HomeMy WebLinkAbout072888 Min Packet a.
*` PORT TOWNSEND,, WASHINGTON . 8 a
{ of Tose- n- moi. Commilosi.on 4
ciTy or PORT TOVIINSE D 4'
u
Rk
4
1 r
f
t I
T
I.
MINUTES OF JULY 23, 1988
1. e ing Business and Roll Call. : • j
Vice-chairman 'Ta ernakis' called -the meeting .to o der at 7:33 P.M.
Members presentwere- Ron Kosc, Bob Gr,imm, Dori+F McLaryl Lois t
Sherwood Don Hoglund,. and Jim Tavernakis. Vice-chairman Tavernaki
/ r `4 `
declared a quorum. Also present Wass'Asst. Planner- Kevin O.'Neill.
Vice-chairman a n Taverna is asked that the minutes.,.-of "July 147 1988 be
corrected to indicate that overnight parking of VsF in the m' }unic al
parking lot was+not presently posted as restricted. ,,, Mr. Kosec moved d the
i
'minutes be approved as amended. Mr. .'Tai ernal is' seconded and the '
potion passed 6-0.
F
II. Communications ; '
Mr. O'Neill passed out written testi poi y in sup o t..of-the Withers
• r s �5
variance request:
III. old Business
x
a, Application No. 8806-(j2 .. -William oa nna Withers
Variance+
Mr. Neill pre3ented the staff report, attacher The applicants have
constructed rose arbors directly at the''front property line, the side
property line facing Harrison St.,, and,apiar xi r ately seven f eet from the
rear property lire. The setback re'quirements'-were therefore not met.
variance is sought so that they ma remain as *built. _ Mr. O'Neill amended
the draft findings of fact. to reflect '.the, ,emoval # ardor that had been
located in the City ri ht�of- r ire 'front ,6 f i4the ho'u' se'. The arbors were
Ly
found to meet the definition of "structures" In the Municipal Code and
therefore are not exempt from the setback requirements. If the
Commission should choose 'to recommend approval.. Mlr' . suggested
•th t c 'r clusion #2 in draft B be -amended to s ate:5� "Because o -the unique
architecture of the residence and the size *o��,�1�..." {Condition #1 would
e deleted as no longer applicable.
The public testimony portion of the hearing was opened.
Joanna Withers said the arbors had been positioned to align wAb the
retaining wall. Their purpose is to provide a limited amount of privacy on
the corner lot, and to enhance not detract from the lot or cause injury.
They have removed the front arbor since they wanted to show good faith.
Borg Bliss testified in favor of the request. The building,, which was a
former bed and breakfast, now will be a private residence and the arbors
protect that privacy.
Pat Sullivan questioned whether it was the intent of the zoning ordinance
to restrict arbors, or to deprive citizens of the use of their yards. She
questioned the definition of arbors as structures, and thought that a
variance should not have been required.
Nice-chairman Tavernais turned the meeting over to Chairman Carman.
Judith Johnson, a neighbor, testified in favor of the request saying the
Dithers have brought up the standard of Victorian Port Townsend and
that the arbor was well thought out.
George Prindle, a neighbor, said the arbor was ars attractive improvement
ent
and respectfully asked that it be allowed to remain.
Egan S indor, a neighbor, said he had not complained about the arbor but
had alerted the City to the fact that part of it was in the right-of-moray.
Jeanne Barton testified in favor of the request, saying the arbors are an
enhancement and that the Withers had shown good faith in removing the
one on City property.
Bob Bruns said people should be encouraged to maintain the Victorians.
The Withers hers are making structural improvements as well as cosmetic. He
felt the arbors added charm to the town.
Bill Sperry testified in favor of the request. He thought enforcement of the
code ought to concentrate more on eyesores such ass abandoned cars rather
than on something which improves the community.
The public testimony portion of the hearing was closed.
Committee Report: Mr. Kosec said the question was one of location not of
the arbors themselves. He felt they met the definition of a structure in
Section 17.08.47 5 of the Municipal Code and was In favor of recommending
denial of the request.
Mr. Hoglund also said it was not a. question of the beauty of the arbors but
of setbacks and recommended adoption of draft A recommending denial.
I
•
Mr. Grimm asked if it would be unreasonable to amend the code to include
arbors.
Mr. O'Neill said this would be up to the Cita Council.
Mr. Grimm asked if there was any visual hazard to pedestrians or traffic
because of the location of the arbors.
Mr. O'Neill said since the property line is setback from the developed
portion of the street, there was no hazard. The fire department saw no
conflict. He reviewed the primary purposes of the setback ordinance as
outlined in Section 17.04.020 of the Municipal Cocke■ b. to secure safety from
fire and provide adequate open space for light ,..1.nd air and c. to prevent
over crowding of the land. Section 1 .20.020 spoke of the need to consider
bulk or density requirements.
Mr. Grimm asked In ghat way the application conflicted with those
sections.
Mr. O'Neill thought the provisions to prevent over crowding of the land
and preserve open space, light, and air might be In conflict w1t i the
request. If a shed or garage were built in the same location, the problem
would be more obvious. The issues are the location of the arbors I
relation to the setbacks and whether the request meets the variance
criteria.
Mr. Tavernakis gave some background on arbors, and said one concern was
hover they fit into the neighborhood, and with the restoration of a
Victorian. He considered the Victorian homes unique, and thought the
arbors fit in with what the home was originally designed to be. He
outlined what he considered to be special circumstances in favor of a
variance: the nature of the house itself, the relationship to the
surrounding open space, the moving forward of the front lawn with the
retaining wall, the financial burden of maintaining a Victorian. He thought
the ordinance was aimed at getting a handle on things that did not
improve the community and not at something that fit into the original
design. Given a literal Interpretation of the ordinance he agreed Frith Mr.
Hoglund and Mr. Kosec, however he didn't feel in this instance a literal
interpretation was fitting. He though the arbors fit in size and balance
with the house as a whole.
Mr. Mcbarney thought the arbors were structures, but the problem was
reconciling the letter of the statutes with the beauty of the tovvm.
Ordinances are not to forestall attempts to beautify the landscape. He was
In favor of granting the variance.
Ids. Sherwood said that not being aware of the ordinance did not justify
nonadherence. There was a difficulty in separating the emotional issue o
arbors from the purpose of the ordinance, which was to prevent anyone
from doing whatever they wanted without considering the benefit of the
.� �. ,.... -... .
neighborhood. However, she thought it necessary to look at the arbors for
ghat they were. She asked ifs. Withers hoar the arbors would have been
designed differently had she known about the ordinances.
Ms. Withers said she mould have applied for a variance at the time of
beginning nin the design. She maintained that if the setbacks were adhered
to, the arbors would all be on top of each other. Without a variance, they
will have to be removed.
Chairman Carman said the main concern was for the public health, safety
and welfare. Since the removal of the arbors located on the public right-of-
way, he saw no conflict with these concerns. He clarified that staff were
under instruction to prepare to draft reports so as to present both sides
of an issue. He found the conclusions in draft B. recommending approval,
to be applicable, especially conclusion 2 wherein the unique architecture of
the residence was held to be a special condition.
Mr. Grimm moved to recommend approval of Application No. 8806-02
meeting the review criteria for a variance and adoption of draft B as
presented and amended by staff. lair. Ta a nakis seconded. The motion
passed 5-2 nth Mr. Hoglund and Mr. Kosec opposed.
b. Application No. 8807-03 JefPerson 'Transit
Variance
Mr. O'Neill presented the staff reports. (attached) The variance is sought to
alloy a roof-mounted sign of 100 square f eetto em in and the placement
of a two-sided ' x 2' Greyhound sign,, bringing total signage to 116 square
feet.
The public testimony portion of the hearing was opened.
Melanie Bozak read into the record a letter to Mr. Hildt from Peter
Badame dated June 24, 1988, copies of which had been included in the
commissioners' packets. The building plans had been approved by the it
in November or December nber of 1987. There was no sign permit application,
however the signs were darn in on the plans' and Jefferson 'Transit was
under the impression they had been approved as part of the process.
The public testimony portion of the hearing was closed,
Committee Report. FIs. Sher-wood said that Jefferson 'Transit did not seem
to be the type of business that needed to entice clients, 'Their most effective
advertising was their service itself. She found it difficult to justify a
variance for a tax supported organization, saying that it would set a
precedent for retail business in the area.
Mr. Hoglund agreed that granting the variance would set a precedent and
recommended denial of the request.
•
Mr. GrImm asked whether the Issue of a sign permit had been addressed
at the time Jefferson Transit applied for a building permit.
Ms. Bozak said the need for a sign permit never carne up during the
permitting process.
Mr. O'Neill said since a sign permit was never submitted, one was never
approved. He thought a smaller sign in compliance with the ordinance
would meet Jefferson Transit's needs. A sign of 84 square feet or less
would bring the 16 foot Greyhound sign within the allowable loo square
feet. He was concerned with the issue of setting a precedent by granting
variance on Sims Way. The Gateway Project set policies encouraging signs
to be as low as possible with a limit of ioo sq. ft.
IIs. Bozak said that Jefferson Transit could easily have had an 84 square
foot sign made if Mr. Stric lin had mentioned the need. The idea was to
fill the capacity of the frame while employing a smaller sign. She did not
now whether square footage was ever discussed with Mr. Stric lin.
Mr. Ta erns is said that the grandfathering of a sign was usually only for
repair, repainting, or refurbishing of a sign. Any change in the content
involves a new permitting process.
Mr. McLarney thought Jefferson Transit had gotten into difficulty by
trying to utilize the existing sign frame.
Chairman Carman thought the Greyhound sign might be granted a
variance on the basis of being an informational sign and public service
oriented. He mentioned the Gateway Project's strong stand to maintain
low profile signage along the corridor. He thought the best moray to salvage
the situation would be to mount the sign flush to the building.
Mr. Grimm said in lime with the Gateway Project it mould be preferable to
have a ground level sign.
The commission discussed allowing the Greyhound sign as informational.
Mr. O'Neill pointed out that the ordinance did not exempt Informational
signs. He asked, in reference to the two sections of the code to which the
variance request referred, if in allowing the Greyhound sign, the committee
would be approving signage in excess of loo square feet. The commission
decided they did not w1sh to do this, but would let the City Council deal
with the issue of the Greyhound sign as they saw fit.
Mr. Hoglund moved to recommend denial of Application No. 8807-03 for a
variance and adoption of draft A as prepared by staff. Mr. Grimm
seconded and the motion passed -o.
Mr. Grimm suggested that Jefferson Transit might consider bringing the
sign down to grade level 1n accordance with the comments received in
conjunction with the Gateway Project.
•
•
C. Draft ordinances on defining "front yard" for zoning purposes and
house numbering.
fir. O'Neill presented the draft ordinances and amendments to present
ordinances, (attached) and outlined the need for the proposed changes based
on fire safety and public purpose.
Chairman Carman suggested that Section 17-20-020 read "...excepting that
all buildings shall be a min1mun . of five feet from side and rear ro ert
alldZo? -t limes.@I This would accommodate modate uplad property which does
not have lot lines.
The public testimony portion of the hearing was opened.
Ms. Bozak asked about enforcement.
Mr. O'Neill said there would not be an attempt to enforce the changes
retroactively but to begin with f uture building permits.
The public testimony portion of the hearing was closed.
Committee Report: Mr. Taverna is recommended passing the draft
ordinances on to the City Council, incorporating the change suggested by
Chairman Carman.
r. carney moved to pass the draft ordinances on to the City Council as
amended. Mr. Hoglund seconded and the motion passed 7-0.
IV. New Business
a. Application No. 8807-04 William Amburn
Rezone
one
The committee will be Mr. Hoglund and lis. Sherwood. The hearing was
scheduled for August 2 , 1988.
b. Application No. 8807-05 Robert & Mary Biffle
Variance
The committee will be fir. McLarney and fir. Losec. The hearing was
scheduled for August 11, 1988.
C, Application No. 987-01 Monte Matthews
Short Subdivision
The application will probably remain on hold per Chairman Carman. He
will have a letter by August 11, 1988 if another continuance to a date
specific is necessary.
7/28/88 a
V. Announcements
The next business meeting will be August 11, 1988. At that time the
commission will hear Application N . 8807-01 for a conditional use & 8807-02
for a variance by Gerald Rodgers and Application No. 8807-05 by Robert
and Mary Biffle for a variance. The Daubenberger Application No. 8804-02
will most likely be postponed.
1. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M.
Alice King
SORT TO NSEND, WASHINGTON 1383668 6kAPT
Port Townsend Pla=mDg
r� r
CITY OF PORT TOWN E N D
FINDINGS OF ` 1 ' AND CONCLUSIONS of THE PLANNING CMISS_j oN
Date: July 28, 1988
Re: variance Appy.. 8806-02, William and Joanna Withers }
After respectful consideration of the above-referenced appli-
cation
ppl --
cati n including onsite inspection of the property, and after
timely notification and hearing, the fort Townsend Planning
Commission hereby submits to the City Council the following
findings and conclusions :
Findns of Fact
4�h
The applicants have constructed M& r sets of rose arbors in
the front; side, and rear yards of their existing single family
dwelling at 1306 Franklin Street. B eausa th6 applicants were
not aware of the need for a building permit,, construction of the
arbors commenced without application for a permit. Con-sequently,
the setback requirements of the Port Townsend Municipal Code
1 7. 2 , o 1 o were not checked prior to construction. The arbors
currently are located directly at the front property line, the
side property line facing Harrison street, and approximately
seven feet from the rear property line. ,� is
.may r
Qlzr- X.11
The variance is sought to make the construction conf orm J the
zoning setback r'equir'eF en ts so that they mai remain as built.
2. The subject propert3.r is located in the R-III zoning
district. The residence is situated on two lots which total
approximately 110 ' x 110 1 . The property east of the s jc-It,
building is zoned -I , while the rest of the surrounding property
is zoned R-11I . The setback eq,.ire nts for the ' - I I zoning
district are twenty ppy;
jpDr
and rear yards, azd a total of
twenty feet for side yards , fifteen feet of which ,mus t he on one
s i de-.
3. Unless a variance is granted, the arbors must comply with
zoning setback- requirements because they meet -the definition o
"structure" found in the Fort Townsend Municipal code
( 17. 08. 475) . The definition of "setback so ( 17 . 08 . 435) applies to
buildings and uses; while the definition of "use" ( 17 . 0 . 500
incudes of structures" as well as ''land or "buil dings" .
it • f y
Planning Commission Page
. Zoning and building enforcement proceedings are suspended
until a decision has been made on the variance aplicatol .
The applicants ' residence, the Harry Barthrop House, was
constructed In 1886 and is classified as a primary historical
structure in the designation of the Port Townsend Historic
District. The applicant5 state that the architecture and scale
of the house are unique in Port Townsend and that the arbors
,give balance to the ver tical -story structure of the house" .
The applicants also state that other- examples of such arbors and
planting exist throughout Port Townsend.
onclus ' ons
1 . The proposed variance would not amount to a rezone nor
constitute change in the district boundaries shown on the
official zoning map. f 406 � �0+
2 . Because of the unique architecture of the residence, special
conditions exist which Flo not result from actions of the
applicant which are peculiar to the subject property and which
are not applicable to other lands in the district.
. The variance requested would not confer a special privilege
to the subject property that is denied to other lands in the sane
district .
. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the
public welfare and injurious sous to the property or impr ;�emen is in
the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated.
S. The reasons set forth in the above-referenced application
,justify the gran ting of the variance and the variance is the
minimum variance that will make p0e51ble the reasonable use of
she land.
. Because the granting of the variance would be in harmony with
the genera, purpose and intent of Title 17 (zoning) of the Port
Townsend Municipal Code, the Planning Commission recommends that
the above-referenced variance be GRANTED
•
The arbors presently located in the city right-of---way
shall be removed.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Part Townsend Planning
Mi sion,
Donald Hoglund, Chr. , Review Committee
' � r
w
5
City of Port Towns-end
Port Townsend Washington 98368 385-3000
June 28 , 1988
Peter Eadame
Manager
Jefferson Transit Authority
PO Box 908
Port Townsend , WA 98388
Dear Peter,
Michael Hildt has referred to rye your letter of June 24 , 1988 .
Enclosed is a Sign Variance Application form for y LIr use .
Once this is received together with the requisite list o
surrounding property owners and the required $150 application
fee , we will distribute the application to the Planning
Commission . They will then set a hearing at the earliest
possible meeting ,
Because the signs have been erected without a permit and Mr .
ildt has asked that they be brought into compliance some time
ago , we ask that the application be made complete by Wednesday ,
July 13 . This will allow the Planning Commission to set the
hearing at their July 14 Meeting. I suspect that it may not b
possible to hear the variance request until August , as their July
meetings are heavily scheduled .
Nevertheless , provided the variance application has been made
complete by July 13 , 1988 , the City will cusp nd enforcement of
the signs erected until a decision on the variance request has
been rade by the City Council .
We will copy your letter as an attachment to the application when
it is received .
Thank you .
Sincerely ,
f
'0 L/
Ize L.
Kevin "Neill
Assistant Planner
cc : Planning Commission
Keith Harper ,
City Attorney
JEFFERSON TRANSIT AUTHORITY
P.O.Box 948 Port Townsend.WA 98388 0W85--9 777
,lune 24, 1988
Mr. Michael H i d t
City of Port Townsend
540 Water St.
Port Townsend, Wash. 98368
Dear Michael,
On behalf of the ,Jefferson Transit Authority l would like to formally request
variance to the following Sections of the City Sign ordinance:
17.84.060 B Total *ign area shall not exceed a total allowable
signage limit one hundred square feet.
17.34.080 B2 Prohibited signs: All roof mounted signs, etc.
We are requesting a variance as described in Section 17.34. 130.
Situation: Jefferson Transit has, at our new facility located at 1615 Sins
Way, Port Townsend, a 100 sq. ft. sign mounted on a sign frame which is partially
attached to the roof, Additionally, we have a 2' high °4' long metal Greyhound
sign (with no wording) which we would propose mounting as a paro jesting sign from
our building. As we interpret the sign ordinance our proposed total signage
would amount to 116 sq. ft.
Proposal: ,Jefferson Transit be granted a variance to the above mentioned Sections
based upon:
17.34.130 D. 1. ' The granting of a variance would not be
materially detrimental to the property owners in the vicinity
and the traveling public."
We believe that the signs in question would have absolutely no detrimental effect
on adjacent property owners and in the ease of the Greyhound sign would Promote
the public welfare and be a benefit to the traveling public. It would subtlely
notify both local residents and tourists of the eistanco and location of
nationwide passenger and package express service. We believe that this is in
concert with the stated purpose of the ordinance which is "to improve the quality
of luring and business environment in the city", We are a Greyhound agency
primarily as a Public service providing out-of-county passenger and freight
connections to local residents and tourists. We propose that the 16 sq. ft. of
i
S
Mr. Michael Hildt
June 24, 1988
Page
additional sign area is enhancing and provides "necessary information".
We also propose that the present 100 sq. ft. sign which is lettered "Jefferson
Transit" and has our logo is not detrimental to vicinity property owners.
It is well designed, is not a distraction, is not backlit and is fitting
with stated ordinance langauge as it has "subdued spotlighting" which "shall
be encouraged" and is made of woad which is "preferred".
17,34. 130 D. 2. ' The granting of the variance would not be
contrary to the objects of this chapter relating to the place-
ment of signs and the reduction of clutter. "
The situation with the sign which is partially attached to the roof is that
the sign 'is mounted to a bracket which existed when occupied by the previous
tenant. Not only is this sign mount a portion of the building, but it was
identified when we presented our renovation puns to th .. ity and it was
in place and approved at all stages of the building permit process. We
were under the impression that it was approved by the City as part of the
whole process. It was not until after the building permit was given final
approval that any question was raised and brought to our attention regarding
apparent conflict with the sign ordinance. his it is, we do not believe
that it is in conflict with the intent of the ordinance as it is incorporated
into the entire building design previously submitted and, additionally,
is historically the location and placement of signage on the .buildin . We
submit that it is not distracting, obstructing, hazardous, detrimental to the
historic quality of the city, or contributing to "clutter".
We request that the conditions mentioned above allow the Council to grant the
variance. To strictly and literally apply the provisions of the ordinance
benefit no one and in actuality impose a hardship on us after we had submitted
and had approved bath design plans and a building permit. We did not purpose-
fully create a sign situation which would be in conflict with the ordinance,
but proceeded along a course of action whish we perceived as being approved
by the City. The result is the utilization of a preexisting sign mount which
"harmonizes with the building" and in no way jeopardizes the public welfare,
health and safety.
We believe that our recent attempts to improve not only our site but the
entire 2 /Sims Way corridor by creating an attractive landscape design as
well as a pedestrian walkway separate from the 40 mph highway give evidence
of our sincere intent to "improve the quality of living, enhance the natural
beauty of the city" and "create a more attractive economic and business
climate".
In conclusion, we request that the City Council grant our request for a
variance which would in no way be detrimental to the spi.rit or the purpose
of the ordinance. l have attached a representation of the proposed Greyhound
sign which would be mounted with a simple iron bracket to the north face of
our building and require no illumination.
•
Mr. Michael H
r
PORT TOWNSENDo WASHINGTON 919368
\ F
Port Townsend Plannm* g Cornmusion.
CITY OF PORT TOWIrlSEND
FINDINGS of FACTOF TUE PLANNING CQMMLSSIQN
Date: July 2 , 1988
e: Variance Appl . 8307-0 3 , Jefferson Transit Authority
After respectful consideration of the above-referenced appli-
cation
►pp lcation including on-site inspection of the property, and after
timely notification and hearing, the Port Townsend Planning
Commission hereby submits to the city Council the following
findings and conclusions :
FiZICALMUSs of Fac t
. The applicant has installed a 100 square foot sign at its
facility at 1615 Sirs Way on a sign frame which is attached to
the roof of the structure. - The Fort Townsend Municipal Code
prohibits roof-mounted signs . o o B) . Theapplicant is
also requesting a additional two-sided sign which would be
4 ' ' . This would bring the applicants total signage up to 116
square feet. section 17 . 34 . 060 of the Fort Townsend Municipal
Code limits the total sign area for a single-occupant commercial
to loo square feet. A variance is sought from the above-
mentioned sections of the zoning code to allow- the existing roof-
mounted sign to remain and to permit the proposed sixteen square
foot two-sided Sign to be mounted.
2. The 100 square foot sign which is presently amounted on the
building contains the wording "Jefferson Transit''t'' along with the
applicant' s logo. The sign is wood and is 4 feet high and 25
feet long. The applicant states that the roof ' bracket on which
the sign is placed was pre-existing, has been ''historically the
location and placement of signage on the building'' , and that the
existing sign is smaller than the one it replaced at that
location. The applicant also maintains that the sign is not
detrimental to adjacent property owners .
. The proposed sixteen square foot sign would be mounted as a
two-sided metal projecting sign with the Greyhound bus company
logo displayed on both sides. The applicant states that the sign
provides "necessary information P4 and that disallowing ing tine sign
would create a hardship to the trareliing pi bl'i c.
The subject property is in the --I 1 zone 'at Sims Way- and
Hancock Street. sins Way ;mss the major thoroughfare serving
Planning omm s s i on Page 2
downtown Port Townsend. The area surrounding the subject
property is a mix of both commercial and residential . Ko s ec
Funeral. Home and the Bishop Park neighborhood are directly across
Sims Way from the facility, while the Castle Hill shopping center
is situated to the northeast . The area immediately south of the
site is predominately single-family residential .
Conclusions :
i
1 . Literal interpretation and strict application of the
provisions and .requirements of the sign code would not cause
hardship because of unique or unusual conditions pertaining to
the specific property Jn sues tion. Although an' economic hardship
o the applicant would be created by the removal and relocation
of the exp.s ting sign, it seers apparent that a Similar sign
placed on the building in compliance with the sign code would
also serge the applicant' s purposes . Furthermore, if such a sign
was 84 square feet or less, the proposed Greyhound sign would be
err �.�'ad.
. The granting of the variance would be materially detrimental
l
to other* property owners in the vicinity to the extent that roof-
mounted signs provide greater potential for obstruction or
distraction for both inotor i is and adjacent businesses .
Accordingly, granting of the proposed variance would doubtless
serve as ars inducement for future variance requests and be cite
as justification for granting same.
. The granting of the variance would be contrary to the objects
of this chapter relating to the placement of suns and the
reduction of clutter.
. Because the request does not meet the criteria for variance
from the sign code, would be contrary to the purposes set forth
by the city council in enactment of the sign- code and would b
precedent constitute an amendment'.. de facto, the Port Townsend
Planning commission recommends that the application be DEFIED.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Port Townsend Planning
Commission,
Donald Hoglund, Chr. , Review Committee
Gust 1_ ist
Do you wish to
NAME (please print) ADDRESS present testimony?
YES NO
//(x rson (00,c/00,
El
�. WAVOr
on ��/ 615 129 QU�n�
O O
i
O D
D O
0 0
0 0
o ❑
a o
o a
.Igo
Do you wish to
• NAME (please printf ADDRESS present testimony?
S' I/P 44 YES NO
-00
TU ABo bog w(LSary
i
O � O
(� 6S Q 4) l� Sa �cJ
S� l,�\sa,,. �5 � '— � 11;x ,.. N�/lock O ❑
BFRT Q• L3Qd�/S )2:24 /y'" n � T . C✓7D
G/Yen r,"4 O O
o � o
r7l-ee 0�v6zezzg
- LTJ ❑
L
El r�--
dA nt� J 7,
4 Z7 lh-, Plk
A7