Loading...
Minutes 05-14-79MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, MAY 14, 1979 AT '7:00 P. M. PRESENT Vernon Thompson, Jr., Chairman George Ampol, Vice Chairman Robert Gordon, Secretary Frank Bauer Serge Pizzi Ben Ridolfi Paul Slavin Carl Zimmerman, Alternate Bert Keehr, Deputy Bldg. Official ABSENT Arthur Williams, Alternate (Excused) Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M. He introduced the Assistant Building Official, members of the Board, and Recording Secretary. He also acknowledged the presence in the audience of the alternate Board member, Mr. Carl Zimmerman~ and Mayor Edward F. Harmening. MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 1979 Mr. Ampol made a motion to accept the minutes as received, seconded by Mr. Slavin. Motion carried 7-0. Chairman Thompson announced Mr. Williams called him advising he could not attend because of car problems and believed in the near future, he would be submitting a letter of resignation. We will await receipt of the letter before requesting a replacement member. ~dBLIC HEARING Parcel ~1 - Lots 19 thru 24, Casa Loma Recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 3 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 25 ft. Front Setback Requirement to 5 ft. Front Setback to construct roof over existing concrete to protect equipment. Address - Banana Boat Lounge 739 East Ocean Avenue Applicant Richard H. Foster Mr. Gordon read the above application and read the reason requested was the roof would protect existing ice making machines and other mechanical equipment from the sun, therefore saving energy. Chairman Thompson referred to the purpose of this Board and announced it is to grant a variance where a hamdship is created by the City, zoning or some type of condition. There must be five votes in favor to grant a variance. MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 14, 1979 Chairman Thompson then ascertained the applicant nor his represen- tative was present. He asked if the Board was agreeable to waiting a few minutes as a courtesy to the applicant and Mr. Ampol replied the applicant was notified like the members to be here at seven otclock and he should have the interest to be here. Mr. Pizzi added that the applicant has probably gone through quite a bit of expense to put this matter before the Board and he thinks the cour- tesy should be shown. It has been raining all day and possibly he has been delayed. Mr. Slavin moved to wait ten minutes, seconded by Mr. Gordon. Motion carried 6-1 with Mr. Ampol dissenting. Chairman Thompson reconvened the meeting at 7:20 P. M. and ascer- tained the applicant still was not present. Mr. Ampol suggested proceeding with the hearing and Mr. Pizzi asked if a hearing could be held with the applicant not present? Chairman Thompson replied it is not necessary for the applicant to be present as all the facts have been submitted. Mr. Pizzi asked if the applicant could refile if the variance is denied and the applicant has a legitimate reason for not being here and can the matter be reheard? Mr. Keehr stated if it is denied, the next procedure would be circuit court. There has never been a case of denial where the applicant was permitted to re-apply for the same variance. Chairman Thompson added that if someone did re-apply, it would be on the basis of new facts pre- sented. Chairman Thompson referred to many letters having been received in reference to this petition and suggested hearing from the people present first, so possibly some letters could be deleted if the people speak. He then requested anyone against the variance to please come forward. Mr. Charles Rodriguez, 720 East Ocean Avenue, stated he was the spokesman on behalf of Coastal Towers. He then read the follow- ing petition signed by 102 people: '~The undersigned, being owners of real estate in Boynton Beach, located within 400 feet of the premises known as the Banana Boat Restaurant, 739 East Ocean Avenue, do hereby request the Honorable Board of Adjustment, City of Boynton Beach, to deny the appeal of the Banana Boat from the de~ision of the Building Department deny- ing the construction of a roof, in violation of the 25 ft. minimum front yard requirements of the Zoning Regulations and not to grant any variance from the minimum setback requirements, for the follo~ lng reasons: t. The building, because it was constructed and operated as a restaurant prior to the enactment of the Zoning Regulations, pre- sently has a 15 ft. setback from its front Property line, and any further encroachment of the setback requirements would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Zoning Regulations. -2- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 14, 19~9 2. The special conditions, hardships and reasons set forth, namely, that the ~roof would protect existing ice making machines and other mechanical equipment from the sun~ are not those contem- plated by the Zoning Regulations for the granting of the variance, because the conditions and circumstances set forth resulted from the actions of the Banana Boat in locating such equipment in the place in question rather than either inside the building or on the west side of the building, where a variance would not be required. 3. The variance, if granted, will confer on the petitioner a special privilege that is denied by the Zoning Regulations to other buildings, because other owners are required to maintain a 25 ft. setback line, while this petitioner already enjoys a 10 ft. waiver of this requirement. 4. The reason stated by the petitioner for construction of the roof, namely, to protect its equipment from the sun ~therefore saving energy' is a specious reason. If the petitioner really wishes to save energy, it can easily do so in a much more effective manner, by closing its establishment each evening at midnight instead of at 5 A.M. as at present. 5. No special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to this property and are not applicable to other property in the same zoning district. The simple fact is that the petitioner elected to place the equipment where it presently is. It could have just as easily located the equipment in other portions of the property, thereby making unnecessary the need to violate the set- back restrictions of the Zoning Regulations." Mr. Rodriguez then read the attached eight page letter fully explain- ing his reasons requesting the denial of this variance. Mr. Harry Stein, 760 East Ocean Avenue, stated he associates himself fully with the remarks of Mr. Rodriguez, but he would like to stress some points. He read the reasons for granting a variance from the zoning regulations and pointed out the equipment to be protected was placed outside the building by this applicant. It could have been placed in the building or on the north or west sides. He then explained the only hardship created was an economical one with the applicant gaining more seating space with locating the equipment outside. He referred to Section F of the code and the effect the granting of the variance would have on the neighborhood and stated it is true the applicant has a substantial investment, but Coastal Towers is in a R-3 residential district and their combined invest- menE represents upwards of $6,000,000~ They live directly across the street and any variance which enables this business to move !~ closer increases the noise, loud language, etc. which they are sub- jeered to every night up to 5:00 A. M. According to the survey map filed by the applicant, this proposed roof Will be more than 55' in length which hardly seems necessary to extend it to that degree. -3- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 14, 1979 Mr. Stein continued that the real purpose of this roof is not to cover the equipment, but to seek more space for additional seating. They have already created more space by constructing a fence which is 8t beyond their front line belonging to the City or State. This applicant has disregarded the law in several instances. He requests this application to be denied. Mr. Keehr stated the Building Department is well aware of the ex- treme activity going on at the Banana Boat. They have made two seat counts to try and control the situation as it exists. One was made in February and they were in violation and were notified of this by certified letter. Less than two weeks ago, another count was made and they are still insolation. He wrote a sterner letter with court action threatened if this violation is continued. Mr. Keehr advised they have applied for a permit for more parking, but even with this additional parking, they cannot increase the seating capacity. He can appreciate the fact if they get more roof area, possibly they can spread out the customers more. Mr. Keehr stated the fence was also brought to his attention. He explained a survey is not required for a fence installation, but a permit is issued on the owner's authorization. The owner did sign an affidavit for this fence. He has been notified the fence must be moved becamse it is in State right-of-way. Also, he is the one who stopped construction on this roof initially and he explained they were not aware a fence could be installed and it could not be roofed. Mr. Gordon referred to re~dingt~e 27 letters received and Mr. Rodri~uez suggested the reading of the letters be waived in view of the verbal presentation. Mr. Gordon replied he would read one since most follow the same thought: "Please be advised that we are definitely against any variance for Mr. R. H. Foster, owner of the Banana Boat, located on Ocean Avenue. This place has been not~in~ but a nuisance in terms of drunks leaving all hours of the morning, foul language, blowing of horns, and reckless driving. I could go on, but I believe you get the point." Chairman Thomp- son added that all the ~et~e~s will be placed on file and available as a public record. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone had arrived representing the applicant or wishing to speak in favor of granting this variance. Mr. James Opila, 240 Jackson Street, Greenacres City, represent- ing Mr. Foster came before the Board and told about most of the equipment being there originally and t~o ice machines being added to meet the public demand. They thought it would be a benefit to have the garbage can washing facilities covered. Mr. Ampol clari- fied all the equipment was in place when Banana Boat took over and Mr. 0pila replied two were existing and they have added three more ice machines. -4- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 14, 1979 Chairman Thompson referred to the style of the building and ques- tioned if a canopy could be installed instead of a permanent struc- ture and Mm. Keehm informed him a canopy could be installed to the property line. Chairman Thompson questioned the necessity to have a wooden roof and Mr. Opils explained the ames would not be com- pletely enclosed, but they would like to have a roof over it to keep the machinery s little cooler and the garbage from smelling. Mr. Ampol referred to a health hazard being created and Mr. Opila disagreed. Chairman Thompson explained how a canopy would serve the same purpose as a wooden roof and~would keep in line with the present style with a variance not being required. Mm. Gordon questioned Mr. Opila's connectio~ with the Banana Boat and Mr. Opila replied that he has been hired to build this build- ing. Mr. Ampol asked if he was familiar with the Boynton Beach building code and Mr. Opils replied affirmatively and added that he works for a general contractor who is state certified. Mr. Slavin referred to there being a patio on this side of the building with no equipment stored on it and stated the proposed roof would cover this patio as well and Mr. Keehr agreed. Mm. Slavin continued that it could be used to add two or three tables with at least 12 seats and Mr. Keehr agreed. Mr. Slavin ques- tioned the use of this patio area and Mr. Keehr replied that the Building Department will make periodic seating counts in the res- taursnE because of the activity it creates to see they are abiding by the zoning regulations pertaining to the parking. Pemhaps, this could be used for additional seating to ease a crowded situa- tion in another area. Mr. Slavin asked if he had installed the fence previously discussed and Mm. Opila replied negatively. Chairman Thompson referred to theme being concern about the fence, but stated it is not the ques- tion before the Board. The Building Department will take care of any violations with the fence. Mm. Bauer refemred to having two differenE problems. The foul language and nuisance referred to does not have anything to do with the question before the Board, but the real question is whether or not a roof should be put over this area. Mr. Rodriguez referred to the suggestion to install an awning and asked if a permanent affixed awning could be installed and would it have to meet setbacks and requirers permit and Mr. Keehr replied a permit would be required and it could be installed 18" from the property line. Mr. Ampol moved to deny the variance requested by the Banana Boat, seconded by Mr. Pizzi. Chairman Thompson stated it is required by law to state the reasons for the motion. Mr. Ampol stated his reason is the applicant is asking the Board of Adjustment to go beyond our authority to grant this. -5- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 14~ 1979 Mr. Slavin referred to the owners of Coastal Towers being inconven- ienced by this business and stated they are asking us to deny the variance on the grounds of the m/sconduct of people coming out of the place. In the letters, reference is made to the customers park- ing at Coastal Towers. Ail these complaints do not come under our jurisdiction as Mr. Bauer pointed out. We are here to consider the request to allow an overhang. This is what we have to discuss and not the objections we have heard by the residents of Coastal Towers. Chairman Thompson agreed we have no control over the noise and the purpose of this Board is to grant a variance if there is a hardship. However, he does not personally see a hardship to stop the sun from shining down on the ice machihe in this case where canvas could be used and would be in line with the present design of the building. He thinks it should be based on a hardship caused by the City or County. When he casts his vote, it will be based on whether it is a hardship or not and not the noise which can be controlled by the Police Department or Health Department. Mr. Gordon added if Mr. Foster had paid more attention to the zoning code than to his busi- ness, he would not be here tonight. Mr. Ridolfi referred to the request being for a canvas cover and Chairman Thompson clarified that a permanent wooden roof was requested. Mr. Pizzi stated he doesn't feel there is any hardship that we want to base our deci- sion on. This saving of energy can be accomplished by other methods such as with canvas or a temporary roof. Mr. Keehr clarified that an awning could be installed, but it could not be temporary and must meet all the requirements. Mr. Pizzi referred to the setback being only 15' and questioned how a non-conforming use could be ex- panded. Mr. Bauer clarified that it could be covered by an awning which does not come under our jurisdiction and Mr. Keehr agreed. As requested, Mrs. Kruse then took a roll call vote on the motion as follows: Mr. Bauer - Yes Mr. Pizzi .... Yes Mr. Ampol - Aye Mr. Ridolfi Yes Mr. Slavin - Yes Mr. Gordon - Yes Mr. Thompson - Yes Motion carried 7-0. Variance denied. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Ampol advised that he woUld be away during the month of June. Mr. Slavin, Mr. Ridolfi, Mr. Gordon and Mr. Thompson commented they would be away in July. Mr.~ Slavin then moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Gordon. Motion carried 7~0;the meeting was properly adjourned at 8:20 P. M. Recording Secretary -6- 720 East Ocean Ave~nue Boynton Beach, Fla. 33435 May 10, 1979 Board of Adjustment City of Boynton Beach City Mall Boynton Beach, Fla., 33435 Gent ! emen ~ My wife and I have received a notification that the ~oard of Ad3ustment will hold a public hearing on t~ay 14, 1979, and will, at that time, consider the application for a var- iance filed by the oDerator of the Banana Boat Lo~un~e. Maving been notified as the owners of property within the area requiring such legal notification, we are filing the at~ached statement of oDposition. Your rejection of this application will be appreciated. Thank you. Very truly yours, ~arles F. My wife, Margaret L. RodriEuez, and I, Charles F. Rodriguez, reside at 720 East Ocean Avenue, Boynton Beach. As the owners of our apartment, we recently received an official notification of the public hearing to be held by the Board of Adjustment on ~ay 14, 1979, and pertaining to the application for a variance filed by the Banana Boat Lounge. After a careful examination of the facts, we are unalter- ably opposed to the grantin~ of this variance under any cir- cumstances, and regardless of how the application may be amend- ed or modified, se~ingly to provide some protection for the residential con~runity. On its face, the application appears deceptively simple when its purpose can be properly described in the notice as one which would permit the applicant ~to construct roof over exist- ing concrete to protect equipment." However, it is most important to examine ~he entire situ- ation in order to understand what is really at issue. ~!he present operator of the Banana Boat Lounge apparently leases the property from the builder and operator of the orig- inal business on the site~ Smokey's Restaurant. Smokeyts Rest- aurant operated for years as just that, a typical, f~ity-style, restaurant located in, and using the bui!din~ and DarkinE spaces originally constructed. ..- This property is in a C-4 district. In terms of use, this is the most permissive zoning available% for commercial use. ~nd yet, the original building, as it now stands, could not be built today in this least restrictive of at! use zones~ For example, instead of being set back 25' from the Ocean Avenue frontage as would now be required, the building is actually set back only 15'. ' It is important to appreciate that the present applicant only recently took over this property. Only he recently made the decision that the then existing structure and its appurt~ chances were acceptable to him, and to the needs of his intended operation. His decision had to include an evaluation of the st~actural limitations upon the machines and equipment required for his operation. Nothing in this leasing operation entitled the aDplicant to any ex~p. ectation that it would be incumbent upon the City to enhance his utilization of this site. - 2 - And yet, it is a fact that in the 9cry short ~ile the applicant has been in possession, he has already expanded upon the original construction by adding waterside decking and cover to the former building. Thus, and quickly, the position of the applicant has been improved by sa/%ctions, officially granted, although the circumstances of change were clearly initiated by this applicant. The factor which supposedly m~kes this most recent var- lance application necessary is the desire of the applicant to roof over and to shade the ice-making and air-conditioning equipment now located on the south side of"the st~cture. Before the Banana Boat operation took over, only one piece of energy using equipment was located between the structure and the south lot line. ~%is was a single air-conditioning component. ~This component was then surro,~nded by a free-stand- ing fence which provided shade and air circulation adequate to the requirements of the restaurant. This applicant, however, has added a second piece of air- conditioning equipment and located ice-mmking machines along the south building wail. All of this equipment, plus uncovered garbage can% are now b~hind a newly constructed fence erected by the applicant. This fence Joins the building on its west wall, ru/%s some 8' wester!y~ then 30' south to%~he plot line, and then east to the seawall bu!~head. Both the survey filed with this application, and a visual inspection indicate this fence is not built within this plot on the southerly side. Actually, an examination of the fence plan filed and the required signed statement accompanying ~he plan Which indicates the fence will be properly loca%ed on the land of the construct- or indicates both asflawed. By incorporating the missing lot line in the plan, and by viewing the actual fence as constructed, a fair minded person must conclude the fence was: meant to be built~ and was then physically located on property not within the rightful use of this applicant. Deceptions and actions of this type must count-for some- thing with government officials when they are called upon to evaluate both the present and future prospects of those who have become the entrapped residential neighbors of such an operation. And we who live in Coastal Towers find ourselves '~entrapped" - 3 - iMost of us bought our apartments in Coastal Towers when the Banana Boat site was occupied by Smokey's Restaurant. We have had an apartment in Boynton Beach for more than fifteen years, and we were fully familiar with the Smokey's operation. We knew that after the dinner hour had passed~ the site quickly quieted down, and our area became a more ~haracteristica!ly residential communi tT;~. Under these circumstances, it would have been unfair, as well as unreasonable, for us subsequently to appeal to The City to restrict the Smokey~s Restaurant operation in any way. It was there when we bought. We had accepted the conditions then in effect. And we, Therefore, had no legitimate basis for a complaint - and we did not dream of making one. But this type of attitude does not appear to be shared by the Banana Boat operation. ~e were here when he signed and took over the site under the lease. Just as we had. accepted the rational obligation ro live with Smokey~s .Restaurant operation~ this applicant should have accepted the rational obligation to live with us as his neighbors. He is, of course~ leEal!y entitled to reject such a rational approach, but, having done so, nothin~ inherent in the-lease signing sires him the risht to ass~tme continuin§ City cooperation in his attacks upon The con%~unity, It is this issue which helps to make the present applic- ation so dangerous. As previously stated~ the existing structure is already 10' too close to the Ocean Avenue plot tine, on the basis of present set-ba~ requirements. ~Ihe applicant seeks a further advantage in the form of an additional 12' set-back violation. Succeedins in this application~ the applicant would become en- titled to a roof-line set-back of only 3'~ instead of 25'. Staying first with this Dart of the problem, we, as the opponents, must point out t~hat the variance, as sought, and if granted, would not limit the application of The benefit to the change described in the notification. For example, and ,wholly within the option of the ap9licant, all of this land not now covered by the structure could be covered with concrete. This variance would then entitle the applicant to roof over, to a depth of !~', and for the entire south frontage o.f the building, the concreted area. Thus, well over 720 square feet of roofed, concrete space could be created through this application. Once roofed over or covered inssome technically accept- able manner, this newly enclosed area could become used in a variety of way subject primarily to only the decisions of the applicant. Ve~ injurious to us could be a spilling over from the restaurant and lounge operation which would result in the seating and serving of customers within even a part of this new, and expanded area. Such a result need not involve any attempt to modify the present seating capacity. More spacious facilities within the present seating capacity envelope would be all the attraction needed for this .pattern of expansion. And applicant would then be making changes ~ a matt.er o_~f' the Protestations of innocence or non-intent cannot be given much value, when ~ in a remarkably short this applicant has intensified theuuse of this property beyond imagination, and, seemingly accepts no !imitations upon DO~ ssIble' excesses. Again, for example, the leasing of this "grandfathered,, facility in~nediately provided the applicant with a seating- capacity envelope in excess of that which would be available now in accordance with the off-street parking requirements of the Zoning Regulations. ~ .This means the applicant began this operation with a great- er authorized seating capacity than would be cu~ently legal in terms of the original parking spaces available. Shortly, more off-street parking spaces will be constructed, thus further increasing the legal envelope. The Gity's right to limit such seating capacity and occupancy must, re- portedly, be related to the number of off-street parking spaces and to the application of the linear, or running foot, exit standards set by the state for public safety. Again, reported- ly, 18" of proper exit width is the acceptable minimu~ for an occupancy by more than 150 persons. The Banana Boat now h~s possession, or access to, sufficient parking spaces and exit door openings to allow a d~nsity of occupation beyond belief. no further encroachment on the community well- being can be allowed if the standards of good a~d responsible governance, much less the dictates of decency ~nd fair zoning, are to be considered. With regard, to problems of this type, oral representations by Oity personnel or by officials, however sincere and well-in- cannot provide adequate guarantees or security against future abuse. The only reality is that which is obtainable under the law, today. Promises for personal protection against future and damaEins applications of "rights" have no true 9alue. This is ~ny we are unalterably opposed to any set-back variance bein§ granted in this case. Where equipment has once been installed, or moved around, it can be removed, or moved around again, The equipment is not the issue. A roof-granting variance, as applied for, is a permanent right forever permit- tine ~nat is, in effect, the physical extension ~ this build- lng. ~onsidering the C-4 use zoning in force for this site, and fetched it might seem, this site could someday become a factory, and this structure set back but 3~ from Avenue would be legal, but, obviously, also a ~ross miscarriage of zoning concepts. As always, but particularly ~,ith this the Board of Adjustment is confronted by the requirement to make a finding before granting the variance, ~that the special con- ditions and circumstances do not result from the action of the applicant." While all things may be possible, such a findin§ under the prese~nt conditions would be and contested. tt is true that the Board of Adjustment is granted reasonable latitude within the decision.making process so that it might f~nction effectively. It is true that in m~ny such situations, a clear-cut application providing for both the letter and the intent of the law may be blurred by actual con- ditions. But that is not so here. Only one piece of energy-using equipment was located in the area in question, and that was the com- ponent. It was free-standing, and, in turn, surrounded by a free-standing fence which provided shade and screening. This was the condition when the applicant recently leased this site. The applicant, by leasing, assumed the right To fence the Ocean Avenue frontage in accordance with existing regulations but that it the only right acquired through such leasing. The applicant installed the additional air-conditioning component. ~e applicant installed the ice-making machines. The applicant moved The ~arba§e containers to another location. And, the applicant constructed the fence, at least in part, on land not properly available to his use. Only the applicant has created the situation from which he wishes the ~ity to rescue him so that he is not subject to the fair and uniform application 6f~;th~ zoning requirements. Today, if ever, very few restaurants or lounges would install new air. conditioning or ice-making equipment outside the building and, ~ ~HE SU~ Normally, equipment is fou~nd inside the build- lng. In this case, it is really only up to the applicant to decide whether more ice-making equlpm~nt or fewer seats would best serve his needs. His remedy lies within the present st~cture, or, on the shaded north side if an external installation cannot be avoided. Because repetition is so necessa~y, I must repeat. All of the changes which have alrea~dy Taken place on this site, a~d the changes to be made under the variance here requested, are rooted in the expansion activities of the applicant~ who cannot possibly claim, ~'the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the action of the app!icant.~ A plea fo'~.ded in the patriotism of saving energy must be anticipated in the climate which exists. But such a plea must be se~n as fraudulent. True patriotic fervor would cause not only the ice-making ma~hines~but both ai~-conditioning components~to be re-located onYthe shady north side of this but~din§, unless such equipment might, still better, be loc- ated indoors. ~The south side can never be considered cooler than the north, all other conditions being equal. To conclude, the already existing, authorized use of this ts_nd and building, though ie§aI, in accordance with the practices governing the issuance of the licenses sought is brutally excessive in tez~ns of the impact uDon the abutting residential co~v~unity. '~ The hours of permitted use extend from ~he pre-lunch period opening until a maximumpossible 5 ~M closing. Were this a factory, it would have to be on triple shifts tO produce this result. In co~ection with pornography, the Supreme Court has held that restraints against abuse rest ultimately upon the standards set by the local community. When such co~unity-a'busi~e situations arise, only the development and application of local standards by the local officials can protect us from irrational abuse. Control over the hours of doingbusmness' has long been within the province of local government. ~e, and our fellow owners, did not '~ndertake earlier to prohibit, or have denied, those changes made by and approved for the Banana Boat Lounge. We all found this con~unity, purchased into it, and, not u~nreasonably~ expected~ the local government system to maintain and to protect our position whenever such position would be consistent with existing standards, tt would seem we should have placed much less confidence in the self-res- traint-of those seekinE quick profits~ as well as in the sou~nd jud§ment of those representins us in the various agencies of g overr~men t. N~ we are not relying upon anyone else., as our agents. ~aving made our case~ we must hope for a d~nial of this application %~ich must be the only fair and equitable result of this hearing. ~d~ we must appreciate our misfortunes, to date~ and join together to undertake effective action in our reasonable, and best interests. '~ank you. F. Rodriguez Marga~ ~uez Fray 10, 1979.