HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-01-17 Bd Comm minutesmr-"9?"
4b(1)
MINUTES
IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2016
EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
410 E. WASHINGTON STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
MEMBERS PRESENT: John Roffman, Scott McDonough, John Gay, Andrea French, Jim Walker
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Doug Boothroy (Director, Neighborhood and Development Services) (Tim Hennes
(Sr. Building Inspector), Sue Dulek (Asst. CityAttorney), John Yapp (Development
Services Coordinator), Brian Greer (Fire Marshall), Roger Jensen (Deputy Fire
Chief), Jason Havel (City Engineer), Jann Ream (Code Enforcement Specialist)
OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Parmenter, Jim Larew, Robert Hatala, Craig Syrop, Chris Rossi, Patricia
Koza, Brad Erickson, Karin Southard
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
None
CALL TO ORDER:
John Roffman called the meeting to order at 4:05 PM
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES:
McDonough moved to approve the meeting minutes of August 1, 2016.
French seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
Appeal the decision of the Building Official and/or Fire Chief because the Building Official/Fire Chief has
incorrectly interpreted a provision of the code. (101 Lusk Avenue)
Roffman began by asking for a clarification regarding this case as he has a real concern as to whether the
Board should even be hearing this since the Appellant has filed in court to hear the same case.
Mark Parmenter explained that he is retained to represent the Board of Appeals and offer legal advice.
Parmenter stated he has reviewed all the documents and submissions that have been presented to the
Board (who has seen all the copies as well). The Neighbors of Manville Heights Association and related
parties have made a request to be heard before the Board of Appeals. In their application, they request a
hearing to contest an action dated October 19, 2016, a Lift Stop Work Order "a decision made by building
official Doug Boothroy". Parmenter noted that Iowa City Code section 17-12-2 outlines the procedure for
making appeals to the Board of Appeals. The Code provides that the Board of Appeals has jurisdiction to
APPROVED
hear an appeal from any person aggrieved by the decision of the Building Official or the Fire Chief with
regard to the Building Code or Fire Code and may file an appeal to the Board of Appeals within 30 days of
that decision. "A decision" means any decision, determination, direction, notice, finding or order of the
Building Official or the Fire Chief. The Board of Appeals may, by a majority, vote, reverse a decision by
the Building Official or Fire Chief based on the Building Code or Fire Code only if it finds that, and in this
case, a claim that the Building Official has incorrectly interpreted a provision of the Code.
Parmenter next gave some background information regarding the situation as he felt it would be helpful for
the Board. On June 29, 2016, Manville Heights appealed to the Board of Adjustment a decision by the
City of Iowa City to issue a building permit to the Carlsons to construct a structure at 101 Lusk Avenue.
The appeal identified and cited numerous City Code sections that Manville Heights believed were violated
when the City issued the building permit for the structure. That same day the City of Iowa City issued a
Stop Work Order on the building permit. The Iowa City Board of Adjustment met on September 14,
September 21, and September 30, 2016, and voted on the Manville Heights appeal. A motion was made
by one of the Board members to grant the appeal made by Manville Heights. The vote was a 2-2 vote and
the City's decision to issue the building permit was upheld. Manville Heights then filed their writ of
certiorari on October 5, 2016, with the Iowa District Court in Iowa City seeking relief from the Board of
Adjustments decision. That lawsuit is currently pending in the District Court. The Board of Adjustment's
written decision was filed on October 19, 2016, and that same day the City of Iowa City lifted the Stop
Work Order it had issued in June 2016. Manville Heights has now made this request before the Board of
Appeals on November 15, 2016.
As counsel for the Board of Appeals, Parmenter stated he has several concerns with this appeal. First,
when Manville Heights filed their petition of writ of certiorari essentially appealing the decision of the Board
of Adjustment, they allege in their petition the District Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the writ of
certiorari. This means the Court has the power to hear and make the determination that the general
issues raised in the Writ. Because the District Court has jurisdiction over these issues, essentially the
same issues that appear will be presented to this Board tonight, Parmenter stated he is of the opinion that
the Board of Appeals is without jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Parmenter stated Manville Heights
consented to the jurisdiction of the District Court and that Court now has jurisdiction over the issues raised
at the Board of Adjustment and the issues which appears that Manville Heights wishes this Board to take
up tonight.
Second, allowing Manville Heights to appeal some of the same issues that were before the Board of
Adjustment, now in litigation, to this Board may create conflicting decision between the Board of
Adjustment and the Board of Appeals if the Board of Appeals were to vote to reverse "a decision" by the
Building Official.
Third, even if this Board has jurisdiction to hear this appeal, which Parmenter does not believe it does, he
is of the opinion that lifting the Stop Work Order is not a "decision" by a Building Official. As stated before,
section 17-12-2 of the Iowa City Codes provides that any person aggrieved by a decision of the Building
Official or the Fire Chief with regard to the Building Code or Fire Code may file an appeal to the Board of
Appeals within 30 days of that decision. The first issue is whether lifting a Stop Work Order was a
"decision" by a Building Official. Chapter 414.11 of the Iowa Code provides that when an appeal is made
to the Board of Adjustment an appeal stays all proceedings in furtherance of action appealed from, in this
case the building permit. Parmenter is of the opinion that Chapter 414.11 required the City by an operation
of law to issue the Stop Work Order when the appeal was made to the Board of Adjustment. The purpose
of the Stop Work Order was to stay those proceedings until the matter had been appealed to and decided
by the Board of Adjustment. Parmenter stated his interpretation of Chapter 414.11 required the City to
issue the Stop Work Order until the matter had come before the Board of Adjustment and a decision was
made by the Board. The Stop Work Order remained in place until the Board of Adjustment voted in not
finding error in the City's decision to issue the building permit and until the Board of Adjustment's decision
was filed on October 19, 2016. There was no choice, no decision by the City to issue the Stop Work
Order, or to lift the Stop Work Order. Therefore, Parmenter is of the opinion that there was no decision,
determination, direction, notice, finding or order one way or the other that was made by the Building
APPROVED
Official. Instead issuing and lifting the Stop Work Order was by operation of law. It is Parmenter's
recommendation to the Board of Appeals to move to deny the appeal for the following reasons:
1. The Board of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to hear the issues raised in this appeal as
jurisdiction now lies with the Iowa District Court.
2. The Board of Adjustment previously ruled on the issues presented in this appeal.
3. Lifting the Stop Work Order was by operation of law not a "decision" made by a building official
and, therefore, this Board does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal that contests lifting the Stop
Work Order dated October 19, 2016.
Roffman asked if any other members of the Board had questions for Parmenter.
McDonough asked if the Board is to proceed on and hypothetically voted opposite of the Board of
Adjustment, what happens next. Parmenter said that would be overturning a "decision" of the Building
Official and what could happen is the City could sue the Board of Appeals because this Board did not rule
correctly pursuant to Iowa law.
Jim Larew representing the appellants asked to speak before the Board voted. Larew stated he strongly
disagrees with some of the statements made by Mr. Parmenter, specifically the factual representation of
what has been determined so far and what has not. Secondly, Larew noted he has a series of reasons
why the appellants must be here before the Board of Appeals in order to protect the rights they feel the
citizens of Iowa City have in this neighborhood.
Larew began by stating that the role of the Board of Appeals is to hear conflicts that have occurred
between a City Official and a citizen who have a disagreement about a particular rule. So they are in
relationship with each other when a decision is made and they notice that they have an opportunity to
come before the Board of Appeals if they wish to. In this case, the appellants are third parties to a
relationship between the Carlsons, who are the owners of 101 Lusk Avenue, and the City. Most of what
happened between those two parties was completely unknown to others in the neighborhood. With
regards to the timeline, on June 20, 2016, a group of citizens (50 persons) met on the street corner of Lusk
Avenue and Lexington Avenue because they had heard, with a day's notice, that something had been
approved, but didn't know what had been approved. They heard it was a very large building, and heard it
would be attracting large numbers of people. Several members of the group had gone to the City to
inquire but felt they were not given complete or accurate information. The very next day, by chance, was a
City Council meeting and the Appellants appeared at that meeting to speak about the issue and what little
they knew at that time. The Appellants were told by the City Council they would put the topic on the
agenda for the next meeting in two weeks so it could be discussed. On June 24, 2016, the City issued a
memorandum to Bill Ackerman, who is a member of the Manville Heights group, and copied it to Mr.
Larew, that stated what the appeal rights were. It stated if they wanted to appeal a building permit
decision, which was made on May 25, 2016, they needed to go before the Board of Adjustment. The
Appellants then immediately appealed to the Board of Adjustment. Additionally, three weeks after that
building permit was issued on May 25, 2016, there was a suspension issued of that permit because there
had been a serious issue found with that permit, and then as the Appellants learned of the permit the
suspension was lifted. At the Board of Adjustment meetings, the City argued, Mr. Parmenter ruled, that a
number of the issues the Appellants raised on their appeal (because that is where they were directed to go
by the City) could not be heard by the Board of Adjustment. For example, they ruled that Fire Code
violations were not Board of Adjustment decisions, but rather Board of Appeals. They were also told the
plumbing code issues were not under purview of the Board of Adjustment. The Appellants raised the
concern that there was not an independent sewer line that met Code was provided for the property, and
again that would be an issue to be heard by the Board of Appeals. Larew stated it was in a dialogue .
between Boothroy and the Chairman of the Board of Adjustment, Larry Baker, where Baker directly asked
if the citizens were too late on their appeal. Boothroy replied that they were not too late. The only issue
ruled upon at the Board of Adjustment was if the classification decision correct. The Appellants had
contested if this proposed building was a single family dwelling. The Appellants argued that it was
something other than a single family dwelling and because it was not described in the Zoning Code it
should not be permitted or built. That was the only issue that was voted upon. Additionally, because one
APPROVED
member had recused herself, it was a 2-2 vote. There was no vote taken on the Fire Code nor the
Building Code because the City had briefed the Board that they could not vote on those issues.
When the Appellants left the Board of Adjustment proceedings, a stay had been lifted, and therefore the
Appellants felt they should be heard by the Board of Appeals. Had the Appellants been instructed on June
24, 2016, to go to the Board of Appeals they would have been here right away, but they were directed by
the City to take their appeal to the Board of Adjustment. Larew noted that the City has no obligation to
give legal advice to citizens, but if they do it should be correct.
Larew continued that this Board should hear that a building of this size was directed by the City to hook
the sewer line onto a private neighboring shared line, that the neighbors didn't even know about, that was
installed in 1927. Additionally, this Board should hear that the Fire Marshall made a serious mistake by
not imposing the mandatory provisions of the Fire Code having to do with turnarounds, location of fire
hydrants, and fire flow. Larew stated they only have before the District Court a writ of certiorari of if the
Board of Adjustment made the right decision and the only place for the decisions on the sewer issue and
Fire Codes is before the Board of Appeals.
Larew asserted that this property, once owned by Pauline Aspel for nearly 50 years, and was sold to
Prestige Properties (Mr. Oliveira) and who had presented a proposal for two small houses on the same
lot, was denied building permits because the City invoked the mandatory provisions of the Fire Code and
said there must be a turnaround on that street for emergency apparatus. Additionally, City Staff stated Mr.
Oliveira must provide independent sewer lines or show an easement if he were to tie onto a private sewer.
Larew acknowledged that situation for two individual properties is different than the current case; however,
the Code provisions are there and they ask the Board of Appeals to oversee the decision making process
of the City Staff and make its own determination.
Roffman asked for a point of clarification on the Court ruling and if that is only about if the building permit is
the proper classification and won't hear any of the other considerations such as plumbing or fire codes.
Larew said the Court will hear about the plumbing and fire code issues in that the Appellants will argue
about the definition of a single family dwelling, and that is must have a sanitation system. The appeal is
that the structure is not a single family dwelling. They are before this Board to decide if the plumbing code
has been followed.
Walker stated he doesn't really have a question but the plan he sees presented does look like a single
family dwelling. If he didn't know anything about their intent for the structure he would have to say it does
look like a single family dwelling. The City does have to adhere to the ordinances in place, which are there
to protect everyone, the neighborhood and the Carlsons; however, the Carlsons are building on a legal lot.
Larew replied that in terms of requesting mandatory Fire Code protections that state a turnaround must be
on a dead end street more than 150 feet, that should be enforced. Walker maintained that it is not their
(the Carlsons) responsibility to correct that. Larew said the responsibility is because of the size of the
dwelling.
McDonough questioned the timeline on September 14, 2016, and the wording on the Appellants
document. Larew apologized and said it meant to say that the instruction of the Board's attorney, Mr.
Parmenter, was that the Board was not to take into consideration issues outside of their purview, which
meant they did not have purview over the plumbing code or site plan.
Robert Hatala (attorney for Carlsons) began by stating he concurs with the position of Mr. Parmenter that
the Board of Appeals does not have jurisdiction and added a couple points. By Mr. Larew's own
admission, they knew at least by June 24, 2016 that there had been a building permit issued and, under
the rules of the Board of Appeals, they have 30 days from the time the decision is made (in this case the
issuance of the building permit) to appeal that to the Board. It is now almost six months later and they are
still dealing with this issue. Hatala noted an Iowa case, Arkae Development, Inc. v Zoning Board of
Adjustment City of Ames Iowa, Appellant No. 2-65649 has similar rationale regarding the 30 day period
running from the day that the person appealing had actual knowledge or was chargeable with knowledge
APPROVED
of the decision appealed from and the facts forming the basis of the objection. Hatala reiterated that this
case is almost six months out from when that decision was made and at least five months out from when
the Appellants knew about it so for that reason alone the appeal should be denied.
Hatala also commented on Mr. Larew stating that if the City is going to give legal advice; however, Hatala
doesn't believe a memorandum from the City is legal advice. What he really means is the City should be
estoppeld, which means once you've given an opinion you should not be able to change the position. An
estoppel is not generally applied to an action of a City Government.
McDonough questioned Hatala if he had read Mr. Larew's timeline and Hatala confirmed he had.
McDonough asked if there was anything Hatala disagreed with on Larew's timeline. Hatala replied that he
doesn't recall disagreeing with the timeline.
Larew noted that, if they are allowed to proceed, he will present an exhibit (exhibit W) that is a copy of the
memorandum that was issued and dated June 24, 2016, (from John Yapp, City Staff, to Bill Ackerman,
layperson and neighbor) states they had discussed an option of appeal and the memo was meant to
outline the appeal process, and directed them to the Board of Adjustment. Larew also stated that the
Appellants didn't know until August the full details of the plumbing code or fire code issues when they
received a copies of emails in response to a public records request. Therefore, there was no way for the
Appellants to file a proper appeal in 30 days when all the pertinent information was not obtained for
several months. Additionally the memo from City Staff instructing Bill Ackerman about the appeal process
was sent on June 24, 2016, 30 days after the issuance of the building permit, so it was already too late for
an appeal.
Hatala noted that when looking at the timeline, on June 21, 2016, the residents of Manville Heights
attended a City Council meeting and there was discussion at that meeting about Fire Code issues
(turnarounds, etc.); so, therefore, that shows the Appellants knew about these issues on June 21, 2016,
and the appeal should have at least been brought forth 30 days from that date.
Roffman stated that the decision the Board has first is whether or not they should hear the appeal.
McDonough said he went to the Board of Appeals website and reviewed the duties which are "To hold
appeal hearings on and determine the suitability of alternate materials and methods of construction and to
provide for reasonable interpretation of the International Building Code" and doesn't feel the Board is
qualified to know legally whether this holds any weight in court, but personally he signed up to be on this
Board and is willing to hear the case and make a decision.
Gay also stated he is not opposed to hearing both sides and their opinions.
McDonough moved to continue on and hear the appeal.
No second. motion dies.
Walker moved to deny the appeal.
Ream noted that is not a correct motion at this time.
Parmenter suggested a positive motion, have it seconded, and hold a vote and that will determine if the
appeal will be heard.
MOTION: Roffman moved that the Board move forward and hear both sides as it relates to the appeal that
has been presented to the Board of Appeals.
McDonough seconded the motion.
VOTE: Vote of 4 -1 to hear the appeal.
APPROVED
MOTION: Roffman moved that each side would have 45 minutes to present their case with a 15 minute
time limit for rebuttals. He also said each issue would be voted on separately, the lifting of the building
permit, the hearing of the appeal, and the Fire Code issues.
Andrea seconded the motion.
VOTE: A vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
Doug Boothroy (Director, Neighborhood and Development Services) presented first as to the City's
decision to issue the building permit and began by showing a map of the area and showing that Lusk
Avenue is a dead end street with 101 Lusk Avenue at the end of that street. Boothroy confirmed that the
building permit was issued on May 25, 2016, the Board of Adjustment received the appeal on June 29,
2016. Boothroy noted that between the time the permit was issued and the appeal was filed they had not
realized there was an appeal to the Fire and Plumbing Codes and that is why the memorandum only
addressed the zoning issue. Boothroy declared the City was surprised by the other appeals and did argue
before the Board of Adjustment that they were not relevant.
Boothroy reminded the Board of their duties, the appeal filed tonight includes a lot of other sections of
Code, and the Board only has jurisdiction over, by act of City Ordinance, the Building and Fire Code. The
Board bylaws specifically state that these are the only Codes under their purview as stated in City
Ordinance. Boothroy commented that the Stop Work Order has been discussed and explained by the
attorneys; it is required by Zoning Code that once a Stay has been decided, the Order is lifted and all
parties are notified. So the Code issues before the Board of Appeals are the building sewer compliance
(under the Plumbing Code) and the three Fire Code issues.
Boothroy declared that, when they issued the building permit in May, the existing house on the lot had
been removed. That house had been on a four -inch private sewer service that connected to a private
sewer main that had been permitted by the City in 1927. At that time, the City had issued a permit to
construct a sewer six -inches in size to allow for three houses to connect their building service lines to this
sewer main. That sewer main then connects back to the public sewer that is located in the street to the
north. Boothroy stated that one of the things that will be mentioned tonight is whether the private sewer
main has sufficient capacity and can function for this specific house. He confirmed that the information
that was provided to the City when they telescoped the service is that the six-inch private sewer main has
the capacity for a house so that is not in question. Boothroy acknowledged there is some confusion in the
documentation about when Mr. Oliveira was proposing to subdivide 101 Lusk Avenue and, at that time, the
engineer report was they could not extend the four -inch line as a private sewer to service two more
houses. Boothroy stated that, under the Subdivision Code, the City has the authority to require a sewer
upgrade. Therefore, at that time, the City exercised that authority with Mr. Oliveira saying he would have
to extend the public sewer main in order to add the additional houses. Boothroy said the other issues that
are raised such as the turnaround are also covered under the authority of the Subdivision Code to require
some additional enhancements to the public right-of-way. Mr. Oliveira was wishing to plat two additional
lots on Lusk Avenue and, therefore, that could also mean the property owner to the east could subdivide
his property - increasing the homes on Lusk Avenue even more. Therefore, the City had conversations
about the potential of having three or more lots coming off Lusk Avenue and exercised the authority they
had under the Subdivision Code. Boothroy reminded the Board that this case is not about a subdivision;
this is an infill lot on an existing street that is paved at 20 feet in width and the property owner is requesting
the ability to replace the house on the lot of existing record using a street of existing record. The City does
not have any authority to deny that particular building permit as long as it fully complies with the Plumbing
Code, Building Code, and Fire Code. The City believes that it does.
With regards to the sewer connection, Boothroy asserted that public sewer is available to the lot so
therefore there is not an issue. The issue for the neighbors to the north is they are not happy and would
like to terminate the sewer access that 101 Lusk Avenue has used since 1927. That sewer connection still
exists and is on lot 101 Lusk Avenue and does not require the property owner to encroach onto the other
two lots. So, the owner of 101 Lusk Avenue has that option, and whether or not that option will be allowed
by the other two lots is to be determined. However, there are other options to connect to public sewers
APPROVED
that are available on Bayard and Lexington or Rowland Court. The Carlsons can get access to these
sewers and the City has an obligation to provide access to these sewers. Boothroy confirmed that a
Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until adequate sewer is provided to the site. Therefore the
sewer question is not an issue, sewer is available, there are options, and that is why a building permit was
issued.
Boothroy showed the Board the sewer permit for the private sewer main.
McDonough asked for confirmation that the City has an obligation to provide sewer, and that there are
three options. Boothroy confirmed that is correct.
Walker asked if easements are required for the private sewer connection. Boothroy said that is up for
debate. At the time, the City permitted this private sewer service in 1927, an easement wasn't put in place
and over the years these properties were not aware they were not being serviced directly by public sewer.
Boothroy explained that this is not unusual and had a slide showing at least 20 other known properties
throughout Iowa City that were developed with private sewer connections.
Boothroy reiterated that sewer is available and the owners cannot occupy the structure until they provide
the sewer.
Boothroy stated that, when they looked at the building permit application, the City verified that there is
water available, there is a water hydrant right at the corner of the lot and there is sewer available. With a
single family house, a detailed drawing or engineered drawings are not required for structures regulated by
the International Residential Code and, when they do the sewer installation inspection, the plumbing
inspector does the drawings and confirms the size and location and that is the standard operating
procedure for every application that has been in place for decades.
With regards to the Fire Code, Boothroy confirmed this street (Lusk Avenue) does meet the fire access
requirements when constructed by the City in the 1930's as the street is 20 feet wide. The City also
chooses to allow parking on one side of such streets since the street does meet the 20 feet wide
requirement. Regarding the fire hydrants, there are two available to service this area and under the Fire
Code will provide the minimum fire flow as required. Finally, the fire apparatus turnaround is not required
(as listed under Fire Code section 104.8) as the Fire Chief can modify that requirement if he determines it
is impractical. The Fire Code states' Where there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the
provisions of this code, the fire code official shall have the authority to grant modifications for individual
cases, provided the fire code official shall first find that special individual reason makes the strict letter of
this code impractical and the modification is in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code and
that such modification does not lessen health, life and fire safety requirements." This has been done and
is in writing as a memo to the Board. This was also made available to the Board of Adjustment in a
different memo. The memo to the Board of Appeals is more detailed and done to clarify because there
were so many questions on the subject raised at the Board of Adjustment proceedings. Boothroy stated
there are multiple situations throughout the Iowa City community with infill lots where they have applied
this on a regular basis because they are lots of record. The standards with regards to the fire access and
fire turnaround are recent standards and the City does not deny the use of property based on the more
recent Code adoptions. Boothroy explained that this provision is in the Fire Code specifically to allow
flexibility. Boothroy showed Lusk Avenue, a 20 foot wide paved street with a 50 foot right-of-way.
Boothroy showed an example of another building permit issued for a house on Lucon Drive (a 16 foot wide
street with no fire turnaround) and have also approved new developments, a 32 house development on
Prairie Hills in southeast Iowa City where the street is 20 foot wide and no restriction for on -street parking.
Finally, Boothroy addressed the fire hydrant issue noting that there are two fire hydrants in the area. Fire
hydrant #1 is at the corner of the lot 101 Lusk Avenue and has a fire flow of 1564 gallons per minute. Fire
hydrant #2 is also available and has the added fire capacity to meet the minimum gallons per minute
needed. Boothroy also noted that the pumping capacity of a fire engine is only 1500 gallons per minute so
fire hydrant #1 more than exceeds the capability of providing water to the site. Because of the size of the
APPROVED
house proposed the Fire Code indicates that 2250 gallons per minute need to be provided in case of an
all-out fire. However, reading through that particular section of the Fire Code, it does state that the
number of fire hydrants available to a building shall not be less than the minimum specified in the table.
The table shows that, under the Fire Code, two hydrants are allowed to be used to make up that 2250
gallons per minute of water flow. Boothroy reiterated there are two fire hydrants available and the Deputy
Fire Chief is here tonight and can testify that it is adequate.
In conclusion, Boothroy stated the City issued the permit, the property had sewer service in place since
1927 and that the sewer line still exists on the property. Lusk Avenue meets the 20 foot minimum width
needed for Fire Code, there are hydrants available (one at the actual site and another nearby) within the
distance required and meet the minimum fire flow needed, and the turnaround is addressed with a memo
to the Board from the Deputy Fire Chief exercising his authority to make modifications. Boothroy stated
that 101 Lusk Avenue is an existing lot of record, on an existing street, and the property owner is asking
for the opportunity to build on it. They are not requesting that the property be subdivided or anything that
would give the City additional authority to exercise any of the provisions under the Subdivision Code.
Boothroy stated the Board's decision tonight is to decide if the City has misinterpreted the Code and must
be by majority vote. The City believes the appeal should be denied.
McDonough asked what would happen if 111 and/or 117 Lusk Avenue did a similar thing (tear down the
house and build a larger structure) and then the current sewer line is in the way. Boothroy explained that
one of the reasons the City requires direct connection to the public sewer is to avoid getting into this type
of debate over rights. That debate will be settled in court and not by this Board. All the City is concerned
about is that the private sewer may be an option or they can also use the public sewer. Boothroy admitted
it could be a future issue is 101 Lusk Avenue did use the private sewer line and in the future 111 or 117
Lusk Avenue terminated the sewer connections during a rebuild and the City would require resolution of
the issue before a building permit would be issued.
Walker stated that there are other options for sewer and Boothroy confirmed that yes, they can tie into the
public sewer and avoid the private connections.
McDonough noted that an ideal situation would be to have the sewer run down Lusk Avenue. Boothroy
agreed and said it could be on either side of the street because it can come in from either the east or west.
Boothroy reiterated that the sewer issue does not need to be resolved for this building to move forward,
the owners know they will not be issued a certificate of occupancy without sewer service.
Walker asked if the difference with what Mr. Oliveira wanted to do is he wanted to subdivide the lot and in
doing so gave the City more ordinances to draw from to regulate. Boothroy confirmed that was true, the
Carlsons are not subdividing the lot; they are building on an infill lot. Boothroy also noted that if Mr.
Oliveira had subdivided his lot, the neighbor on the east side of the street had also expressed taking
advantage of the street extension and turnaround to add additional lots as well.
French asked if there was any precedent for houses in town with shared private sewers that didn't have
existing easements to a require an easement or abandon the use. Boothroy stated that as long as the
sewer is capable of providing the drainage to the public sewer the City does not require them to abandon
the use.
Gay asked if the private sewers are ever evaluated. Boothroy said he would have to ask the waste water
department but assumes if there were issues then they would be evaluated.
Roffman next asked Mr. Larew to present the Appellant's case.
Larew noted he would be sharing his allotted time with other speakers. Larew said there were three
statements from the City that he wished to respond to. First was that Mr. Boothroy is now asking the
Board to base a decision on a written statement made by the Fire Chief on December 1, 2016, exercising
his discretionary authority to excuse the situation from the necessity of having the turnaround and pointing
APPROVED
to provisions of the Code that grants him that discretionary authority. Larew said the Appellants are asking
the Board to consider the possibility that the Fire Chief's discretionary authority was properly exercised.
Larew also commented that this hearing began with a recommendation that the Board not even hear this
matter because the Appellants were more than 30 days late with filing their appeal; however, it appears
that a decision was not made on the turnaround until December 1, 2016. Until that memo, all that was in
the record was the mandatory provision that stated a turnaround was required. Larew conceded that with
subdivision requirements that does trigger authority for the City to require the turnaround. However, there
is another avenue that triggers that requirement as well, and that is the length of the street. Lusk Avenue
is longer than 150 feet which should trigger the mandated requirements. That is a fact; in terms of the
power or authority of the City whether to provoke those mandatory requirements, Larew stated the City
has changed their view and just now, on December 1, 2016, is stating they now are exercising their
discretionary authority regarding the mandatory turnaround. The decision still before this Board is
regarding public safety and considerations for the neighborhood safety and if the Fire Chief should be
allowed to invoke his discretionary authority to exempt the obligation of the turnaround.
Larew stated the next point was in regards to the private sewer shared with 117 Lusk Avenue and 111
Lusk Avenue. Larew pointed out the Mr. Boothroy admitted that if in the future 117 or 111 Lusk Avenue
wanted to build upon their property the building permit would be held up until the sewer issue was
resolved. Larew expressed that the same criteria be placed on 101 Lusk Avenue and the building permit
to be withheld until the sewer issue is resolved. Larew showed on a map the properties and where the
private sewer line runs and noted that all four adjoining property owners have served upon the Carlsons
written notice that any easement interest they feel they may have has been terminated. The Carlsons now
must prove to an Iowa District Court judge that they have the right of access.
Roffman declared that Larew was wasting time discussing the sewer issue, it is not an issue, the Carlson's
have access to sewer options, and will not receive a certificate of occupancy until they have functioning
sewer.
Larew maintained that the reason it's an issue is because these types of cases are often turned later if
there is an argument that people stepped on their rights.
Roffman acknowledged that there is a record of that point.
Larew then continued with a second point regarding the fire code and the report from HBK Engineering
(handed out to the Board at the meeting) who reviewed the situation based on a request by the Appellants
and came to a series of conclusions. Larew conceded that the applicable provisions from the Fire Code
are not in dispute- the appropriate gallons per minute to the site for fire flow and also access for the
apparatus. HBK did not find compliance with these provisions when looking at the site. Therefore, the
Appellants argue that the Board should find that there should be a turnaround because the proposed
structure is large and most of the structure is beyond the paved street. The bedrooms of the structure are
on the southerly end and on the third floor. Larew showed configurations of allowable turnarounds per the
Code. He noted that unless one is to assume the required turnarounds set forth in the Code are going to
be taken out of the land owned by others the only two options for turnarounds that the Fire Code allows
will require taking the land from the Carlson's property and the planned structure would have to be
reduced (which the neighbors find more reasonable). The opinion of HBK in the report is that mandatory
provisions are required and there is no showing that those mandatory requirements have been met. The
Appellants ask the Board to decide if those mandatory requirements are necessary or if the discretionary
modifications the Fire Chief exerted in the December 1, 2016 memo is enough to provide safety to a
structure that may hold up to 200 people as well as the surrounding neighbors.
Walker asked where the number of 200 people came from. Larew explained that for the Board of
Adjustment meeting the Appellants had testimony from experts that did use analysis of the property with
regards to property size, number of chairs that could be put in the space, the facilities in the structure, etc.,
and the City did not dispute that analysis. The argument before the Board of Adjustment was that the
structure was misclassified.
10
APPROVED
Larew stated that he will now turn over the podium to some other speakers beginning with Craig Syrop
who is one of the property owners with the shared sewer.
Roffman cautioned Mr. Larew and others that the sewer is a non -issue, there are options to meet the
sewer requirements.
McDonough ask if the Board was allowed to ask about intent of the homeowners regarding the sewer.
Parmenter stated that his opinion is the building permit can be issued and that the sewer issue is an
occupancy issue; if they don't have sewer they cannot occupy.
Larew responded that the Appellants want to make sure their points are part of the record and asked the
Board to allow Mr. Syrop to testify.
The Board agreed to hear the testimony.
Craig Syrop (117 Lusk Avenue) has owned the property for almost seven years. He asked the Board of
Appeals, by majority, to reverse a decision made by the building official regarding the private sewer and to
determine that he erred in determining that the Carlson building would comply with the Plumbing Code
based on plans to connect its sewer line to an existing sanitary sewer that does not comply with the
present Code and concerning which there is no showing that a lawful easement exists. Syrop noted that
they were not allowed to have the Plumbing Code issue determined at the Board of Adjustment so he
appreciates the opportunity to do so now. Syrop showed the private sewer line and how it passes under a
shared driveway with Anne Lahey. There is an existing easement for the shared driveway and garage.
They have lived in the house seven years, and have contacted the previous owner Mr. Pete Wilson, and
he had no knowledge as well of a shared sewer line and there is no easement on record (or in abstracts).
They only learned of the private sewer from the release of information that was gained from a public
records request from the City. Syrop also noted that there has been a formal termination of the Carlsons
interest in any easements, and, as Mr. Boothroy pointed out, the City produced a sewer permit from 1927
which was granted at a time when a single entity acquired all three properties and therefore didn't need an
easement. That predates the City Code and there were no easements created when those properties
were sold. There is no evidence that the City encouraged or sought the Carlsons to utilize the alternative
paths of the public right -a -way that were described to Mr. Oliveira when he owned the property or to
establish a code -compliant separate and independent sewer. There is nothing in the record that indicated
that occurred. Syrop stated that the purpose of regulating non -conforming situations is not to force all non-
conforming situations to be immediately brought up to conformance. Syrop would actually argue that after
90 years (since 1927), especially after 40 years (of when the applicable Code has been in place), this is
not immediate. It should be the intention to guide future uses and development consistent with City policy
and to protect the character of the area and reduce the potential negative impacts from non -conforming
situations. Syrop also noted that being downstream from on the sewer line from the Carlson house, which
has been stated could hold upwards of 200 people, imagine on a football Saturday 30 minutes before the
game (after three hours of beers and brats) the sewer usage and the potential risk. Syrop asserted that
this is new construction; it is replacing a house that was not destroyed by fire, explosion, act of God or
public enemy, and whose sewer line has not been used by inhabitants for several years. The sewer line
was disconnected, and the terminology in the Code is "terminated". Syrop pointed out that the City, in
dealing with Mr. Oliveira, the sewer line could have connected to one of the houses he proposed without
change. But at that time, the City pointed out that the future repairs on a private line could get "dicey'. So
for Mr. Oliveira, the City cited the preference would be for an independent sanitary sewer, and if one of the
houses were to tie into the existing private line there would need to be proof of an existing easement.
Syrop asserted that none of that was sought in the Carlsons circumstance. Syrop acknowledged that the
City did seek out what the size of the sewer line was and the volume it could handle and noted some
conditional issues for the sewer that have been unaddressed, particularly recommending that the sewer be
relined. That was not addressed before issuing the building permit. In summary, Syrop believes there has
been an error to allow a new construction that clearly violates the Plumbing Code. The permitting of 101
11
APPROVED
Lusk Avenue allows the construction and connection to a shared sewer private line where there is no
easement of record for which external engineers voice concerns and can pose health, financial, and safety
risk to the public. Syrop reiterated that a potential easement right has been terminated by them already
and asks the Board in the interest of public safety to reverse the decision by the Building Official.
Syrop also noted that it was informative to read the recent case of Udell and the Board of Appeals (August
1, 2016) where the Board stated that the Board does not have authority to override or ignore health and
safety issues and, if a health issue arose that could be traced back to this violation and then it was
discovered, that the City not only knew about the issue but did nothing to remedy it. Therefore, Syrop is
asking the Board to act in the interest of public safety before foundations are poured, before greater equity
is threatened, damage is done to others and neighbors are forced into civil action. Syrop stated that they
have taken civil action because the permit was issued.
Chris Rossi (4 Rowland Court) addressed the Board and drew their attention to exhibit T which forms the
basis for his affidavit and references in a large part the public records request that the residents of
Manville Heights made in consideration of what they believed to be a lack of clarity and conversation
between the City Staff. This request was predicated on conversations that seemed to have taken place
outside of the earshot of the public. The public records request revealed information that is pertinent to
conversations related to the easement, and additionally to the fire and safety situation. Rossi stated that
they petitioned for information but found out from conversations internal to the City Staff that talking to the
residents would be "a lose/lose proposition". That statement was made with regard to a petition by a
resident to have a conversation about what was taking place regarding their vested private property rights.
Rossi declared that there are vested rights and interests that are being discussed outside of their earshot,
which doesn't seem to be neighborly or civic -minded. Rossi quoted some of the City Staff statements from
the public records request. Rossi acknowledged that he understands there are other sewer options but
those other options are not mentioned in the record. Rossi continued on to read from the public records
regarding the sewer question.
McDonough interrupted Rossi stating that the Board has all read his affidavit and asked if there was any
additional information he could share that wasn't already in the Board packet.
Rossi concluded then by drawing the Board's attention to something they have already read. Iowa City
Fire Marshall Brian Greer pointed out that it appears it would be impossible to provide a conforming
turnaround to meet the requirement of the Code. Rossi noted that was important because at the previous
meetings he attended (Board of Adjustment meetings) the Fire Marshall spoke twice and was asked about
this but he never answered that question. A memorandum appeared between the first and second Board
of Adjustment meetings, but none of it was ever specifically addressed. And now, as of December 1,
2016, there is this discretionary issue that came up that was never addressed before. Therefore Rossi
states there is conflict between this concern if it is a mandatory or discretionary concern.
Patricia Koza (209 Lexington Avenue) has lived in the neighborhood for 64 years and stated that the
neighborhood group has meet regularly as a committee since this structure was brought to their attention.
She noted that in their dealings with the City they are continually concerned about the capricious attitude
they have toward the application of Fire Code. The City Code adopts the International Fire Code and yet
the public has been told often they don't enforce that, or they allow exceptions. Koza stated that is not fair.
She feels that the Code should be followed as written, and those working in the trades would lose their
licenses if they did not follow the Code. Koza noted that the City stated they move fire hydrants all the
time. Koza believes that if that is done, it needs to conform to International Fire Code which states that in
a street that is only 20 feet wide it needs to be 26 feet wide for 20 feet on either side of the hydrant. If that
is the case then the structure proposed for this site cannot be allowed. With regards to other issues of
safety, the Carlson's have stated they were building this structure as a tailgating venue, which is allowed,
and it is designed to hold 200 people. However, any professional would say if this structure was to hold
200 people the single inward opening door on the main level is not sufficient. It is a fire trap. There is only
one other way to get out of the upper level of this house and that is through the kitchen (a likely source of
fire), through the owner's suite, into the garage to get to the outside. And throughout the house they are
12
APPROVED
all inward opening doors. To make it safe the structure should have crash bars, it should have outward
facing doors. Koza noted that in the lower level, which is designed for large recreational gatherings, there
is only one egress window, which she believes will exit under the driveway. Koza maintains that it is
unbelievable to the neighborhood that the City, knowing the use, are not looking at these safety issues and
that they would allow a structure like this to be built that doesn't afford the occupants of this structure the
protection of the City.
Brad Erickson (11 Rowland Ct) wanted to bring up a few points. He noted they are not here to debate
whether or not this is commercial or residential but Mr. Boothroy did get up in front of the Board of
Adjustment and state it was an ugly house and he was glad it wasn't in his neighborhood but he couldn't
do anything about it because the Code said he had to call it a residential home but when faced with a Fire
Code violation they were allowed to overlook that. Erickson stated he has two children and there are ten
kids on his street and the Fire Code is meant to protect our citizens, so why is the City overlooking Fire
Code. The Fire Code needs to be followed.
Larew made one last comment or question regarding the sewer issue. Mr. Hatala has already spoken for
the Carlson's as their attorney and can he answer the question of if the Carlsons intend to use, or will
waive their apparent right, to the private sewer going through 111 and 117 Lusk Avenue.
Hatala stated that as far as the sewer issue he disagrees strongly with the neighboring homeowners about
whether their easement rights are there or not, the Carlsons at 101 Lusk Avenue have easement rights by
acquisition and that is not for this Board to decide. Hatala stated that the Carlsons do not anticipate using
the existing sewer easement, that is not to waive their rights, but at present time they do not intend to use
the existing sewer.
Roger Jensen (Deputy Fire Chief) spoke about the memo he wrote dated December 1, 2016, he
attempted to speak to the issues with regards to the Fire Code and believes they were appropriately
expressed and the decisions were justified.
McDonough posed a hypothetical situation of if a fire occurred, it wouldn't take an insurance adjuster much
time to find all this public information, how would Jensen defend himself. Jensen replied and said he could
J ustify each of his decision. With respect to the required fire flow, there are a couple of charts in the
International Fire Code and the City agrees with the engineering analysis of the gallons per minute
required and with the number of hydrants needed to supply that. The minimum number of hydrants
needed is two and those are clearly within the average spacing requirements that are spelled out also in
the International Fire Code. Jensen stated they have an analysis from one of the hydrants that exceeds
the pumping capacity of their fire engines as the hydrant is 1500 gallons plus. So to meet the minimum
number required, they will need an additional 680 gallons per minute from the second hydrant. The
second hydrant is supplied by a distinct six inch main so they are confident it would far exceed the that
minimum gallons per minute as specified by the International Fire Code.
Jensen said the second issue is the width of the street, the street is clearly 20 foot wide which meets the
requirements of the Code.
Walker asked if there would be a turnaround required, is there room for one without encroaching onto one
of the other private properties. Jensen said he cannot answer, he was not privy to the subdivision
questions that occurred earlier. He does understand there are some maps and proposals that were put
together for that but he is not cognizant of that.
Jensen addressed the last issue, the dead-end requirement. He noted that Lusk Avenue is under 160 feet
long and acknowledged that the requirement in the Code is 150 feet (the prescriptive requirement for an
apparatus turnaround). In his memo, he takes advantage of the Code modification in Chapter 104.8 that
gives the Fire Code Official the authority to modify. It states the Fire Code Official can "amend, modify
where there are practical difficulties" and that section of the Code has been in the Code for many editions,
it is not new. Jensen assured the Board that they do not take the "for practical difficulties" lightly and
13
APPROVED
refers the Board to the commentary on the dead-end requirement (503.2.5) which clearly states the
purpose is because the trucks are big and difficult to back up. So the Code is there for the safety of the fire
apparatus and the City consistently applies that requirements to subdivisions and new developments.
However, for existing infill construction it would be impractical.
Roffman asked if the Board had any questions for the presenters or needed clarification.
Larew asked about the Fire Chief exercising his rights to modify the Code requirements due to practical
difficulties and the reasons to support that conclusion.
Jensen replied that the decision was based on whether this was a subdivision, a new development, or an
existing infill development on an existing lawful lot. That is the clear defining line and has been for the 30
years he's been with the Fire Department.
McDonough asked Jensen if any alternatives were discussed. Jensen said each case is looked at
individually so if there are practical agreed upon solutions the City is always open to those. In terms of the
regulatory authority, it lands with if this is a subdivision or infill.
Roffman stated that each issue should be voted on separately. The first issue is the requirement for
sewer.
MOTION: McDonough moved that the Board uphold the appeal based on the sewer and the building
permit should be held until we know where the sewage is going. Gay seconded the motion.
Hatala questioned the motion which states not issuing the building permit and feels it should be that the
occupancy permit cannot be issued until the sewer question is decided.
McDonough stated his opinion is 111 and 117 Lusk Avenue need some sort of empathy or justice and he
feels if he lived there he would not want to deal with this. It is an 89 year old sewer, maintenance will be
required soon or later and there is no easement. So McDonough feels that needs to be sorted out before
the home can continue on.
Walker stated he doesn't see it being an issue; chances are the Carlsons will use the alternative and
wouldn't want to hook up to a sewer that may not be sufficient. He would not put that kind of money into a
home and use an inadequate sewer. There are other alternatives in place.
Gay said he personally feels that if it is a four inch line in the existing sewer and the condition is not
known, so some preparation needs to be made for the amount of water and sewage this new home will
produce.
French noted that it does meet code requirements for the number of fixtures that dump into that size of a
line. She stated, however, that she would not recommend to the Carlsons to use the existing line, and it
seems like they have other options. It is not the City's business to tell them what option to take.
Roffman reiterated that the Carlsons cannot get an occupancy permit until an approved service is in place.
Koza stated that the previous developer dropped the project when he was quoted the price of $140,000 for
the other option. That is a lot of legal fees, and these innocent neighbors could be tied up in legal fees for
quite some time working out an easement so they appreciate Mr. McDonough's motion.
Roffman stated that would be a court decision and not the Board decision regarding the easement.
Walker said the Board is supposed to decide if the Building Official made the right decision when he lifted
the stay, given the information he had and given rules, regulations, and ordinances. Walker believes he
made the right decision.
14
APPROVED
Ream repeated the motion: To uphold the appeal on a condition that the sewer easement question
is resolved.
VOTE: The motion failed by a vote of 2-3
Roffman stated the next issue is if the Fire Department used the correct authority and made the right
decision to justify the ruling.
Ream asked if Roffman was limiting the vote to just the turnaround or the entire Fire Code question.
Roffman replied the entire Fire Code question.
Gay stated no concern about how the Fire Department can maneuver their apparatus, and they can back
up their apparatus from a dead-end street.
Walker noted that we are talking about five feet and there are many dead-end streets in Iowa City much
longer that do not have turnarounds. It is not practical and the Fire Department made the right decision.
With regards to the capacity of the fire hydrants there is conflicting information but he would view the
information provided by the Fire Department and City Staff as correct and adequate.
Gay agreed and stated that they are the ones ultimately held responsible.
French noted that the report from HBK Engineering only cited one hydrant but there are two in the
neighborhood that meet the required water flow. There is an email from September 26, 2016, from Deputy
Chief Jensen stating that they haven't applied the code section to infill development and that was
reiterated in the December 1, 2016 memo, so it seems as if it is a standing policy.
Roffman expanded upon the fire protection topic noting they have heard that the potential occupancy may
be greater than found in a normal single family house and whether or not the Fire Department should
review better fire protection.
Tim Hennes (Senior Building Inspector) commented that the International Residential Code does not
determine occupancy, the Zoning Code does. Private social events are not prohibited, they are allowed
(tailgates are specifically allowed) and can have a high occupancy. The number 200 is if you are applying
the IBC (International Building Code) to an occupancy so that is not applicable to a single family dwelling.
Roffman thought perhaps that may need to be reviewed in the future. Hennes said when adopting the
International Residential Code looks at the occupancy of the entire structure. He does not have the data
that the Appellants were using to base that number 200 on, but if that includes the courtyard that is similar
to a backyard in a residential property and there can be a high occupancy on that use. Hennes noted
that he was present at the Board of Adjustment meeting where the Carlsons said the primary use of the
house is a residence.
MOTION: Walker moved to uphold the decision of the Fire Chief as it relates to the requirements of the
turnaround, the requirements of the width of the street, and the requirements of the minimum fire flow.
Gay seconded the motion.
VOTE: the motion was carried by a vote of 5-0
Roffman adjourned the meeting at 6:36
iJ
Date
APPROVED
15
FINAL/APPROVED
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD mrr-TrrrT
MINUTES — December 15, 2016 4b(2)
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Joseph Treloar called the meeting to order at 5:45 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Monique Green, Mazahir Salih, Orville Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Donald King
STAFF PRESENT:
Kellie Fruehling, Staff and Patrick Ford, Legal Counsel
STAFF ABSENT:
None
OTHERS PRESENT:
Interim Chief of Police Bill Campbell of the ICPD
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by Salih, seconded by Green, to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended.
• Minutes of the meeting on 11/07/16
• Minutes of the meeting on 11/15/16
Motion carried, 4/0, King absent.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
Campbell informed the Board of the January 23rd start date for the new Police Chief Jody Matherly.
BOARD INFORMATION
None.
STAFF INFORMATION
None.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by Salih, seconded by Green to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of
the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law
to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession
or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel
records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts,
and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the
Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a
government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent
that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government
could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that
government body if they were available for general public examination.
Motion carried, 4/0, King absent. Open session adjourned at 5:47 P.M.
REGULAR SESSION
Returned to open session at 6:22 P.M.
CPRB
December 15, 2016
Page 2
Motion by Green, seconded by Salih to set the level of review for CPRB Complaint
#16-05 and to 8-8-7 (B)(1)(a), On the record with no additional investigation.
Motion carried, 4/0, King absent.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change)
•January 10, 2017, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
•February 14, 2017, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
•March 14, 2017, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
•April 11, 2017, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
ADJOURNMENT
Motion for adjournment by Salih, seconded by Green.
Motion carried, 4/0, King absent.
Meeting adjourned at 6:26 P.M.
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2015-2016
(Meeting Date)
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
-- =Not a Member
TERM
1/20
1/25
2/17
4/12
4/26
5/18
5/23
6/7
8/17
9/13
10/1
11/7
11/15
12/1!
NAME
EXP.
1
Joseph
9/1/17
X
X
X
NM
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Treloar
Mazahir
9/1/17
O
X
O
NM
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
O
X
O
X
Salih
Donald
9/1/19
X
X
O
NM
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
O/E
O/E
O/E
King
Monique
7/1/20
---
---
---
—
—
—
---
---
X
X
X
X
X
X
Green
Orville
7/1/20
---
---
---
--
--
—
---
---
X
X
X
X
X
X
Townsend
Melissa
9/1/16
X
X
X
NM
X
X
X
X
—_
___
___
___
___
Jensen
Royceann
9/1/16
X
X
X
NM
X
X
X
O
---
---
---
---
Porter
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
-- =Not a Member