Administrative Review Board

A G E N D A Administrative Review Board City Council Chambers 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, NM March 9, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. Item Page No. 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Approval of the Minutes from the February 9, 2017 Meeting 17 4 Petition No. ARB 17-16 – a request from Johnathan Aikele, for a variance 1 from the requirements of UDC Section 2.8 Residential Districts Density and Dimensional Standards for the Rural Agricultural District on 0.44 acres located at 3250 La Plata Highway. (Helen Landaverde) 5 Business from: Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 6 Adjournment ATTENTION PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES: The meeting room and facilities are fully accessible to persons with mobility disabilities. If you plan to attend a meeting and need an auxiliary aid or service, please contact the City Clerk's office at 599-1101 or 599-1106, prior to the meeting so arrangements can be made.  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD Petition ARB 17-16 Variance to reduce the backyard setback from 50 feet to 15 feet March 9, 2017 DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Petition No. ARB 17-16 is a request from Johnathan Aikele for a variance to: 1) the required front and rear yard setbacks and 2) the minimum lot area of one (1) acre for property located at 3250 La Plata Highway (R0035422) in the Rural Agricultural (RA) District. The property is legally described as: BEG ON E R/W LA PLATA HWY N02-01-14 E 443.32 FT AND N89- 45-05- E 231.97 FT FROM SW CORNER OF SWNENE 06 29 13, THENCE N89-45-05 E 119.93 FT, S08-46-26 W 167.18 FT, N78-07-50 W 133.15 FT, N14-38-25 E 141.93 FT TO BEG. Otherwise located at 3250 La Plata Highway GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant..............................Johnathan Aikele Representative ....................Johnathan Aikele Property Owner ...................Johnathan Aikele Location of Property ...........3250 La Plata Highway (R0035422) Nature of Petition ................The applicant is requesting a variance to: 1) the required front and rear yard setbacks and 2) the minimum lot area of one (1) acre in the RA, Rural Agricultural District to allow for the construction of a home addition that was approved in error in 2015. Applicable Regulations .......City of Farmington Unified Development Code (UDC): Pursuant to UDC 2.8.1 the minimum lot area for RA is one (1) acre (43, 560 sq. feet) and requires a 50-foot front and rear yard setback. Zoning ..................................Rural Agricultural (RA) District Existing Use.........................Residential Surrounding Zoning……. North: RA, Rural Agriculture District South: IND, Industrial District East: RA, Rural Agriculture District West: IND, Industrial District Surrounding Land Use… North: Residential South & East: office and storage yard West: vacant Public Notice…………….. Publication of Notice of this petition appeared in the Daily Times on Sunday, February 19, 2017. Adjoining property owners were sent notice by certified mail on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, and a sign was posted on the property on Friday, February 24, 2017. Staff ......................................Helen Landaverde, Associate Planner 1 BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a variance to: 1) the required 50-foot front and rear yard setbacks and 2) the minimum lot area of one (1) acre in the RA, Rural Agricultural District to allow for the construction of a home addition. The applicant owns a lot that is approximately 0.44 acres (19,1666.4 sq. ft.). The applicant is requesting a variance to the minimum lot size to allow a 0.44 acre parcel. The applicant’s house was built in 1966 approxomitely 44 feet from the front property line and is requesting a variance to allow a 44 feet front yard setback. The applicant is also requesting a reduction to the rear yard setback from 50 feet to 15 feet. The applicant’s propery was annexed into the City in 1977 (Ordinance No. 77-572) and zoned as RA. Pursuant to UDC 2.8.1 the minimum lot area for RA is one (1) acre (43, 560 sq. feet). The property does not meet the minimum lot size or the required setbacks and it is therefore a legal nonconforming property. In 2015 the applicant was approved and issued a building permit in error for a home addition of approximately 1,314 sq. ft. (21’ x 32’ and 24’ x 32’) with a five-foot rear setback (see Exhibit D4). The applicant began construction of a much larger home addition and two other additions that were not included on the original building permit (see Exhibit D3 and D5). As construction continued, the applicant decided to add two (2) other additions to the residence. When the applicant came in early February 2017 to request building permits for the two (2) new home additions it was discovered that the original permits were issued in error. The applicant is now requesting a variance to allow for the larger home addition. The above mentioned variances are necessary since applicant’s property is less than an acre and the RA density and dimensional standards restricts the buildable area for this property. ANALYSIS Variance Criteria – Section 8.12.4, UDC A variance may be granted only where a literal enforcement of the Code provisions would result in unnecessary hardship for a particular property. In order to grant a variance, the ARB must make a positive finding of fact concerning each of the following or, if a positive finding of fact cannot be made that the ARB specifically describes the circumstance that would outweigh the strict requirement for a positive finding of fact and determine the variance will not be a public detriment: 1. That special conditions and circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; and, furthermore, that they are not self-imposed, self-created or otherwise the result of actions by the applicant. The applicant’s propery is less than an acre (0.44 acres) and was zoned as RA when it was annexed into the City in 1977 (Ordinance No. 77-572). The property does not meet the minimum requirements for the RA district and with the required setbacks the property is limited on potential improvements or development to the owner’s residence. The property owner has a much greater challenge adhering to the setback requirements in comparison to the surrounding 2  RA properties. The property to the north is an acre in size and the properties to the east range from one (1) acre and 2.4 acres. A property that is 0.44 acres (19,166.4 sq. ft.) is of a similar size to an SF-10 Single Family Zoning District, which allows a 30 foot front yard setback and a 15 foot rear yard setback. Additionally, building permits issued in 2015 for the home additions were made in error. These circumstances were not created by the applicant. This criterion IS met. 2. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Code. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the UDC would deprive the applicant of some of the rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners in the surrounding area under RA zoning ordinance. The size of the property is smaller than an acre and the required density and dimensional standards create a reduced buildable area for the property owner. The applicant’s property has maintained a legal nonconforming status since the construction of the house in 1966; prior to the 1969 and current (2008) code. This criterion IS met. 3. The applicant demonstrates that the request is a minimum easing of the Code requirements, making possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. The requested variance is a minimum easing of the UDC. The Applicant is seeking the minimum variance to allow for the construction of the home addition that was approved in error in 2015. The request is consistent with the rural residential character. Additionally, the size of the property (0.44 acres/19,166.4 sq. ft.) is of a similar size to an SF-10 Single Family Zoning District, which allows a 30 foot front yard setback and a 15 foot rear yard setback. This criterion IS met. 4. That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general interest, the general purpose and intent of the Code, and is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The requested variance for: 1) a reduction to the required yard setback to the front to 44 feet and to the rear yard setback to 15 feet and 2) the minimum lot area of one (1) acre in the RA, Rural Agricultural District will not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Granting the variance would not be contrary or opposed to the general purpose and intent of the Code. This criterion IS met. 3  5. That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district. Granting this variance will not allow a use not otherwise allowed in the Rural Agricultural (RA) District. The use is residential and is an allowed use in this district. This criterion IS met. 6. That no nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district and no permitted use of lands, structures or buildings in other districts has been or shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. No non-conforming uses or buildings on other properties are used to justify the requested variance. This criterion IS met. 7. That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance requested were denied. The applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance were denied. The applicant began construction of the home additions under the assurance that he had acquired the correct authorization from the Community Development Department in 2015. The property and the house (built in 1966) maintain a legal nonconforming status; these characteristics prevent the applicant from complying with RA restrictions and also limit potential improvements or development to the owner’s property. This criterion IS met. CONCLUSION The Community Development Department concludes that approval of ARB 17-16 is appropriate. The request is a minimum easing of the code, generally in harmony with the neighborhood and will not be injurious to the neighbors. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of Petition ARB 17-16 from Johnathan Aikele for a variance to: 1) the minimum lot size to allow for a 0.44 acre parcel and 2) to allow a front yard setback of 44 feet and a reduction to the rear yard setback from 50 feet to 15 feet for property located at 3250 La Plata Highway (R0035422) in the Rural Agricultural (RA) District. 4 EXHIBIT A 5 EXHIBIT B 6 EXHIBIT C 7 EXHIBIT D1 8 EXHIBIT D2 9 EXHIBIT D3 10 EXHIBIT D4 11 EXHIBIT D5 12 EXHIBIT D6 13 EXHIBIT E 14 EXHIBIT F 15 EXHIBIT G 16  MINUTES ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD February 9, 2017 – 6:00 P.M. The Administrative Review Board met in regular session on Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. Members present: Chair Ireke Cooper James Dennis Paul Martin Members absent: Lynn Scott Staff present: Julie Baird Teri Clashin Russel Frost Cindy Lopez Mary Holton Helen Landaverde Leona Simms Dianne Smylie Karen Walker Others addressing the Board: John Beckstead Todd Johnston Melissa Marin Arthur Martinez Mike Mordecki Lynda Munoz Mark Romero Farhon Smith Eliseo Valdez Orlando Valdez Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m. by Chair Cooper and there being a quorum present the following proceedings were duly had and taken. Approval of the Agenda A motion was made by Board Member Martin, seconded by Board Member Dennis to approve the agenda. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 3-0 Approval of the Minutes from the November 3, 2016 Regular Meetings Board Member Martin made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 3, 2016 regular meeting. The motion was seconded by Board Member Dennis and passed unanimously by a vote of 3-0 Swearing in of Witnesses All parties that wished to speak on behalf of any agenda item were sworn in by Karen Walker.  Petition No. ARB 17-05 Variance to allow the Parking of a Commercial Vehicle Overnight in a Residential District Discussion of ARB No. 17-05 on February 9, 2017 Senior Planner Cindy Lopez presented the staff report for ARB 17-05, a request from Melissa Marin for a variance to allow a vehicle weighing more than 11,501 gross vehicle weight rate (GVWR) to be parked overnight in the SF-10, Single Family Residential District, on 3.37 acres of property located at 1305 Sycamore Street. The UDC, Unified Development Code, restricts parking of a commercial vehicle in a residential neighborhood that weighs more than 11, 501 GVWR. The petitioners have a home occupation with an office on the property. The vehicle is used for off-site septic pumping. There is a residence and several outbuildings on the property. The petitioner has said the truck will be parked inside a structure while on the property. There is a 6 foot tall fence around the area. The property has been used as both residential and commercial since 1990. This property was annexed into the City of Farmington in 1998. Ms. Lopez stated that the property is east of Sycamore Park and shares a property line with the park. Across Sycamore Street to the north are a smaller property with one residence and a larger property with a residence in the middle of the lot. To the east and south are single family residences. The business is licensed through the State and is required to follow State regulations. The vehicle can be parked in an accessory structure and is separated from other residential properties by a six foot fence. Ms. Lopez said the property is large enough to create separation from the other residences to the east and south, and Sycamore Park has sufficient land that there should not be adverse effects on the park. Staff recommends approval with the condition that all waste be dumped prior to the truck being stored on the property and the vehicle is not to be washed on site. Board Member Dennis asked if there was any chance of spillage on the property. He mentioned the concern from the Parks Department with possible runoff. Ms. Lopez said the cleanliness of the truck is regulated through the State. Board Member Martin asked if Code Compliance could occasionally inspect the property. Ms. Lopez said they could not without an invitation to go onto the property. Ms. Lopez added that there have not been any complaints from neighbors. Melissa Marin, who resides at 1305 Sycamore Street, said the truck is certified through the State and State regulations are followed on the cleaning of the truck. The building the truck will be housed in while on the property, said Ms. Marin, will be completely enclosed. Chair Cooper asked what happened if the truck was full and it broke down. Ms. Marin stated that the truck is taken to the mechanic and not brought onto the property while full. Administrative Review Board Action of February 9, 2017 A motion was made by Board Member Dennis and seconded by Board Member Martin to approve Petition No. ARB 17-05, a request from Melissa Marin for a variance to allow a vehicle weighing more than 11,501 gross vehicle weight rate (GVWR) to be parked overnight in the SF- 10, Single Family Residential District, on 3.37 acres of property located at 1305 Sycamore Street. AYE: Chair Cooper, Board Members Dennis and Martin. NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Board Member Scott. APPROVED 3-0 Petition No. ARB 17-06 Variance to UDC 5.8.7.A(1) to allow the installation of a new freestanding sign consisting of 80 square feet of sign area on each of two (2) sides of the sign And with a sign height of 18 feet 2210 E. 20th Street Discussion of ARB No. 17-06 on February 9, 2017 Community Development Director Mary Holton presented the staff report for ARB 17-06, a request from Mike Ulrich, owner of Porters Restaurant, represented by Johnny Quintana of RAM Signs for a variance to allow the installation of a new freestanding sign consisting of 80 square feet of sign area on each of two sides of the sign with a sign height of 18 feet. The restaurant is located at 2210 E. 20th Street in the LNC, Local Neighborhood District. UDC 5.8.7.A (1) allows a freestanding sign in the LNC to be a maximum of 50 square feet with a maximum height of 10 feet. The new sign would replace the existing sign, consisting of 80 square feet of sign area and 18 feet in height. The previous sign was 80 square feet in sign area and 24 feet in height. Staff recommends approval. Mike Mordecki of 1403 N. Carlton Avenue is a representative of the petitioner and the sign contractor for this petition. Mr. Mordecki commented that the current sign is illuminated with fluorescent lights. The new sign will have the outline of the cowboy hat and the ‘Porters Restaurant’ lettering lit with LED lights. This will be less lighting than the current sign. Chair Cooper commented that the sign is no larger in sign area than the current sign, and is lower in height with less lighting. Administrative Review Board Action of February 9, 2017 A motion was made by Board Member Dennis and seconded by Board Member Martin to approve Petition No. ARB 17-06, a request from Mike Ulrich, owner of Porter’s Restaurant, represented by Johnny Quintana/Ram Signs, for a variance to install a freestanding sign in the LNC, Local Neighborhood District, on property located at 2210 E. 20th Street. AYE: Chair Cooper, Board Members Dennis and Martin. NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Board Member Scott.  APPROVED 3-0 Petition No. ARB 17-04 Appeal of an Administrative Decision Discussion of ARB No. 17-04 on February 9, 2017 Senior Planner Cindy Lopez presented Petition No. ARB 17-04, an appeal of the City Clerk’s decision to revoke the business license for a Home Occupation for Next Century Gadgetry owned by Arthur Martinez, located at 4405 Atlantic Street in the SF-5, Single Family Residential District. Ms. Lopez stated that Mr. Martinez sells refurbished, used appliances. He advertises online and was operating without a business license. When the neighbors complained, Code Compliance Officers went to Mr. Martinez residence and told him he could not operate without a business license. Mr. Martinez went to the City Clerk’s office and asked for a business license for a Home Occupation. Ms. Lopez pointed out the criteria for a Home Occupation in the ARB February 9, 2017 Agenda Book on page 37. Ms. Lopez said Mr. Martinez agreed to meet those criteria. She pointed out specific criteria related to the complaints: to not be destructive to the residential character of the neighborhood; to not create noise or adverse effects; to not generate more traffic or parking around the residence than normally associated with the use of the residence as a dwelling; and to not have direct retail sales on the premises. Once the business license was issued, said Ms. Lopez, Staff continued to receive complaints from the neighbors. The complaints included people coming to Mr. Martinez residence to pick up appliances, traffic congestion, and obstruction of driveways. Ms. Lopez pointed out the Municipal Code in the ARB Agenda Book on pages 37-38. Section 8-3-9 of the Municipal Code states if a business licensee has failed to comply with ordinances, the license may be revoked by the City Clerk. Based on evidence and complaints from neighbors, said Ms. Lopez, the City Clerk found that Mr. Martinez had failed to comply and revoked his business license. Mr. Martinez is appealing that decision. After the appeal was filed, Staff has continued to receive complaints from neighbors, said Ms. Lopez. Staff is recommending denial of Mr. Martinez appeal request. Board Member Martin asked if the complaints were from a number of neighbors or just a few. Ms. Lopez said the ARB Agenda Book included emails and documented complaints. “I have received two or three phone calls from neighbors since (the appeal) has been noticed,” said Ms. Lopez. She mentioned that there are several neighbors at this meeting who wish to speak, as well as Code Compliance Officers. Board Member Dennis asked how this would be different from people having garage sales. “Garage sales are limited in our code to twice a year for a smaller duration, and this is his business," said Ms. Lopez. Corporal Todd Johnston and Officer Mark Romero, Code Compliance Officers who work at 900 Municipal Drive. “I can only speak to as far as complaints that have come into my office alone and not the City Clerk’s office,” said Mr. Johnston. “We had one that was taken on 4/6/16 that the person came into our office and complained there being a business at that location without a business license. We dispatched since 4/6/16 and 8/15/16 four officers on individual calls. Three times we did not find any indication of a business being run. On 8/15/16, I personally talked with Mr. Martinez at his house and he said he was operating a business. At that time I informed him (Mr. Martinez) that he needed to have a business license. He said he was going straight away to the City Clerk’s office to pick that up.” “Since then,” said Mr. Johnston, “we’ve had one complaint of him (Mr. Martinez) backing a truck into the house to load…his customers backing up to load appliances to that trailer. By the time an officer was free to go out there, it was at least an hour, there was nothing there.” Chair Cooper asked if the complaints were from the same person or different people. Mr. Johnston confirmed the complaints were from different people. Board Member Dennis asked to clarify the complaints received by Code Compliance. Mr. Johnston said there were two complaints regarding the lack of a business license and one complaint for blocking a road and traffic congestion. Mr. Dennis asked if that was blocking the road for 15 minutes or so. Mr. Johnston said it was for over an hour. Mr. Johnston added that the Farmington Police Department would have a record of that instance as the call was turned over to them. Dianne Smylie, Farmington City Clerk, 800 Municipal Dr. Ms. Smylie stated, “We started receiving complaints about the business around April of 2016. The first call I had gotten about it was about a business operating out of a home. They asked if he (Mr. Martinez) was licensed. We looked in our business registration system and found out that he was not licensed to do business there. I did try to contact Mr. Martinez. We spoke on the phone and I told him that he had to have a business registration to operate a business out of his home.” “He was not happy to hear that,” said Ms. Smylie, “and he told me that he had the right to sell his own stuff out of his home, and it never went anywhere. I didn’t have any authority.” “I called Code Compliance,” said Ms. Smylie, “and told them I have had a complaint about this business operating. They (Code Compliance) drove by (Mr. Martinez residence) and couldn’t really see anything.” “Then, probably around,” continued Ms. Smylie, “May or June of this past year (2016), I got another call from an individual, she was a female, she was complaining about she had bought (an appliance) from an individual that lived on Atlantic Street and it was broken. She said that whenever she’d got it home; she called (Mr. Martinez) and said this washing machine doesn’t work. He said (Mr. Martinez) it worked when you left here, but for $75 I’ll come out and fix it for you.” “She was very upset about it,” said Ms. Smylie, “and had called to see if he (Mr. Martinez) had a business registration. Of course, he didn’t. So again, we called Code Compliance and said could you drive by and monitor this because I’m getting complaints about it.” Ms. Smylie said, “Right about that same time that we were dealing with this lady, she called quite often, I had a gentleman come into my office and he said, ‘I don’t know what to do. I can’t get into my driveway.’ He said, ‘My neighbor has so much traffic that I can’t get into my driveway.’ He was really flustered. We got to talking to him, and asking where he lived, and he told us he lived on Atlantic Street and there was a business being operated out of this home.” “Again,” said Ms. Smylie, “we made contact with Code Compliance and this is probably pushing the August area about the time that they (Code Compliance) actually made contact with him (Mr. Martinez). Mr. Martinez did come into our office and he did apply for a business registration. On the business registration, he did put on there that people come and pick up stuff,” said Ms. Smylie. “When he came in, we told him (Mr. Martinez) you can’t do that. To have a home based business, you can’t generate any additional traffic and you can’t do retail sales from your home. You can have the business, but you have to do everything outside of your home. You have to deliver to their home or you have to meet somewhere. We told him that the Police Department has a drop off area for people who sell on Craig’s List. We gave him options. He again was not happy with us.” “We did go ahead and issue the business registration and made it very, very clear to him that you have to comply with the UDC (Unified Development Code). You have to comply with these regulations. If not, there is a process to revoke your business registration and you won’t be able to do it anymore.” “We issued that to him, I think, in August. In the meantime,” said Ms. Smylie, “we started receiving emails from neighbors, they wanted to remain anonymous, and showing there was actually business activity taking place at his (Mr. Martinez) house. Showing washers and dryers being loaded up onto trailers; showing the vehicles parked in the street blocking traffic. They went on for, I don’t know, a couple of months,” said Ms. Smylie. “So, I sat down and met with City Staff, with the City Attorney, met with Code Compliance, and we decided that there was probably enough to go ahead and revoke his (Mr. Martinez) business registration based on the emails and pictures that are being sent in. Then, I sent him the letter telling him that I was going to revoke his business registration. He appealed it and that’s where we are right now,” said Ms. Smylie. Board Member Dennis confirmed if it had been made very clear to Mr. Martinez when he came in for his license as to what the ordinance states. Ms. Smylie mentioned that if the Board Members looked at Mr. Martinez application for his business registration on page 48 of the ARB Agenda Book that Mr. Martinez originally put on the application “picking up items purchased”. “We told him then that he could not do that,” stated Ms. Smylie. “Mr. Martinez crossed it out and wrote ‘Will deliver to customer’.” “He was made aware of the regulations. The business registration that we issued to him,” said Ms. Smylie, “also states that he must comply.” A copy of that registration is on page 59 of the ARB Agenda Book. “It says you must comply with Section 2.5.9 of the UDC. We made him very aware of that,” said Ms. Smylie. Arthur (Gino) Martinez, who resides at 4405 Atlantic Street, stated that he started selling appliances, but was unaware that he needed a license. “I had only sold a few things when it was brought to my attention that I needed a license,” said Mr. Martinez. “Once it was brought to my attention, I went up there and applied for a business license. When I got up there to apply for a business license, initially, the City Clerk refused to issue me a business license. Only under the threat of me filing a law suit did they actually issue me a business license.” “My point is, they didn’t want to issue me a business license from the very beginning no matter what,” said Mr. Martinez. “I didn’t feel like that was right, because I wasn’t doing anything wrong to my knowledge. The street that I live on is a very wide street. Sometimes I have work done in my yard that has nothing to do with my business, like unloading lumber.” “Some of these pictures,” said Mr. Martinez, “where they show a truck backed into my driveway has nothing to do with my business license. Sometimes, the customers that I have have their old washer and dryer in their truck already. But it looks like I loaded it into their truck. So the picture isn’t what it seems to be.” “I have followed all the rules,” stated Mr. Martinez. “These four rules that they’re talking about are ‘not being disruptive to the general character of the neighborhood.’ Which I’m not. ‘Not creating any disturbing activity.’ Which I do not. ‘Generate vehicular traffic or parking around the residence that is greater than that normally associated with the use of the residence.’ Very rarely do I have more than two customers at a time come to my house, and when they do, they always park either behind my car, which is in my driveway, or in front of my jeep, which is in the direct area in front of my house. I have never, never…nobody has ever parked in any of my neighbors driveways.” “You will not find any pictures of that because there are none,” said Mr. Martinez. “That has never happened. I have lived there for 23 years. I know all my neighbors. I respect all my neighbors. Some of my neighbors have even told me, if you need to move a car and back it into my driveway, you’re more than welcome to do that,” said Mr. Martinez. “In which I have, with their permission.” “As far as doing anything illegal or conducting any illegal activity,” continued Mr. Martinez, “I have not done any of that at all. I do have in my possession, several letters from customers. I do advertise on Facebook. I know a lot of people that have small home businesses that advertise on Facebook. They advertise on Craig’s List.” “If it’s against the law, I’m not aware of it,” said Mr. Martinez. “That’s what I do. I do have a page on Facebook that also has a reviews page which I am rated five stars out of five. You’re welcome to check it. All my reviews are positive. As you know, any business is not going to have 100% where their customers are not ever going to file a complaint. Sometimes you can do the best you can and no matter what you do, the customer is not going to be happy, even if you haven’t done anything wrong,” he said. “Anyway, what I was going to say is that I have several letters of recommendation in my possession and you’re welcome to look at them. I do have some pictures.” (Mr. Martinez gave the pictures to the Board Members. He did not give the letters of recommendation to the Board Members at this time.) “Some of these pictures,” explained Mr. Martinez, “are so called neighbor’s complaints.” (Mr. Martinez explained the pictures to the Board Members.) “This is my driveway. This is a very wide street. See these cars here? They’re not associated with me. They park the wrong way and block my driveway.” (Chair Cooper: I’m going to call this picture 1.) “Their driveway is behind this car,” said Mr. Martinez. “Their driveway is quite a ways away. I never block their driveway or any of my other neighbor’s driveways.” Chair Cooper asked Mr. Martinez if he felt this is one of the neighbors who have complained. “Yes,” said Mr. Martinez. “This is a picture that I was sent by the City. It’s a picture taken from this angle by my neighbor. This is a picture I believe was taken by this neighbor because this is my driveway. There is a washer and dryer there. That’s not a washer and dryer that I sold them. These people showed up with their old ones. This is a picture that they’re saying I’m loading up for them.” Board Member Dennis asked if someone was dropping a washer and dryer off at his house. “No,” said Mr. Martinez, “These people came to me. This is the problem with this business license. If I’m issued a business license, I’ve got to be able to conduct business. They came to look at what I have. That’s in the back of their truck, but I didn’t load it there.” Chair Cooper asked Mr. Martinez if he was in the photo. “No,” said Mr. Martinez. “I’m not in any photo.” “This is another photo,” said Mr. Martinez. “Yes, there’s a truck in it on the other side of the street, but just because a truck’s there, doesn’t mean it has something to do with me. Neighbors are having parties all the time, but they’re not associated with me.” Board Member Dennis questioned Mr. Martinez on whether his business was repairing existing washers and dryers. Mr. Martinez stated, “It is selling refurbished washers and dryers, and freezers, and that type of thing. Sales and service.” Mr. Dennis asked how many would be sold in a week. Mr. Martinez said, “It varies.” In a month, said Mr. Dennis. “It varies,” said Mr. Martinez. Ten to twenty, asked Mr. Dennis. “Yes, ten to twenty in a month,” said Mr. Martinez. One a day, asked Mr. Dennis. “Sometimes none in three days,” said Mr. Martinez. “Sometimes you go a week with not any sales. Sometimes you can go a week and you have a lot of sales. But, again,” said Mr. Martinez, “when I do sell a lot of appliances, very rarely are there more than two customers at my residence at one time. The street is a very wide street. You’d almost have to have five or six cars to be blocking driveways at one time. I heard somebody mention that at one time it was blocked for an hour. Usually when somebody comes, they’re gone within 5-10 minutes. Never an hour. Nobody’s there an hour.” “I heard mention,” said Mr. Martinez, “that a customer complained and said that a… first of all, let me mention this, when I sell appliances, they are checked and gone through and they are in working condition. Nothing is ever sold that doesn’t work. Never. I have heard that somebody said that I sell broken appliances and that I charge them $75 to fix it. I guarantee one thing, if I sell an appliance,” said Mr. Martinez,” and there’s something wrong with it, and they let me know right away, I go fix it for free 99% of the time. There is never a charge associated with it unless I didn’t sell it to them and they just want me to go fix it at their house. Then there’s a small charge. But other than that, there isn’t.” Board Member Dennis asked if all the appliances were indoors. “Yes,” said Mr. Martinez, “I’m a very clean person. All my appliances are in my garage. Nothing’s ever left in front of my house or around my house. Another thing I want to mention, I was told by the City that if I sold appliances, I’m able to load the appliances on my own trailer and meet the customer at their house or at Target or somewhere. Which I have been compliant. I do that all the time. I never load them up in front of my house or take money for the appliances at my house. Ever. I would challenge somebody to provide evidence of something different from that. Like I say, I’ve lived here in Farmington,” said Mr. Martinez, “Since 1980. I have never been in trouble. I’m a person of good character. My customers can attest to that. I have two that are here tonight that can testify on my character and how I treat my customers.” Board Member Dennis asked if this was Mr. Martinez main source of income. “This is my main source of income,” said Mr. Martinez. “That’s why I’m concerned about this revocation of my license because this is my sole source of income.” “When you load an appliance,” continued Mr. Martinez, “it makes very little noise. I would think washing your car would make more noise than loading an appliance on a trailer. That’s about the most noise that there is, when you pull the appliance up your ramp and put it on your trailer. Any racket, like if I was drilling or something, it’s always in my garage and normal noise with the garage door down.” Chair Cooper said he was having a hard time understanding one thing, and that was the fact that there are three completely different independent departments within the City that have received different complaints about different things from different people. Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Martinez what he thought would trigger that response from his neighborhood. “I’m curious myself,” said Mr. Martinez. “Nobody would provide names of who these people were. I think it’s just hearsay, because I haven’t been provided any proof of anybody saying anything, any names, or any proof that any of these allegations are true. I could say anybody’s doing something wrong in my neighborhood, but I think I would have to prove it. Saying it and proving it are two different things. I don’t see the proof. I’m aware of two neighbors that the City in the packet that they sent, that I’m aware of,” said Mr. Martinez. “Any other neighbors, I’ve lived there 24 years, and I think I know my neighbors pretty well. I’ve talked to all my neighbors since this came about, and I haven’t had one single neighbor that I’ve talked to that has a problem with my business. I know the two neighbors that do have a problem. One … these are the two people who should be complaining the least because they’re away from my house the most. The ones that should be complaining aren’t here tonight because they know that their street’s not being obstructed, there’s no noise, I’m not creating…like I said, some of my neighbors, the parties they have are more of a disturbance than my appliance business.” Chair Cooper commented that he did not believe this was hearsay with three different departments receiving complaints. Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Martinez where he thought the opposition was coming from and if he got along with his neighbors. Mr. Martinez said, “I get along with my neighbors. I’ve never had any problems. I haven’t harassed my neighbors. I don’t know where this is coming from. I’ve talked with my neighbors. The neighbors that are within 100 feet of me, other than the ones that are doing the complaining, I haven’t talked to them or harassed them in any manner, verbally or otherwise. I don’t really know, because, like I said, I go far above and beyond the call of duty. If I were to sell you a washer and a dryer, usually on a used appliance you get a 30-day warranty, and on a new appliance if you buy one at Sears, you only get a 1-year warranty. That’s the standard with the appliance stores here in town. But I go far and above that duty. I go and fix it for free. I don’t charge for delivery. I don’t charge when they have a problem with their appliance. In other words, I try not to leave them hanging. If there is something wrong with it, I like to go take care of it and make them happy.” Board Member Dennis asked Mr. Martinez if he classified his business as retail sales. “Yes,” said Mr. Martinez, “When you sell something to somebody I guess it would be. When you sell a used appliance, you hope it lasts a long time, but you can’t guarantee it will last. Ten years, ten months, ten days. You were asking me where some of these complaints were coming from; some of these complaints are coming, I believe, because if they bought a dryer or washer and they have it say 30 days, 60 days, or 3 months, they’ll call the City of Farmington and say ‘He sold me a piece of junk’. Well, that’s not true. Usually when they buy it, I plug it in and run it for them…dryer, washer…and let them know it works when they take it. If it breaks on them, that doesn’t necessarily…I’m being unfairly judged saying I’m selling them something that’s broken. That’s where I think some of those complaints are coming from.” Farhon Smith, who resides at 4401 Atlantic Street, said he has lived here for most of a decade. “I’m not one of the initial complainants. I haven’t called in or filed any complaints. Over the last 18-24 months, when I became aware that Mr. Martinez was running an unlicensed business out of his residence, I began to take notice because I am a former police officer for the City of Farmington. I am a trained observer. It is quite comical, some of the denials Mr. Martinez has made tonight. I don’t know him as a person. I’ve never cared to make his acquaintance. My lone face-to-face contact occurred in July or August of 2016,” said Mr. Smith. “When I was leaving my residence and he walked out into the street to block my vehicle and he confronted me in what I would describe as an aggressive manner in a tone that was implied to me that I was somehow intercepting his mail. I discussed this in an email that I sent to the City.” (Email is included in the ARB Agenda Book.) “My perception was that he thought I was somehow intercepting his mail because he had a lost bill that had not come to his house. A couple days later I did receive that bill and gave it to Mr. Martinez,” said Mr. Smith. “The fact that he said that he is of good moral standing and abides by the regulations,” continued Mr. Smith, “I would take issue with that. For some years, Mr. Martinez and I would go to work about the same time. Some of the driving I saw out of Mr. Martinez was so reprehensible and in such violation and in disregard to public safety. I cannot stand up here and say tonight that if you granted him this license, that he would not violate other conditions.” Mr. Smith continued to criticize Mr. Martinez driving. “I’ve seen a substantial amount of business at this residence,” said Mr. Smith. “Cars come and go. They load and unload. He doesn’t just do work behind the closed door of his garage. His garage is wide open and he’s doing repairs in his driveway that include the use of water to clean these appliances. My question is what is he doing with the wastewater? Is he complying with wastewater disposal? I see water running into his front yard. I see water running into storm drains. Which we all know is a violation of the Unified Plumbers Code. If his residence does not meet these requirements, I think that should be taken into consideration on granting this business license.” “If he’s going to disregard that,” said Mr. Smith, “what else is he going to disregard?” “To further show that he has shown a lack of compliance, I included a picture I took of the front of his residence two weekends ago of a trash can that he has backed up completely against the Notice of Public Hearing sign. That trash can has been there every day. That’s a blatant disregard for the City Compliance office.” “It’s him thumbing his nose at the system,” said Mr. Smith. “If he’s not going to follow proper procedure in the notice of a hearing, what is there to believe that he will cooperate with all the other regulations?” “Given that I don’t know all the details of the revocation and what that means,” said Mr. Smith, “Whether once he was served with the revocation, he could no longer operate his business, If that was true, he’s continued to operate his business.” “As far as blocking the roadway, I have observed on at least 3 separate occasions where the entire T of the width of the road has been blocked by a pickup with a trailer. Mr. Martinez and another elderly gentleman unloaded maybe as many as ten washers and dryers from this trailer.” “The pickup and the trailer occupied the roadway for a good hour,” said Mr. Smith. “I had to do a U-turn from my residence to go down one of the other side streets so that I could get to English. I take issue with the fact that he says he hasn’t inconvenienced anyone in the neighborhood. That shows he’s not willing to accept accountability for his actions.” “Ignorance doesn’t justify breaking the law. Anybody in a position to try to start a business in their residence would have researched it enough to know.” “I am against the renewal of his license. He’s taken enough leeway with the codes that are in there for a reason. This is an attempt for him to not pay a rental fee for a business. If you’re repairing washers, dryers, or refrigerators, you’re running an industrial repair business. It needs to be a business in a properly zoned area in the City,” concluded Mr. Smith. John Beckstead, attorney for Eliseo Valdez, who resides at 4403 Atlantic Street. Mr. Beckstead stated he is with the Fortner/Quail Law Firm at 4000 E. 30th Street. Mr. Beckstead said the petitioner indicated that there was no proof. “The only proof needed was from the petitioner where he admitted that customers came to his house. He doesn’t admit anything was loaded up,” said Mr. Beckstead. “But he invites customers to come to his home to look at the items. That is a violation of 2-5-9, Home Occupation, where it indicates the occupation does not involve retail sales on the premises.” “It’s understandable if someone is not aware of an ordinance, is corrected, show up to City Hall, fills out the application, and follows all the rules that he’s now aware of. But that’s not what’s happened here,” said Mr. Beckstead. “The Clerk said he (Mr. Martinez) initially said that customers were going to show up.” “He indicated that there are as many as two customers at a time.” “We’re alleging that he’s in violation of 2-5-9 Subsection ‘g’, ‘i’, ‘j’, and ‘k’.” “My client has observed customers sales and customers every day of the week from as early as 7 a.m. and until as late as 10 p.m. He (Mr. Valdez) indicates that he hears bad language by (Mr. Martinez) customers.” “ One customer was confronting Mr. Martinez in his driveway about a purchase.” “ Mr. Valdez home is within 12-15 feet of Mr. Martinez driveway and he says he used to sit in his living room, but now he hears loud banging by the petitioner repairing the appliances and from sales from (Mr. Martinez) customers,” said Mr. Beckstead. “My client (Mr. Valdez) is concerned about the value of his home,” said Mr. Beckstead. “He had the understanding when he purchased this home, that there were ordinances to protect him.” “Before this business was started, his (Mr. Valdez) sons often parked in front of his home. Now there’s often times that there is no parking. Granted those aren’t assigned parking spaces, but it goes to subsection ‘j’ where parking and traffic has changed due to this business being there.” “I asked my client to prepare a journal of what was going on,” said Mr. Beckstead. Mr. Beckstead read from Mr. Valdez journal: “February 1, a customer was arguing with petitioner about a bad sale. February 2, still selling 8 am. Making a lot of noise. Saying bad words. 11:20 that same day, selling washer.” “We have a situation where he didn’t know about the need for a license. He came into compliance with the City and got the license and was made aware of certain conditions for that license. Then we have him violating those conditions of that license. The City revoking the license. Then he files an appeal and even while this appeal is pending, he’s still violating the terms under the license.” “ It hasn’t changed even after he’s been notified, even after he’s been suspended, he still hasn’t changed his practices,” said Mr. Beckstead. Mr. Beckstead presented a letter and pictures from Mr. Valdez to the Board. “One of the first things the petitioner stated was ‘I’ve only sold a few things.’ He indicated he’s just selling his things. On his Facebook page he has a business name.” “My client is in support of what the previous neighbor had stated in that a Waste Management bucket was pushed up against the ‘Notice’ sign.” “The trash can was in front of the sign every day until just a few days ago.” “On February 1st at 1:00 p.m.,” said Mr. Beckstead, ”he (Mr. Valdez) indicated an older lady came by to check the notice of the public hearing sign, couldn’t see, and Mr. Martinez chased her away. There is a clear indication that he’s trying to thwart the efforts of this board to potentially have everybody here that should be heard.” “I urge the Board to support the City agencies that have asked you to not grant the appeal,” said Mr. Beckstead. “At this point, he’s shown that he’s not going to abide by the conditions that are necessary. Subsection ‘g’ says to not be disruptive to the residential character of the neighborhood. A retail business in a neighborhood is disruptive to the residential character of the neighborhood.” “In subsection ‘i’, ‘Occupation shall not create any disturbing or offensive activity and noise.’” “Mr. Valdez says he frequently hears foul language.” “He also indicates that often times there are loud noises when he’s unloading.” “In subsection ‘j’, ‘Occupation shall not generate vehicular traffic or parking around the residence.’ It’s clear that the operation of this business has violated and continues to violate even through the suspension. I will recognize that when he filed his appeal that the suspension is stayed, so he’s allowed to conduct business. To look at somebody’s intent, you look at their actions. If what he did from the time he filed his appeal and his suspension of his license was stayed, is that he conducted business the status quo of what he did to get his license suspended. There’s no indication that it’s going to change. I urge the Board to deny the appeal.” Orlando Valdez, who resides at 4403 Atlantic Street, is the son of Eliseo Valdez. He stated that it used to be a calm street. Now there is lots of traffic and he feels it is hazardous. Eliseo Valdez, who resides at 4403 Atlantic Street, stated that he lives twelve feet from Mr. Martinez business. He is a disabled Veteran and does not like the foul language he hears from Mr. Martinez residence. He stated he is selling things from his house. Mr. Valdez said Mr. Martinez pulled out all his appliances a couple of days ago in case someone checked, and put them somewhere else. At night, said Mr. Valdez, he is worried his son’s cars will be damaged. He said he will put cameras on his home beginning next week. “It is very loud and the customers are nasty,” stated Mr. Valdez. “The police showed up two times and the issue is a continuous problem.” Mr. Valdez said the parking is an issue. His sons used to park in front of the house, but it is a problem to do that now. Mr. Valdez complained about the trash from Mr. Martinez home. He said there is often branches and beer bottles laying around from people who were working for Mr. Martinez. Mr. Valdez stated that five people had complained to the City before he complained. He says he can’t sleep at night because Mr. Martinez loads appliances late at night. Linda Munoz, who resides at 2613 N. Mesa Drive. She is a friend and customer of Mr. Martinez. She purchased appliances from Mr. Martinez that he delivered and set up. She stated that she is aware that he normally takes the appliances to Target and switches out appliances there. Ms. Munoz said a good attorney would address the complaints with each agency. She said she has known Mr. Martinez for 5 years and never known him to be belligerent. That is not his behavior, she said. Ms. Munoz said the neighbors have two vehicles in the street and two in the driveway. She said no one else could park there. Ms. Munoz said Mr. Martinez has been honest with his customers. She has seen him fix appliances for free if customers call back within a reasonable amount of time. She stated she has witnessed him talking to clients and telling them he will take care of things. Chair Cooper asked Mr. Martinez if he wanted the opportunity for rebuttal. Mr. Martinez submitted the letters from customers that he had mentioned earlier. “I’d like to say to the former Farmington Police Officer,” said Mr. Martinez, “I was in a car accident about two years ago and was paralyzed from the neck down because of a careless driver. I’ve never been in an accident in my whole life and I’ve had very few traffic tickets.” “None of the things that that guy (Farhon Smith) was saying are true, and he can’t prove it.” “I don’t drive like that. I don’t get tickets. I’ve never been in jail. I’ve got good character. My record speaks for itself,” said Mr. Martinez. “I have hundreds, if not thousands of customers. Most of them couldn’t be here tonight, but they will attest to my character and how I run a business.” “I don’t curse, and if I curse, it’s in my house, to myself. I’ve never heard any of my customers curse,” said Mr. Martinez. “I don’t drink so where are these beer bottles he’s talking about. There’s parties around in my neighborhood. I don’t have parties, but other people within 100 feet of my house do. I have a home dwelling that I have a right to live in. I can work in my garage if I want to as long as I’m not making loud noises.” “Some of these things that I’ve heard are atrocious because not only are they not true, but they attack my character,” said Mr. Martinez. “The former Police Officer that was here, I do plan on filing a law suit for slander based on his letter and what he has said because none of that is true and it’s attacking my character,” said Mr. Martinez. “Again, I want to reiterate, I don’t get up at six in the morning, and if I do, it’s not to get to deal with customers. And I don’t load up customers at ten o’clock at night. It is retail sales, but I don’t accept money at my house. I was told it was okay to take the money for the washers and dryers out of the neighborhood and that’s what I do. I don’t load them up at my house. I don’t accept the money at my house. I want to make that clear. I am following the rules there. I’m not conducting retail sales in front of my house. I just want to reiterate, I’m not being disruptive. The stuff that you heard tonight, the main complaint is my next door neighbor; he apparently thinks that I’m not allowed to live my life on my property. Board Member Dennis said, “So nobody comes to your house to pick up an appliance?” Mr. Martinez said, “No, and see the other thing I was told by the City is that it was okay to have customers come to look at the appliances. If they come, they come and look, but I was told it was okay. If it’s not okay, somebody should have told me. I was told that if I have a business license that they could come to my house to look at what they want, but they could not load up in front of my house. I’ve made sure that they don’t.” “That they can’t pay me at my house. If they offer to pay me, I say I can’t take your money at this house,” Said Mr. Martinez. “It’s a very wide street. My neighbor here with his two sons that don’t work, they’re home all day long. They think that the parking lot, like I showed you in that picture, that’s not a driveway. That’s a public roadway. I could park there and I wouldn’t be in violation of anything. The street doesn’t belong to them. That’s where they park their two cars. Mr. Valdez parks his huge truck in his driveway. I’m never anywhere near that truck or behind his truck. He has not showed you any pictures of me being there, because there are no pictures. He has not presented anything about me, other than hearsay. To me it’s hearsay unless you can prove what you’re saying.” “I can prove what I’m saying,” said Mr. Martinez. Chair Cooper asked City Clerk Dianne Smylie, “In Mr. Martinez original testimony, he claimed there was resistance to give him a business license and it was not issued until he threatened with a lawsuit.” Ms. Smylie said, “I couldn’t give him a business registration with it stating that he was having people come to his home. It wasn’t until he agreed to do the deliveries off-site that we decided we could issue the business registration.” “So it was the changing from the ‘will deliver to customers’ rather than ‘picking up,’” said Mr. Cooper? “Did he threaten you with a lawsuit”, asked Mr. Cooper? “Yes,” said Ms. Smylie. Board Member Dennis said his feeling is that the ordinance is about allowing people to do things inside their house that are similar to phone calling or computer work. “It specifically says,” said Mr. Dennis, “that all activities are supposed to occur entirely within the dwelling and not in an accessory building. A garage is clearly an accessory building. Specifically no retail.” Mr. Dennis asked if someone was making jewelry in their house and people came to buy jewelry, would that be considered retail sales. Ms. Smylie said that would be retail sales and would not be allowed for home based businesses. “Mr. Martinez indicated to us that he had a website,” said Ms. Smylie, “people buy the washers and dryers from the website, and he delivers them to their homes. That’s what we based the business registration off of.” “If you sell jewelry, you can have parties at other people’s homes, you still can’t have people come to your home. I could go to your house and conduct the sale there, but you can’t generate the traffic. You can’t generate the sales from your home.” Chair Cooper asked Mr. Martinez what size trailer he used to deliver the appliances. Mr. Martinez said he has a 4 x 6 trailer that he pulled with a Jeep Grand Cherokee. Mr. Cooper said, “It was brought up that there was an extremely large trailer with 10 or more appliances.” Mr. Martinez said he has only sold two appliances at a time because his trailer doesn’t hold more than two appliances. Chair Cooper said he thought that may have been a stock to repair and sell. Mr. Martinez said it was not. Discussion of the Board Members: Board Member Martin said the job of the Board is sometimes difficult. Decisions are based on what is presented, and the rules and regulations of the City of Farmington. This particular case is on Section 2-5-9, Home Occupation. Mr. Martin said the City of Farmington staff is very compassionate and willing to help people. He said he found it hard to believe they would not go the extra mile to help anybody. Mr. Martin said that he commended the City Clerk on her high integrity and effort to help people. One of the rules, he said, is the harmony of the neighborhood. He noted that the neighborhood has been disrupted based on what he heard. Board Member Dennis said they had listened to a lot tonight. He said, “It was abundantly clear that the ordinance was written to add clarity to these kinds of issues and restrict this kind of activity in residential areas. Zoning restricts businesses to business districts and residents to residential areas so that residents can live away from these kinds of conflicts. It is clear that this is not the kind of activity that we want to promote in our residential areas.” Chair Cooper said, “We have in evidence is the rules in which Home Occupations have to follow. The consequences of those rules have been broken. We have to determine if there’s been sufficient evidence to prove any single one of ‘a’ thru ‘k’ have been broken. There have been a number of testimonies presented. It’s certainly weighted that for ‘g’, ‘i’, ‘j’, and ‘k’ there’s been testimony provided, pictures that substantiate violations. I’d like to point out, that as a business owner, I can appreciate the personal frustration, and if I’m breaking a rule, you need to tell me, because I’ve been in a similar situation. But I’ve also known the consequences that it’s my responsibility to find out what I am allowed and not allowed to do. Just because I don’t know there’s a law out there, if I’m breaking it, I need to be responsible.” “I think we have sufficient findings,” said Chair Cooper, “to support the revocation.” Administrative Review Board Action of February 9, 2017 A motion was made by Board Member Martin and seconded by Board Member Dennis to deny the appeal of the revocation of a business license for Petition ARB 17-04 for a Home Occupation for Next Century Gadgetry owned by Arthur Martinez, located at 4405 Atlantic Street in the SF-5, Single Family Residential District, and to uphold the decision to revoke the business license by the City Clerk. AYE: Chair Cooper, Board Members Dennis and Martin. NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Board Member Scott. APPROVED 3-0 Chair Cooper mentioned that the decision is final unless appealed to the City Council within 15 days. Business from the Floor: There was no business from the Floor. Business from the Chair: There was no business from the Chair. Business from the Members: There was no business from the Members. Business from Staff: There was no business from Staff. Adjournment: The February 9, 2017 meeting of the Administrative Review Board was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. with a motion by Board Member Martin that was seconded by Board Member Dennis by a vote of 3-0. _________________________________ ________________________________ Ireke Cooper-Chair Karen Walker-Administrative Assistant