Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08191992 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 19, 1992 - 2:00 P.M. MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DEROBBRTIS AT 2:05 P.M. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS MR. NICOLINI MR. METCALF MRS. KOSTENBADER MR. TOZZOLO ATTORNEY LULICH EXCUSED: VICE CHAIRMAN FISCHER LATE: MR. GILLIAMS ALSO PRESENT: ROBERT NICHOLSON, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER BRUCE COOPER, BUILDING OFFICIAL RICHARD TORPY, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MR. METCALF REQUESTED THE FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS, PAGE 7 UNDER THE HEADING OF ATTORNEY'S MATTERS, BB DELETED DUE TO THE FACT THAT ERRONEOUS ADVISE IS GIVEN TO THE BOARD (SOMEONE SHOULD SECOND THE MOTION AND THEN CAN DISCUSS IT). IN THE WADE CASE, MR. MBTCALF EXERCISED HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT WHEN ASKED TO SECOND THE MOTION. HE STATED THIS WAS DONE AS A DELIBERATE PARLIAMENTARY TACTIC TO DEFEAT A MOTION WHICH HE FELT WAS UNJUSTIFIED. MR. METCALF STATED THE SURPRISING THING WAS THAT HE HAD TO DO IT TWICE. IN HIS BEST JUDGEMENT, THE ATTORNEY FAILED TO PROVE HiS CASE. ALL BOARD MEMBERS ARE TO BE FREE TO EXERCISE THEIR OWN BEST JUDGEMENT AND NOT BB MANIPULATED BY STAFF OR ATTORNEYS. MR. COOPER STATED THAT THE MINUTES ARE TO REFLECT EXACTLY WHAT WAS DISCUSSED. CHAIRMAN DEROBBRTIS STATED STRIKING THE PARAGRAPHS WOULD BE ERRONEOUS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT DID ACTUALLY OCCUR AND WHAT WAS STATED IN THE MINUTES WAS AS WAS STATED AT THE MEETING. MR. TORPY WAS ONLY TRYING TO SHOW THAT RATHER THAN LETTING A MOTION DIE GO INT0 A DISCUSSION AND THEN MAKE A DISCUSSION IF THE CASE WARRANTS ANY ACTION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 19, 1992 PAGE 2 MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. NICOLINI, SECONDED BY MRS. KOSTENBADER TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1992. THE MOTION WAS CARRIED. ATTORNEY'S MATTERS: NONE OLD BUSINESS: CASES 92-6345, 92-6348, 92-6418, 92-6436 HERBERT STURM - DETERMINE STAY OF ORDER OF MAY 20, 1992. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, RICHARD TORPY, STATED THE CITY HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE MOTION DUE TO THESE CASES CURRENTLY BEING UP ON APPEAL. WE WOULD WAIVE ANY RIGHT TO A HEARING AND ALLOW YOU TO GRANT THE MOTION ON BEHALF OF MR. STURM TO STAY ENFORCEMENT OF THAT ORDER UNTIL THE APPELLATE COURT DECIDES ON THAT CASE. MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. TOZZOLO, SECONDED BY MR. METCALF IN REFERENCE TO CASE S 92-6345, 92-6348, 92-6418, 92-6436 THAT WE APPROVE THE MOTION FOR STAY PENDING REVIEW. MOTION CARRIED. CASES 92-6909 HERBERT STURM - MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND REHEARING ATTORNEY LULICH SWORE IN ALL THAT MIGHT TESTIFY TODAY. HERBERT STURM GAVE HIS TESTIMONY. HE STATED THAT THE ORDER WAS VAGUE (OBTAINING A PERMIT & CORRECTING THE SWALE). IT DOES NOT SAY CORRECTED TO WHAT. HE ALSO STATED THE VOTE UPON THE ORDER IS NOT INDICATED. THERE WAS NO ROLL CALL VOTE. CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS STATED THERE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A ROLL CALL VOTE ON AN ORDER. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY STATED THAT READING THE ORDINANCE HE CAN SEE WHERE MR. STURM COMES UP WITH HIS INTERPRETATION, ALTHOUGH HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT LITERAL OF INTERPRETATION. IN THE PUBLIC MEETING AND THE MINUTES CLEARLY INDICATED THAT THE VOTE WAS TAKEN AND THE MOTION WAS PASSED. MR. STURM ASKED WHY DOES THE BOARD HAVE AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THE BOARD AND ANSWER PERTINENT QUESTIONS WHEN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD L REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 19, 1992 PAGE 3 CHAIR LOOKS TO THE CITY FOR GUIDANCE. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY STATED IF THE CHAIRMAN AND THE BOARD ARE GOING TO FOLLOW MY LEGAL POSITION AND MY ARGUMENT THAT IS THEIR CHOICE. THIS BOARD MAKES UP THEIR OWN MIND AND COMES UP WITH THEIR OWN DECISIONS. MR. STURM STATED THAT HE DID NOT THINK THE BOARD ATTORNEY IS DOING HIS JOB IF THE BOARD TURNS TO THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR ADVISE. ATTORNEY LULICH STATED THE BOARD SHOULD BE DETERMINING WHETHER THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND REHEARING ARE VALID. MR. STURM IS SAYING THAT CORRECTING THE SWALE IS NOT CLEAR AND SPECIFIC AND THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TIME TO CORRECT IT. IF THE BOARD THINKS ONE OF THESE MATTERS ARE TRUE, IT COULD EITHER HAVE A NEW HEARING OR AMEND ITS ORiGiNAL ORDER IF THEY THINK THE ORDER IS NOT SUFFICIENT. THE CITY ENGINEER WOULD INSTRUCT MR. STURM ON HOW TO CORRECT THE SWALE AND THAT IS WHY IT WAS NOT IN THE ORDER. AS FAR AS 30 DAYS NOT BEING ENOUGH TIME TO CORRECT THE SWALE, THAT IS UP TO THE BOARD. ATTORNEY LULICH STATED TO THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT HE COULD DO SOME RESEARCH TO SEE IF THE ORDER IS CURRENT WITH ANY CHANGES THAT MIGHT HAVE OCCURRED WITH THE LAW AND WANT SOME CASE OPINION ON HOW THE ORDER WOULD STAND UP. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN USED FOR SOME TIME AND HAS NOT HAD A PROBLEM. CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS STATED HE FEELS THAT THIS IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE BOARD TO REHEAR BECAUSE FOR ONE, MR. STURM WAS FOUND GUILTY OF MODIFYING A SWALE. MR. DEROBERTIS ASKED MR. STURM HOW LONG DID IT TAKE FOR HIM TO MODIFY THE SWALE. MR. STURM STATED IT WAS NOT IMPORTANT TO THE CASE. MR. TORPY STATED THAT RULE 1.530 REQUIRES THAT THIS TYPE OF MOTION BE FILED WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE ORDER. THE ORDER WAS SIGNED ON THE 23RD OF JULY AND BY THE CITY'S DATE STAMP THE MOTION WAS NOT EVEN FILED UNTIL AUGUST 7, 1992. THAT IS BEYOND THE 10 DAY TIME PERIOD THEREFORE, AS A MATTER OF PROCEDURE, THIS MOTION COULD NOT EVEN BE HEARD AT THIS TIME & SHOULD BE DENIED FOR FAILURE TO FILE IN A TIMELY FASHION. WITH REGARDS TO THE ISSUES RAISED, THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED ACCORDING TO THE MOTION, LINE 4 OF THE ORDER "CORRECTING THE SWALE IS NOT CLEAR OR SPECIFIC", THAT IS NOT A MATTER WHICH WOULD AFFECT WHETHER OR NOT THIS BOARD FOUND MR. STURM IN VIOLATION OR WHAT FINE. THIS SIMPLY IS A MATTER OF WHAT HE NEEDS TO CORRECT AND IF THIS BOARD FEELS THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR ENOUGH, THE BOARD CAN CORRECT THAT BY AMENDING THEIR OWN ORDER TO MAKE iT SPECIFIC. THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE A CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST ~ 1992 PAGE 4 NEW TRIAL. SECOND, 30 DAYS IS NOT ENOUGH TO BRING THE SWALE INTO COMPLIANCE. THIS IS NOT RELEVANT TO A NEW HEARING. THE FINE OF $250.00 SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED AT THE MEETING & MR. STURM CAN APPEAL THIS AT THE COURT. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. METCALF, SECONDED BY MR. NICOLINI TO DENY A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND REHEARING. ROLL CALL: MR. GILLIAMS YES MRS. KOSTENBADER YES CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS YES MR. NICOLINI YES MR. TOZZOLO YES MR. METCALF YES MOTION CARRIED. NE__W BUSINESS: CASE# 92-6993 VERNON & NANCY SLAVENS MR. SLAVENS WAS PRESENT AT THE MEETING. READ TO HIM. HE WAIVED THE CODE ROBERT NICHOLSON, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, GAVE HIS TESTIMONY CONCERNING THIS CASE. THIS CASE WAS REFERRED TO HIM BY THE SEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT ON JULY 17, 1992 AND BY A COMPLAINT BY KATHY PHIFER OF GEORGE STREET, SAME DATE. AFTER RECEIVING THIS COMPLAINT, HE FILED A COMPLAINT ON HIS OWN AGAINST VERNON & NANCY SLAVENS UNDER SECTION 14-3, OPERATING A BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN WITHOUT A HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE. MRS. PHIFER STATED THAT SHE TOOK HER AUTOMOBILE TO 821 JAMAICA AVENUE, MR. SLAVENS RESIDENCE, ON MAY 19TH FOR A CHECK OF HER AIR CONDITIONER. SHE RETURNED THE VEHICLE TO THAT ADDRESS ON MAY 23, 1992 AND LEFT IT THERE THROUGH MAY 26, 1992 FOR REPAIR OF THE AiR CONDITIONER. SHE PAID MR. SLAVENS BY CHECK ($502.63 & $10.00). THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT HE DID REPAIR THE VEHICLE AT HIS RESIDENCE. MR. SLAVENS IS NOT LICENSED IN THE CITY FOR ANYTHING. THIS CASE IS BASED ON A PRIOR CASE #92-6074 OF THE SAME VIOLATION. A NOTICE OF VIOLATION HEARING WAS SERVED ON JULY 31, 1992 BY ASSURED COURIER. THIS WAS GIVEN AS EXHIBIT i AS EVIDENCE. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 19, 1992 PAGE 5 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TORPY CALLED MRS. KATHY PHIFER TO TESTIFY. MRS. KATHY PHIFER STATED THAT SHE TOOK HER AUTOMOBILE ON THE 19TH OF MAY. 1992 TO MR. SLAVENS. A FRIEND WHO LIVES NEXT TO MR. SLAVENS RECOMMENDED MR. SLAVENS TO HER. MR. SLAVENS BROUGHT THE CAR OVER AND PARKED IT iN HER DRIVEWAY. THE NEXT DAY SHE TOOK THE CHECK OF $502.00 TO HIS HOUSE LOCATED AT 821 JAMAICA AVENUE. SHE ACTUALLY BROUGHT HER CAR TO 821 JAMAICA AVENUE. SHE ACTUALLY MADE AN APPOINTMENT FOR MR. SLAVENS TO REPAIR HER CAR. SHE STATED THE CAR CAME BACK THE SAME WAY AS BEFORE. MR. SLAVENS ASKED MRS. PHIFER IF SHE HAD THE CAR INSPECTED AFTER SHE RECEIVED THE CAR BACK. SHE STATED SHE DID NOT, MR. TORPY OBJECTED TO THE LiNE OF QUESTIONS OF MR, SLAVENS, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THESE REPAIRS WERE CONDUCTED AT MR. SLAVENS RESIDENCE AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IF THE REPAIRS WERE ACTUALLY DONE OR NOT. THAT IS A SEPARATE MATTER AND NOT BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY. MR. SLAVENS GAVE HIS TESTIMONY. HE JUST WANTED TO READ A STATEMENT TO THE BOARD. HE WANTED TO ASK ONE QUESTION. WHAT WAS THE FIRST VIOLATION THAT HE WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THIS BOARD? WAS IT NOT OVER A TOW TRUCK PARKED ON THE STREET. HE WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT THE PRIOR CASE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY MR. NICHOLSON. MR. NICHOLSON STATED THAT MR. SLAVENS WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD PREVIOUSLY BECAUSE OF THE WRECKER AND NO HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE. THE FIRST PART OF THE HEARING WAS WRONG ACCORDING TO MR, SLAVENS. HE WAS NOT IN A SIMILAR VIOLATION OF ANY CODE WITHIN THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN. HE WAS IN VIOLATION OF HAVING A WRECKER. HE STATED HE DID NOT KNOW HE NEEDED A LICENSE BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING: HE IS NOT RUNNING ANY TYPE OF REPAIR SHOP WHATSOEVER FOR COMPENSATION. B. HE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY LABOR COMPENSATION. ALL PARTS THAT WERE SUPPLIED AND INSTALLED WAS INSTALLED AT COST ONLY. D. ALL WORK WAS DONE ON THE STREET NOT IN HIS DRIVEWAY. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TORPY ASKED MR. SLAVENS IF HE DENIED THAT MRS. PHIFER BROUGHT HER VEHICLE TO HIM AT 821 JAMAICA AVENUE TO REPAIR THE AIR CONDITIONER. MR. SLAVENS STATED THAT SHE BROUGHT HER CAR AT THE FRONT OF MY HOUSE IN THE COD____~ ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 19~ 1992 PAGE 6 STREET AT 821 JAMAICA AVENUE TO INSPECT HER AIR CONDITIONER WHICH WAS NOT WORKING PROPERLY. HE TOLD MRS. PHIFER HE WOULD TRY TO FIND SOME PARTS FOR IT AND REPAIR IT FOR HER. HE STATED HE TOOK MONEY FOR PARTS ONLY, MR. TORPY ASKED IF HE HAD ANY RECEIPTS. MR, SLAVENS SAID HE DID NOT. MR. TORPY ASKED MR. SLAVENS DID MRS. PHIFER CALL HIM AT HIS HOUSE. HE STATED YES. THERE WAS A FIVE MINUTE RECESS. MR. SLAVENS LEFT AT 3~00. THE CITY RECOMMENDED THAT MR. VERNON & NANCY SLAVENS BE FOUND IN VIOLATION AND WOULD LIKE TO ADD ONE MORE PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT IS NECESSARY BEFORE WE BELIEVE YOU CAN FIND THAT WITH REGARD TO THiS PROPERTY. BRUCE COOPER WAS SWORN IN. HE STATED THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN NANCY'S NAME. WE COULD NOT ACTUALLY PLACE A LIEN IN THE PREVIOUS CASE BECAUSE OF THIS. THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION THAT BOTH VERNON & NANCY SLAVENS BE FOUND IN VIOLATION, MR. VERNON SLAVENS ACTUALLY CONDUCTING THE WORK AND NANCY SLAVENS OWNS THE PROPERTY AND WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE. WE REQUEST THAT A $250.00 FINE BE IMPOSED FOR THIS VIOLATION. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. METCALF, SECONDED BY MR. NICOLINI IN TWO PARTS WITH DISCUSSION ASKED FOR ON EACH PART. PART ONE, IN REFERENCE TO CASE# 92-6909 OF A VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, SECTION 14-3 INVOLVING MR. & MRS. VERNON & NANCY SLAVENS THAT A VIOLATION DID OCCUR AND THAT MR. & MRS. SLAVENS CAUSED THE VIOLATION. THEREFORE AN ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT IS WARRANTED. PART TWO: A FINE OF $1,850.OO IS IMPOSED PAID NOT LATER THAN 30 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF THIS MEETING. A PROPERTY LIEN SHALL BE PLACED AFTER THIS TIME IF THE FINE IS NOT PAID. IF THE VIOLATION CONTINUES AFTER A RECEIPT OF NOTICE IS RECEIVED, A FINE OF $1OO.OO PER DAY SHALL BE IMPOSED. THIS PER DAY FINE SHALL CONTINUE FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS. MR. METCALF WITHDREW THE CONTINUING FINE FROM HIS MOTION. MR. NICOLINI SECONDED IT. MR. COOPER ASKED MR. METCALF IF HE GAVE THE WRONG CASE # AND WAS THE FINE $250.00 OR $1,850.00. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 19, 1992 PAGE 7 MR. METCALF STATED THE CORRECT CASE# SHOULD BE 92-6993 AND THE FINE WAS $1,850.OO. MR. MBTCALF AMENDED THE MOTION THAT A FINE OF $250.00 BE IMPOSED. MR. NICOLINI SECONDED IT. MOTION CARRIED. CASE# 92-6531 JOSEPH & NANCY DIMAIO MR. JOSEPH DIMAIO WAS PRESENT AT THE MEETING. ATTORNEY LULICH READ 2OA-5.16(C)(4) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO MR. DIMAIO. ROBERT NICHOLSON GAVE HIS TESTIMONY. THE FIRST NOTICE OF THE VIOLATION WAS ON 4/23/92. HE GAVE A DOOR HANGER AND VERBAL NOTICE TO NANCY DIMAIO. RECHECKED ON MAY 13 AND HAD NOT BEEN REMOVED. ON MAY 14 A LETTER WAS SENT WHICH WAS RECEIVED 5/15/92. AT THAT TIME, MR. OR MRS. DIMAIO CONTACTED THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. HE EXTENDED THEIR TIME UNTIL MAY 25TH AND EXTENDED AGAIN UNTIL JULY 1, 1992. A CHECK ON JULY lOTH THE BOAT HAD BEEN MOVED HOWEVER, THE TRAILER WAS STILL THERE. ON JULY 15TH WE SENT A LETTER CERTIFYING THIS CASE TO THIS BOARD AND THAT LETTER WAS RECEIVED ON JULY 28TH. COPIES OF ALL THE NOTICES REFERRED TO BY MR. NICHOLSON WERE GIVEN AS EXHIBIT 1. THE FIRST PHOTO WAS TAKEN ON JUNE 3RD SHOWING THE BOAT & TRAILER. THE SECOND TWO PHOTOGRAPHS WERE AFTER THE BOAT HAD BEEN REMOVED WHICH WERE TAKEN ON JULY 13, 1992. THE TRAILER WAS STILL THERE. A REINSPECTION WAS MADE BEFORE THE MEETING. THE TRAILER AND BOAT IS NOW PARKED BEHIND THE BUILDING WHICH MEANS HE HIS IN COMPLIANCE. MR. DIMAIO STATED HE DOES NOT GET HIS HAIL ON A TIMELY BASES BECAUSE HE IS OUT OF TOWN A LOT BECAUSE OF HIS JOB. THE DOOR HANGER INCIDENT & CONVERSATION WITH HIS WIFE, MR. DIMAIO KNEW NOTHING OF THAT AND HE BELIEVES SHE DOES NOT EITHER. ACTUALLY ON THE SECOND WRITTEN STATEMENT THAT MR. NICHOLSON SENT THEM, THEY WERE OFFICIAL ADVISED. BASICALLY, MR. DIMAIO STATED HE WAS IN COMPLIANCE. THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT JOSEPH & NANCY DIMAIO BE FOUND IN VIOLATION AND THAT A ONE TIME $50.00 FINE BE LEVIED. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 19. 1992 PAGE 8 A MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. NICOLINI, SECONDED BY MRS. KOSTENBADER IN REFERENCE TO CASE# 92-6531 OF A VIOLATION OF PARKING A BOAT IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE LINE. SECTION 2OA-5.16C4 INVOLVING MR. & MRS. DIMAIO THAT A VIOLATION DID OCCUR AND THAT MR. & MRS. DIMAIO CAUSED THE VIOLATION. THEREFORE AN ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT IS WARRANTED. A FiNE OF $50.00 BE IMPOSED TO BE PAID NOT LATER THAN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF THiS MEETING. A PROPERTY LIEN SHALL BE PLACED AFTER THIS TIME IF THE FINE IS NOT PAID. IF THE VIOLATION CONTINUES AFTER A RECEIPT OF NOTICE, A FiNE OF $100.OO PER DAY SHALL BE IMPOSED. THIS PER DAY FINE SMALL CONTINUE FOR A PERIOD OF UNTIL THE VIOLATION iS CORRECTED. SINCE THE VIOLATION HAS BEEN CORRECTED, MR. NiCOLINI DELETED THE $1OO.OO PER DAY FINE FROM HIS MOTION. THE MOTION WAS READ BACK BY THE SECRETARY. THE MOTION WAS CARRIED. BOARD ATTORNEY REQUESTS AND REPORTS, ATTORNEY LULICH WANTED TO INFORM THE BOARD SINCE THE LAST MEETING HE HAD RECEIVED A COMPLAINT THAT WAS FILED TO THE FLORIDA BAR BY MR. HERBERT STURM. HE JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF THE BOARD RECEIVED A COPY OF IT. IT WAS IN THEIR PACKETS. BUILDING OFFICIAL'S MATTERS: NONE GENERAL DISCUSSION, MR. NICOLINI DREW UP AND SUGGESTED A NEW FORM FOR PROPOSED MOTIONS. ATTORNEY LULICH WILL REVIEW IT FOR THE NEXT MEETING. PUBLIC INPUT: MR. HERBERT STURM HAD A QUESTION FOR THE BOARD ATTORNEY CONCERNING SECTION 2-104 ADMINISTRATIVE FINES AND LIENS. ATTORNEY LULICH STATED THAT MR. STURM TRIED TO CONTACT HIM SEVERAL TIMES IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS. AS HE STATED IN HIS LETTER THAT HE WORKS FOR THE BOARD AND ADVISED ONLY THE BOARD AND IF HE NEEDS LEGAL ADVISE, HE SHOULD SEEK LEGAL COUNCIL. ADJOURN: A MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. METCALF, SECONDED BY MR. GILLIAMS TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 3,40 P.M. CARRIED. Minutes approved at the ~~~-~ /~ , 1992 Meeting. b'~'n~ato Derobertis, Chairman Board Secretary