01/23/1991 (2)
.
'~~';'~l~"-f1t~;f\:~ ~:;~~~ ;t~t~~:"I"'~~~"" ,. ,.~:' . '~,. '", ;:""'. "::'. :~" ..',....,. ',::::;t:'.:.,,::~<.
,'~;~;,:'~',<,',,!~:;~<,I,\,,.t:'li;,~:h.~:~l~~ti~>.!;;J;~"a~~'^,~~~~" .,' ":
t" ",
, .
,:
MUNICI AL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
Meeting 0
January 23, 1991, 3:00 p.m.
Agenda
,,,,,;:.~..;..,, ..:.:~ ~~'':'~;...:..~~~;:~::..%'~ "':""';'::;""L..;::.~A~',; ~
Act i tin ' '.,'-" .
PUBLIC HEARINGS
(At the time a case is heard and da e set for compliance the Board shall, at the same
time, set the fee to be assessed in case of non-compliance.)
Public Nuisance Clearing List 91-1-
- Case No. 1
Case No. 5-91
Case No. 6-91
o
Case No. 8-91
Case No. 9-91
Case No. 10-91
~
~
MCEB
.'
Daniel
500,
aka Lots
A. Engelha dt
510, 520 & 5 0 Bayshore Blvd
1-4 Del ro Place
Comply within 10 days
(2/2/91)
Continued to 2113/91
Frank C. Kunnen
Clearwater "19" Park
797 US 19 N aka
Parcel # 8-29-16- 6510-000-0010
Land Development ode/Signs
Seville Condomini ms #12, Inc.
2699 Seville Blvd aka Parcels
17-29-16-80372-001-1050 thru
17-29-16-80372-00 -8050
Building Code/Unsa e Buildings
Comply by 5/15/91
Michael D. Littell d/b/a
Air Traffic Education Center
2699 Meadow Wood Dive aka
Lot 96, Countrysid Tract 92/93
Occupational Licen e
Complied prior
Withdrawn
Michael Peters
26133 US 19 N, #10 aka
M&B 11/07, Sec. 31 28-16
Land Development C de/Signs
Continued to 2/13/91
s.C.C. Development Corp. Inc.
Michael Sofarelli, President
23 S. McMullen-Boo h Rd aka
Lots 1 & 19, Feath rwood Sub.
Land Development C de/Signs
Withdrawn
1.
1/23/91
--......... .
'.
',- ~~..
-
.....,~
.#_-
- - ',,- =--, ,
~,
..., .. ., . -..,
.p-
T-
. \.,
~
I,
'I ",
" ",'
, 'i,'l
. ',-:'
, ,~
d
,'~
'1
,}
'~ 0
:1 ''iiit'
, ,
I
:
o
o
In response to a questions, Ms. Doherty stated it was about two weeks ago
when she was told the property should be cleared a couple days after the meeting.
The last complaint she received was on August 19, 1990.
Discuss ion ensued regarding whether the right of way could be mun icipa 1
property, and it was stated the abutting property owner is still responsible for
maintenance of the right of way.
Ms. Riley moved that concerning Case No.1 of Public Nuisance Clearing List
91-1-2 regarding violation of Section 95.04 of the Clearwater City Code on property
located at 500, 510, 520 & 530 Bayshore Blvd. aka Lots 1-4, Del Oro Place, the
Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code
Enforcement Board hearing held the 23rd day of January, 1991, and based on the
evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of law, and Order.
The Findings of Fact are: after hearing testimony of Geri Doherty, Development
Code Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exh ibits submitted: City composite exhi bit
A -a copy of the file of record, it is evident that there exists the excessive
growth or accumulation of weeds, undergrowth or other similar plant materials at
the above address.
The Conclusions of law are: Daniel Engelhardt is in violation of Section
95.04(a).
It is the Order of this Board that Daniel Engelhardt shall comply with Section
95.04 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 10 days (2/2/91).
Upon failure to comply within the time specified, the City Manager may authorize
the entry upon the property and such action as is necessary to remedy the condition,
without further notice to Daniel Engelhardt. The City Commission may then adopt
a Resolution assessing against the property on which remedial action was taken by
the City the actual cost incurred plus $150.00 administrative cost. Such cost shall
constitute a lien against the property until paid. A Notice of Lien, in such form
as the City Commission shall determine, may be recorded in the Public Records of
Pinellas County as other liens are recorded. If the owner takes remedial action
after the time specified, the City Commission may assess the property the $150.00
administrative cost. Such cost shall constitute a lien against the property until
paid. Upon complying, Daniel Engelhardt shall notify Geri Doherty, the City
Official who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should
a dispute arise concerning compliance, either party may request a further hearing
before the Board. The ~otion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Done and Ordered this 23rd day of Januarv, 1991.
Frank C. Kunnen d/b/a Clearwater 111911 Commerce Park
797 US 19 N aka Parcel # 8-29-16-16510-000-0010
land Development Code/Signs
Continued from 1/9/91
John Richter, Development Code Manager, stated the City recommends the request
received by Mr. Kunnen's attorney to continue the case be granted.
Case No. 5-91
MCEB
2
1/23/91
r-,:'
, I.' ,", i"
..r-
r-
I
" "
, i " .
~
, '~I~
'.': .(
, , .
: ;}
~
'10
1
o
"
.t......
Mr. Wyatt moved to continue Case No. 5-91 to the meeting of February 13,
1991. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
r
I
"
Case No. 6-91
Seville Condominiums #12, Inc.
Gerald B. Conley, President
2699 Seville Blvd aka
Parcels 17-29-16-80372-001-1050 thru 17-29-16-80372-003-8050
Building Code/Unsafe Buildings
Continued from 1/9/91
In response to a question, Mr. Conley agreed that the violation exists. He
stated he has been President for two weeks.
City submitted composite exhibits A, B & C, photographs of the property taken
approximately 12:30 p.m. today.
In response to questions, Tom Chaplinsky, Construction Inspector Supervisor,
stated Condominium #12 consists of four buildings which are connected by catwalks
and form a courtyard in the middle. The fourth building houses the elevator tower,
lobby, etc. i the other three buildings are all condominiums. In response to
questions, Mr. Chaplinsky stated the railings are loose and concrete is falling off
them. Each unit has an exterior balcony with similar disrepair. Temporary repairs
consist of pipe shoring from landing to landing strapped to the railings, and there
is a lot of tape holding concrete together on the balusters. Mr. Chaplinsky stated
the repairs were temporarily certified as safe by a professional engineer, and this
certification has expired. These repairs were made to al low time for the
condominium association to obtain funding. He stated there are 30-35 families that
will have to vacate if the violation is not corrected. In response to a question,
Mr. Chaplinsky stated some of the units were never sold or occupied.
Mr. Conley submitted a letter from Mr. Olson, certified engineer, dated
January 22, 1991, stating he felt the repairs would be safe at least another 30
days. He stated there has been extreme difficulty in procuring monies for the
repairs. The developer has not finished in excess of 30 units, and assessments
were not paid. The condominium corporation received a judgment against the
developer but have not been able to collect any money. The developer declared
bankruptcy and his property is still tied up in court. Mr. Conley stated they are
trying to contract for the work. a subcontractor they were dealing with was not
incorporated, and the contractor was not currently licensed. Mr. Conley stated
there are many older people on fixed income in the building, they are trying to keep
the building going, and they desperately need help. Some of the units have been
sold for less than originally paid. He requested the City work with them a little
longer.
In response to questions, Mr. Conley stated the contractor owns 24 units
which they are using for collateral with the subcontractor for railing and roof
work. It will cost approximately $175,000 to fix the railings. Mr. Conley stated
the contractor would start within 10 days of signed contract and complete the job
in 120 days. There are currently 38 vacancies of which 14 are in bankruptcy. He
stated they no longer have an attorney as they can not pay the fees.
MCEB
3
1/23/91
_'A'.. _ ~_ ....~__,... '~,~._.';.....'
'''''~:.~':-~''''~''''
',ioI
[7"
,p-'
r
"
, ,
, '
~ ' : T;' Yiti'~~~);j::)'~~J~;~?~r:.~:!:t:~;~~:'~?;}~:~;~f~\fe~F~f:/;;'~(Yi~~Y
'~'l;
"
,
"
1~
. '1 \.;r.,~t.l
\
I
!
In response to questions, Tom Chaplinsky stated 90 days should be sufficient
time for the repairs. He stated if the violation is not corrected, they would order
the building vacated. He stated the engineer's 30 day certification extension is
questionable. Some portions of the concrete handrails have already fallen, one from
as high as the fifth floor. The City only agreed to the engineer's certification
because the resident's are aware of the condition. There is concern for visitors.
, ' '
,':{ ,
,
\ .
i
,.\
Further discussion ensued regarding acquiring a contract and permit, and the
type of repair to be done. It was suggested an order be entered with two phase
compliance. In response to a question, Mr. Conley stated they are asking the City
for 60 days to acquire the permit and an additional 120 days to finish the work.
Patricia Peters, past Seville #12 President, stated Mr. Olson has seen the design
of the proposed repairs and indicated he was impressed.
The Inspector stated the violation was brought to their attention in August,
1989. Code allows them to bring it to the Commission for demolition in 180 days.
The Building Department can not let the unsafe condition continue. In response to
a question, he stated 30 days to get the permit and 90 days for repair is
sufficient. In response to a question regarding how long it would take to get the
permit, he stated if the plans are signed and sealed, he would issue the permit the
same day.
Mr. Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 6-91 regarding violation of Section
138.02 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 2699 Seville Blvd. aka
Parcels 17-29-16-80372 001-1050 thru 17-29-16-80372 003-8050, the Municipal Code
Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board
hearing held the 23rd day of January, 1991, and based on the evidence, the Municipal
Code Enforcement Board enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,
and Order.
The Findings of Fact are: after hearing testimony of Tom Chaplinsky, Building
Inspections Supervi sor, Geral d Con ley and Patricia Peters, and viewing the evi dence,
exhibits submitted: City composite exhibits A-C - photographs of the property, and
that Mr. Conley agreed the violation exists, it is evident that unsafe handrails
exist at the above referenced address.
"
, ;
'. , ~.
. t':'J
'.."
o
o
The Conclusions of Law are: Seville Condominiums #12, Inc. is in violation
of Section 138.02.
It is the Order of this Board that Seville Condominiums #12, Inc. shall comply
with Section 138.02 of the Code of the City of Clearwater by May 15, 1991. If
Seville Condominiums #12, Inc. does not comply within the time specified, the Board
may order them to pay a fine of $250.00 per day for each day the violation continues
to exist. If Seville Condominiums #12, Inc. does not comply within the time
specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the
Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a
lien against any real or personal property owned by the violator pursuant to Chapter
162, Florida Statutes. If the violation concerns real property, the recording of
a certified copy of this Order shall constitute notice to any subsequent purchasers,
successors in interest or assigns of the violation and the findings in this Order
shall be binding upon any subsequent purchasers, successors in interest or assigns
of the real property where the violation exists. Upon complying, Seville
Condominiums #12, Inc. shall notify Tom Chaplinsky, the City Official who shall
MCEB
4
1/23/91
~
----,
" ~ '
l
,.--:--" ~ -. .~. .. ~,
; ,
".--'
'r-
r-
~'
r-:-~
'~
" l ~
"'I
'.
~ :.
"
;~
,;.:.;
~
, ':1~
, ,
)}',
o
inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should the violation
reoccur, the Board has the authority to impose the fine at that time without a
subsequent hearing. Should a dispute arise concerning compliance, either party may
request a further hearing before the Board. Any aggrieved party may petition the
Board to reconsider or rehear any Bo~rd order resulting from a Public Hearing. A
Petition for Rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary
no later than thirty days after the execution of the order and prior to the filing
of any appeal. Upon receipt of the Petition, the Board will consider whether or
not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or
evidence in determining whether to grant the Petition to Reconsider or Rehear. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Done and Ordered this 23rd day of January, 1991.
'\
Case No. 8-91
Michael D. Littell d/b/a Air Traffic Education Center
2699 Meadow Wood Drive aka Lot 96, Countryside Tract 92/93
Occupational License
Complied prior
Mr. Cardinal moved to withdraw Case No. 8-91 as the violation has been
corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Case No. 9-91
Michael Peters
26133 US 19 N, #107 aka M&B 11/07, Sec. 31-28-16
Land Development Code/Signs
No one was present to represent the violator.
o
Geri Doherty, Development Code Inspector, stated Mr. Peters is now in
compliance. A sign permit was issued September 17, 1990 for a period of 60 days.
The sign was being displayed November 27th, 10 days past its expiration, at which
time she photographed it. She stated the sign was removed after she issued the
notice of violation. In response to a question, she stated the sign has been there
before and the City wants to establish the violation. City submitted exhibit A,
a photograph of the sign. In response to a question, the Inspector stated she did
not have proof of service of the Notice of Violation with her. She spoke with Mr.
Peters in person and he was aware of the hearing. She told him the Board may take
action. The Attorney for the Board recommended the case be continued for proof of
due process of the notice of violation.
Mr. Wyatt moved to continue Case No. 9-91 to the meeting of February 13,
1991. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Case No. 10-91 S.C.C. Development Corp. Inc.
Michael Sofarelli, President
23 S. McMullen-Booth Rd aka Lots 1 & 19, Featherwood Sub. ~
Development Code/Signs
No one was present to represent the violator.
o
MCEB
5
1/23/91
.. ~:j"':','~'.""'"'' "~~._.. .
r.""
, ,
, , ,
':::"':~C"
,',", :.., :':':/:;,:;/:"{,,,I?/;,:, .,'
771'
, : dr' "","
, .,'
. , ','
r-
~
I
, "
I'
, '
. t..
'1
Geri Doherty, Development Code Inspector, stated compliance was obtained
January 21. She stated there were two signs displayed when only one was allowed.
This is an undeveloped residential zone which is allowed one 32 sq. ft. sign by
code. City submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of the property and exhibit
B, proof of service of the notice of violation.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the property is developed or
undeveloped. It was stated if there are streets and sewer it is considered a
developed subdivision. Question was also raised regarding whether or not each sign
could be considered on a separate lot. It was stated if single lots, one 16 sq.
ft. sign per lot is allowed. She stated both signs advertised the entire
subdivision.
,(-,
1
o
. ,
" ,
-. . .':'
, . \
\,
'. ,~ .
. , 't,"
In response to questions, Ms. Doherty stated real estate signs do not need
permitting but have to meet code requirements. She stated one 32 sq. ft. sign is
allowed per property.
Concern was expressed regarding whether the number of signs or size of the
signs was the violation, and the City requested withdrawal of the case due to a
technicality.
Mr. McKinney moved to withdraw Case No. 10-91. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
Case No. 11-91
George V. Tagaras
705 N. Ft. Harrison Ave aka Lot 4, Blk 1, J.H. Rouse's Sub.
land Development Code/Signs
No one was present to represent the violator.
o
Geri Doherty, Development Code Inspector, stated notice of the violation was
sent certified mail and the signed receipt was returned. She also spoke with them
regarding the violation. She stated she visited the property again and noticed more
signs were being displayed. Photographs were taken November 26, 1990. All but two
of the signs are in violation. She stated they are in compliance as of today. Ms.
Doherty stated she issued the notice on December 3rd to the property owner, not the
business owner. She gave them until December 7th to comply; upon inspection the
violation still existed. City submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of the
property, and exhibit B, proof of service of the notice of violation. Ms. Doherty
submitted City composite exhibit C, photographs of the property taken January 21,
1991. She stated signs are painted on the structure which are in violation if
readable when going up and down the street.
Mr. Zinzowmoved that concerning Case No. 11-91 regarding violation of Section
134.017(a)(1) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 705 N. Ft. Harrison
aka lot 4, Blk 1, J.H. Rouse's Sub., the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard
testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 23rd day of
January, 1991, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board
enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.
Ci)c
" ,
,(,;' !
MCEB
6
1/23/91
--.J,:,," ",.",
, '
, ,"
, .' .
. ....
, 'I . -.
.' . 7.. '. ..' ~ 1 .. ......
r-:
F
If
I
II
I
~
.~",:"",..
,:;' ~,~': : :;, ,', t:':',,>>, ",:'.
.' , .... t.".
>:.",:,::,,;; }:'~',';:'"
~ , , . ' 'I"
~
,(
i','
.ii;
'.
'f
o
The Findings of Fact are: after hearing testimony of Geri Doherty, Development
Code Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite
exhibits A & C - photographs of the property taken November 26, 1990 and January
21, 1991 and exhibit B - the signed receipt of the certified mailing of the notice
of violation, it is evident that there were several illegal portable and wall signs
being displayed at the above referenced address. It is further evident that the
condition was corrected prior to this hearing.
The Conclusions of Law are: George V. Tagaras was in violation of Section
134.017(a)(1).
1
!
,I. ~ ' ,
It is the Order of this Board that George V. Tagaras shall comply with Section
134.017(a)(1) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If George V. Tagaras repeats
the violation, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $100.00 per day for each
day the violation exists after George V. Tagaras is notified of the repeat
violation. Should the violation reoccur, the Board has the authority to impose the
fine at that time without a subsequent hearing. Should a dispute arise concerning
compl iance, either party may request a further hearing before the Board. Any
aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board order
resulting from a Public Hearing. A Petition for Rehearing must be made in writing
and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution
of the order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the Petition,
the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board
will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the Petition
to Reconsider or Rehear. The mot;on was duly seconded and carr;ed unanimously.
<=) Done and Ordered this 23rd day of Januarv, 1991.
, ~
LJ. Mitskevich
1132 Sunnydale aka Lot 22, Sunnydale Sub
Land Development Code/Fences
Tom Chaplinsky, Building Inspector Supervisor, stated Mr. Mitskevich installed
his fence with the stringers facing the neighbors. In response to a question, he
stated by code the finished side must face the neighbors: the fence posts are on
the proper side. but the fence was na i1 ed on from the ne i ghbor 's side. Mr.
Mitskevich proposed to install stringers on the inside to make the fence identical
on both sides. Mr. Chaplinsky consulted with Scott Shuford, of the Planning
Department, for an interpretation of the code and was told the intent of the code
was that the stringers must be inside. City submitted composite exhibit A,
photographs of the fence.
Case No. 12-91
In response to a question on how to correct the violation, Mr. Chaplinsky
stated either the fence needs to be turned around or the planning official's
interpretation of the code needs to be overturned. In response to questions from
Mr. Mitskevich. he stated City engineers inspected the property regarding the block
wall, not the fence; and that the drawing submitted may have shown the horizontal
members on the outside of the fence.
Gerry Colombo, neighbor on the southside, questioned how a permit could be
issued if the plans submitted were not to code.
o
MCEB
7
1/23/91
1,,:'\' .
"I, I , , .
" .,.
,"~,.... .'" ... "" \.b' ..._.~_.
p-'
r
~"
" I
~
..' r< .
, :,1
'::1"
,.
,~,
1
o
o
o
v
Mr. Mitskevich displayed to the Board a sample of his fence, pointing out
that the horizontal slats are on both sides of the fence, and stating they are
decorative. He stated City engineers and inspectors saw the fence. The posts are
on his side of the fence. Mr. Mitskevich stated a permit was approved with
stringers on both sides, and he added stringers on the side with the posts. In
response to a question, he stated the horizontal boards on both s ides are his
design. He submitted defendant's exhibit A, a photograph of a neighbor's fence.
In response to questions, Mr. Mitskevich stated his was first served notice
of the violation November 20, 1990 at which time one side of the fence was in place.
He stated the permit is for over 300 feet of fence.
Discussion ensued regarding permits being issued for plans that are not to
code, and it was stated all construction is subject to review by inspectors even
when a permit is issued.
Mr. Mitskevich stated he went to zoning four times because of setback and
was told his plans are okay. In response to a question whether the design showed
stringers on both sides of the fence, Mr. Mitskevich said the plans stated the good
side of the fence would be facing the neighbor with decorative horizontal boards.
Discussion further ensued }"egarding whether the stringers facing the neighbors
could be decorative boards. A question was raised whether the fence would fall down
if the board on the outside was removed, and the inspector said it would because
the stringers on the inside are not connected to the posts. Mr. Mitskevich stated
the fence is not complete and his permit is good until April or May. He stated when
the fence is complete it wi 11 not be in violation. Discussion further ensued
regarding a permit being issued with the appearance of the stringers on both sides,
and it was stated if a permit contains a code violation it does not excuse the need
for compliance with the code. In closing, Tom Chaplinsky stated the code cited
specifically states the finished side is to face the neighbors and all support posts
and stringers facing inward.
Mr. Mitskevich stated when his fence is completed, he can pull off the slats
and the fence will stand.
Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 12-91 regarding violation of
Section 136.016(e) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1132 Sunnydale
aka Lot 22, Sunnydale Sub., the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony
at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 23rd day of January, 1991,
and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.
The Findings of Fact are: after hearing testimony of Tom Chaplinsky, Building
Inspections Supervisor, E.J. Mitskevich and Jerry Colombo, the neighbor on the south
side, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A -
photographs of the fence, defendant's exhibit A - a photograph of a neighbor's
fence, and viewing a portion of the fence as proposed to be when construction is
complete, it is evident that the fence has been constructed with the stringers
facing the neighbor's property.
MCEB
8
1/23/91
. r--.
r--
~--
~
. ,
j "
" .
,~:
o
The Conclusions of Law are: E.J. Mitskevich is in violation of Section
136.016(e).
1
!
, i
o
It is the Order of this Board that E.J. Mitskevich shall comply with Section
136.016(e) of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 30 days (2/22/91). If E.J.
Mitskevich does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order him to
pay a fine of $150.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. If
E.J. Mitskevich does not comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the
Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County,
Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real or personal
property owned by the violator pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. If the
violation concerns real property, the recording of a certified copy of this Order
shall constitute notice to any subsequent purchasers, successors in interest or
assigns of the violation and the findings in this Order shall be binding upon any
subsequent purchasers, successors in interest or assigns of the real property where
the violation exists. Upon complying, E.J. Mitskevich shall notify Tom Chaplinsky,
the City Officia 1 who sha 11 inspect the property and notify the Board of comp 1 iance.
Should the violation reoccur, the Board has the authority to impose the fine at
that time without a subsequent hearing. Should a dispute arise concerning
comp 1 iance, either party may request a further hearing before the Board. Any
aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board order
resulting from a Public Hearing. A Petition for Rehearing must be made in writing
and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution
of the order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the Petition,
the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board
will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the Petition
to Reconsider or Rehear. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Done and Ordered tois 23rd day of Januarv, 1991.
..,
I
ADJOURN - 5:35 p.m.
Attest:
~~ [ . t.:l ,.0. "'.
See tary
~
V
MCEB
9
1/23/91