Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-09-10 BAA MINUTESMINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS September 10 , 1997 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustments and Appeals was called to order at 7:30 P.M. in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair O'Brien presiding . Members present: Barber, Bode, Fowler , O'Brien, Seymour , Smith Members absent: None Staff present: Planning Coordinator Stitt Assistant City Attorney Reid Administrative Aide Fenton Chair O'Brien stated that there were six members present; five affirmative votes will be required to grant a variance. Ms. O'Brien stated that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals is empowered to grant variances by Part ill, Section 60 of the Englewood City Charter. Chair O'Brien set forth parameters for conduct of hearings: staff will identify the case; applicants will present their request and reasons the variance should be granted; proponents will be given an opportunity to speak; and then opponents will address the Board. II. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #5-97 Linda and Doug Cohn 27 5 East Girard A venue Chair O'Brien declared the Public Hearing open. Ms. O'Brien noted receipt of verification of publication of Notice of Hearing. Staff was asked to present the request. Harold J. Stitt was sworn in. Mr . Stitt stated that the case is a request filed by Linda and Doug Cohn, owners of 275 East Girard Avenue . The request is to allow construction of two three-stall garages, a variance of §16-4-8:01a -Maximum number of garages and carports. The two garages will have a total square footage of 1,512 square feet, which exceeds the maximum floor area of 1, 000 square feet, and necessitates a variance from § 16-4-8: 01f - Maximum total floor area. Ms. Linda Cohn, 3051 South Marion Street, was sworn in. Ms. Cohn testified that she and her husband have owned this property five years, and the site was previously owned by her parents for 10 years. Ms. Cohn stated that the property is developed with a six-unit apartment house constructed in 1905, and the request is to allow two detached garages on the rear of the 1 site. The two garages will accommodate parking for six vehicles, and still allow for a back yard and preserve trees that are on site. Ms. Cohn offered her interpretation of the provision regarding maximum number of garages, stating that, in her opinion, this provision was not meant to prohibit construction of six garages for the six rental units. If all of the parking stalls were constructed in one unit, it would disrupt use of the back yard, and interfere with the drainage pattern and landscaping. Ms. Cohn noted that the area is developed with a variety of apartment buildings, single family dwellings, and Swedish Medical Center has a large parking garage at Girard and South Logan Street. Ms. Cohn noted that Swedish Medical Center also owns a number of properties in the immediate area which are used in conjunction with the Medical Center programs. Ms. Cohn stated that provision of the garages will get some vehicles off the streets, and will not interfere with development of the surrounding area. Ms. Cohn reiterated that her parents, and she and her husband, have owned this site for 15 years. They have tried to keep the property looking nice, and are trying to upgrade the property. Ms. Cohn discussed their attempts to attract good tenants, and maintenance they have done on the apartment structure, such as new electrical and plumbing. Ms. Cohn presented, for the record, certification of posting for the property, as well as statements from neighbors regarding the requested variance. Ms. Cohn stated that she has talked to most of the neighbors; however, she was unable to obtain the property owner's name for one apartment building. Ms. Cohn emphasized that she did speak to all owner-occupied properties. Ms. Cohn stated that she and her husband also own 245 East Girard A venue, which is a duplex. Ms. Cohn stated that people she has spoken to are very supportive of the proposed garage construction; however, the property owner to the north of the site is concerned about drainage onto his land. Ms. Cohn stated that Mr. Gilliam will address the matter of drainage. Ms. Cohn discussed the two proposed garages, noting that one garage will be 864 square feet in size, and the second will be 792 square feet in size. They will be single-car garages, and will improve the property, and well as providing storage areas for the tenants. Ms. Cohn noted that the garage units may be rented to other people, not necessarily tenants, who may want space off-street to park or store a vehicle or household storage. Ms. Cohn stated that she agrees with staff analysis that the application does meet the five criteria for granting a variance. Mr. Seymour asked why one garage is two feet deeper than the other. Ms. Cohn stated that this occurred because of the width of the lot, and the attempts to preserve existing landscaping (large trees) and preserve some back yard. Ms. Cohn discussed the ·configuration of the lot and the proposed garage construction. Mr. Barber asked if the garage units will be used as garages, or as storage units. Is the purpose of the construction to eliminate on-street parking problems, or will the units be used for storage purposes and the on-street parking congestion continue. Ms. Cohn stated that once the units are rented, she cannot police what is put in them. Ms. Cohn reiterated that there are people who are interested in renting these garage units, citing a gentleman in the neighborhood who has a "classic car" which he has kept covered but who wants to put the vehicle in a 2 ·, garage. Ms. Cohn noted that not all of the tenants in the apartment house have vehicles; however, one tenant has purchased a new car and does want a garage unit for that vehicle. Mr. Barber asked if Ms. Cohn would rent the garage unit only to the tenants of the apartment house. Ms. Cohn responded "no"; there are many people in the neighborhood who are interested in renting the garage units. Chair O'Brien stated that if Mr. and Ms. Cohn rent the garage units to individuals other than tenants of the apartment house, how does this proposed construction upgrade the rental property. Ms . Cohn stated that tenants of the apartment house would be offered first option to rent the garage units; she noted that the tenants are mostly single people, some of whom do have vehicles. Mr. Fowler asked if the garage rental would be in addition to the apartment rental. Ms. Cohn stated that this is correct. Mr. Fowler posed a hypothetical question: if a tenant who does not have a vehicle or rent a garage unit moves out, and a tenant who does have a vehicle moves in, will the new tenant have an option to rent a garage unit. How will this be addressed if garage units are rented to people other than renters of the apartment units. Ms. Cohn admitted that this has not been thought through, but was of the opinion that most of the garage units would be used by tenants of the apartment house. Mr. Smith asked what would stop this development from becoming a small "mini-storage" development. Ms. Cohn stated that it will be advertised and marketed as garage units; however, there is need for storage space for household items. Ms. Cohn stated that the Board should not concern itself whether a car or a chair is in the garage unit. Ms. Smith commented that all of a sudden these proposed garage units don't seem to be connected with the apartment use. Ms. Cohn pointed out that the rents on the apartment units cannot be increased sufficiently to meet the cost of construction. She reiterated that people are interested in getting vehicles off the street -cars have been egged, and there has been other vandalism. Mr. Barber asked if consideration had been given to constructing only one garage at the present time, and as interest and need from the apartment units grew, the second garage unit could be constructed. Ms. Cohn stated that this will not be financially feasible. Mr. Barber commented that it did not appear that the garage units will be providing parking space for the tenants, but will be rented to the general public. Ms. Cohn reiterated that attempts are being made to up-grade the type of tenant they rent to, and expressed the opinion that new tenants will have cars. Mr. Barber asked how a Board-imposed restriction that the garage units could be rented only to apartment tenants might impact the proposed garage construction. Ms. Cohn stated that they could not build the garages, and questioned how the City would police the garage unit rentals. She stated that the City cannot control what is put in a garage. 3 Ms. O'Brien asked if any problems were foreseen that might result from general public who . A might rent a garage unit frequenting the property in addition to the tenants of the apartment W house. Ms. Cohn stated that the garage units are being constructed to assist efforts to upgrade the tenants of the apartment house. Until the garages are constructed, the apartment units will not be attractive to tenants who have vehicles. Ms. Cohn stressed that the garages could not be sold separately from the apartment structure: they are on the same lots , and will have the same owner. Ms. Cohn stated that she doesn't think congestion will be a problem. Ms. O'Brien asked if storage units can be built in this zone district. Mr. Barber asked if storage units, or garage units, rented to the general public would be a commercial operation. Mr . Stitt responded that rental of the garage units to the general public is a commercial operation, and that storage units for rental to the general public cannot be constructed in this zone district. Mr . Doug Cohn , 3051 South Marion Street, was sworn in. He stated he had little to add in addition to his wife 's testimony. Three tenants of the apartment house who have cars have expressed an interest in renting a garage unit, and the man living across the street who owns the classic car is also interested in renting a unit. Mr. Cohn stated that the apartment units are quite small -approximately 600 square feet -and external storage would be very important to the tenants. Phil Gilliam, 3821 South Huron Street, was sworn in. Mr. Gilliam stated that he is helping Mr. and Mrs. Cohn with the proposed garages. Mr. Gilliam addressed the drainage issue, discussing the topography of the site and the property to the north. Mr. Gilliam stated that a two to three foot timbered retaining wall will be constructed along the north property line, and the drainage will run to South Grant Street. Mr. Gilliam referenced maps included in the staff report, noting the location of water and sewer lines. The proposed garages will not be constructed over any of the utility lines. Mr. Fowler asked the height of the proposed garages . Mr. Gilliam estimated 12 feet at roof peak. He noted that the garage construction will be in compliance with City codes. Mr. Seymour asked how Mr. Gilliam is "helping" Mr. and Mrs. Cohn. Mr. Gilliam stated that he is the contractor for the owner. Mr. Fowler asked whether there will be a concrete apron placed on the northeast section of the site. Mr. Gilliam suggested that this will probably be pea-gravel to avoid adding to drainage . Ms. O'Brien asked if anyone else wished to address the Board in support of the request. No one addressed the Board. Ms. O'Brien asked if anyone wished to address the Board in opposition to the variance request. No one addressed the Board. Ms. O'Brien asked that the staff report be made part of the record of this hearing. Ms. O'Brien asked if there were additional comments from staff. 4 Mr. Stitt stated that it is the City policy to encourage construction of garages to promote removal of vehicles from on-street parking. However, if the applicants propose to lease the garage units to persons other than tenants of the apartment house, this will constitute a commercial operation in a zone district that does not allow that activity, and staff will rescind support for the variance request. Ms. O'Brien asked if Mr. and Mrs. Cohn wished to address the issue of leasing garage units only to tenants of the apartment units. Mr . Cohn asked for a brief time to discuss this . A short recess of the Board was declared by the Chair. The meeting reconvened; all Board members were present. Mr. Cohn addressed the Board, stating it is the intent of he and Ms. Cohn to provide the apartment tenants with garage space ; they will rent the garage units only to the apartment tenants. Mr . Smith commented that inasmuch as the applicants have been informed that renting garage units to other than the apartment tenants would be illegal, it would be unseemly for Ms. Cohn, who is running for election as Municipal Judge, to pursue that course of action. Chair O 'Brien declared the public hearing on Case #5-97 closed. Ms . O'Brien asked the pleasure of the Board. Seymour moved: Smith seconded : That for Case #5-97 , Linda and Doug Cohn, 275 East Girard Avenue, be granted a variance to construct two detached garages, which will exceed the total maximum floor area allowed. This will be a variance from §16- 4-S:Ola, Maximum Number of garages, and from §16-4-S:Olf, Maximum total floor area. Mr. Smith stated that the applicant's intent is to build garage space for the six tenants of their apartment house; if these garage units cannot be used for commercial purposes, it puts his mind at ease , and he thinks this will be a good variance. Ms. O 'Brien agreed that these garages will be tied to use by the apartment tenants. Mr . Barber asked if the Board should clarify that these garage units may only be rented or leased by tenants of the apartments on this property. Brief discussion ensued . Members of the Board cast their votes . The secretary polled the members. Mr. Seymour stated that he voted "yes ", opining that the request meets all criteria to grant a variance, and it will provide a means to remove vehicles from on-street parking. 5 Mr. Fowler stated that he also voted "yes", and concurs with Mr. Seymour. Mr. Fowler stated that this request also complies with the spirit of the City to provide off-street parking and improve neighborhoods. Mr. Smith stated that he voted "yes"; the request does meet the criteria for a variance. There are exceptional conditions due to the configuration of the property. The variance will preserve the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance while providing a means to get cars off the street . The variance will not adversely affect adjoining properties, and will not impact the development of adjoining properties . This variance is the minimum modification necessary to provide relie f to the applicant. Ms. O 'Brien stated that she voted "yes ", and concurred with Mr. Smith 's reasons . Mr. Bode stated that he voted "yes", concurring with reasons cited by other members. Mr . Barber stated that he voted "yes ", and also concurred with reasons cited by other members. Votes were displayed; Ms. O'Brien stated that the variance for Case #5-97 is granted by a vote of six in favor, none in opposition, and no abstentions . ID. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #6-97 Shannon Sweeney 3356 South Pennsylvania Street Staff was asked to present the case . Mr. Stitt stated that the request, filed by Shannon Sweeney , is for a variance to allow construction of a detached garage , said garage to encroach one foot into the required side yard setback, and one foot into the required rear yard setback. This will be a variance from § 16-4- 4 : Ml d Minimum Side Yard, and §16-4-4 :Mle Minimum Rear Yard. Ms. O'Brien stated that she does have proof of publication of the Notice of Hearing. Shannon Sweeney , 3356 South Pennsylvania Street, was sworn in. Ms . Sweeney stated that she purchased her property three years ago. The slab for the garage was poured and approved by the City before she closed on purchase of the property . Ms . Sweeney stated that she purchased her home from the Englewood Housing Authority , and she was assured by the seller that the concrete slab could be used for garage construction. Ms . Sweeney stated that she obtained a building permit on July 17 , 1997 , at which time a plan review was done by the Building Department. She was adv ised that a firewall was needed on the north side of the garage because of the encroachment into the side yard setback, but at no time was she advised of the need to obtain a variance prior to commencement of construction. Construction on the garage was begun on July 25 m, and on August 4m she received a telephone call indicating there was a problem with the location of the slab and garage. Ms. Sweeney stated that the neighbor 6 to the north had complained to the City that the garage was being constructed too close to the property line, and was too close to the rear property line. Ms. Sweeney testified that the slab was poured at a slight angle, and that less than one-half of the slab encroaches into either the side yard setback or the rear yard setback . Ms. Sweeney stated that when she purchased her home, one of the important criteria was that she could construct a garage. Ms . Sweeney emphasized the need to construct a garage, noting that she has three people living in the house with her, and the garage will get two vehicles off a very congested street. Ms. Sweeney cited the location of her home in proximity to Swedish Medical Center , and stated that even though there is restricted parking applicable during week- days , parking is not restricted during evenings or on weekends. It becomes very difficult for residents to find parking in front of their own homes. Ms. Sweeney stated that when she received notification of the problem with the location of the garage, the construction was 80% completed, and she had contracted for the installation of the garage door and painting of the garage. These activities have been put on hold; however , she did proceed, at her own risk, to finish the siding and shingling of the garage. Ms. Sweeney stated that at no time was she ever issued a "stop work" order, or told verbally to stop work. She was advised she could continue work at her own "risk". Ms. Sweeney reiterated that when she obtained the building permit and was advised of the need for the firewall, the Building Department did not indicate there would be any problem pursuing the construction of the garage; nor was she told to check with any other City department. Ms. Sweeney stated that she has contacted her neighbor to the south, across the street, and across the alley regarding the request for a variance. The neighbor directly to the north registered the complaint with the City. Ms. Sweeney stated that the variance will not, in her opinion, adversely impact the property to the north. Ms. Sweeney stated that the gutters are not on her garage at the present time, but any drainage from the garage roof will flow onto her personal property, and not Ms. Cannon's property. Ms. Sweeney presented the Chair with the Certification of Posting. Ms. Sweeney noted that the sign was initially placed on a pole in the yard , but that was not satisfactory. She has a very large tree in the front of her yard, and she nailed the sign to the tree . It is visible from the street. Signed statements from neighbors were also presented for the record. Ms . O'Brien asked that the record reflect that the Chair now has both the certification of posting and verification of publication for Case #6-97. Mr. Barber asked Ms. Sweeney if she has continued to work on the garage. Ms . Sweeney stated that she completed the siding and shingling , which had been begun at the time she received notification of the complaint. She reiterated that the garage was 80 % complete at the time she was notified. 7 Mr. Barber asked if Ms. Sweeney was told to stop construction on the garage. Ms. Sweeney stated that she was not told to stop work on the garage, but was advised that if she chose to continue it was at her own risk. She chose to complete the shingling and siding. Further work has been placed in abeyance. Mr . Barber asked how much overhang there is on the garage. Ms. Sweeney stated that there is a one foot overhang. Mr . Fowler asked who "Cindy " is . Ms. Sweeney stated that "Cindy " is Cindy Cannon , her neighbor immediately to the north who made the complaint to the City. Mr . Fowler asked if the garage is constructed. Ms. Sweeney estimated that construction is probably 90 % complete now that the shingles are on and the siding is completed . The garage door needs to be put on, guttering and downspouts need to be installed, and other minor work needs to be done for completion Ms . Sweeney further discussed the parking congestion in this block ; she noted that she has hesitated to park off the alley on the slab because of lack of alley lighting, and that it is very difficult to find on-street parking spaces in the evenings or weekends . She stated that the garage will enable her to park her vehicle off-street, and give her a sense of security , both for the vehicle and herself. Mr. Barber asked if Ms . Sweeney had known before construction began that there was a problem with the slab location , would she have corrected it. Ms. Sweeney stated that additional concrete could have been poured to straighten slab, and to assure that the garage met the setbacks on the side and rear. Ms. Sweeney stressed that prior to purchase of the property , she did obtain verification that this was a monolithic slab and could support a garage. Ms. Sweeney referenced statements included in her packet from the seller , from the contractor , and copies of Building Department records as they pertain to the slab on her property. Ms. O'Brien asked Mr . Wills if he wanted to address the Board. Mr. Wills chose not to address the Board. Chair O 'Brien asked if anyone else wished to address the Board in support of the request. Brian Eddy , 3331 South Pennsylvania, was sworn. Mr . Eddy stated that it will be of benefit to the entire block to allow the construction of the garage ; it will get two vehicles off the street. Ms. O'Brien asked if anyone else wished to address the Board in support. No one addressed the Board . Ms. O'Brien then asked if anyone wished to address the Board in oppos ition. No one addressed the Board . Mr . Barber asked why a stop work order was not issued. Ms . Sweeney stated she didn 't know ; all she was told was that "they saw no reason to stop work ", but "they did stress that continuance of work would be at [her] risk ". 8 '. Ms. O'Brien declared the public hearing on Case #6-97 closed. She asked the pleasure of the Board. Seymour moved: Fowler seconded: The applicant, Shannon Sweeney, 3356 South Pennsylvania Street, Case #6-97, be granted a variance to allow construction of a detached garage which will encroach one foot into the required side yard setback, and one foot into the required rear yard setback. This will be a variance from §16-4-4:Mld Minimum Side Yard setback, and §16-4-4:Mle, Minimum Rear Yard setback. Mr. Smith commented that the Board has to look at this as a joint application from Ms. Sweeney and the City of Englewood, inasmuch as the problem was created when the site was owned by the EHA. Mr. Smith also noted that the sign posted by Ms. Sweeney is clearly visible, and if the neighbor making the complaint is not present it was not because the sign was not visible and legible from the street. Mr. Smith suggested that he did not see a great difference between a two foot or a three foot setback. Mr. Fowler suggested that the Board must also take into consideration why a Building Permit was issued in the first place when it was apparent that a firewall was required because the garage "encroached" into the side yard setback; further, that no stop work order was issued, and the applicant was put at risk of continuing construction if the Board should choose to deny the variance request. This would necessitate dismantling the garage and relocating it at great expense to the applicant. This issue has arisen through no fault of the applicant. Mr. Smith agreed that "the City can't hold its head very high on this". Mr. Fowler stated he would like to commend Ms. Sweeney for doing her homework to support the request for a variance, and for a very good presentation. Members of the Board voted. The secretary polled the Board. Mr. Seymour stated that even though his sense of aesthetics is offended because the structure is situated crookedly on the lot, a one foot encroachment into the side yard setback or rear yard setback doesn 't make that much difference. Construction of the garage will help a congested parking situation; therefore, he voted "yes". Mr. Fowler stated that he voted "yes"; he feels there are a number of exceptional situations which led to the requested variance. The construction of the garage will not adversely impact the neighbor to the north; it will provide a measure of personal and vehicular safety for the applicant; the construction of the garage will not impair use of adjacent or adjoining properties, and is the minimum modification necessary to grant relief to the applicant. Mr. Smith stated that he, also, voted "yes", and concurred with reasons cited by Mr. Fowler. Mr. Smith noted that the neighbor, Cindy Cannon, may object to the garage itself, and not the one foot encroachment, but she chose not to attend the hearing this evening. 9 Ms. O'Brien stated that she voted "yes", concurring with previously stated reasons. Mr. Bode stated that he voted "yes", and agrees with previously cited reasons. Mr. Barber stated that he voted "yes", and concurs with previously cited reasons. The votes were displayed. The motion to grant the variance was granted six in favor, none in opposition. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. August 13, 1997 Chair O'Brien stated that the Minutes of August 13, 1997 were to be considered for approval. Smith moved: Fowler seconded: The Minutes of August 13, 1997 be approved as written. The motion carried unanimously. V. FINDINGS OF FACT. Case #4-97 Ms. O'Brien stated that the Findings of Fact for Case #4-97 were to be considered for approval. Seymour moved: Smith seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #4-97 be approved as written. The motion to approve carried, with Mr. Fowler abstaining. VI. PUBLIC FORUM. Mr. Lance Smith was introduced. Mr. Smith assumed the position of Chief Building Official two weeks ago. Ms. Nancy Fenton was also introduced. Ms. Fenton will assume Recording Secretary duties for the Board of Adjustment in October. VIl. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Stitt distributed copies of the agenda for the Planning Commission meeting on September 16m. He stated that the City Council agenda for September 15th is not available at this time. 10 Mr. Stitt advised the Board that the roster of board and commissions is being updated by the City Manager's office. Copies will be made available as soon as the office gets them. Mr. Stitt also advised the Board that Mr . George H. Allen has been designated as the new member for the Board; this appointment will not be official until the City Council meeting of October 6t!1· Mr. Allen is expected to be in attendance at the October 8th meeting. VIII. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE. Ms. Reid reported that, as a result of discussion at the August Board meeting regarding the development review process, there was a meeting with Chief Building Official Smith, EHA Executive Director St. Clair, NBD Director Simpson, Fire Marshal Greene, and the legal staff to address the concerns of the Board. Ms. Reid reported that issues raised by the Board will be addressed, and the process for development review will be streamlined and communication between departments and with the Board will be improved . Ms. O'Brien asked if Ms. Reid had addressed the issue of abstentions. Ms. Reid stated that she has not addressed that issue yet; she will follow up on this concern in time for the next meeting. IX. BOARD :MEMBERS CHOICE. Mr. Seymour commented that "this is two months in a row we have had to solve problems created by the Englewood Housing Authority. " Mr. Seymour stated that he is baffled how anyone could look at the garage, or the slab before the garage was begun, and not realize that it was not poured in proper alignment, and that a problem might be created. Or, how building department personnel could require a firewall on the garage because of encroachment into the side yard, and not properly advise the applicant of the need to correct the alignment of the slab, or to obtain a variance prior to beginning construction. Mr. Barber stated he was concerned that no stop work order was issued. He stated that construction in progress may be brought to a "safe point", but cannot progress further once such an order is issued. Mr. Fowler commented that if an applicant chooses to continue construction at their own risk, and if the Board should determine that the structure should be relocated, there is a good possibility the City could be sued. Mr. Fowler asked how much residential land is vacant. Mr. Stitt stated that some of the vacant residential sites have one or more problems which inhibit construction -not being on dedicated right-of-way, for instance. He estimated that the residential areas of the City are probably 90% to 95% developed. Mr. Smith stated that he still wants to receive copies of the South Broadway Action Plan, and wants to see the proposed Fence Ordinance. Mr. Stitt stated that he will check with staff to determine why this information has not been forwarded to the Board. 11 Mr. Barber noted that the criteria cited in the staff reports differs from that cited in the Municipal Code. He asked if there has been a change in the criteria. Mr. Stitt stated that the criteria cited in the Municipal Code has, in some instances, been condensed to address an individual case. Mr. Seymour noted that the Staff Reports reflect "Case Facts". He stated that he does not feel "case facts" should be established by the staff, but that establishment of these facts is a responsibility of the Board. He stated that he has briefly discussed this with Mr. Stitt but they do not have the same interpretation of this responsibility. It was suggested by Mr. Smith that this be a topic for study session at some point when there are no cases filed for a particular month. Ms. O'Brien agreed that this would be beneficial. Mr. Fowler commented that the Minutes of August 13, 1997 reflect his absence on the first page; but further in the Minutes on noted votes, he is not listed as being absent. In light of this, should the Minutes be amended. Smith moved: Seymour seconded: The Minutes of August 13, 1997, be amended to reflect the absence of Mr. Fowler on detailed votes. The motion carried six in favor, none in opposition. There was no further business brought before the Board. The meeting was declared adjourned. Pro Tem b:\glouplboan!slboalminutea 9-97.doe 12 •