Loading...
Minutes 06-02-75MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL ~ETING OF THE BOARD OF ~JUSTF~NT HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, J~ 2, 1975 AT 5:30 P. M. PP~SENT Foy Ward, Chairma~u Alvin C. Boeltz, Vice Chairman David W. Healy, Secretary Robert Gordon Vernon Thompson, Jr. D~rle B. Bailey, Alternate John F. White, Alternate Joseph Aranow, Alternate Jack Barrett, Building Official Ernest Simon, City Attorney ChairmamWard called the meeting to order at 5:40 P. M. and annoumced it was a special meeting for the purpose of review- ing and discussing the new zoning ordinance as it pertains to the Board of Adjustment.. He took rolI call and introduced the Building Official, City Attorney, and Recording Secretary. Chair~ardm requested they refer just to matters pertaining to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Barrett suggested starting on Page 38. Mr. Aranow questioned if there were auy rules or regulations set up or made so an alternate would know when or when not he was going to be called? Mx. Barrett replied that to date, there was nothing. The Bmildimg Department does not kaow until the last minute and even after they leave at 5:00, a member comld cha~ge his mind about attending. There is no way they could set this up. M~. Ara~ow referred to him being the last man appointed and how it might he possible for him to sit for a year and never be called to sit on the Board. Mr. Barrett suggested that as a Board, they could set up re~m- lations to goverm using an alternate with rotation. Chairmam Ward advised him that previously the m~ with seniority had ~eem called first.. If at a following meeting, they agaim needed a~ alternate, he coul~ leave the next mau come up. Mr. Barrett stated he coul~ see Mr. Aranow's point that if the man with seniority wanted to sit, the other would not get a chamce and this could happen. Chairman Ward stated that he sat as au alternate for a good while. If he came in a little late and an alternate took his place, he let him remain sitting on the Board. Mr. Boeltz stated they had dis- cussed this previously~~r. Gordon agreed and that they said they would take turns. Mr. Aranow ~tated he did not know there was amy standard. At this moment, he would not have any objections to complying with the rules and regula- tions at amy time. As low man on the totem pole though, he would not like to sit around for a year and not get a chanse tO serve. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE TWO JUNE 2, 1975 Mr. Healy referred to Paragraph 1 ~n Page 38 and the City Council organizational meeting in January, 1976, and he questioned if this would not go into effect until then? Mr. Barrett replied that he was right and they woul~ stay as a five member Board until then. Chairman ~ard asked about the regulations and Mr. Barrett informed him they would go into effect upom approval. ~. Gordon referred to th~ requirement of 7 members on the Board amd 4 votes being~necessary and he questioned why they ~required 4 votes mow with only 5 members? Mr. Barrett informed him that was how the present regulations read. The 4 is according to State law. The old one is not patterned after Etate law. Chairman Ward referred to the ~tate law stating it takes a concurring vote of 4. Mr. Thompson pointed out that this wouldn't be in effect until January, 1976 amd Mr. Barrett agreedland ~mntil then, they must operate om 4 having to concur. Mr. ~imo~ asked how many members they had ~ow an~ Chairman Ward informed him there were 5 members and 3 alter- nates. Mr. Simon clarified they had a total of 8 now would have 9 when t~is takes effect. He added this would take effect when the ordinance took effect. Mr. Barrett suggested they should clarify this with the City Council they may decide to appoint a 7 member Board atones. Mr. Simo~ replied it was his understanding they wanted a 7 member Board as soon as this takes effect. Their intent was to have a 7 member BOard upon the effective date of this ordinance, Everyone appointed would serve umtil place that the City Council 2 alternates to fill Simon pertaining to this and re-written ~n out that the reason for this was an~. this whole paragraph was Board. the membership to 7 members. Mr of the increase from 5 to 7, · this at the City Council care of correcting it was revised, ~tes member Board for the for Mr. prese~tat Council. Mr. questioned if they wou~d be violating any rules of ~Y switching the majority withhaving a half year to operate under the present City ordinance? Mr. Simon pointed out that the present ordinance re2uired 4 out of 5, · hich is more stringent than the State law. In the revision, it would conform with the State law. Chairma~Ward adde~ MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE THREE JUNE 2, 1975 that it still would be 4 out of 7. ~M. Simon stated they must remember that when talking about the majority, they are talking about the majority of 7. Even with 5, they must have a 4 vote. Mr. Thompson remarked that he didn't think it was spelled out. Mr. Simon stated it was spelled out that no vote shall be taken unless 5 members are present and it re- quires a 4 vote. Mr. White Stated, this was in Section 5. Chairman Ward referred to Chapters 163 and 112 and questioned if they were in effect now and Mr. Barrett replied: yes, Chairman Ward noted the new zoning bec~m__~_~ffective ten days after final reading, thus would be effective after J~e t3. ~. Aranow referred to Section 163.170 and read the defini- tion for special exceptions. He pointed out they had special exceptions covered for the Planning & Zoning Board and also special exceptions stated in the Board of Adjustment, but he questioned if there were any special exceptions provided in the ordinance permitting the Board of Adjustment to create special exceptions under certain circumstances? Mr. Barrett replied that he believed the special exception was the vari- ance. Mr. Aranow stated he didn't think there were mmy spec- ial exceptions the Board of Adjustment could make. Chairman Ward read State Chapter 163.225 and stated this would take precedence over the City. Mr. Barrett disagreed and stated it did not relate to'~:this. He gave examples of special excep- tions granted by the Planming & Zoning Board and taken care of b~ ordinance by recommendation'by the Planning & Zoning Board to the City Council. Special ~xCeptiens granted by the Board of Adjustment will be in addition to the ordinance. This Board can spell it out and make requirements in granting a variance. Mr. Simon added that many times special exceptions are in the uses and that is where the Board of Adjustment gets involved. Special exceptions will be very limited, mMr. Barrett referred to uses and gave an example of a nursery school applying in a R-1AA zone and it could not be allowed. He added that the permitted and prohibited uses were listed in the new ordinance. The language has been c~ared up and youcan read 'what is allowed under the various zones. Mr. White referred to a permit being denied and questioned if the applicant could appeal before this Board? Mr. Barrett replied if an application came in for a ~e not allowed in any zoning classification, he would deny the permit. He does not believe they would appeal when it is clearly stated it is not allowed. Mr. Aranow gave an example ef having a concession of washing machines in a condominium and asked i£this commercial use should be all~wed? Mr. Barrett informed him that this was allowed, bu~ they needed an occupational licemse. Various ways of operating such a business were discussed and ~. Barrett advised him that he had one ma~~-~ taking care Of this. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAGE FOUR JUNE 2, 1975 Chairman Ward referred to non-conforming lots and Mr. Barrett stated he didn't think it was spelled out. He gave examples of platted lots af record. He cannot give a permit on a non- conforming lot and that is when they must appear before the Board~_~f AdjUstment. He added that in the future when they have applicatioms for nom-conforming lots, he will provide a little shot of the area showing the lot sizes which are there. The members will receive this a few days before the meeting and he suggests they look at the property. Mr. Healy agreed that this s~ould be straightened out; as right no~, they' don't even hear non-conforming cases under the present regulations. Mr. Barrett added that there has been a musher of opinions from various people in the City of what should be heard a~d what should not be heard by the Board of Adjustment. Chair- man Ward added that with men-conforming lots, they will also get mixed up with non-conforming structures and Mr. Barrett added that they also have non-conforming uses. Mr. Simon noted they didn't have a definition for a special exception of a variance. Mr. Barrett informed him that they didn,t spell it out, as variance and special exceptions are both self-explanatory and neither are ~cluded. Mr. Nealy showed Mr. Simon a definition for special exceptions listed on the summary outline. Mr. Barrett stated that the Board felt both were s~lf-explanatory. Mr. Boeltz referred to a non-conforming piece of property and stated the owner comld chamge,.~but the property did not. ~. Simon stated that the sense of the hardship changed. Mr. Bar- rett gave a~ example' of a non-¢omforming use and how it could be continued. ~. White referred to Page 4, Section 4. Paragraph B and Mr. Barrett informed him that it meant eXactly what it ' stated. The Board may state a time limit, but do not have to. They can grant a variance based upon conditions of time, etc. If a project is not started within a certain period of time, it would become null and void. Mr. Ara~ow referred to the Board of Adjustment with the Planning & Zoning Board. Mr. Barrett informed him that they took this reference out and Mr. Aramow asked why it was taken out, as it is in the State statute. Mr. Simon replied that in the ~tate statutes, it refers to special ex- ceptions, but in the proposed ordinance there are ne special exceptions, mit might further provide for s~ecial exceptiom use and give criteria and this would make i~ necessary for the Boards to concur. Mr. Aranow pointed out that by elimin- ating Section E, they have taken away this privilege to een- con£er em, with the Planning & Zoming Board. There is no other vision for special exceptions. They have denied the Boar~ of Adjustment all rights to make any special exceptions a~d Minutes of 6/9/75 MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE FIVE JU~ 2, 1975 also to co~fer with the Plan~ing & Zoning Board. Mr. Simon replied it was not depriving the Board of Adjustment to f~¢- tien as provided in the statute, as there are no special ex- ceptions in this provision. This certain condition is not going to exist. There are no special exceptions. Mr. Aranow questioned if they could keep this out of the rules and regm- lations? Mr. Barrett informed him that this Board is a qmasi- judicial Board and makes its decisions. The Plamming & Zoning Board is a recommending Board to City Council. If yom were to sit with the Planning & Zoning Board, you would tak~ this appro- val away from the City Council. Under the new State law, it is required that we set up a Board of Appeals which consists of an architect, engineer and three people from the construe- tion industry at large who will hear appeals. It is a Board of Appeals to decide whether the Building Official, Fire Mar- shall, etc. is right or wrong. The Board of Adjustment is sitting on zoning requirements alone. The Bmilding Depart- ment will sit in regards to the construction of the building. This Board sits as a Board of Adjustment and your decisions are final. The Planning & Zoning Board is a recommending Board o~ly. Mr. Aranow referred t~ Page 40 and stated he believed this outlined what they were supposed to do. He asked what sec- tion provided for the Board of Appeals Mr. Barrett referred to and Mr. Barrett informed him it was the Southern Building Cede and~ State Law. ~. Barrett gave an example of having required a sprim~ler system and the applicant appealing this requirement. He also added that the State law required 5 Building Officials in Palm Beach County to hear appeals. After explaining this, he stated again that the decisions made by the Board of Adjustment are final as far as the Oity is con- cerned. However, they are not qualified to judge according to the definition of the Standard Building Code. Mr. Aranow referred to Statute 163.230 stating they could handle appeals,etc. ~. Barrett clarified this was only in reference to zoning matters. Mr. Aranow referred to his original question of omitting Section E of 225 and asked why no other parts had 'been omitted? We come to the conclusion that the Board of Adjustment cannot create a special exception, but why do we have Sections 2E, 2B and 20 on Page 39? Mr. Barrett informed him that special exceptions are a function for the Planning & Zoning Board and City Council alone. The Board of Adjustment will be dealing with variances which are not special exceptions, but am excep- tion to the requirements. When they grant a variance, they are gr~ting an exception, but special exceptions deal with an entire subdivision. He gave an ~e~-~mple of the special exception being heard by the Planning & Zoning Board, but it is not created by them. They only hear the application for MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE SIX J'~NE 2, 1975 a special exception. Mr. Aranow questioned whether this Board should consmlt with them on this? Mr. Barrett replied that when they hear a special exception and recommend it to the City Council, then a zoning ordinance is created. Mr. Aranow stated that the Board of Adjustment is still put out of the picture. Mr. Barrett stated that the zoning regula- tion becomes effective and he doesn't thimk this denies them any privilege. It also doesn't demy the Planning & Zoning Board members from attending the Board of Adjustment meetings. Mr. Healy referred to a special use not being listed in the book and questioned how they would deal with it? Mr. Barrett replied that they wo'~ld recommend to the applicant that it is not a permitted use, but in order to make it a permitted use, he could apply for an amendment to thecordinance. It would come before the Planning & Zoning Board for recommendation to the City CoUncil. Mr. Healy asked if it was turned down, what alternative would the applicant have and Mr. Barrett replied that he could go to the court. Under the zoning code, it is not a permitted use. Ne wouldm't de~y the per- mit because it was mom-conforming, but becamse it was net a permitted use. Mr. Healy replied that the use was not listed did with going before the Pla~iag & Zoning Board a~d City Council. Mr. Simon suggested striking amy reference te special excep- since there are none. Mr. Boeltz pointed out this was on Page 39 ~der 2A, B and C. ~. Simon suggested taking out aA, B and C completely. Mr. Aramow stated with eliminating these amd also leaving out Section E, they would in effect be changing the State statute in regard to the Board of Adjust- ment. Mr. Simon replied that the State statmte provides these basics for the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Ara~ow pointed out that the regulations did not provide for any. He asked if there was me possibility at amy time of a special excep- tion being granted by the Board of Adjustment and Mr. Simon replied that under the new code, there would ~e no special exceptions. Mr. Barrett suggested in order to save a lot of work, they change the words special exceptions to variances. Mr, Simon read #3 referring to this. Mr. Barrett stated they were Just spelling out conditions in which variances could be Mr. ~imom read #2 and suggested taking it out cc , which would leave this Board Only in i~s appellate state~ This Board is sitting to grant variances om appeal. Th~ sitting as an adjustment Board to grant variances aft .g certaim conditions exist. Mr. Aranow ~uestioned i~ wasn,t umder Section E, which has ~een left out and replied that this is legislatiom. Mr. Aranow re- to Section E stating the Board of Adjustment shall confer with the Planning Commission amd he gave an example. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SAGE SEVEN JUNE 2, t975 He continued that the application must go to the Planning & Zoning Board, but they must call on the Board of Adjustment to decide whether to grant the request. Mr. Simon stated that he believed it worked the other way around in that the application goes to the Board of Adjustment a~d they concur with the Planning & Zoning Board. What is confusing is the fact that they have provisioms and mechanics for granting special exceptions when they are not allowed under the mew code. Mr. Barrett agreed and stated they would never hear am application for special exceptions with the mew ordinance. Mr. Simon explained how the Delray zoning code and various Boards operated. He then stated that the Boynton Building Official could mot change requirements, bmr the Board of Adjustment could if it was shown there was a hardship not self-created. This Board is am appeals Board granting re- lief. This is different than granting special exceptions. The Plan~lng & Zoning Board c~not do this. They ca~not grant anything, but just review and recommend. The City Council cannot do anything about the decisions made by this Board of Adjustment. He then told about Boca Raton removing three members from their Board of Adjustment. He pointed out that the City Council comld remove members, but could mot change decisions. Mr. Thompson questioned how they deemed a hardship? Mr. Simon replied that a hardship is something not self-created. He gave an example of a ma~ owning a 50 ft. lot and not being able to do anything with it because the code was changed. However, a person buying such a lot creates his own hardship. A hardship has been defimed in many ways, but the code tells exactly what it is. It is mot common to ~he rest of the neighborhood, applies to a particular parcel, is u~iqme to a Par~icular parcel amd individual. Mr. Thompson suggested th~at this be spelled out. Mr. Barrett questioned if he was saying that a man owning the lot before zoning was changed had a hardship and Mr. Simon replied that he didn't say he did have but this was one they could consider and determine. He is mot automatically entitled to a variance. M~ stated possibly he bought the lot with the mnder- st comld build a single family house since the ori- ginal could, ~ut then found out he could ~ot build and must Mr. Simon stated if he couldn't build on it, why d he the lot and Mr. Barrett replied that possibly he was no' of this. He added that he did not want it to be there was no way to use a 50 ft. lot. Chairma~ Ward stated he didn't believe they had acted like this.. The way Mr. S:imon stated is the way they have tried to look at it. Zf the man bought it knowing he could not bUild on it, it is mot a hardship. Mr. Boeltz stated that the lots WoUld all have the same hardships. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE EIGHT JUNE 2, 1975 Mr. Thompson asked if the original owner did not want to build, did this mean he could not sell it either? Mr. Barrett replied that the original owner could come in to get a variance for a single family home~and could sell it with the variance. Mr. Simon added that the Board could set these conditions. He gave an example of a m~n with a lot and the code being changed after he bought it and not want- ing to build, he could state h~ ~anted a variance in order to sell to a person wanting to build. A variance can be granted tO be sold with the lot. This variance can be granted with conditions. There is a difference and it comes back to the Board of Adjustment. The Board must consider and decide whether the man has a hardship. Mr. Barrett stated this clarified eno thing and that he would advise the Board of Realtors that in order to sell these pieces of property to a man assuming he could build on it, they should be warned a variance should come before the sale. Mr. Simon stated that the way it usually works out is a man owning a lot and doesn,t want to build, the ~myer agrees that a condition of the sale is that a variance will be grmnted. The bmyer applies together with the seller for the variance. The Board of Adjustment grants the variance-with the provisions that this buyer makes the purchase and builds within a certain period of time. Mr. Bailey referred to Section 10, 3D, and pointed omt that this womld clear this up. It refers te the rights commonly enjoyed By others in the same zoning district. If there are other homes on 50 ft. lots, this would ~e the same. Mr. Simon agreed this was part of the answer. Mr. Bailey stated he thought this one section cleared u~ a lot. Mr. Simon added this was basically what the Board of Adjustment gra~t- ing a variance was all about. ~ Mr. Thompson referred to ~eeuliar shaped lots and Chairman Ward referred to several cases where they granted a variance ~o sell a partlcmlar lot~ Mw. Barrett stated he thought he could clear this up with getting with the Board of Realtors and making s~re the seller applies for the variance. If he abides by the setbacks and cam build a house on the particu- lar lot, ~e believes he is entitled to a variance. Mr. Simon pointed out there was a difference with a maa owning two 50 ft. lots and not granting two variances and the mem- bers agreed. Mr. Barrett added that they mmst consider whether they are abutting. Mr. Nealy questioned what would happen if there wa~ a lot for sale and the buyer did not want to build for five Or six years, could a variance be granted for that long period of time? Mr. Barrett replied that this could be stipulated. Mr. White questioned the man imheriting property with ~o use and Mr. Simon informed him that this must he'considered by the :. Mr. Thompse~ ~old about property his chur~ 5 ft. frontage and they could not use it, but paid taxes on it. Mr. Aranow suggested they sell it to a neighbor. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE NINE JUNE 2, 1975 Mr. Nealy referred to the Board not hearing cases that are non-conforming. Mr. Barrett clarified that if a house is sitting on a lot and does not conform, it is a non-conform- ing use. It states no non-conforming structure can be added to. Mr. Simon read from the ordinance. He clarified that where a piece of property has a non-conforming use, it means it is a commercial type of establishment i~ a residential area which was buil~ before the code was enacted. That commercial building cannot be enlarged. Mr. Bailey referred to the side setbacks Being changed in the new code and ques- tioned if it made the existing homes non-conforming structures? Can this Board rule on a non-conforming structure? Mr. Barrett stated they must clarify between non-conforming use and structure. Non-conforming strmcture would be three story ina two story area. Non-conforming use is using land to greater density than allowed. Mr. Simon stated Lu non-con- forming use, it does not conform to the use for that parti- cular classification. By granting a variance, they cannot allow the expansion or enlargement of a Building whose use is already prohibited in that zone. They must take the case on the merits presented. Chairman Nard stated that the code states they cannot add to structures nor use. Mr. Simon read thecode to this. Chairman Ward pointed out that the new code did to non-conforming strUctures. Barrett informed him that this was be- cause non-conforming structures fall only the fire district and are governed by another requirement. If they have a use which is allowed, but does not meet side setbacks, this would be heard by this Board. Mr. White referred to hardship not being created by the pre- sent owner and Mr. Barrett informed him that this did not make any difference. Mr. White referred to a previous case which the Board did not hear because the house was non-con- forming and the applicant was not even aware of this. Mr. Thompson added that when the applicants check with City Hall, it does not show just where the house sits on the lot. He asked how many people .had surveys made when making a purchase? Mr. Simon stated that when an application comes before the Board, they must decide whether it meets the criteria. Chair- man Ward stated there was a possibility in voting, the man coul~ be granted a variance and they would be acting against the law. Mr. Barrett replied that the members voting for it would be criticized. However, they must take action. Chair- referred to a variance and then having a ld not refer to previous cases. ~m. Barr stated that each case should Be considered indiv~ Mr. Bailey pointed out this was clarified on Page under Mr. Barrett agreed with it stating each case by . MINUTES BOARD OF ~u~JUSTMENT PAGE TEN JUNE 2, 1975 Mr. Simon referred to special exceptions and questioned whether they should leave it in? Mr. Barrett replied that he would like to leave it in, rather than change it, But none will come before the Board. He added in order to clar- ify any Board,s right, this Board has every right to sit in on the Planning & Zoning Board meetings and the~Planning & Zoning Board members may sit in on the Board of Adjustment meetings. This makes a workable situation. With taking it out, it doesn't deny it. Ne Just did notwant to make it a requirement that they had to sit at everY Planning & Zoning Board meeting. Chairman Ward referred to Page 41 and read~D and questioned if the Board could act on fences, driveways, etc.? Mr. Barrett stated this was right, It was said that this Board could not act, But they must act as it is part of the zoning regulations. ChairmaaWard remarked that they will have enough to act on without these, but wanted it clarified. Mr. Barrett replied they would probably have a few. They are obliged te act on any regulation in the zoning ordinance. Chairman Ward referred to the Board proceeding now on the Basis that the application having Mr. Barrett's initials, he has seen it, But they don,t have the official word that it has Been denied. Mr. Barrett informed him that the only reason the applicant applies is Because he has Been denied a permit. If a man comes in and doesn't consult with him and goes to the City Clerk, she will send'him to the Build- lng Department. They must assume that everything Before this Board is denied by the Building Department. Mr. Healy clari- fied that this question arose when they h~ard a case previously and the applicant referred to the City Clerk, But stated he had not gone to the Building Department. Mr. Barrett replied thai; they must go to the BUilding Department. An applicant cannot get here without first being denied By the Building Department. The fact that he has initialled it meaus he has denied the permit. Mr. Nealy asked if a stamp could be put on it stating "Permit Denied,~. Mr. Barrett replied this would be superfluous. He sees every application for the Board of Adjustment and verifies with his~ initials on it that a Building permit has Been denied, Mr. Healy referred to D and how applications sometimes were not fully completed with having no survey or plot plan. Mr. Barrett stated if it was an application for a building to go on a non-conforming lot, there would only Be a smrvey. They may tie some conditions to it. Chairman Ward stated that the plan should have some kind of temporary plot plan to deter- mine where the house is going. Mr. Barrett stated that they make stipulations and then. the applicant has plans drawn to fit the stipulations. All he has to do for a vacant lot is submit a survey. When he reads the requirements based on MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAGE ELEVEN JUNE ~ 1975 the variance, he knows he must comply with the requirements. He can't have a plan not knowing the requirements. They will have to use a little discretion. Mr. Healy referred to the certification of ownership and Mr. Barrett informed him that there should be a copy of the deed. Mr. Healy referred to the paragraph stating in the event the appeal was turned down, he could go further, etc., and asked if the Chairman should read this before the meeting? Mr. Barrett replied that if the Board denies the application for a variance, he' thinks the Chairmam should~ advise the applicant if he so desires, he can go before circuit court. Mr. Nealy clarified they should use it only in case of denial. Mr. Simon added that to d~ it mere completely, if there is oppo- sition tea request and they grant the request, the opponents should be notified likewise. Mr. Thompson mtated that if it was read before the meeting, the person might assume the de- cision has been made and he believes it would.be better to do it afterwards. Mr. Barrett agreed. He added that if every- body was happy with the decision, there was no need to do it. Mr. Aranow referred to Section 163.225 and questioned why this was left out? Mr. Simon informed him that the violation ~pro- vision in the State statmte at the present time would be brought before municipal court, which they presently do have. Mr. Aranow stated this would be the same as o~ Page 37, Paragraph D. Mr. Simon stated this had to do with civil and not criminal. He gave an e~ample of a man stating he was going to do something if the variance was not granted. Chairman Ward referred to the Southern Etandard Building Code having a chapter pertaining to a Board of Adjustment and Appeals. He thinks the previous ordinance deleted this part±- cular section because it called for several architects, con- tractors, etc., but nothing in here deletes it. Mr. Barrett told him not to worry about it, as it is created by State law. Chairman Ward thanked everyone for coming and added that he thought they had a very explanatory session which has been very enlightening. Mr. Nealy agreed and added that he thought it had been very instructive. Mr. Healy mad~ a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Gordon. Motion carried 5-0 and the meeting was properly adjourne~ at 7:55 ~. M.