Stafford County
BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS
MINUTES JUNE 27,
2006
———————————————————————————————————————
The regular meeting of the
Stafford County Board of Zoning Appeals on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 was called to
order with the determination of a quorum at 7:06 p.m. by Chairman Nick
Kopchinsky in the Board of Supervisor’s Chambers in the Stafford County Government Center. Mr. Kopchinsky introduced the Board
members and staff and explained to the public present, the purpose, function and
process of the Board of Zoning Appeals. He asked the members of the public who
planned to speak at this meeting to please stand and raise their right hand,
swearing or affirming to tell the truth.
Mr. Kopchinsky said the By-laws
of this Board state that the applicant is allowed up to ten minutes to state
their case, the other speakers are allowed up to three minutes to testify, and
the applicant is allowed up to three minutes for rebuttal.
Members Present:
Nick Kopchinsky, Larry
Ingalls, John Overbey, and Steven Beauch
Members Absent:
Julie Rutledge, Cecelia
Kirkman and Angelo Amador
Staff Present:
Rachel Hudson, Deputy Zoning
Administrator
Steve
Hubble, Environmental Programs Coordinator
Wanda Doherty, Recording Secretary
Declarations of
Disqualification’s:
Mr. Ingalls
– SE06-/2600341 - Mr. Chairman I will have to
abstain because a firm I work for does work for the Stafford County Utilities
Department.
Mr. Kopchinsky said he would
like to restate that it takes four positive votes to approve an application,
appeal or special exception. Since
there are only four members present and one is abstaining from one case, the
applicant in that case may want to wait to see if other members show up. If no one else shows up we will not be
able to hear the Stafford County Board of Supervisors request tonight. He said there may also be some
hesitation on the part of some applicants who would like to have their cases
heard by the full Board or a larger Board.
Mr. Kopchinsky said if anyone feels this way he is providing the
opportunity to step forward and request a postponement of their
case.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS:
Ms. Hudson reviewed the following case for the
Board. Ms. Hudson reminded the
Board this case came before the Board in April and the case was left open as
requested by the applicant. She
said additional information was sent to the Board for review on this
case.
V06-2/2600163 - GROSS DOUGLAS &
ELIZABETH
- Requests Variances from Stafford County Code, Section 38(b),"Performance
Regulations", and Section 28-273, "Nonconforming
Structures", to allow an
addition to an existing nonconforming structure on Assessor's Parcel 58B-1D-13.
The property is zoned R-1, Suburban Residential, and is a corner lot located at
406 Rumford
Road, Tylerton Subdivision.
Mr.
Kopchinsky asked the applicant to come forward.
Mr.
Douglas Gross said there was a mistake on tonight’s agenda; I am not here to
request a variance on the Performance Regulations Sections 28-38(b). He said he is present only to request a
variance on Section 28-273, the setback requirements are not being requested for
a variance tonight.
Mr.
Kopchinsky asked Mr. Gross to wait and he would start his time again. Mr. Kopchinsky said he needed to see
what Mr. Gross was talking about.
Mr. Kopchinsky said he wished he had some legal advice. Mr. Kopchinsky said the advertisement
went out under a variance of setback requirements.
Ms.
Hudson said the advertisement went out for both 28-38(b) and 28-273. She said in the past if we have
additional code sections to add those have to be advertised but if one is going
to be deleted it does not have to be advertised.
Mr.
Kopchinsky asked Mr. Gross to continue.
Mr.
Gross presented a power point presentation to the Board and read information
submitted to the Board to review prior to the meeting. Mr. Gross discussed his belief that his
property is grandfathered, a supreme court ruling similar to his, his belief
that hardship is met and those are some of the reasons why he does not need a
variance. Mr. Gross said he is
requesting the Board to grant a variance to remove the restrictive nature of
Stafford County Ordinance 28-273(a) that prevents us from adding square footage
to a pre-existing legal use non-conforming structure. He said with the understanding that the
proposed addition would not alter or enlarge the pre-existing non-conformity in
anyway. He also recommends that if
the Board believes that it is warranted to impose special conditions to the
variance and or request or guarantee a bond that being imposed would ensure that
all work performed would not alter the preexisting non-conformity in anyway.
Mr.
Kopchinsky asked the Board if they had any questions for the applicant. Mr. Kopchinsky reminded Mr. Gross of the
information given to him and Ms. Gross regarding the proposed Ordinance change
going to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Kopchinsky said the Board had recommended that Mr. & Mrs. Gross waits to see what the
Board of Supervisors does with the Ordinance and asked Mr. Gross why they are
continuing before a Board of Supervisors decision is made.
Mr.
Gross said he has a contractor that is getting ready to retire this year and he
is against a bind in time. He said
he had also discussed the development of the proposed Ordinance with
Supervisor
Pete Fields. Mr. Gross said he
honestly does not believe the Ordinance would hold water very long given the
specific penalty of the state code.
The new Ordinance will put the Board in a bind where they will have a
person requesting a variance for the non-conforming section of a home and if
granted it would be against state code.
Currently the code being applied does not discriminate between
non-conformities.
Mr.
Kopchinsky said if the new Ordinance passes it only has to hold up for your
request because once it is granted you are good to go.
Mr.
Gross said that is probably true but I don’t think it is the right thing to do
and it could be good in the short term.
Mr.
Overbey said Mr. Gross I think you could be wrong in your assumptions that the
new Ordinance if passed would not hold water because several localities in the
state are already using the special exception process to grant an increase to
nonconforming structures. He said
the City of Alexandria uses that method to increase
nonconforming structures at the present time and it has not been challenged by
anyone.
Mr.
Gross said maybe he was not clear.
He said granted the special exception would work in his case but if he
was asking for a variance to the other side of his house for the nonconforming
section of my home and it was granted it would be against state law.
Mr.
Overbey said we are going by what is in the code and according to our code your
whole house is nonconforming and not just a 400 foot section.
Mr.
Kopchinsky said he had a question about your presentation where you said a
denial would effectively confiscate 200 square feet and what 200 square feet is
that.
Mr.
Gross said the nonconforming section of his home. He said in the Cochran ruling it was
very specific that there are other options available independent of a variance
to proceed with construction.
Mr.
Kopchinsky asked Mr. Gross if he has seen the proposed Ordinance going to the
Board of
Supervisors
in August.
Mr.
Gross said yes and he had attended the Planning Commission meeting.
Mr.
Kopchinsky said he again would like to remind the applicant there are only four
members of the Board in attendance tonight and he has to have a positive vote
from all four members. He said if
your request is not approved and the new Ordinance is approved by the Board of
Supervisors this case is closed and if you want to come back for a Special
Exception you are
going
to have to re-apply. He said that
because of changes in fees a few years ago that is not a cheap way to go. Mr. Kopchinsky asked again why Mr. Gross
did not want to wait and I will give you the same opportunity this time as last
time to postpone.
Mr.
Gross said thank you for the offer.
Mr.
Kopchinsky asked the Board if they had any questions for the applicant and being
none he thanked the applicant and informed him he would have another opportunity
to address the Board.
Mr. Kopchinsky opened the Public Hearing for
other comments.
Opponents: None
Proponents:
None
Mr.
Kopchinsky gave the applicants a final opportunity to speak.
Mr. Gross said he would like to address one
more point. He said he agrees with
what the code says. He said his
interpretation that he would like the Board to consider is the fact it is
telling you, you can expand or extend by itself. He said it does not preclude the
nonconformity and does indicate you shall not expand the structure for which is
the nonconformity building structure and is two separate codes within the
state. He said he understands that
Stafford considers it one code hence my request
for a variance.
Mr. Kopchinsky closed the public
hearing.
Motion:
Mr.
Overbey made the motion to deny the request for a variance.
Mr.
Beauch seconded the motion to deny.
Mr.
Overbey said he made the motion to deny because he does not believe the request
meets the requirements for a variance.
He said this is a nonconforming structure, the whole structure is
nonconforming
not just a portion of it according to our county code and that is the reason I
made the motion.
Mr.
Beauch said he seconded primarily so the Board could have discussion because
they could
go
either way. He said he believes
relief is coming down the road and believes we should stick strictly with the
law.
Mr.
Ingalls said he is currently inclined to vote against the motion because he
believes it is a hardship. He said
it is a hardship not created by Mr. Gross.
He said he agrees with some of what was presented tonight. He said he did not agree with all of
what the applicant talked about in terms of the legal stuff. He said through no fault of his own the
County changed the code and that has created a hardship. He said in light of the Cochran case as
Mr. Gross pointed out we could certainly say this is a hardship and it is
confiscating where he can no longer do any thing with his home. He said therefore he is inclined to vote
against the motion.
Mr.
Kopchinsky said he is calling for the vote on the motion by Mr. Overbey and
seconded by Mr. Beauch.
Vote:
Motion failed
3-1
Mr. Ingalls –
no
Mr. Kopchinsky –
yes
Mr. Overbey –
yes
Mr. Beauch –
yes
Mr. Kopchinsky said the motion fails 3-1 to
deny, do we have another motion.
Mr. Kopchinsky said we can still make another
motion if Mr. Ingalls would like to make a motion to approve with
modifications.
Mr. Ingalls made the motion to grant the
request for variance of ten feet.
Mr. Kopchinsky said we have a motion to grant
a variance of ten feet as originally submitted to us.
Mr. Beauch said so the Board can discuss he
will second the motion.
Mr. Ingalls said again he feels like it is
the right thing to do because even in light of the Cochran case these are
structures and families that the County has confiscated property by changing the
setbacks on structures that were built in conformity when they were
built.
Mr. Kopchinsky said he would like to point
out that Mr. Gross brought out that he really was not looking for ten feet and
really just trying to get a variance from section 28-273(a). He said if we grant the ten feet the
applicant would have a right to do anything with his property because his
setback would be reduced to what it is currently. He said which is the normal procedure in
these cases for variances. He said
he believes this Board is sympathic as to Mr. Ingalls argument and have
submitted over the past several years to the Board of Supervisors
recommendations that
they may want to reconsider how they treat
nonconformities in the County. He
said that has not yet occurred and clear language of the Ordinance unfortunately
says you may not enlarge including square footage. He said he did not feel he could support
the motion at this time.
Mr. Beauch said Mr. Ingalls could modify his
motion to restrict the footprint of the house. He said he did not know if that would
help. He said the way the motion
stands the applicant could expand the footprint of the house.
Mr. Ingalls said he would consider modifying
the motion because the Board can put conditions on
variances.
Mr. Ingalls said he was modifying his motion
to grant a ten foot variance but the footprint of the current house not be
increased.
Mr. Beauch seconded the
motion.
Mr.
Kopchinsky said he is calling for the vote on the motion by Mr. Ingalls for a
setback variance of ten feet and the footprint of the house on the ground not be
increased and seconded by Mr. Beauch.
Vote:
Motion failed
2-2
Mr. Ingalls –
yes
Mr. Kopchinsky –
no
Mr. Overbey –
no
Mr. Beauch –
yes
Mr. Kopchinsky said the motion fails 2-2.
Mr. Kopchinsky informed Mr. Gross he would
receive a letter in the mail and has 30 days in which to appeal to the circuit
court if that is his decision.
Ms. Hudson reviewed the following case for
the Board. Ms. Hudson said she is
aware that Mr. Walter Sheffield attorney for the applicant is present tonight
and has some additional documentation for the Board and staff.
A06-1/2600164 - ANTHONY &
RICHARD KIM -
Appeal of the Deputy Zoning Administrator's letter dated December 9, 2005
regarding Motor Vehicle Dealer Board Certification for selling used vehicles on
Assessor's Parcel 38-31 located at 1421 Jefferson Davis
Highway.
Mr. Kopchinsky asked if the
Board had an questions of County staff and being none he asked the
applicant or person
representing the applicant to come forward.
Walter Sheffield said he is the
attorney representing the applicants.
Mr. Kopchinsky said he did not
have authorization in his packet for Mr. Sheffield to speak for the applicants
Misters Anthony and Richard Kim.
Mr. Anthony Kim said he and his
brother to his left have given Mr. Sheffield permission to represent
them.
Mr. Sheffield said they would
like to distribute several packets to the Board. He said this case is an appeal of the
Deputy Zoning Administrator’s ruling of December 9, 2005. He said they have been unable to get the
facts together and to you until very recently. He said they will be asking tonight if
you would like to pass the appeal that would be fine, but they would also be
fine with the case being sent back to Ms. Hudson for her consideration.
Mr. Sheffield said the property
being discussed has been one of the biggest eye sores for years. He discussed the previous owners and the
use they made of the property such as vehicle salvage, repair and sales. He said two years ago one of the
previous owners passed away and the property was sold to the Kim’s. He said the previous owner known as
Norman’s garage
would tow vehicles, sell parts, fix up vehicles and sell vehicles. He said when the property was turned
over to the Kim’s everything has been fine except Ms. Hudson did not have
sufficient facts before her to know if there had been vehicles purchased and
sold on the property. He said they have been trying to get
factual information to provide to the Board and Ms. Hudson and that is what is
being given to you tonight. He said
included in the packet are affidavits stating vehicles were routinely sold on
the property. Mr. Sheffield
introduced Mr. Anthony Kim.
Mr. Kim said they are not
trying to expand the usage of the property. He informed the Board of all the
improvements they have made to the property.
Mr.
Kopchinsky asked the Board if they had any questions for the applicant and being
none he thanked the applicant and informed him he would have another opportunity
to address the Board.
Mr.
Ingalls said in the Deputy County Attorney’s letter she talked about types of
evidence as being business license, tax returns, business transaction receipts,
and dated aerial photographs. Do
you have any of that information?
Mr.
Sheffield said they have photographs that show vehicles that were bought and
sold. He said they have much of the
information referred too. He said
they may be able to come up with some of the documents but the only surviving
previous owner is in bad health. He
said they obtained the affidavits because they could not locate original
documentation.
Mr.
Ingalls said from the affidavits and what you are saying that over the years the
previous owner bought and sold cars.
Mr.
Sheffield said he did see several hundred vehicle titles that the previous owner
had and he did not think the Board could find anyone who would say the buying
and selling of vehicles did not occur.
Mr. Beauch asked wasn’t there a long period
of time that nothing transpired on that property. He said he has driven by there and the
only thing that appeared to happen was the trees grew for ten or more
years.
Mr. Sheffield said the previous owners lived
on the property but their activities continued with buying and selling of parts
and vehicles.
Mr. Kim said a vehicle salvage yard is a
natural place to sell cars.
Mr. Kopchinsky asked if the applicant had
attempted to contact DMV to see if they had previously issued an authorization
for a legal car dealership on this property.
Mr. Sheffield said the previous owner did not
have a legal used car dealer license but he had a salvage license and under the
law in the Commonwealth of Virginia a salvage yard is permitted to
buy and sell used vehicles.
Mr. Kopchinsky said the County Ordinance says he can sell inoperable
vehicles. He said you are
surrounded by M-1 zoning, have you considered perhaps a rezoning request and
perhaps a conditional use permit so everything would be above board and meets
every part of the Ordinance.
Mr. Sheffield said when the business was
purchased we wanted to make sure we got what we paid for and once it is cleaned
up the owners want to stop and assess the future and that is something to
consider.
Mr. Kopchinsky opened the Public Hearing for
other comments.
Opponents: None
Proponents:
None
Mr.
Kopchinsky gave the applicants a final opportunity to speak.
Mr.
Sheffield said with the evidence provided and explained candidly why it has been
so difficult to amass this type of evidence, that is really what went
there. He said the business that
was there
is
what we want and we hope you will approve it tonight or refer the case back to
Ms. Hudson and we could come back another night if necessary.
Mr.
Kopchinsky said before he closes the public hearing is your request to postpone
or keep the hearing open and send the material back to the Zoning Administrator
for review and depending on the decision you can come back here one time and
finish this. He asked if the
applicants request to table the application at this time and allow staff to
review the documentation they have not seen.
Mr.
Sheffield said they trust the staff to look at things honestly and would like
the information to go back to staff for recommendation. He said he would like the application to
be tabled.
Motion:
Mr.
Overbey made the motion to table the case to allow County staff additional time
to review the new documentation provided tonight and provide additional input if
required.
Mr.
Ingalls seconded the motion.
Mr.
Kopchinsky said he is calling for the vote on the motion by Mr. Overbey and
seconded by Mr. Ingalls.
Vote:
Motion carried
4-0
Mr. Ingalls –
yes
Mr. Kopchinsky –
yes
Mr. Overbey –
yes
Mr. Beauch –
yes
Mr. Kopchinsky said the motion carries 4-0
this case is tabled and will be rescheduled after staff reviews and talks to the
applicant some more.
Ms. Hudson reviewed the following case for
the Board.
V06-06/2600340 - FULTON TERRY L & ROBIN
- Requests Variances from Stafford County
Code, Section 35, Table 3.1 "District Uses & Standards", R-1, Suburban
Residential, Section 28-38(b) "Corner Lots" for front yard requirement to allow
an addition to a single family dwelling on Assessor's Parcel 46C-2-45. This property is zoned R-1, Rural
Suburban is located at 101 Pecan
Lane, Bel Air
Heights
subdivision.
Mr. Kopchinsky asked if the
Board had any questions of County staff and being none he asked the applicant or
person representing the applicant to come forward.
Mr. Kopchinsky asked Ms. Hudson to clarify
where we get into the open carport does it count against the
setback.
Ms. Hudson said we allow an open carport to
encroach the same as an open porch.
Mr. Kopchinsky basically six feet and that is
it and Ms. Hudson said that was correct.
Terry Fulton said most of the information is
in the package but they wanted to bring up a few additional points tonight. He said they tried to take pictures and
show the hardship. He said the
house was built in 1963 and they have plenty of room on the left side of the
house. He said the biggest problem
they are having now as shown in the pictures is their oldest daughter is
handicapped with limited mobility and we have to transport her to different
activities such as doctor’s appointments.
He said when you put the van in the carport the vehicle lift extends
outside the carport into the weather (rain, snow, sleet) and she gets wet. He said they are thinking to pull the
vehicle in to a garage so she can be on and off loaded out of the weather. He said the original plans we ask for
the carport and an additional twenty feet.
He said I stand here and tell you it was my hope to put a two car garage
in there. He said now we are only
seeking to have access to an enclosed garage for our daughter. He said if they have to come down
in footage they are willing to do that.
He said the pictures speak for themselves as far as the hardship his
daughter has to incur.
Mr. Kopchinsky asked if the Board had
questions for the applicant.
Mr. Beauch asked if the carport was being
enclosed as a garage and Mr. Fulton said that was correct.
Mr. Ingalls asked if the existing carport
would become a living place.
Mr. Fulton said no it would be a single car
garage.
Mr. Ingalls said that would put you
approximately 7.9 feet from the right-a-way of Belair Place.
He said from the pictures you have room to
add a slab to the existing carport to have more room for the wheelchair but it
would still be in the open weather.
Mr. Fulton said they have looked at many
different options but this option would be best to eliminate the elements. He said once we found out about the
zoning Ordinances they talked it over and we will only ask for the single car
garage to support my daughter.
Mr. Ingalls asked if they had considered
moving the garage to the other side of the house.
Mr. Fulton said yes sir, but with a brick
home there is no real way to access on that end of the house because there are
two bedrooms there.
Mr. Ingalls discussed the dimensions with Ms.
Hudson.
Mr. Overbey asked how long have they have
lived there and Mr. Fulton said since 1997.
The Board discussed other options with staff
such as free standing, smaller addition and other suggestions exhausting all
viable options.
Mr. Kopchinsky opened the Public Hearing for
other comments.
Opponents: None
Proponents:
None
Mr.
Kopchinsky gave the applicants a final opportunity to speak.
Mr.
Fulton said they are basically asking for six feet to extend the carport to an
enclosed driveway to keep our daughter out of the elements.
Mr.
Kopchinsky reminded Mr. Fulton of the procedures with it being only 4 members
present and Mr. Fulton said he would like to continue
tonight.
Mr.
Fulton said if he waits any longer if the request is approved he will not have
time to build the garage before winter.
Mr.
Kopchinsky closed the public hearing.
Motion:
Mr.
Beauch made the motion to approve for no more than a 6’ extension for an
enclosed garage.
Mr.
Overbey seconded the motion.
Mr.
Beauch said he made the motion because it meets the requirement of our Ordinance
and I don’t see relief from the Board of Supervisors for this. He said he also made the motion because
of the hardship and medical necessity that exist.
Mr.
Ingalls said he was trying to understand the motion. He said, you are saying he can build an
enclosed
garage that extends 6’ past the carport.
Mr.
Beauch said that was correct.
Mr.
Ingalls said he was just trying to understand the measurement details.
Mr.
Overbey said when he seconded the motion he made it for discussion and will vote
in favor of the motion. He said he
knows what the Ordinance says and I agree with Mr. Beauch on the medical and I
know we are not supposed to consider Medical. He said he believes this is a hardship
on the family.
Mr.
Beauch said he puts himself in the Fulton’s place and hopes the Board can grant
this variance.
Mr.
Ingalls said this is one of our oldest subdivisions even before zoning and who
would have thought in 1963 what we would be doing today. He said why they set the house where
they did and being built prior to any zoning it was not thought about. He said he agrees with Mr. Beauch and
inclined to vote for the motion.
Mr.
Kopchinsky said these are some of the hardest cases we get and we have had
medical issues before and probably looked like ogres on them. He said the zoning Ordinance change made
the setback requirements what they are.
He said Mr. Beauch’s motion is providing the least amount variance
possible to accommodate a horrible situation and he is inclined to support the
motion.
Mr.
Ingalls said the reason I will probably vote for the motion is I believe you
have a house set up a certain way with no zoning and nobody worried about
it. He said he is looking at it
strictly on the merits of building a garage. He said he hears the medical situation,
but I am not basing my vote on that and believe this is a hardship and would
consider it the same way without the medical situation.
Mr.
Kopchinsky said he is calling for the vote on the motion by Mr. Beauch and
seconded by Mr. Overbey to approve the variance which amounts to an 8.1 foot
variance with enclosed structure.
Vote:
Motion carries
4-0
Mr. Ingalls –
yes
Mr. Kopchinsky –
yes
Mr. Overbey –
yes
Mr. Beauch –
yes
Mr. Kopchinsky said the motion carries 4-0.
Mr. Kopchinsky said Stafford County Board of
Supervisors is next and we do not have any more members present and Mr. Ingalls
has abstained. He said you can stay
to see if another member of the Board shows up or you can postpone until next
month.
Mr. Dayton said he would request the case be
postponed to next month.
SE06-3/2600341 - STAFFORD COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS - Requests a Special Exception
per Stafford County Code, Section 28-57(h)(3)a "Flood Hazard Overlay District",
to allow construction of a dam across Rocky Pen Run for the purpose of creating
a reservoir on
Assessor's Parcel 43-73A zoned
A-1 Agricultural.
The Board took a ten minute recess.
Mr.
Kopchinsky asked if the applicants for case SE06-4/2600342 Christopher &
April Perez were in the audience.
SE06-4/2600342 - CHRISTOPHER E.
& APRIL D. PEREZ - Requests a Special Exception
per Stafford County Code, Section 28-35 Table 3.1 "District Uses &
Standards" to allow parking a commercial vehicle on Assessor's Parcel 18G-5-49,
zoned A-2, Rural Residential, and is located at 2 Rosepetal Street, Rosedale
subdivision.
Mr.
Kopchinsky said the applicant is not present. He said because we do not know if there
was a medical or some other kind of emergency involved we will postpone and have
staff make contact with the applicant and hear the case at the next meeting.
Mr.
Overbey said he appreciates the folks in the audience for staying but our past
practice has been to postpone. He
said since this is the first time hearing this case we should postpone and if
they do not show up next month the Board will deal with it at that
time.
Mr.
Overbey made the motion to postpone the case to the next
meeting.
Mr.
Beauch seconded.
Mr.
Kopchinsky said he is calling for the vote on the motion by Mr. Overbey and
seconded by Mr. Beauch to postpone the case to the next meeting.
Vote:
Motion carries
4-0
Mr. Ingalls –
yes
Mr. Kopchinsky –
yes
Mr. Overbey –
yes
Mr. Beauch –
yes
Mr. Kopchinsky said the motion carries 4-0.
Mr. Kopchinsky apologized to the
neighbors saying had he known the applicant was not present he would have heard
the case earlier in the meeting so the neighbors did not have to stay so
long.
One of the neighbors expressed his dissatisfaction saying
he could not attend the next meeting.
Mr.
Kopchinsky apologized again and said the Board has an obligation to hear the
case and the Ordinance also says even though the applicant is in violation of
the Ordinance once he files an application the Board has to hear
it.
Mr.
Kopchinsky explained to the neighbors that a public hearing was not opened on
the case and therefore the Board could not hear their
complaints.
Mr.
Overbey said it would not be fair to the applicant to not hear what was
said.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Mr. | 
