmember Newman questioned if an approval should be made contingent upon a glanning proposal, to which the Village Attorney r.esponded the Board could impose any questions they wanted. The setback an.d easement for the lift station were descrihed, as well as the pr.Qposed wall, fence, and shrubbery� which Mr. Ripma advised would be completed when these two houses were built. Ms. Immucci commented that most af .the other examples cited were. not on a cul-de-sac like her home. Boardmember Pullon questioned Mr. Ripma as to whether he w�nted a vote tonight that might not be fa�orable or to wait a month.wl�en the Chair might be mare comfortable, exglained that he had been delayed when he went thr.ou this process and that was why he was on the Board,. and questioned what recourse would be available if M�_.Bipma did not ag.r.ea with the. �at�. Village Attorney Randolph advised that the applicant coulc� go before the Village Council to rec�uest that the zoning ordin.ance be changed, and .that he would have to wait 90.days befQre re-agplying to this Board. Mr. Ripma commented he felt crippled without the Building Official present since he had told Mr. Ripma. this had been granted in many other s.ituations. and he felt. it would Y�e no problem but that.the applicant would have to go in front of the Board.. Mr. Ripma s�ated this was not precedent setting at a11_ Mr. Newman st�ted he had not d�iue.n. by the propert�r. Mr. Ripma asked if the four members of the Board wquld feel more c.omfortable dec�.ding at a later date, to which Chair Kinnebrew stated he would be an.d that he was 1-e-an.ing toward approval but h� had reservations becaus.e he had not spoken to Mr. Z�dd and agreed it was a disadvantage for Mr. Ripma. Chair Kinnebrew cammented he had also gone through this process but had had to wait 7 months, he knew Mr. Ripma had � Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 20, 2p00 Page 13 ----------------------------------- been waiting a 1Qng time, and sympathized with him, but could not say yes without seeing the other locations for himself. Di.s�ussion ensued. Mr. Ripma stated he undsrstood if.he deferred that the Rc�ar.d would talk with Scott . I�add and would go to the locations he had cited to see that they all had wa11s forward of the building line. Attorney Randol}�h advised the Board dicl not have to commit to do. that because in lonking at the sites the Board would not know if they were grandfathered in b�r kz 2.1215� Y�uilt before the nrdinance was passed or if they had been granted a variance, and that what mig�� be more relevant to the Board was whether Mr. I,add could tell them whether or not other apgli�ations similar to Mr._ R�bma's had come before this Board and if the Board had.granted approval in th��e garticular instanc.es, although Attorney Randolph advised that was not relevant from a legal �t_an.dpoint . BoardmPmher pu,llon. stated he was comfortable voting tonight and waiting a month would nQt. change his.mind_ TIi_ce Chair Humpage commented he believed only item 4 applied to this application, and althc�uqh. Yie would be m.ore comfortable talking to the Build�ng 4fficial, he co.ul� make up his mind.tonight.. Mr. Newman stated he preferred consultin.g with the Building Official. Mr. Ripma requested voting be delayed. Vice Chair Humpage made a motion to defer a decision on the varian�e. request from application from Florida Trend Development CorR., pwner of Lots 12 and 13, Coconut Cove Subdivision, requesting a vari.ance to allow the erection of six foot high decorative walls with six foQt high pillars along the north property line of Lot 12 and the south pr.operty line of Lot 1� F and five foot high gated decorative walls with six foot high pillars across the front of each property and located nine feet farward of the proposed building front, in lieu of � no wall or fence being permitted to extend forward of the building front on any lot or parcel, as required by the Zoning Code. until December 18, 2000 or the next meetinq of the Board of Adjustment. Motion was seconded by Boarcl�nember �� Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 20, 2000 Page 14 ----------------------------------- Newman. During discussion of the motion, the Village Attorney advised that if there was a problem with the December 18 date it could be delayed to the following meeting and the names and addresses of the neighbors present tonight could be taken so they could be notified. The vote on the motion was: Kevin Kinnebrew - for James Hum�age - for Jon Newman - for Steve Pullon - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business to come before the Board. VI. COMMUNICA.TIONS FR.4M CITIZENS There were no communicatior#.s from citizens. VII. ANY OTHER MATTERS There were no other matters to come �efore the Board. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Humpaqe m4ved that the meeting be adjourned. Boardrn�ember Pullon seconded the m�tion. The vote on the nr�tion was : Kevin Kinnebrew - for James Hum�age - for Jon Newman - for Steve Pullon - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the meetinq was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. � � Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 20, 2000 Page 15 ----------------------------------- Respectfully submitted, ����J Betty Laur Recording Secretary ATTEST: �� ��� � ��p� Rara Irwin Acting Clerk of the Board DATE APPROVED: lo�-��-�a ,