The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 08-02-12 33425-0310 TEL: 551-742-6350 July 26,2012 Mr. Michael Bessell, Chairman 2657 SW 23rc1 Cranbrook Drive Boynton Beach, FL 33436 RE: Robert Feliciano, 1311 S.W. 2ih Avenue, for a 9-month extension to his approved permit number 07-2853. William David Poist, C1 Construction, Inc., for extension of permits for Renaissance Commons Tabled motion of January 19, 2012, for Harvey Oyer 111,417 E. Ocean Ave., regarding appeal of unsafe building or system at 413 E. Ocean Ave. Dear Mr. Bessell and Board Members: Attached is the agenda for the August 2, 2012, meeting. The first applicant, Robert Feliciano, home owner, is appealing Section 105.4 and 105.4.1.3, inclusive, of the City of Boynton Beach Administrative Amendments to the 2004 Florida Building Code to allow an additional extension. Five extensions were previously granted. Mr. Feliciano is requesting that his permit applicant ntJmber 07-2853 be extended for a period of nine (9) months. He is currently settling an issue with his mortgage lender which could take approximately 3-4 months to finalize and should then allow him to proceed with the permitted work. See application and accompanying documents. The second applicant, William David Poist of C 1 Construction, Inc. for Renaissance Commons permits, is appealing Section 105.3.2 (Time limitation of application) of the City of Boynton Beach Administrative Amendments to the 2004 &2007 Florida Building Code, and is requesting an additional extension to permit applicant numbers 05-6776,05-6778 and 05-6780,11-2807, 11-2666, and 11 ';2389 with all of the same preservations previously granted and approved and extended to April 25, 2012. Additionally, they would like to extend the following permit applicant numbers: 06-6196,07-3189,07-3190,07-3256,09-3364 and 10-782. The final item is unfinished business from the January 19, 2012, meeting, the applicant, Harvey Oyer III, Managing Member of 417 E. Ocean Ave., appealed Section 104.5 (unsafe building or system) with an engineer's letter regarding the safety of the structure. Additionally, appealing Section 105.4.1 (time limitation of application) of the City of Boynton Beach Administrative Amendments to the 2007 Florida Building Code, and requested an extension to permit applicant number 09-3183, with all of the same preservations previously granted and approved and extended to August 1, 2012. The appeal of Section 104.5 was tabled at the meeting by the Board. Sincerely, Andrew P. Mack, P.E., ILEED AP Building Official/City Engineer APM:jaw Attachment Xc: Members of Building Board of Adjustment & Appeals City Commission Members Lori LaVerriere, Interim City Manager Asst. City Attorney Janet Prainto, City Clerk Recording Secretary Nancy Byrne, Interim Director of Development Timothy K. Large, Deputy Building Official Karl Swierzko, Chief Field Inspector . Robert Feliciano, P.O. Box 741423, Boynton Beach, FL 33474; . William David Poist, C 1 Construction, Inc, 1500 Gateway Boulevard, Ste 200, Boynton Beach, FL 33426 . Harvey Oyer 111,417 East Ocean Avenue, LLC, 511 East Ocean Avenue, Boynton Beach, FL 33435 Via ReQular Mail S :\Development\BU IlDI N G\Building Board of Adjustments & Appeals\FY 2011 -2012\8-2-12, 1311 SW 27th Ave & Renaissance Commons\8-2-12 Notice of meeting.doc AGENDA BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS DATE: Thursday, August 2, 2011 TIME: 6:30 P.M. PLACE: BOYNTON BEACH CITY HALL COMMISSION CHAMBERS 100 E. BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD A. CALL TO ORDER - Michael Bessell, Chairman B. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MEMBERS AND VISITORS C. D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA & MINUTES (MINUTES OF 4/19/12 MEETING) APPEALS D.1. Applicant: Robert A. Feliciano Reference: 1311 SW27th Avenue Explanation: Applicant is appealing Section 105.4 and 105.4.1.3, inclusive, of the City of Boynton Beach Administrative Amendments to the 2004 Florida Building Code to allow an additional extension. Five extensions were previously granted. He is requesting that his permit applicant number 07 -2853 be extended for a period of nine (9) months. He is currently settling an issue with his mortgage lender which could take approximately 3-4 months to finalize and should then allow him to proceed with the permitted work. (see application and accompanying documents). D.2. Applicant: William David Poist C 1 Construction, Inc. Reference: Renaissance Commons Explanation: Applicant is appealing Section 105.3.2 (Time limitation of application) of the City of Boynton Beach Administrative Amendments to the 2004 & 2007 Florida Building Code, and is requesting an additional extension to permit applicant numbers 05-6776, 05-6778 and 05-6780, 11-2807, 11-2666, and 11-2389 with all of the same preservations previously granted and approved and extended to April 25, 2012. Also, additionally they would like to extend the following permits applicant numbers: 06- 6196,07-3189,07-3190,07-3256,09-3364 and 10-782. S:\Oevelopment\BUI LOI NG\Building Board of Adjustments & Appeals\FY 2011 -2012\8-2-12, 1311 SW 27th Ave & Renaissance Commons\8-2-12 Agenda.doc jaw E. OLD BUSINESS E.1. Applicant: Harvey E. Oyer, III, Managing Member 417 East Ocean Avenue, LLC Reference: 413 East Ocean Avenue Explanation: Applicant is appealing Section 104.5 (unsafe building or system) with an engineer's letter regarding the safety of the structure. Additionally, appealing Section 105.4.1 (time limitation of application) of the City of Boynton Beach Administrative Amendments to the 2007 Florida Building Code, and is requesting an extension to permit applicant number 09-3183, with all of the same preservations previously granted and approved and extended to August 1,2012. Motion regarding the appeal of Section 104.5 tabled at the January 19, 2012 meeting. F. NEW BUSINESS None G. ANNOUNCEMENTS NOTICE Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals with respect to any matter considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The City shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program or activity conducted by the City. Please contact the City Clerk's office, (561) 742-6060, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the program or activity in order for the City to reasonably accommodate your request. XC: Members and Alternates of the Building Board of Adjustment & Appeals, Applicant(s), City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, Director of Development & Building Official S:\Oevelopment\BUI LOI NG\Building Board of Adjustments & Appeals\FY 2011 -2012\8-2-12, 1311 SW 27th Ave & Renaissance Commons\8-2-12 Agenda.doc jaw MINUTES OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2012, AT 6:30 P.M. IN THE CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL 100 E. BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: Michael Bessell, Chair Beverly Agee Timothy Rurey Richard Shores Andrew Mack, Engineer/lnterim Building Official James Cherof, Board Counsel ABSENT: Sanford Guritzky A. Call to Order Chair Bessell called the meeting to order at 6.30 p.m. The Recording Secretary called the roll. A quorum was present. B. Acknowledgement of Members and Visitors There was no action taken on this item. C. Approval of Agenda and Minutes (Minutes of January 19, 2012 meeting) Motion Mr. Shores moved to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Rurey seconded the motion that unanimously passed. D. Old Business None. E. New Business Applicant: David Dennis Reference: 413 East Ocean Avenue Explanation: Applicant IS appealing Section 104.5 and Section 105.4.1.3 (Conditions of the Permit) inclusive, of the City of Boynton Beach Administrative Amendments to the 2004 Florida Building Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida April 19, 2012 Code, which was allowed for his permit #06-3134, to add doors and windows to a patio, to be voided. He is requesting the permit be reinstated and be allowed to complete the job from the point where he had to stop. He asks that for financial reasons, the original application fees, engineering plans, foundation work, soil treatment, window rough, and concrete and elevation be recognized and used for the reinstated permit, (See application and accompanying documents). While the permit was active, applicant requested and received four permit extensions. Due to inactivity, it later qualified as abandoned and was allowed to expire (see Building Division Exhibit A). Attorney Cherof administered the oath to all those intending to testify. Andrew Mack, Interim Building Official/Engineer, advised this permIt had a lot of history. It was a 2006 permit and it had expired in 2011. Due to the limitations of this permit, once it was expired and this old, it would not be renewed. That was a consistent policy In the department. When the applicant requested the permit to be extended, his request was denied and the City gave him due process to appeal the decision in front of the Board. Chair Bessel inquired if the permit could be extended again if the Board voted in favor or if conditions warrant? Mr. Mack replied the permit could be extended under those conditions. Chair Bessel inquired as to what the fee would be and Mr. Mack advised normally the fee would be $100 for the extension. Ms. Agee inquired if there would have to be changes to the plan because of the Code differences between 2006 and the finishing of the project. Mr. Mack advised if it was reinstated, it would be to whatever the Code was when it was originally issued, which would be the 2004 Code. David Dennis, 1314 S. Seacrest Blvd, Boynton Beach thanked the Board for hearing his case. He advised he was requesting the appeal of the decision to not extend the permit. The permit was for windows and doors for his home at 1314 S. Seacrest Blvd. He explained what he had done for repairs and remodels on the home since 1991, both externally and internally. This permit would allow him to increase the square footage of the home. The hurricane rated doors had been purchased in the hopes that the permit 2 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida April 19, 2012 would be reinstated. He reviewed all the costs for the permitting he had paid for the original permit, plus the costs of the repairs he was currently encountering. Due to financial issues in 2010 and 2011, he was unable to purchase the windows needed to move the project forward. His financial situation had changed since then, but not in time to finish the project before the permit was voided. He was requesting the renewal of the permit so he could complete the project. He would be unable to complete it if the process had to start over. He added this improvement would increase the value of his home, as well as other homes in the neighborhood. Ms. Agee inquired the total amount of funds Mr. Dennis expended between 2006 and 2010. Mr. Dennis estimated the amount to be $8,000. Mr. Rurey inquired who the window installer would be and Mr. Dennis advised that Pierce Windows and Doors was the certified contractor performing the installation. Chair Bessell inquired if any required inspections had been done on the property since the permit was issued. Mr. Mack confirmed no inspections were done that approved windows, air conditioning or electric and it would have to be inspected before the permit could be issued, which was standard practice. Attorney Cherof confirmed this could be a condition of approval of the permit but reminded the Board that it was inherent in the approval. The project would not close out unless there was a final inspection on the work that was done from the inception of the original issuance of the permit. Chair Bessell was concerned that the reinstatement fee of $100 was not enough to push Mr. Dennis to completion. Mr. Mack stated that the Building Department was in the process of reviewing their fees and instituting a reinstatement fee in the future, which would go to the City Commission for approval in June. As of now, if the permit was extended and Mr. Dennis called in for an inspection and approval, his permit would be valid for 180 days. As long he shows good faith and gets an approved inspection within 90 days, the permit would be extended. He would not get the permit unless the inspection was approved. Mr. Shores moved to approve the extension based on an approved inspection. If approved, the permit would be valid for 180 days. The motion was seconded by Ms. Agee. The Recording Secretary called the roll. The motion passed unanimously. F. Announcements Mr. Mack updated the Board on 413 E Ocean Avenue. Mr. Oyer came in and extended his permit. However, there had not been any activity on the project. If nothing occurs Within the time frame, he advised he would be asking for a determination and decision from the Board in August for the tabled item, which was the unsafe condition of the structure. 3 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida April 19, 2012 Motion Mr. Rurey moved to adjourn. Mr. Shores seconded the motion that unanimously passed. The meeting was adjourned at 6:52 p.m. (l ~ ~ /1 y/(tt I" LLtt~t-~-b- Ellie Caruso Recording Secretary 4 D.I. 1311 SW 27th Avenue From: 2 16: P. an It or a (~1Ims.1_l?IIU) A. 1311 FL To: From: A Re: Extension Date: June 5, 2012 '?~ ~ 0, - 2.Cl5"3 Dear a lamin an extension on my process as Once to went Next as Next went in. to lwasa some time I re out town contract to start process I was to over I went to once He was to GC own So some is time no to to hire my interest rate to to to I intflrn to Since some time now. I was extension sooner. one more Once lam sooner my lam your IF ) ~ Public Access Location Address 1311 SW 27TH AVE BOYNTON BEACH Parcel Control Number 08-43-45-32-03-013-0150 Subdivision GOlfVlEW HARBOUR 2ND SEC IN fiB 27 PGS 46 & 47 Official Records Book 19178 21 Sale Date AUG-200S GOLF VIEW HARBOUR 2ND SEC LT 1 5 BlK 13 Owners FELICIANO ROBERT A add r'EiS S 1311 SW 27TH AVE BOYNTON BEACH FL 33426 7827 Sales Date Price OR Sale Owner AUG-2005 $10 19178/0021 QUIT CLAIM FELICIANO ROBERT A NOV-2004 17767/1718 WARRANTY DEED FElICIANO MICHAEl A NOV-2004 $10 17997/1435 QUIT CLAIM FELICIANO ROBERT A & JUI\H 996 $1 09333 /1474 WARRANTY DEED JUl-1993 $132,500 07800 I 153 WARRANTY DEED 12 No Information Available. Number of Units 1 "Total Feet 2510 Use Code 0100 - SINGLE FAMilY R 1 M - Total Market Value Tax Year A'isessed Value Amount Taxable Value Tax Year Ad Valorem Non Ad Valorem Total tax. Acres 0.17 ( 08-BOYNTON BEACH) 2009 2011 2010 All values are as 1 st each year 201 2010 2009 2011 2010 2009 $812 $300 $1,112 $887 $272 $1,159 1 1 $81,000 $1 $262 $1 Account No. ()[)/-(yj(}()-3a:;;;, Ol 'SO $ I tJl) I .!!!i- ::1U'r'\e. S- . 20 & Received of {)Y1~ hLJJVJ red 11 yJ ~D ~ -AJ<S Address 13/( S:vJJ 21;& Av~ ~ <B-~)FL----RDb ~~(VIt) For 13u1 ld,~ 13oa.rd rrP Ad J\4$.fm€K\-t -+- AyppJJ.k , , DePt.:DevdopMe-nt . No. By Date: 7/17/2012 Inspections for Selected Permit Year App Number Permit Seq Inspection Seq Insp Result Date (yymmdd) 7 2853 BP 0 SLAB FORM 1 BG CA 71026 7 2853 0 SLAB FORM 2 GS AE 71029 7 2853 0 BEAM/COLUMN 1 GS AP 71214 7 2853 0 SLAB FORM 3 GS DA 80910 7 2853 0 SLAB FORM 4 BG CA 80916 7 2853 0 SLAB FORM 5 BG AP 80916 7 2853 EL 0 ELEC SEE COMMENTS 1 DON AP 71030 7 2853 0 FOOTER BOND 1 JAP DA 80912 7 2853 0 FOOTER BOND 2 TP AP 80915 7 2853 PL 0 PLUMB UNDERGROUND 1 GG DP 71008 7 2853 0 SEWER 1 GG DA 71008 7 2853 0 PLUMB ROUGH/UNDERGROUND 1 GG DA 71009 7 2853 0 SEWER 2 GG CA 71009 7 2853 0 PLUMB UNDERGROUND 2 TT AP 71011 7 2853 0 SEWER 3 TT AP 71011 7 2853 0 SEWER 4 TT AP 71012 Page 1 Date: 7/17/2012 Miscellaneous Information by BP Application App Year App Num Code Misc. Data Date (yymmdd) 7 2853 BPCM December 5, 2011 5:23:37 PM byb2col. 111205 7 2853 BPCM PERMIT EXTENDED TO 3/5/2012 PER TKL - NO 7 2853 BPCM FURTHER EXTENSIONS - MUST APPEAL TO 7 2853 BPCM BLDG BOARD OF ADJUST & APPEALS FOR ANY 7 2853 BPCM FURTHER EXTENSIONS PAST 3/5/2012 7 2853 BPCM April 7, 2011 10:56:19 AM byb2esc. 110407 7 2853 BPCM PERMIT EXTENDED UNTIL JULY 6, 2011, PER 7 2853 BPCM TIM LARGE. 7 2853 BPCM April 6, 2011 4:36:50 PM byb2esc. 110406 7 2853 BPCM RECV'D 5TH PERMIT EXTENSION REQUEST 7 2853 BPCM January 19, 2011 10:01:45 AM longc. 110119 7 2853 BPCM SENT TO CODE - KAS 1/19/2011 7 2853 BPCM January 11, 2011 1 :46:32 PM c1inek. 110111 7 2853 BPCM YOUR PERMIT HAS EXPIRED DUE TO TIME 7 2853 BPCM LIMITATIONS PER 2004 BBA TO FBC 105.4.1 7 2853 BPCM PERMIT RENEWALlEXTENTION IS REQUIRED 7 2853 BPCM WITHIN 5 DAYS (1-19-11) PER 2004 BBA TO 7 2853 BPCM FBC 105.4.1.1 & 105.4.1.3 FOLLOWED BY 7 2853 BPCM OBTAINING THE REQUIRED INSPECTIONS 7 2853 BPCM CONTRACTOR BOLD CONSTRUCTION IS IN 7 2853 BPCM VIOLATION OF 2004 BBA TO FBC 108.10.1 7 2853 BPCM January 10,2011 3:00:21 PM CLlNEK. 110110 7 2853 BPCM DEADEBEA T TO BUD 7 2853 BPCM September 15, 2009 10:15:39 AM longc. 90915 7 2853 BPCM L TR RCVD REQUESTING 90 DAY EXT. 7 2853 BPCM PERMIT EXTENDED TO 12/14/09 PER TKL 7 2853 BPCM June 16, 2009 7:06:02 AM c1inek. 90616 7 2853 BPCM EXT PERMIT UNTIL SEP 152009 PER TKL 7 2853 BPCM June 10, 20092:54:06 PM longc. 90610 7 2853 BPCM ** L TR RCVD FOR 90 DAY EXTENSION ** 7 2853 BPCM EXT JUNE 11 2009 PER WRB 7 2853 BPCM June 9, 2009 9:07:00 AM longc. 90609 7 2853 BPCM CHANGE OF CONTRACTOR FROM BOLD TO OWr- 7 2853 BPCM BUILDER - WILL KEEP EXISTING SUBS PER 7 2853 BPCM TKL - NEED NEW NOC ** 7 2853 BPCM March 12, 2009 3:54:56 PM cuetoe. 90312 7 2853 BPCM EXT LETTER JUNE 11, 2009 7 2853 BPCM June 26, 2008 3:32:02 PM longc. 80626 7 2853 BPCM PERMIT# 05-7085 INCORPORATED INTO THIS Page 1 Date: 7/17/2012 Miscellaneous Information by BP Application App Year App Num Code Misc. Data Date (yymmdd) 7 2853 BPCM FILE PER WRB ** 80626... 7 2853 BPCM June 11,20089:49:59 AM weixlerg. 80611 7 2853 BPCM EXT LETTER SEPT 11, 2008 PER TKL 7 2853 BPCM August 2, 2007 10:55:41 AM conklinc. 70802 7 2853 BPCM CERT/REC NOC IN FILE RECORDED 7/25/07 7 2853 BPCM NSF COVERED RECPT #49776 (PAB) 70716 7 2853 BPCM CK #2618 DATE 6/25/07 $310.50 NSF- 70713 7 2853 BPCM REVIEW TO BE STOPPED UNTIL CHECK IS 7 2853 BPCM COVERED AND WE HAVE PROOF. OWES $330.50 7 2853 BPCM (PAB) Page 2 D.2. Renaissance Commons Cl Construction, Inc. 1500 Gateway Blvd., Suite 200 Boynton Beach, FL 33426 561244-6650 June 14,2012 Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals City of Boynton Beach Department of Development Building Division 100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd. Boynton Beach, FL. 33425 Ladies and Gentlemen, We respectfully submit this application for an additional extension that was granted in 2010. (Copy attached) Our application and request is for the extension of the permits, listed below, with all of the same preservations previously granted and approved and extended to April 25, 2012. Copy attached. Permit 05-6776 Permit 11-2389 Permit 05-6778 Permit 11-2807 Permit 05-6780 Permit application 11-2666 We have been in contact with the lenders and have been given a verbal statement that loan affmnation may be very close. Since we are working with HUD, we are never sure what very close means. Additionally, we would like to extend the following permits: Permit 06-6196 Permit 07-3189 Permit 07-3190 Permit 07-3256 Permit 09-3364 Permit 10-782 We sincerely appreciate all of the City's cooperation, considerations and efforts in working with us and understanding in these very difficult times. Sincerely, id POlS, r. C 1 Construction, Inc. 1500 Gateway Blvd., Suite 200 Boynton Beach, FI. 33426 Cc: Timothy Large James Comparato Carl Klepper Page I oft Subject Date From To Cc Attacl1mElf'lw : 3-10-11 Bldg Brei of Adj & Appeal Board Order Tuesday, May 24,201110:41 am "Wooley, Jamie" "Mack, G:\GofdMine\MaiIBolMttach\3-10-11 88M Board Order .pdf Dave, As per our phone conversation, a copy of the Board Order from the City Clerk's office granting an extension for nine (9) building permits is attached for your records. Sincerely, )amLe AV\,V\, wooLetl DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH 1 00 E. BOYNTON BEACH BLVD. BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33435 561-742-6372 reoe-l,~ about:blank 512412011 ( to as to was to on permit to as to as 1. the was to L comments of City this of City of Cl CONSTRUCTION, INe. 36 SE 3RD Street Boca Raton, FL 33432 July 11,2012 Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals City of Boynton Beach Department of Development - Building Division 100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd. Boynton Beach, FL 33425 To Whom It May Concern: We respectfully submit this application for an additional extension that was granted in 20 I 0 (copy attached). Pennit numbers: Permit 05-6776 Pennit 05-6778 Penn it 05-6780 Penn it 11-2807 - Site Engineering Pennit Application 11-2666 Pennit 11-2389 - Rectified Site Plan Our application and request is for the extension of the permits and Florida Building Code 2004 preservations as previously granted and approved; extended to April 25, 2012; compliance as previously approved. These buildings were always part of the Approved Site Plan and design., even if we had not filled out a specific building permit application. We have been in contact with the lenders and have been given a verbal statement that loan affinnation may be very close. Since we are working with HUD, we are never sure what very close means. Additionally, we would like to extend the following permits: Permit 06-6196 Pennit 07-3190 Permit 09-3364 Penn it 07-3189 Penn it 07-3256 Penn it 10-0782 We sincerely appreciate all of the City's cooperation, considerations and efforts in working with us and understanding in these very difficult times. Sincerely, ., CC: Mr. Timothy Large Mr. James Comparato Mr. Carl Klepper WDP/sel 1\ \1- ~j o C\I nJ ..... ..... ..... 0 ..... ee ... ['- ..z ..... 0 ['- :::r LD ~ 0 \) ee ... ~ '!l: r1"l c:i .... Z 0 .... "CI '" c:: .~ '" ::3 u a: 0 CJ ... Y l.I "CI .. 0 ~ ~ ~ If lI. 00 ~ 1: ..... i:!IIl ::::I .. J M ..... -:.; ~ ..... ... >- Q: .. Q. II i .... ..... M i:!IIl .... Q. C'U gs ... i!J Q >- ~ !i ..... .. is ~ >- :..: .... :E o.n ~ la ..... .... ..... E.I. 413 East Ocean Avenue MINUTES OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 19,2012, AT 6:30 P.M. IN THE CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL 100 E. BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: Michael Bessell, Chair Beverly Agee Boyd Boggess Sanford Guritzky Timothy Rurey Richard Shores Andrew Mack, Engineer/lnterim Building Official James Cherof, Board Counsel A. Call to Order Chair Bessell called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. The Recording Secretary called the roll. A quorum was present. B. Acknowledgement of Members and Visitors There was no action taken on this item. C. Approval of Agenda and Minutes (Minutes of June 2, 2011 meeting) Motion Mr. Guritzky moved to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Shores seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Mr. Guritzky disclosed he deals with Macoviak and Oyer Insurance, and was unsure if he had a conflict. After questioning by Attorney Cherof, it was determined under the regulations of the City Code, Section 2.2.1.1. and subsequent sections, a voting conflict did not exist and he was required to vote in the proceeding. D. Old Business None. 1 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida January 19, 2012 E. New Business Applicant: Harvey E. Oyer, III, Managing Member 417 East Ocean Avenue, LLC Reference: 413 East Ocean Avenue Explanation: Applicant is appealing Section 104.5 (unsafe building or system) with an engineer's letter regarding the safety of the structure. Additionally, appealing Section 105.4 (time limitation of application) of the City of Boynton Beach Administrative Amendments to the 2007 Florida Building Code, and is requesting an extension to permit applicant number 09-3183, with all of the same preservations previously granted and approved and extended to August 1, 2012. Attorney Cherof administered the oath to all those intending to testify. Andrew Mack, Interim Building Official/Engineer, reviewed a memo he issued to the Chair. The project started in November 2009. The applicant submitted for building permits, and a permit was issued in February 2010. The project commenced and inspections were ongoing. In November 2010, the project came to a stop. The building permits had almost expired again. An interior inspection for framing or bracing was approved with exception, which extended the permit another six months. Since the last inspection on April 26, 2011, there has been no activity at the site. Mr. Mack's involvement with the project started when the City Manager inquired about the status of the permits and condition of the building. He advised the City Manager the permit was active and would expire on October 24, 2011. Staff would continue to monitor the project and on expiration of the permit, Mr. Mack would review the condition of the site and take appropriate action. On expiration, Mr. Mack examined the site. Photographs contained in the meeting backup reflected the existing condition and some of his concerns. His main concern was the stucco on the exterior of the building, which was being salvaged by the applicant. Because of its exposure to the elements, there was a lot of potential for a hurricane to tear off the stucco siding making it a projectile. Mr. Mack met with Mr. Oyer last Thursday and reviewed his concerns and Mr. Oyer's options. Mr. Mack's original correspondence recommended demolishing the building, or reinstating the permits by making application for a new permit, paying the fine, and completing the project. When Mr. Mack submitted his original letter to Mr. Oyer on November 15, 2011, 21 days was given to comply with the Order or appeal Mr. Mack's decision to the Board. Mr. Oyer opted to appeal and submitted a letter to this effect on December 2,2011. The required application was submitted on December 7,2011. 2 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida January 19, 2012 Attorney Cherof inquired if Mr. Oyer was familiar with or had a copy of the photographs submitted to the Board by Mr. Mack. Mr. Oyer confirmed he was and he was further advised he had the right to question Mr. Mack regarding his testimony or any of the documents he submitted to the Board. Mr. Mack explained the original permit was to salvage a deteriorated building. There was previous contact with the owner prior to the application's approval by the City. Mr. Mack believed the intent of the applicant was to save the fagade of the building, and have it designated in the future as a historic structure. When the project was complete, the structure would have a stucco fagade and a brand new interior. The building was a shell building, having only the two sides and front fagade. There was no roof and the interior was gutted. The new permit was to meet the 2007 Building Code and to keep the project alive. Chair Bessell requested clarification. The last page from the packet from Mr. Oyer had three options but he did not see the third option. It was clarified the appeal was based on the first two options. Harvey Oyer, III, Managing Member, 417 East Ocean Avenue, LLC, explained the corporation was an entity owned by Mr. Oyer and his two sisters. Of the two sisters, Christian Macoviak was present. Mr. Oyer testified the building was constructed in 1925 by Mr. Oyer's grandfather and was in the family 87 years. In 1996, the City paid for a historic survey and the building was identified for consideration as a historic building in the future. Mr. Oyer pointed out the building was occupied continuously until three hurricanes in 2004 and 2005 caused damage to the building, affecting the roof and floors, largely destroying the structure. Mr. Oyer had little knowledge that the building was a project of his father, who had begun selective demolition and restoration of the building. Last December, Mr. Oyer's father died, and in January, Mr. Oyer met with staff from Development, Building, Fire, and others in a series of three meetings to determine what to do with the different buildings he and his sisters would own. With the exception of the subject building, all the buildings were restored and occupied. Mr. Oyer pointed out he restored many buildings in the City, but the subject building was problematic. There was a construction loan issued to Mr. Oyer's father on which draws were made. Contractors had construction liens and there was no tenant or use in sight, hence the need for the meetings. The initial discussions centered on whether there were any incentive programs the Community Redevelopment Agency, (CRA), could provide, and when the Historic Preservation Ordinance would be enacted. Under the Ordinance, the structure, if designated, could qualify for an ad valorem tax exemption, exempting the costs for the building improvements from City and County taxes for 10 years. He noted the exemption made a material difference, and CRA Fagade Improvement and Sign grants would make the project viable. 3 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida January 19, 2012 Mr. Oyer had been told the Historic Preservation Ordinance was about to be passed, a Historic Preservation Board would be created, a Historic Preservation Planner would be hired and the City would apply for a Certified Local Government (CLG) status and enter into an interlocal agreement with the County for the Historic Tax Abatement Program. Mr. Oyer waited for these actions to occur, which they did, with the exception of the CLG status and interlocal agreement with the County. Mr. Oyer indicated this situation occurred because the City asked them to wait. Part of it was to get the issue under control. Mr. Oyer explained he was eventually made Personal Representative of his father's estate, and it was only until April of 2011 that he was in a position to do anything. Mr. Oyer engaged the architectural firm of Glidden, Spina Partners to see what they could do for the building. In an effort to begin to advertise, they also engaged W. G. Compass, a commercial brokerage firm to list the building for lease and for sale so they could find a tenant or a buyer. Mr. Oyer clarified the family was trying to do something with the property. He commented from the building permit, three inspections and "CO" history, there was an ongoing project that was interrupted by the death of his father. He pointed out the photographs he provided to the Board reflected installation of new concrete footers with hurricane strapping, new studs, interior bracing, exterior bracing, all of which had passed inspection and there was some expense and effort made. Additional work was done in August of last year, and the contractor, Gregory Bowser, completed the work and told him to call for an inspection, which was not done. The oversight was realized the day after the permit expired. The contractor called for the inspection and was told the permit had closed and an inspection would not be made. Mr. Oyer understood customarily, a grace period was given, and as a professional courtesy, when a permit expired, personnel from the Building Department calls to advise the permit expired. Mr. Oyer explained there was a series of conversations that occurred over the years. The CRA was interested in purchasing the property but Mr. Oyer's father did not want to sell. Mr. Oyer testified the previous and current Community Redevelopment Agency Director called him on multiple occasions requesting he speak with his father to sell this property and the property they owned at 512 and 516 N. Seacrest Avenue. Mr. Oyer had always responded it was unlikely his father would be interested in any transactions as his father was interested in restoring the building. After death, the conversations resumed with Vivian Brooks, the CRA Director and culminated during the same time period the demolition order was issued. Mr. Oyer had a telephone conversation with Ms. Brooks in October seeking to trade property adjacent to the Oyer family home on Seacrest in return for the subject property. This followed earlier calls from her and a City Commissioner requesting Mr. Oyer tear down the building. Mr. Oyer responded they were open to the idea of tearing it down, they did not have any prospects for what they were going to do with it and the CRA requested they sod the property, irrigate it, and allow Art in Public Places to be installed on it. Mr. Oyer 4 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida January 19, 2012 had indicated they were receptive to that idea but as it sounded like a public purpose, the CRA should share in the cost of it. Ms. Brooks responded they would not share in the cost and if it was not done, the CRA would require the building be torn down anyway. In October, Ms. Brooks reiterated her interest in trading the property on Seacrest for the subject property. Mr. Oyer responded he was not interested in swapping properties as there was a big difference in the valuation of the two properties. If the CRA was interested in purchasing the property, they would be receptive to the idea, but there was not an equivalent value in the two properties. Mr. Oyer advised Ms. Brooks told him she would have the structure torn down. At 9 a.m. the next morning, Tim Large, of the Building Department, called Mr. Oyer informing him he needed to tear the building down and that he was instructed to contact him and advise him of such. Mr. Oyer then shared with Mr. Large the conversation he had the night before with Ms. Brooks. Mr. Large advised he was unaware and would get back with him. Three weeks later, Andrew Mack attempted to contact him and they traded calls. Afterwards, Mr. Oyer received a letter dated November 15, 2011, from Mr. Mack that indicated per the Building Code that the structure was unsafe, constituted a fire hazard, was dangerous to human life and in regard to its existing use, was a hazard to safety or health. The letter gave Mr. Oyer 21 days to appeal the decision or demolish the structure. Mr. Oyer since hired three structural engineers, one of which had worked on the project and to which there was a letter in the information packet dated November 30, 2011. Slider Engineering and Kimley Horn were also hired, who also visited the property. Two fire inspectors were consulted, one of which was Herman Brice, former County Fire Chief, and Larry Weintraub, a career firefighter and fire inspector. One inspector was paid, the other was not. Mr. Weintraub disagreed with the decision the building was a fire hazard. Mr. Mack agreed it did not constitute a fire hazard but the language was within the Code that was included in the letter, and that issue was not on the table. The structural engineers hired by Mr. Oyer agreed the structure could be a problem due to the stucco on the exterior wall being attached to a wire mesh on the inside. The original studding was replaced by new studding, hurricane strapped into a new footer and more, all of which was part of the approved building permit. If there was a windstorm, the wind could hit the interior of the wall because there was nothing holding the stucco to the wall, other than the wire and because the wire's attachment to the studding was insufficient, it could sail into the wind. That scenario was not accurate if the wind hit the other side of the building. The solution was to finish the building, and put a roof and back wall on the structure. Mr. Oyer expressed they were frustrated by a series of issues such as waiting for the City, waiting to be appointed as the Personal Representative of his father's estate, not recognizing the custom of calling the contractor and extending the professional courtesy of knowing the permit expired, and not allowing the work to be inspected. 5 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida January 19, 2012 Mr. Oyer wanted it on record that his family has worked with the community since its existence. He has worked well with everyone in the City on various projects, the building and planning staff, but he was frustrated with the way the issue played out. He explained he was open and honest since the beginning, asking what he could do to fulfill the City's vision for downtown. He was unsure if a City Commissioner was behind the actions or the CRA Director. He requested all of them be witnesses at the appeal and was advised Mr. Mack could not compel them to be a witness. He wanted it on record he thought it was an abuse of public office for the City to advise they would force him to demolish a building if he did not enter into some sort of an agreement with the City or the CRA. He hired a court reporter and intended to forward the transcript to the State's Attorney. He expressed his disappointment with the way the City handled the issue by their unwillingness to send the City Administrator, Vivian Brooks, or any witnesses he requested. He expressed his certainty the handling of the matter was unethical, and most likely illegal. Mr. Oyer reiterated they were open to demolishing the building, but not receptive to putting sod, irrigation and public art on the site on the whim of the CRA Director, and they were not willing to swap the property with another property worth a third of its value on the whim of the CRA Director. Mr. Oyer proposed to reopen the permit they already paid for, had three passed inspections on, and work that would have constituted a fourth inspection, except that Mr. Oyer did not call for the inspection when the contractor requested it be done. Had he done so, they would continue their construction. Mr. Oyer expressed he was still in a holding pattern. The City's Historic Planner advised Mr. Oyer that he would make a recommendation the building be historically designated. Under local designation programs, only the exterior facades are included, and it does not include the rear fa<;ade, which was missing. The building qualified for the program that would provide enough cost savings to continue with the restoration. Mr. Oyer commented they were stuck in a rotten position and were exposed to some rotten behavior on behalf of some City officials. Chair Bessell commented Mr. Oyer indicated twice he was willing to tear the building down and inquired why he did not tear it down and sod the property. He acknowledged it was Mr. Oyer's property, but expressed he should maintain it. In response to Chair Bessell's comment, Mr. Oyer indicated that he said he was willing to take the matter to his sisters. The Chair inquired what the purpose of trying to save the exterior stucco was other than the historic designation. He noted the Board was not hearing the matter because it could receive a potential historic designation. Mr. Oyer responded it was important to his family. The structure was built by his grandfather and his father's first office was there. He felt it would not be healthy to the community. He further noted the CRA owned a gaping hole of land that was fenced and opined they had had no strategic knowledge or ability to do anything with it. He did not think bulldozing one more time because the CRA Director wanted it was the right thing to do. Mr. Oyer commented they would entertain it, but it was not their desire. 6 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida January 19, 2012 Chair Bessell reiterated Mr. Oyer indicated they would entertain the idea of knocking down the building. Mr. Oyer testified he was willing to take the matter to his sisters. Mr. Oyer explained Ms. Brooks sent a demolition quote to Mr. Oyer due to the building next door being demolished and he called her back indicating it was a reasonable price and they should talk about it further. The next time he heard from her, it had to do with the land swap. The matter was never closed. He indicated he was not willing to deal with anyone who threatens him. They would be delighted to sit at the table, discuss the matter honestly and in good faith, and consider it. Mr. Oyer commented he had wanted to prove that point to the Board by those parties being present, but the City Attorney advised their presence was not required. He opined the authorities would be interested in hearing their testimonies. Mr. Mack clarified in September, he received an email from the City Manager requesting an update on the status of the permits. At that point, he instructed Mr. Large to contact Mr. Oyer to ask about his intentions with the property. Mr. Mack explained he did not want to go through the process to deem the structure unsafe and have it torn down if Mr. Oyer's intention was to demolish it. During conversations on January 11, 2011, and July 28, 2011, with Mr. Oyer, he expressed they would either complete the project or tear it down. They were having feasibility studies done to see if it was a feasible project or if it would be better to tear it down. In September when Mr. Large contacted Mr. Oyer, Mr. Large reported back to Mr. Mack via an email that Mr. Oyer was currently marketing the property for sale and would continue to look for a buyer. Mr. Oyer was also marketing the property for a tenant and would recommence with renovations upon signing a lease with the tenant. Mr. Oyer would consider demolition of the remaining structure if the City was willing to pay for the cost. The emails were forwarded to the City Manager as an update and he advised he would continue to monitor the project and when the permit expired, he would take the necessary steps to commence with the evaluation and if it was deemed unsafe, would order it to be demolished. Mr. Mack also pointed out an approved inspection was not necessary to obtain an extension. An extension could be requested in writing prior to the expiration and it would most likely be granted by the building official. Chair Bessell inquired why it was not done since Mr. Oyer had indicated he had restored many buildings before. Mr. Mack agreed it was one option and the permit could be extended up to 90 days. Although they do not like to extend permits for projects that are half under construction, they could grant as many extensions as needed. Mr. Mack clarified another option was with the critical state of the building that needed to possibly be demolished, one would want to keep the permits active. Mr. Mack indicated the contractor, Mr. Bowser, was in the Building Department weekly as he does a lot of work for Mr. Oyer. Mr. Mack did not have the exact date, but he acknowledged Mr. Bowser did come to the office and request an extension after the permit expired, which was after the November 15, 2011, letter was sent. At that point, Mr. Mack advised they would not extend the permit and he had the option of appealing to the Board. 7 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida January 19, 2012 Mr. Rurey inquired if there was a timeline, if the permit was extended, when the work to make the building safe would occur. He noted if there was a storm, there was a good chance the building would come down if something was not done to further stabilize the walls more than they already were. While it was safe for construction to occur, he doubted any engineer would indicate it was safe to withstand a storm season. Mr. Oyer responded the timeline was dictated by the City's program and they were waiting for that because it was such a material financial difference. Mr. Oyer was ready to apply for the permit in January and they were waiting on that, while simultaneously looking to find a tenant or a buyer. Mr. Oyer thought the building was as stable as they could make it. They would like to be in a position that if the City would provide the tax abatement, they could complete the project. He noted all they had to do was install a back wall and a roof and the problem was resolved. The interior build out could wait until another date. Resolution was not that many months away. Mr. Shores inquired if the project was contingent on the historic status and tax abatement or having buyers in hand. Mr. Oyer responded they needed one of those to occur and a CRA grant. The cost to finish the building could not be recouped in rent without the abatement of a grant. Mr. Oyer thought restoring the building would further the CRA's goals. Mr. Shores pointed out the Board could only make a determination of whether to extend the permit, not designate the building as historic as the Board had no guarantee they would be in the same boat six to twelve months from now. Mr. Oyer suggested it be re- evaluated in six months, which would be prior to hurricane season. It was not an imminent threat. He requested the City reopen the permit, call for the extension and close the shell of the building which may be affordable on its own. Mr. Guritzky sought confirmation Mr. Oyer could close the building and add a roof without the credits. Mr. Oyer responded they could not. The procedure called for the architectural plans to be approved before the work commenced and the plans had to be approved by the City and County Commissions before the exemption was granted. Chair Bessell noted the artist rendering does not reflect the existing walls were still there. The building could be duplicated even if demolished. Mr. Oyer agreed, but replications do not qualify for grants and the walls would not be the original building wall. Chair Bessell reiterated the Board's decision was not based on the historic designation. Mr. Oyer agreed, but opined it colored the story and he was explaining how they got to this point. Mr. Mack commented demolition was not an expedient procedure. He was seeking to ensure that by June 1 st, the building was completed or made safe. His main objective was to ensure the safety of the citizens. In order to make the building safe, it would have to either be demolished or the drawings contained in the packet be completed. There were also openings reflected in the meeting materials that were not completed which would also have to be made safe. Mr. Oyer did not know if he could accomplish 8 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida January 19, 2012 this prior to hurricane season. Mr. Mack testified if not completed by June 1 st, the structure, in its current state, would not withstand a storm and would cause windborne debris. Chair Bessell explained in order for Mr. Oyer to construct the building, he would have to finance it himself, turn in drawings that were approved, get the construction underway and renew the permit. He noted Mr. Oyer was waiting for other monies which would prevent him from having the work done by June 1 st. Mr. Oyer commented they do have approved drawings and he clarified they do not have enough money to finance the entire build-out without some incentive package, but probably do have the money to enclose the building, which is the part relevant to the Board. This was the shell and building envelope. Mr. Boggess commented about making the three walls safe with lateral bracing, but expressed his concern about the stucco/wire lathe detaching. He thought lateral bracing would stiffen it. Completing the building envelope and making it secure was an option. It was a timing issue. Mr. Guritzky requested clarification whether Mr. Oyer needed the funds to address the building envelope. Mr. Oyer responded they needed the credits to complete the entire build-out including interior renovations. The discussion was to close the building envelope, which they do have the budget to do. He indicated they would lose the abatement for the exterior of the building, but would only get the abatement for the interior renovations, and they would not be able to take full advantage of the program. Regarding the work already done, they would not qualify for the historic credits, after the fact. The plans submitted were for the shell structure. The permit expired by one day, there were no approved inspections, and nothing happened. Mr. Oyer had work done in August, but he did not call for the inspection. Ms. Agee inquired if there was any liability for the work done, prior to the permit expiration but not inspected. Chair Bessell clarified administrative fees to reactivate or renew the permit would be handled by the Building Department. The permit was expired because he did not have an approved inspection for 180 days or request an extension. Mr. Mack explained the first extension fee is $50. The permit was for the shell only. The completion of the shell could be accomplished without incentives. Gregory Bowser, of Gregory Bowser Construction Services, when asked how much time he would need to enclose the building, testified he would take the entire six months, but could do it within five months. Mr. Bowser questioned why complete the shell if they could obtain an engineer to get additional shoring. 9 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida January 19, 2012 Chair Bessell commented he was not convinced there was a valid reason to overturn the Building Officials decision. Mr. Bowser's testified he could complete the work in four months. Mr. Oyer inquired if they completed the work prior to June, how it would not accomplish the Board's objective. Chair Bessell explained if they overturned the Building Official's decision, he wanted a guarantee it would be done, otherwise the motion will include demolition. He was not in favor of completing the work at the end of the permit time. Four months would bring the completion date to May 19th. Mr. Oyer reiterated for the record that he did not have an opportunity to examine the witnesses that he thought had relevant information to this proceeding and he reserved the right to appeal it. Attorney Cherof explained there were two matters. One was the extension of the permit and the other was the Building Official's determination that it was an unsafe structure and it was suitable for demolition. Mr. Mack could not definitely say the building could be finished and made safe prior to hurricane season. There had not been progress and there were too many variables. Chair Bessell asked if the trusses were ordered. Mr. Bowser testified they were not on site. The beams that support the trusses were on site. The next stage was to order the steel posts that hold up the beams and the trusses were in the process of being ordered when they had to stop. Mr. Bowser estimated it could take two weeks to get the trusses. Mr. Boggess asked if the intent, if the permit was active, was to commence work immediately and enclose the building or if the process would linger 120 days or longer before work commenced. Mr. Oyer indicated it was to commence immediately. Ms. Agee inquired if Mr. Oyer could accept if the Board added to the motion that the building envelope had to be completed by May 19 and the alternative was demolition. Mr. Oyer responded he would like to accept it, but his concern was they could put more money into the project and if it was not done, then they wasted a lot more money. Chair Bessell did not like the May 19 date, because if not done, 90 days due process would be in August and September. Mr. Mack also noted if the permit was extended, there was six months from the date the permit was reinstated that the City could not do anything. Chair Bessell recommended an extension with a time frame. Attorney Cherof disagreed and explained the issue before the Board is whether to extend the permit. If so, the applicant enjoys all of the benefits of a permit that traditionally exists under the Code. A time extension could not be added. 10 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida January 19, 2012 Motion Mr. Boggess moved to extend the building permit. Ms. Agee seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. The motion passed 5-1 (Chair Bessell dissenting.) There was discussion the issue of whether the building was unsafe remained. Attorney Cherof explained Mr. Oyer had appealed the determination the structure was unsafe, and it was a stand alone issue. Discussion followed about the safety of the building. Mr. Oyer relied on the information in the engineer's letter submitted into evidence. His understanding was because it was a construction project in progress and they have an approved plan to enclose it, have a contractor, architecture and engineer, and the permit was extended, it was not unsafe. It was a project under construction. Attorney Cherof recommended the Board table the portion of the appeal that deals with the Building Official's finding that it was an unsafe structure. The current request, just approved was to extend the permit to August 12, 2012. Mr. Guritzky inquired if nothing occurred within the next 60 to 90 days why they cannot take it down. Attorney Cherof explained there was an appeal pending the Building Official's finding that the structure was unsafe. He recommended tabling the appeal matter to a date certain and revisit it at that point. Motion Mr. Boggess moved to table the matter for 60 days. Mr. Shores seconded the motion. Mr. Mack explained Mr. Oyer could start construction immediately. As soon as he obtained an inspection, the permit was good for six months. Mr. Mack also explained if the project had a valid permit, he could not demolish a building if it was under construction. Attorney Cherof explained the applicant has a valid permit but he would need an inspection. By tabling the matter, Mr. Oyer would be afforded time to act on his permit, get his contractor in and call for an inspection to determine if they could secure the unsafe structure. Mr. Oyer inquired if they could not enclose the envelope within the 60 days, even though they would have acted in good faith, whether the Board could deem the project unsafe. Attorney Cherof could not speculate, but pointed out when it returned to the Board after being tabled, the Board could resume the hearing with respect to the building being an unsafe structure and Mr. Oyer could offer additional testimony on the structure. Mr. Oyer was not comfortable with that suggestion. 11 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida January 19, 2012 Mr. Oyer explained he was only requesting to go back to the way it was, had he called for an inspection. He requested being restored to their original position. Chair Bessell recommended extending the date for unsafe conditions in with the motion extending the permit to August 1,2012. Motion Mr. Boggess so moved. Ms. Agee seconded the motion. The Recording Secretary called the roll The motion passed 5-1 (Chair Bessell dissenting.) F. Announcements None. Motion Mr. Guritzky moved to adjourn. Mr. Shores seconded the motion that unanimously passed. The meeting was adjourned at 7:44 p.m. t I I,_~ Ctlli.{ U/)/L~ ;,-~/IG..!ljGl; r I' V Catherine Cherry Recording Secretary 012412 12