Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 07A_01/14/1999~" a~ VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA DEPARZMINf OF CAI~IlVIUNIIY DEVQAPNIFNI' Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 0561) 575-6220 Fax: (561) 575-6239 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1998 Boardmember Sawa moved that the Agenda be approved as submitted. Boardmeamber 1Ciaaebrerr seconded the motion. The vote on the motion ryas s Raymond Schauer - for Qilbert Finesilver - for 1Cevia lCinnebrew - for David Owens - for vincent Sama - for -~' ~-~9 I. CALL TO ORDBR AND ROLL -- - 'die-_Village -of Tequesta-Board~f_-Ad}ushment~els~a_worksho~~ _~~_~---: _~ -meeting at the Village Ha11; 3~7 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, ~; ;3 Florida, on Monday, October 13, .1998. .The meeting wasp: -• -called • to order at 7:30 P: M~ by: Chair Raymond Schauer .. A , ~ ~-• roll call was taken by Betty Laur, the Recording Secretary:• --- Boardmembers present were: Chair~Raymond Schauer, Vice- ~•~ Chair Gilbert Finesilver, and Boardmembers Kevin Kinnebrew, .David Owens, and vincent Sams. Also in attendance were..*-~. Scott D. Ladd, Clerk of the Board, and village Attorney John •~ C. Randolph. Absent from the meeting were Boardmembers Betty Coyle and John Taylor. II. APPROVAL OF AONNDA The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the Agenda BOARD OF ADJIISTl~N'P 1~8TIN0 ~ZNOTgB October 19, 1998 PAt~R 2 was approved as aubatitted. ==1. rtsK sIIS=rrssS 1. Traiaiag Sesaioa With village Attorney village Attorney Randolph explained that all Boardmembers needed to be familiar with the :Sunshine Law, which required that any discussion of ~ . the._; business of a municipal body by two or more me#nb~ must be at a Meeting,; which had been advertised,=~ ham, ::press given an opportunity to be present, and at. :~h minutes arere taken. `~'rhe Village Attorney clarified' Chat this meant there could be no telephone calls or~toespondence with each other or talk about an agenda ._it~it-.~before or after `the meeting; and commented lie believed-the-Board should have no problems complying with the terms of this law. The Village Attorney stressed the importance of following the law, since any Board actions takers as a result of violating the Sunshine Law could be rescinded, and explained that another problem was whether there was a perception that the law was breached. An example of giving the perception that the law was being breached would be when two members were talking among themselves at the podium while an application was being heard or before the meeting, even though they were not discussing Board matters. The Village Attorney cautioned against any activities which could give the public a perception that the Sunshine Law was violated. Village Attorney Randolph explained that there were no exceptions to the Sunshine Law that would involve this particular Board; but that there was an exception for closed door sessions, which were Attorney-Client sessions to discuss matters regarding pending litigation, at which the village Council and Village Manager and village Attorney could meet with a court reporter present to record the meeting. BOARD OF ADJtT3Z7~NT ~errixa ~~crrss October 19, 1998 PA(;S 3 ------------------- At the conclusion of the litigation the court reporter's transcript became public. The other exception was for collective bargaining sessions where Councils could meet with their Attorney. ~oaf~{cta of interest Village Attorney Randolph explained that the members of the Board were required to vote on everything that came before them and could not abstain. A Boardmeti~ber must vote on an application involving a friend --were: the Boardmember aroti~:d ~ like not to be involved .ur~ess it - involved a statutx~ry conflict of interest, or aart~~rest which would inure~to the benefit of the individr~l~ ~v~ting on it, which in mist instances would be financ~ai..fi~`;If a Boardmember were an ` of f icer- or a member of a boaa~d, which came before the Board of Adjustment :with an application, that would-- be t3~e kind of a conflict: of - interest contemplated by the State in the conflict of--.interest statute. If a Boardmember were a member of a club with many members Wlii`~h came before .the Board `~w~th an application, that probably would not be a conflict of interest since the decision would not inure to the clubmember's benefit. village Attorney Randolph urged the members of the Board to ask him whenever they had a question regarding whether they would have a conflict of interest, and explained that he would explain the law so that the Boardmember could make a determination whether they had the kind of conflict of interest which would require them to abstain from voting. The Village Attorney explained that a Boardmember should abstain from voting when someone with whom they were in business or a relative appeared before the Board. In the event of a conflict of interest, a Boardmember must declare the conflict at a public meeting, state the conflict, and file a form with the Village which would also be sent to the State. In response to a question regarding an application from a direct neighbor, Village Attorney Randolph explained that this could be considered a soARn o~ ADJIISTl~NT ~~r=~o ~~rrs~ October 19, 1998 PA08 4 permissive conflict of interest, which although not inuring to financial benefit could be declared a conflict because the Boardmember felt they could not vote objectively, and the Boardmernber could abstain from voting. Later in the meeting a question arose regarding whether a Boardmember had any obligation to bring up or challenge another Boardmember who they knew had a conflict but did • - not disclose it. The Village Attorney advised that there :~. ~= < -~ was no obligation on th~~ -part of others to raise a. _E, - .. `'° -~` conflict on the part of •andther, but that the obligation-~:::~ f ;. . ~~-~~ - ~~ rested with the member` whoF~ ~l~ad the conflict. Village~:~# x _u =' ` - Attorney Randolph expla:.nec~;~° that the matter could be> -'~,s ,~~;- -• raised but there was no obT>i~ation to do so. A person:: ~~ ; ~ ' • who had a conflict and intentionally did not • raise it ,and • ~ :~>. "~''-' voted on an .item with which-they had a conflict:,.. could be;:r•- :;~-.• brought before the Ethics-='~~ommission, and the Board~s:~: ~:~: action could be rescinded. Chair Schauer stated that his position was if there was even a perception of something ''"' that could be a conflict that- it was better to err on the -:< _ side of caution. The Village Attorney agreed, and stated if there was a question in anyone's mind regarding a conflict they could ask him, and he would be inclined if he were in the Boardmember~ s position to go ahead and declare a conflict of interest even though it might not technically be a conflict, since from the standpoint of perception a Boardmember would be better off to declare a conflict. Boardmember Kinnebrew remarked that he had read old cases heard by the Board of Adjustment where Boardmembers asked questions such as whether the action being considered had ever been done before. Boardmember Kinnebrew commented that as a neighbor in an association a Boardmember would have better knowledge of the situation and the feelings of other neighbors, along with his knowledge of the code, Honxn ova An.TVS ~r=s~ ~xv~rss October 19, 1998 PAO~ 5 and so might be the very best person to vote on an application. Village Attorney Randolph cautioned that in consideration of a particular application Boardmembers were supposed to .base their decision on what was presented at the public hearing and not on the basis of any preconceived opinions or knowledge. The Village Attorney compared the Boardmembers to a judge hearing a case who might have some familiarity with it, in which case the judge would announce that fact to the attorneys so..:that the attorneys could have the..° judge recuse himself or=herself from the application.~~-if they desired. So shbul~d: the Boardmembers announce an.~-~.~~.prior knowledge of a dace: < so that members of the aud~.~• or the applicant wz~lt~°'have an opportunity to ask c~'stions regarding that ~~, . price' '~kriowledge . Boardmember Kinnebrew expressed his. opinion that if a Boardmember did their homework--reviewed their packet, visited the site--that would give them the best idea of what the impact would be on the neighborhood and the Village as a whole. Attorney Randolph stated there was nothing wrong with doing homework and it was a good idea to do it, and provided a brief history of ex-pane commmunication actions by the legislature. Current legislation allowed ex-pane communication so long as disclosure was made at the public hearing, and ex-pane communication included visits to the site and speaking to the applicant and/or neighbors in regard to the application. The extent of disclosure would be naming the individual with whom discussion took place and the crux of the discussion, such as: "I had a discussion with (name of person} who asked me to (action requested) because of (reason they gave}." In the case of a site visit only: "I visited the site." sonRn o~ nnJVST~rr a~r=xa ~rttrr~s October 19, 1998 PAQ$ 6 gettiacr Pracadaat Chair Schauer commented that regarding whether the same action had ever been done before, his position was that what was done before in the same or very similar situations was of no bearing on a specific petition before the Hoard, and the Boards actions did not set precedent. Discussion ensued regarding precedent. Village Attorney Randolph pointed out that each appiication~needed to stand on its own merits. and that the Board • should not look at how past app~a~a.t~:ons had - been treated-ih:~ looking at a particular applt~ation. If '= in a parti~.Iar ~-case there had been a patterrt~. set-;• so that 100$ or 90~~'~di''the time where facts were -'~~ei~tfcal the Board had granted variances, someone could..ci~~kenge the Boards acti©n to say by having done so they-hae~ changed the zoning. Ordinance and in effect should~_•grant the application, but there were very few circumstai,nces where a person eras entitled to a variance as a result of precedent. The village Attorney commented that each •• application was"unique and that should be kept-~it~ mind as each application was considered, because no two properties were alike and a very slight difference in an application might result in a different vote than in a prior case. Also, the Village Attorney explained, past applications could have been granted by mistake, which should not affect what the Board did today. Village Attorney Randolph explained that in a quasi- judicial hearing the members of the Board were sitting as judges, and in a quasi-judicial capacity. In this capacity, Boardmembers were to base decisions on the evidence which came before them at the hearing, not on any preconceived notions or on anything done outside the hearing. The village Attorney explained that it was not a requirement to swear in witnesses, although the Village did so. People had an opportunity to cross examine eoA~n o~ A~.itrs~ar~r ~rl~ ~~rss October 19, 1998 PAaB 7 anyone making a presentation or anyone who spoke. A quasi-judicial hearing was therefore presented in the form of a legal hearing without following the formal rules of evidence that would be followed in court. Requirements for a quasi-judicial hearing were that notice of the hearing must be given, that people had an opportunity to present their case and to cross examine witnesses. The Boards decision at a quasi-judicial hearing was to be based on substantial competent .; evidence, which meant based only upon the evidence before: ;.: 3 ~ = the Board at the hewing . village Attorney Randolph ~ ~;: . , ~ ~ advised that soanetim~*s;~ ~rhole neighborhoods opposed or-: ~.~~_ ~. . .~_ , r „~ $- favor of applications; ;Dame to hearings, and explainec~,~=- _ . . ,r~,~ ~ <~ that the Boardmember-.~~~F=could not allow unsubstantiarted..° ~;_ _ - opinions to sway their=,vQfe if they ,had in front .of he~ct, ~~-:~ ; -, hard evidence telling- theace~ they should vote in favor or::-~-°.; .. r~>~ against..a particular application:: The Village Attorne~€~ ~;:. . _;, : explained that this situat on usually applied more:-to.the°_ . ,, village Council, and that there had been cases that said Councils did not rule. by applause meter. Sometimes.... Councils seemed to reaot =to the number of people- in thc~;::~ crowd and who could make the most noise, but this was not supposed to be done at a quasi-judicial hearing. The Council might do that at a legislative hearing where it was trying to decide legislatively whether to pass an ordinance or not to pass an ordinance, because they were not guided by specific criteria when doing that. But when they were to follow specific code criteria, the popular feeling must be ignored and the decision based solely on the criteria set forth in the code. Such criteria was what made a hearing quasi-judicial, as well as the fact that the decision must be based on substantial competent evidence. village Attorney Randolph explained that decisions made by the Board of Adjustment could not be appealed to the Village Council but to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Someone who wished to challenge a decision made by the Board must file a petition with the Circuit Court and the case would be heard by a three-judge panel who would review the record, soARn of An~vsz~rrr ~ar=~c~ xz~rss October 19, 1998 PAQB 8 not to determine whether the Board had been right or wrong, but to determine whether there had been substantial competent evidence to allow the Board to rule the way they did. If the evidence was there to support the Board's decision it would be upheld. If there was some evidence to support the decision and some that did not support the decision, it would be upheld. if there was no evidence to support the decision, the court would overrule the decision. In other words, if all the -: =criteria of the ordinance had -nc~b been met and someone '~tallenged the decision, the . cou~r:.would need to review ~the_ record and make a determinat~n: as to what the Board ..x- :had. based their decision . on;.e~~ if the court found ~~;r~othing to support the decision=~~:~itey would overturn the dec Sion. Village Attorney~;R~ndblph explained that :judges liked to see findings incQ~ps~rated into motions so ::judges could determine whether cr~ria was followed. If ~.na criteria was set forth in the emotion, the -court would. still look at the record to make: a determination as to whether the criteria was followed. ,~ Chair Schauer questioned whether all the criteria should be incorporated in the motion rather than calling out only one or two items of the criteria. Village Attorney Randolph respgnded that the motion could be stated as follows: "I move that the application be granted because it meets all the criteria set forth in the code and (mention something to substantiate the hardship, such as the size of the property, etc.) ." Village Attorney Randolph stated that variances were typically not easy to get. Chair Schauer commented this was the first village he had been in where the attitude seemed to be that the Board considered it their job to grant variances. the village Attorney explained it was important to meet all the criteria because decisions could be appealed. items were brought to the Board ~: ~ra~;, `~` _ S._ ~± `...'k:' sonar o~ wsvsTe~rr ~r=xa ~~s October 19, 1998 PAQ~ 9 because the Building Official had not allowed something to be built because it did not meet code, or if the applicant believed the Building Official was wrong in his interpretation of the code and they wished to appeal his decision. The power for the Board to grant a variance was contingent upon a finding on all of the things set forth in the code, not just one or two of them. The criteria were: that there were special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land which are not applicable to other structures in the:-:axea, that the conditi~~~'i - do not result from the. =~<aons of the applicant; ~-:that granting the variance wild. ~ritit confer any spec.ia~:~=`~~`~vilege on the applicant tha4~s .denied to other-~, ~t-literal intrepretation of~ t:'~:ovisions of the or'di~a#ce would deprive the appl~~.t of rights commonly~joyed by other properties n.~'same zoning district, ~:~~~~hat -the variance granted -was~~` the minimum variance.:t`hat would make possible: the-:reonable use of the land, and that the grant of~the.variance.would be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the ordinance: village Attorney Randolph explained that any conditions deemed fit could be imposed on the granting of the' variance. The Village Attorney commented it was usually very difficult to obtain a variance because it was hard to show.that all the critera had been met, and it was a difficult situation in a small village when the coa~r~ttunity was attempting to be user friendly and someone came in with an application that members of the Board believed would not create any harm to anyone. In those circumstances, the zoning ordinance should be changed. The Village Attorney gave as an example a hypothetical situation where the Board believed there would be no harm in allowing screened porches going to within 2~ of the property line as opposed to 5' or 10 ~ of the property line, then someone should Iook at changing the zoning ordinance rather than granting variances on a wholesale basis to those kinds of applications. Variances were to be for very specific types of applications where there was truly something unusual about the property which HOARD OF ADJIIST~N'P ~8'PINQ MII~TSS October 19, 1998 PA08 10 entitled that person to be treated differently than other people in the area. Atypical example would be a pie- shaped lot in a subdivision of rectangular lots, where there was difficulty fitting a pool in the back yard or a screened porch in the back yard because of the pie- shaped nature of the lot which was different than all the rectangular lots. An application involving a rectangular lot exactly the same size as all the other rectangular lots in the area but where the applicant wanted to, screen - ~s' "- - in a pool and go> ~ 'a certain distance from the ~ -setback ~~>~'~' line, and there . wad's nothing unusual about that,:.-=Eaxtd if :~~,'4, -`=: the Board granted that request for variance, the there A ; ~ -_ ~~ ~" would be no reasor~. mot to grant a variance for:~v~er~ody - else on the street: ~•~"The village Attorney expla,irted:~that . the Board should~~nc~'t look at applications thiril~~i~cig~_=s~:nce ..t ' the request would'-lot be harmful. t~o the community ~ and go . . - ahead and grant 'a' variance. ~ ;~:.~_ Bardship -- - Village Attorney~Rahdolph explained that hardship did not mean physical hardship. A handicapped person making a request to add a pool because they needed to swim would not be considered a hardship under the code. Under the code, a hardship was one running with the land, not with an individual. In a situation such as a growing family who needed to add a room because they were having twins, that was not the sort of situation that could be considered and perhaps they should move to another house that was larger. Attorney Randolph described a case in Palm Beach where a variance had been granted and was overturned because it was not shown there was otherwise no reasonable use of the property, and there was case law that said a person was not entitled to a variance unless they could show there was not otherwise a reasonable use for the sonar of AaJVS~T ~g~r=xa s~r~rss October 19, 1998 PA(~8 11 property. The Village Attorney expressed his opinion that the Court had been wrong in this instance because if this was strictly applied there would be hardly any situations where people could get variances for things such as pools, screened porches, or garages, because so long as there was a house on the property that was a reasonable use so conceivably not even variances for swimming pools should be granted. The Village Attorney advised he believed so long as the Board followed the criteria set forth in the .cc~cle and made sure each was met- .., that they would stand in.good,-..stead, which was not to say.;: •, ..•: ~, .;, that rulings of the Cour~.,~s_~ould not be followed also - ,:. v; .~ ,~: Village Attorney Randolph ~am~ented that all those things:... r,-, -<: ~ T.x , should be kept in mind wh~*~ ~ eons idering an application ~ . ~-~ ~ •~~. §.~,~- :. Board~member Rinnebrew quest~o~ed in the case of an. iron-, ~ ~. -yr- ~_ . ~,~ . glad situation where every= ;one of the criteria had been,; ~}{ met yet a neighbor ob j ected.~ ::how much weight should. the .- Board give . to the neighbor' r. objection; and stated his - . concern was because at every. hearing comments wire solicited. village Attorney Randolph responded the Board's decision must be based on substantial competent _ evidence, therefore, if the evidence heard was iron-clad in favor of granting the variance based upon the criteria, then very little weight should be given to the neighbors objection. However, the neighbor's opinion could have scarce merit as it related to the criteria, for instance, the neighbor might say granting the vafance would not be in harmony with the intent and purpose of this zoning district and be able to show how it would affect his property or the neighborhood. Therefore, all opinions must be considered to determine whether they were only opinions or whether they offered credible evidence to be weighed in regard to the application. village Attorney Randolph explained that for docks additional criteria in addition to the criteria for other variances must be considered, including that no hazardous condition would be created, that the flow of water would not be impeded or interfered with, etc. Chair Schauer soARn o8 nnJVSTe~rr ~sr=xa aus~s October 19, 1998 P7-(~g 12 questioned whether impeding the flow of water was a subjective decision or whether it should be based on evidence by professionals, to which the Village Attorney responded the intent was to require applicants to address each item and present evidence. Mr. Kinnebrew expressed his opinion that the Board in considering variances for docks was combing through evidence that had already been addressed by the Army Corps of Engineers and by the State, who were the experts in the field, and trying to make the same determination. Attorney Randolph advised that the experts had determined ite'~:n which the Board had::n+a;expertise, but that did not- n~,eau.~ the village had to:~ . ~~-lbw that dock, and that pe~R~cts were no more ent-tt3:-ed to a dock than any other..as~bry use on their prpp~xty unless they could meet v%3~~ge criteria. The. vllag~~Attorne~ explained that dock:~mpplications were very ~ d~.f f icul t, but he believed the Board. had managed the applications very well to balanoe;the;:~ information frgm the Army Corps of Engineers and the State agencies with the Village's code which tried to protect the docks from infringing on the waterway and on the;-~neighbor•s views and setbacks. gub].ic Reco~$s Village Attorney Randolph stated that any document which came about as a result of village business was a public record. This would include any written communications between Boardmembers and Scott Ladd or with the village Manager, all minutes of the meetings, all applications, and everything dealt with by the Board was subject to the Public Records-law whereby any member of the public was entitled to obtain a copy. ~lttmber of Votes Rgqulred In order for an action by the Board to pass there must be three votes in favor, not just a majority of a quorum. If only three members of the Board were present, BOARD OF ADJUST~SNT ~BTI~A ][INOTSS October 19, 1998 PAa~ 13 applicants were told they could come back at another time if they felt prejudiced because there must be a unanimous vote of all three. The village Attorney explained it was not fair for an applicant to have to make a presentation to only three Boardmembers, which was why it was so important for all members to attend the hearings. Attorney Randolph expressed his opinion that the Village owed it to the 'applicants to make sure that there was a full Board to hear applications. village Attorrigy"`Randolph summarized that the~i~ems which ~z~::k'~: had been ccYUered were the Sunshine law, '-ca~-flicts of _j.,,.~::> interest, ~bs~'G~iing from voting, quasi-judi.di=nature ~•.~.L of hearings, ~'~'~di:'sclosure of ex-pane cott[~dations, appeals from<~ ~~tYii~ decision of the Board,: -:~$ttantial competent evidence, hardship, criteria for':4granting. { ~ , ~~:~•. variances, ` cr~fi~Ceria for granting dock variances, and ~. public recorc~~= _ .. :; ., Boardmember Sams questioned whether any insurance was required for Boardmembers, to which the Vi11a~e:~Attorney - responded so long as the Board was acting within the course and scope of their duties they were covered by soverign immunity and could not be held liable and would be covered by the Villages insurance policy. Tf something absurd was done that was outside the scope of duties for this Board, that would not be covered. Clerk of the Board Scott D. Ladd stressed it was important when each member of the Board received their meeting packets that they notify him if they would be unable to attend, and to provide as much lead time as possible. Chair Schauer commented he believed a good Board was now in place and members were taking the job seriously and t~.anked everyone for volunteering for this Board. Chair Schauer requested motions and seconds and calling the vote be tightened ug. Attorney Randolph requested BOARD OF ADJUST~i'P E88TI~TCi D~INOR'ES October 19, 1998 PAGE 14 the Board make sure any comments made were for the bane€it of the audience and make sure everyone could hear by speaking into the microphone. Applicants sometimes presented a graphic or material and might engage in conversation regarding that item with one or two members of the Board which could not be heard by the public. The Village Attorney cautioned against making any comments that could not be heard by everyone and that everything should be on the record. Nh'. Ladd stated applicants • automatically handed items to the Boadmember closest Co the podium and pass- ~ttent down and questioned wheGher~;-: r, ~•' : ~~ those items should .,~ be °-~ presented to the clerk faEa~ ~'•' ~:, . , distribution. Att6rri~y~%> Randolgh responded the. te~~~~ ~_ ~ -~ _' : should be specified =b~•-`the applicant and ideally sh4u~c~ Y., ~~' be given to the clerk tof •d'stribute; but it was not a. b~.gF=~= ; _-<~~ ` deal to pass it dovan > hc~rever, advised that rsr . Lsdd - s ~;~ u ~~~=~~ - should state the item prresented for the- record. •~ ~a- Attorney Randolph explained that proper procedure was for the applicant ~o present .his or her side of the case,_ then those in the audience wishing to speak in favor or•~•_~. against the application should have an opportunity to speak, then the applicant should have an opportunity for rebuttal. Following rebuttal the case should rest with the Board. This procedure eliminated debate, and it was not necessary for the Board to debate with the public, although it was proper for members of the Board to ask questions. Attorney Randolph expressed his opinion that it was not orderly to allow people who had already spoken to speak again and create a debate. If something new was brought out then a person could be allowed to speak again. After consideration by-the Board, a motion should be made which was very clear and a second made before calling for discussion. If no discussion then the roll should be called. Chair Schauer stated that after a motion had been made and seconded then that was the Board's opportunity to discuss the item openly, which was beneficial to him as Chairman. Attorney Randolph advised • the Board not to be afraid to ask an applicant questions, soAxn o~ AnJVSr ~$'rINa ~IS~r~B October 19, 1998 PAQE 15 such as what the hardship was, and that applicants should address the criteria. Mr. Ladd advised applicants had to present written response to each of the items in the criteria. vice Chair Finesilver commented that many of the items in the Criteria were vague and could be left to intrepretation and it seemed they could be easily met, so .that he had been surprised at .earlier comments made ~.-regarding variances being har8~:to get. Vice Chair .._~==nesilver questioned passing~~ th~~~'gavel in order to make ~w°~~a~`.motion. Chair Schauer expla:hed that a motion could ~: ~ be made by the person holding~:zhe :gavel , and that i f ~°_.~'~tcs%:one wanted to make amotion-~11~~1d pass the gavel so -° .Hat he could get something on=~. ~tabie even though it ~~- ~:g'ht takerdenying a couple of~r~ns before a decision could be reached . . ~ , ~*~ Chair Schauer thanked Village Attorney Randolph for his presentation. -- IV. 'OIQFINISHlD SVSIIl~SSS There was no unfinished business to come before the Board. V. CO~JDTICATIOSr FROi[ CITIZB'NS 1[ade ariasC, 494 South Da~ver Road,coammented all citizens in attendance were from Dover Road. In regard to the Sunshine law, Mr. Griest reported an incident when he had been a member of a Board when he and another Boardmember had been discussing golf before the meeting and point of order was called saying they could not talk among themselves. In regard to conflict of interest, Mr. Griest related an incident where a 8oardmember had voted for a neighbor s application and then resigned from the board. Mr. Griest commented this Board had a really tough assignment to weigh ao~ of AnJVST~rr ~srr~ra ~sr~tvTras October 19, 1998 PA(,1R 16 each opinion and to abide by the codes. DI. ANY OTHER ~71TT8RS There were no other matters to come before the Board. VII. ADJOIIRI~T Soardmember Sama moved that the. meeting be adfovrned. ~. ' 8oa~:dmemober iCianebreM seccaded the mci'l~~.oa. The vote oa the ,, motion - eras t .: , :~<<,~. -: Raymond Schauer for - ,- dilbert Finssilver for 1Cevia 8faaebre~+ - for.: David Omens ~ for viacent Sams - for The motion aas therefore pa8sed aad adopted and the meetiag eras adjourned at 8:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Betty Laur Recording Secretary ATTEST: a. ~~~ Scott D. Ladd Clerk of the Board DATE APPROVED: ~~'! ~ 7