10/19/2021 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
October 19, 2021
Present: Chair Mary A. Lau, Vice Chair John Quattrocki, Board Member Mike Flanery,
Board Member Brian Barker, Board Member Jordan Behar, Board Member Andrew Park
Absent: Board Member Michael Boutzoukas and Alternate Board Member Muhammad
Abdur-Rahim
Also Present - Jay Daigneault—Attorney for the Board, Matthew Mytych —Assistant
City Attorney, Gina Clayton — Planning & Development Director, Patricia O. Sullivan —
Board Reporter
A. CALL TO ORDER, INVOCATION, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at the Main Library followed by the
Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
B. ROLL CALL:
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: September 21, 2021
Member Barker moved to approve the minutes of the September 21, 2021 Community
Development Board meeting as submitted in written summation. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
D. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD RE ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Bill Jonson said Board procedures confused citizens. He disagreed with the applicant's
final comments for Case FLD2021-04011 on September 21, 2021 and said no one had
an opportunity to refute them. He did not think the project met criteria for approval. He
said the Citizens Guide did not state that the Board did not consider lay testimony as
competent substantial evidence. He said if that is the case, public input wastes the time
of the Board and citizens. He requested the Board review its process.
E. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant,
staff, neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote
at the beginning of the meeting: (Items 1-3)
1. Level Two Application
Case: FLD2021-07015/TDR2021-08004/TDR2021-08005 — 619 / 629 / 631 and 635
Mandalay Avenue (TDR Receiving Site and Development Site); 410 and 420
Hamden Drive (TDR2021-08004 sending sites); and 887 South Gulfview
Boulevard (TDR2021-08005 sending site)
Community Development 2021-10-19 1
Owner(s): Bayway Florida Hotel LLC (TDR receiving site); AP Beach Properties
(TDR2021-08004 sending site); and Mannion Brothers LLC (TDR2021-08005
sending site).
Applicant/Representative: Brian J. Aungst, Jr., Esq.; Macfarlane Ferguson &
McMullen, P.A. 625 Court Street, Clearwater FL, 33756; email: bia(a)-macfar.com;
phone: (727) 444-1403 (TDR sending site and TDR receiving site)
Location: 619 Mandalay Avenue (TDR receiving site): 0.685 acre located on the
east side of Mandalay Avenue at the southeast and northeast corners of the
intersection of Royal Way and Mandalay Avenue; 410 and 420 Hamden Drive
(TDR2021-08004 sending site): 0.450 acre located on the west side of Hamden
Drive at the Bayside Drive and Hamden Drive intersection; 887 South Gulfview
Boulevard (TDR2021-08005 sending site): 0.220 acre located on the south side of
South Gulfview Boulevard approximately 900 feet east of the Gulf Boulevard and
South Gulfview Boulevard intersection.
Request: The Community Development Board is reviewing a proposed 24-room
resort attached dwelling use in the Tourist (T) District and the Old Florida Character
District of Beach by Design for the property located at 619, 6297 631, and 635
Mandalay Avenue. The project is 65 feet in height, includes a minimum of 46 off-
street parking spaces, and requests allowable flexibility from setback and height; a
Transfer of Development Rights for an additional 4 attached dwelling units
(TDR2021-08004 and TDR2021-08005) and a two-year Development Order.
Community Development Code Sections 2-8031, 4-4077 4-1402 and 4-1403, and
Beach by Design Section I I.A
Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Board of County
Commissioners
Assigned Planner: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Senior Planner
Member Behar reported a conflict of interest.
Member Quattrocki moved to approve Case FLD2021-07015/TDR2021-08004/
TDR2021-08005 on today's Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including
the application and the Staff Report, and here by adopt the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report , with conditions of approval as listed. The
motion was duly seconded. Members Quattrocki, Flanery, Barker, Park, and Chair Lau
voted "Aye"; Member Behar abstained. Motion carried.
2. PULLED FROM CONSENT AGENDA
Case: FLD2009-02009— 455 East Shore Drive Level Two Application
Owner: N E S C LLC
Agent: Brian J. Aungst, Jr., Esq.; Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen, P.A. 625 Court
Street, Clearwater FL, 33756, email: bia(a-macfar.com; phone: (727) 444-1403
Location: 1.25 acres located at the northeast corner of East Shore Drive and
Papaya
Request: Reconsideration of a Condition of Approval relating to the commercial use
of the previously approved and constructed 7,142 square-foot 50-slip dock in the
Tourist District and Marina Character District of Beach by Design for the property
Community Development 2021-10-19 2
located at 455 East Shore pursuant to Community Development Code Sections 4-
406.A.6 and B.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Board of
County Commissioners
Presenter: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Senior Planner
William Day requested Party Status.
Member Barker moved to grant William Day Party Status.
Member Barker moved to accept Mark Parry as an expert witness in the fields of
redevelopment planning, comprehensive planning, annexation implementation, zoning,
land use/rezoning applications, land development, general planning, code amendments,
landscape ordinance, and special area plans/overlay districts. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Senior Planner Mark Parry reviewed the Staff Report.
Member Barker moved to accept Ed Chesney as an expert witness in the fields of
environmental engineering, water quality, natural resources, contamination assessment,
hazardous waste, coastal engineering, and marine and dredging operations. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
In response to questions, Mr. Parry said the applicant could have requested commercial
uses for all slips. The Code did not limit the number of commercial slips at this site. He
reviewed the surrounding properties. The commercial slips will be on the south side of
the development. The dock originally was approved as accessory to attached dwellings;
the site now features a commercial hotel. Beach by Design encourages marina facilities
as a key use on Clearwater Beach and the Comp Plan lists marina facilities. This
request was for a limited commercial use.
Attorney Brian Aungst, agent for the development, reviewed the original application and
development order that was amended twice. He said the applicant had considered
Marina & Aviation Director Ed Chesney's significant input re restricted commercial uses
for the 8 boat slips and input from William Day who lives north of the site, separated
from the subject property by public access to the boardwalk. He said the 8 boat slips will
be farthest from Mr. Day's property.
Party Status Holder William Day said he supported the Marina District of Beach by
Design and did not object to the application but requested assurance that no future
administrative changes would change the size of the marina or number and location of
commercial slips.
Attorney for the Board Jay Daigneault said the Board only had authority to approve the
case as presented.
Community Development 2021-10-19 3
Planning & Development Director Gina Clayton said staff did not have the authority to
change the size of the marina or location and number of commercial slips.
Attorney Aungst said the Condition of Approval that specifies the use of every slip was
drafted in response to Mr. Day's concerns. He said no change could be made without
Board approval at a public hearing.
Member Behar moved to approve Case FLD2009-02009 based on evidence in the
record, including the application and the Staff Report, and here by adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report, with conditions of approval as
listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
3. Level Three Application
TA2020-03003—Amendments to the Community Development Code
Applicant: City of Clearwater
Request: The Community Development Board (CBD) is reviewing a request to
amend the City of Clearwater's Community Development Code (Floodplain
Management Ordinance) to allow for the use of best available data when
establishing flood hazard areas, including Pinellas County's Vulnerability
Assessment (2021), to address accessory structures used for parking and storage,
to modify provisions for manufactured homes, to modify or delete various definitions,
and to make administrative amendments, and is making a recommendation to the
City Council.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Board of
County Commissioners
Presenter: Lauren Matzke, Assistant Planning & Development Director
Member Quattrocki moved to recommend approval of Case TA2020-03003 on today's
Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the application and the
Staff Report, and here by adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in
the Staff Report, with conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
F. LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (ITEM 1)
1. Case: FLD2021-04010 —211 and 221 Skiff Point Level Two Application
Owner(s): Skiff Point DP1 LLC/ Peter C. Gonzalez
Applicant/Representative: John Bodziack, John A. Bodziack Architects A.I.A. 2325
Ulmerton Road, Suite 21, St. Petersburg, FL 33762; phone: 727-453-3568; email-
jacob@abodziak.com
Location: 211 and 221 Skiff Point; 0.421 acre located on the south side of Skiff
Point approximately 206 feet from the Larboard Way and Skiff Point intersection.
Request: The Community Development Board (CDB) is reviewing a request to
construct 12 attached dwelling units in the Medium High Density Residential/Island
Estates Neighborhood Conservation Overlay (MHDR/IENCOD) District for the
property located 211 Skiff Point. The project is 50 feet in height, provides 25 off-
Community Development 2021-10-19 4
street parking spaces, and requests allowable flexibility to lot width, building height,
setbacks, and landscape requirements as well as a 952 square-foot dock. The dock
is 112 feet in width and approximately 80 feet in length, and requests allowable
flexibility for square footage of a commercial dock greater than 500 square-feet in
deck area Community Development Code Sections 3-601.C.3, 3-1202.G, and
Section 2-404.F.
Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Board of County
Commissioners
Assigned Planner: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Senior Planner
Joseph Wink requested Party Status.
Member Quattrocki moved to grant Joseph Wink Party Status.
Audrey Cornu requested Party Status.
Member Flanery moved to grant Audrey Cornu Party Status.
Marian Goodman requested Party Status.
Member Flanery moved to grant Marian Goodman Party Status.
Stephany Dawson requested Party Status.
Member Behar moved to grant Stephany Dawson Party Status.
Paul Gatchis requested Party Status.
Member Behar moved to grant Paul Gatchis Party Status.
Mary Pfiffner requested Party Status.
Member Flanery moved to grant Mary Pfiffner Party Status.
Keith Bisig requested Party Status.
Member Behar moved to grant Keith Bisig Party Status.
Wes Taggart requested Party Status.
Member Flanery moved to grant Wes Taggart Party Status.
Member Barker moved to accept Mark Parry as an expert witness in the fields of
redevelopment planning, comprehensive planning, annexation implementation, zoning,
land use/rezoning applications, land development, general planning, code amendments,
Community Development 2021-10-19 5
landscape ordinance, and special area plans/overlay districts. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Senior Planner Mark Parry reviewed the Staff Report.
Member Barker moved to accept Sarah Kessler as an expert witness in the fields of
environmental engineering, water quality, and natural resources. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
In response to questions, Mr. Parry said the entire development, including the dock,
was similar to the project approved in 2013 for the pie shaped lot; this proposed dock is
about 100 square-feet larger. Pinellas County issues dock permits.
Marina & Aviation Director Ed Chesney said he could support the requested dock and
opined that Pinellas County could permit it. The County would consider boat traffic and
waterway obstruction; the waterway is wide enough for the dock as proposed. Unlike
Majestic Point, a newer nearby development with docks lining the curved seawall, the
proposed dock would jut 80 feet into the waterway. Most nearby single-family
residences had 35-foot docks. While the proposed dock would meet Code
requirements, its length would create potential boat traffic conflicts. He had advised the
developer that the proposed dock did not fit the look of the neighborhood. To achieve
harmony, he had recommended reducing the number of boat slips by 4 and seeking
flexible development approval to widen the dock's footprint along the seawall and line
boat slips along the shoreline. He said with significant development pressure in the
area, future applicants could cite an 80-foot dock as precedent and request docks of
similar length.
In response to questions, Mr. Chesney said the waterway is wide and a dock at this
location could be more than 140 feet long. With reduced side setbacks, all boat slips
would have the same angle. The applicant would need to resubmit a portion of the
application to modify the dock. Pinellas County will require neighbors' approval to
reduce the site's side setbacks. The location has good water depth and seagrasses are
not an issue. Slips will be 15 to 18 feet wide.
Architect John Bodziack, representing the applicant, reviewed the development's
background. He said he originally was required to locate the dock 15 — 20 feet off the
seawall to protect seagrasses. He said as Mr. Chesney said that seagrasses were not
an issue, the owners understood resident concerns and with neighbor cooperation they
would be glad to redesign the dock with a layout similar to Majestic Point. He said the
owners would work with Mr. Chesney to redesign the docks be close to the seawall and
align with the shoreline's curve and resubmit the application for separate approval of the
dock; he requested approval of the building today.
Ms. Clayton said the Board could split out the dock from today's approval and the
applicant could return with a separate dock request.
Community Development 2021-10-19 6
Attorney Daigneault said staff supported severing the dock element from the application
and moving forward with the building element. He recommended public input be limited
to the building with the understanding that the Board will consider the dock application
on a future date.
In response to a question, Mr. Bodziack said a walkway adjacent to the seawall would
provide access to the redesigned dock. He said he was glad to meet with the neighbors.
Member Flanery moved to retain the application's building element for this Case and
sever the dock element which the Board will consider at a later date. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Mr. Bodziack said the building was difficult to design. He said the project was less than
50 feet in height and consistent with Code and Comp Plan guidelines. He said the
Board previously had approved virtually identical projects.
Party Status holder Joseph Wink said his presentation was moot as it was centered on
the dock. He wanted assurance he would have an opportunity to address the
application for a redesigned dock.
Attorney Daigneault said some residents had indicated they were not noticed for this
meeting due to their residences' location more than 200 feet from the project. He
recommended neighbors use the same information pipeline they used today for the
meeting date re the dock.
Party Status holder Audrey Cornu said the waterway needed to remain open for use.
Party Status holder Marian Goodman said no one remembers hearing that a large dock
at this property previously was approved even though many people were residents in
2013. She said the waterway was becoming busier and needed to be shared. She
requested the City expand its notification area.
Party Status holder Stephany Dawson said she had concerns about the proposed dock.
She said she heard about today's meeting from neighbors. She did not receive notice
but thought she lived within 200 feet of the project as the bird flies.
Party Status holder Paul Gatchis said he was present to address the dock's design; he
will address the Board at a later date.
Party Status holder Mary Pfiffner said she objected to the size and configuration of the
dock as proposed. She appreciated neighbor concerns and requested the City notify all
cove residents re the next meeting on the dock.
Attorney Daigneault said it was staff's option to notice residents living outside the
notification area required by Code.
Community Development 2021-10-19 7
Party Status holder Keith Bisig said the project's owners had spoken at his HOA
meeting; he said he was confused that the case included variances as the property
owners had said they were not requesting any. He expressed concern that deliveries for
the project would block the narrow road with large trucks.
Party Status holder Wes Taggart said he was here to address the dock and would
return.
Mr. Bodziack requested a list of people who were not contacted; he will contact them
before the meeting on the new dock application.
Attorney Daigneault said the applicant could reach out to those who did not object being
contacted.
A resident said although the Code permitted large buildings on small lots in this area,
the Code had not been updated to reflect changes in the Countywide plan. He
suggested the City Council review the Code for this area as it did not provide water
views between buildings and permitted tall buildings that were out of character with the
neighborhood.
Mr. Parry said setbacks were not subject to flexibility; the project meets the MHDR
(Medium High Density Residential) zoning requirement for 10-foot setbacks. He will
wordsmith a condition of approval re severing the dock from the application and
removing dock references in the development order. The applicant will need to pay
another application fee and submit an amendment to the original application that will
require DRC (Development Review Committee) review. A sign will be posted on the
property and residents living within 200 feet will be noticed of the meeting when the
Board considers the dock. Building permits for the building can move forward while the
amendment is being processed.
Attorney Daigneault recommended not adopting any Finding of Fact in the Staff Report
related to the dock.
It was stated that the applicant had made a big compromise re the dock.
Member Behar moved to approve Case FLD2021-04010 based on evidence in the
record, including the application and the Staff Report, and here by adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report, with conditions of approval as
listed except that all Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law referencing the dock will
be removed and the dock component will be removed from the Conditions of Approval.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
G. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: (ITEM 1)
1. Clearwater 2045 Comprehensive Plan Update (Kyle Brotherton)
Community Development 2021-10-19 8
Senior Planner Kyle Brotherton said the last Comprehensive Plan update was done in
2008 with the last amendment in 2017. The new Comp Plan will cover the next 20 — 25
years. The City contracted with HDR to manage the update which will modernize the
plan and remove redundancies. The City was halfway through the 2 -year project;
competition was anticipated in Fall 2022. More than 300 residents had participated in
community sessions and a questionnaire on the City's website re the new plan.
Steve Schukraft of HDR provided a PowerPoint presentation on proposed updates to
the 2045 Comprehensive Plan; it was anticipated that 10,000 new residents will move to
Clearwater by 2045.
In response to a question, Mr. Schukraft said Clearwater homes were anticipated to
maintain their value better than other parts of the County. He said homes across
Clearwater were selling at similar rates and no significant pockets of decline were
anticipated.
Concerns were expressed that the new Comp Plan needed to consider the
consequences of sea -level rise in Clearwater; sea levels were anticipated to increase by
2 feet by 2050 and higher during high tide. It was commented that the corrosive effects
of sea water will ruin City infrastructure and destroy vegetation. It was stated that future
hurricanes will be stronger and cause more damage; the City will need to fund its own
repairs as FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) will be insufficiently funded
to help the entire country which will be similarly affected. It was stated the update
needed to plan for gentrification as beach residents move to higher ground and displace
the people who live there. It was recommended the City convene a high level panel to
plan for the effects of climate change over the next 75 years.
Mr. Schukraft said sea -level rise will be a potential challenge for specific areas, noting
Clearwater had a significant amount of high ground.
Discussion ensued with comments that the City will need to work through many
challenges and appreciation expressed for the efforts of staff, the consultant and
residents for their input.
H. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Attest:
A
Board Repo
Community Development 2021-10-19
Ch nity Development Board
9
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME -FIRST NAME -MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
ort. , — T v r) Ge. >M w u D+—'tOfM 3.0k(1. n
MAILING ADDRESS
ry/�yo � � THE BOARD. COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
°I l( �► ` W ° WHICH I SERVE ISA UNIT OF:
c' �►�� �TY
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED
COUNTY
i N�
❑ COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
NAME OF POUTICAL SUBDIVISION:
MY POSITION IS:
0 ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of govemment on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies to members of advisory and non -advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of
interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
would inure to his or her special private gain or Toss. Each elected or appointed local officer also MUSTABSTAIN from knowingly voting on
a measure which would inure to the special gain or Toss of a principal (other than a govemment agency) by whom he or she is retained
(including the parent, subsidiary, or sibling organization of a principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a
relative; or to the special private gain or Toss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies (CRAB) under
Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited
from voting in that capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A 'business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
• " M
! 4 f
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure
abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible
minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
✓ e
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you are not prohibited by Section 112.3143 from otherwise
participating in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision,
whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN: WI
• You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on page 2)
t
on which you are
for recording the
CE FORM 86 - EFF. 11/2013
Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(f), F.A.C.
PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
• A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
• The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
• You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
• You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
ldlt9
ereby disclose that on
20 zi_:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one or more)
VAN inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
inured to the special gain or loss of , by
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of , which
is the parent subsidiary, or sibling organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
p VA V. -+M ‘43 1 r1J ei •A �s4 i
-a.. Tilts ?t03 moi► •
•7 z. pari r 670 /6/7:4(2,z0_21 - OS-exy/r 1- cae
If disclosure of specific information would violate confidentiality or privilege pursuant to law or rules goveming attorneys, a public officer,
who is also an attomey, may comply with the disdosure requirements of this section by disclosing the nature of the interest in such a way
as to provide the public with notice of the conflict.
l�c'i
Date Fil
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 8B - EFF. 11/2013
Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(1), F.P.C.
PAGE 2