HomeMy WebLinkAboutGraves appeal �
, f, CITY OF RENTON
� �.
APR o7 201�� a,o(��.�
April 6,2017
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S QFFICE
City of Renton
Hearing Examiner
1055 South Grady Way
Renton,WA 98057
Re:Notice of Appeal of Administrative Decision CI-110
Statement of Facts
1. Laverne Graves 905 N 28th Place, Renton WA 98056
2. I was made a Party of Record through the posting of CI-110 on the City's Website prior to the
issuance of a decision.
3. I am aggrieved or affected by the administrative decision through specific harm and the interest
I seek to protect is arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated.
4. I have two lots that, currently,would be considered two lots through the existing legal lot
definition.
5. Due to the code interpretation "binding interpretation" rule,the City says I am forced to have
my legal-lot-status-request determined under the "binding interpretation/amended code"that
will be put on the docket at the end of the year, but instead effective on March 24, 2017.
6. Under the current permutation of the "interpretation/new code" I would not have two lots.
7. My property is immediately reduced from two lots to one lot(that is a Taking without
compensation) and I was not even made aware of this seemingly unconstitutional code
CHANGE. This is not an interpretation.
8. The Renton Reporter is not delivered to my property, it is delivered into the right-of-way in front
of my property.
9. I am 95 years old and I intended to move in May to a retirement home. I intend to sell the two
lots I own so the new owner can build two homes. I was never informed that the City was going
to take my vested existing historically platted legal lots without compensating me for it.
I want to appeal this"Administrative Policy/Code Interpretation for two reasons: The content of the
interpretation and the constitutionality of the procedure for the interpretation.
I. Statements of Error or Omission in Fact (to fully recognize the unclear or
contradictory regulations contained in the Title)
1. Background: What is the unclear or contradictory regulation? Currently the Background states
a few elements of incomplete"Justification"—but not"Background". For example,
':..Srructures are nor(currently)permitted to be constructed over lot line and any
structure consrructed over a lot line would not comply with setback requirements. !n addition,
the construction of a structure over a lot line results in lots functioning as a single lot or one lot
as opposed to two or more underlying lots"
These are Partial (incomplete) "Justifications" but not"Background".
What I believe is the unclear or contradictory regulation: The unclear or contradictory
regulation is a legal lot definition with two separate sets of criteria—depending on when and
where the historic lot(s)originated. One of the two definitions includes a provision which
precludes legal lot status for lots with a structure built over the lot line—and the other one does
not.
The Background is: Historically it was ok to merge tax ID numbers and develop over the lot line
(for convenience only, and it would not eliminate underlying lots). Therefore, historically, a
property owner could,for example, legally build a detached garage on their second lot, cross the
line by a couple feet, and then in the future legally demolish the garage and use the second lot
for a legal alternative purpose. Currently structures are not permitted to be constructed over a
tot line and would not comply with set-back rules. Currently there exists a process called
Declaration of Lot Combination in which a property owner can deliberately merge their lots and
acknowledge this deliberate action is combining their parcels because the re-aggregation of
parcels or lots should only be the result of a deliberate action by a property owner expressly
requesting the department for a permanent merger of two or more parcels/lots. The challenge
is how to interpret the legal lot definition to not only acknowledge the vested rights of property
owners who currently have a structure over the lot line of two or more lots but also
acknowledge the exceptions that will be considered that will preclude a property owner from
continuing to have the vested rights—if they do certain acts from the day of code-change
forward. My suggestion is,at the time of changing codes(at the end of the year) bifurcate the
definition at the effective date of the code change and add conditional statements of use.
The Justification section suggests that the City of Renton is allowing property owners to
circumvent the City's subdivision regulations. IT IS NOT! (see 4-11-120 RMC(Legal Lot) and 4-
10-010(non-conforming lots))And, to the letter of the code,they are currently allowed to do it
—and therefore it cannot be suggested as a justification. Circumventing would only exist if they
changed the current code and THEN someone did this procedure in the future. The land is
already legally subdivided and the City of Renton ALREADY HAS a procedure for developing
nonconforming lots(4-10-010).The Justification is not supported by any Comprehensive Plan
Goals or Policies. (Chapter 4-1 RMC- Relationship and consistency of the development
regulations with the Comprehensive Plan). The Justification section also suggests that the
current process allows for the development of new homes that do not meet current development
standards, frontage improvement requirements, landscaping requirements, tree retention
requirements, etc. This is also not true because the current subdivision regulations indicate that
nonconforming lots may be developed and used if the proposed use is permitted in the zone, and
the proposed development will comply with the remaining development standards for the zone
and other land use and environmental requirements, as applicabie. (Ord. 5759, 6-22-2015).
The Decision(For any interpretation the requirements herein shail be...considered the minimum for
the promotion of the public health,safety, morals and general welfare...and shall be made in
accordance with the intent or purpose statement of the specific regulation AND the Comprehensive
Plan...4-1-080 RMC AND WAC 35A.63.105 Development Regulations Consistency with Comprehensive
Plan)This section currently does not include an answer to the interpretation that meets the guidelines
for an interpretation. It is neither the minimum for the promotion...nor consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. 1. This section needs to suggest a process that not only protects property owners
who currently have historically platted lots but will also preclude property owners from either
rebuilding, remodeling, or newly developing a structure over a lot line, without the result of an
elimination of that lot line regardless of platting or annexation history. 2. A Decision that will, in fact,
modify a development regulation, NEEDS to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The current
decision is not. Here are several key elements of the Comprehensive Plan that are appropriate to
introduce to the interpretation, but are not: 1.The City of Renton encourages infill development of
single family units as a means to meet growth targets and provide new housing(Policy L-3), 2.The City
of Renton promotes efficient land utilization...and utilizes multiple strategies to accommodate
residential growth, including...infill development on vacant and underutilized land in established
neighborhoods(Goal L-H and Goal L-I), 3. The City of Renton addresses...quality of life for existing
residents by considering scale and context in infill project design (Policy L-49).
II. Statement of Errors in Law
The City of Renton is using the Code Interpretation process incorrectly. They are using
this process to create "binding interpretations"of actions that grossly exceed the
limitations of the procedure. If it is deemed that the procedure does not have such
boundaries, then I would suggest the actions are an abuse of authority (City Policy 300-
51 (5.1.2)) and boundaries need to be modified on the process (for example, a tiered
approach to proper notification based on the "type"of"interpretation") (just as it was
suggested to me in a recent meeting at the city that builders always find ways to
"circumvent"the intent of a code change—requiring the city to continually modify codes
because of the "circumvention"—so does this [code interpretation] process need to have
an"amendment"to modify the extent of the use of interpretations—to just that—an
interpretation: Which is defined as the action of explaining the meaning of unclear or
contradictory regulations (that already exists, in the form that it currently exists—and
nothing else). The State intended to have the code modified no more than once a year for
the City of Renton's non-charter code. There is nothing in the code that indicates the
changes created by an interpretation (unless it is a listed exception—see below) shall be
binding even before it is approved and signed.
This determination does not meet the requirements of the State indicating that any and all
ordinances hereafter passed and adopted by the City shall not go into effect prior to thirty
(30)days from the time of final passage and same shall be subject to referendum during
the interim except the following ordinances:
A. Ordinances initiated by petition;
B. Ordinances necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health and
safety or for the support of City government and its existing public institutions
which contain a statement of urgency and are passed by unanimous vote of the
Council;
C. Ordinances providing for local improvement districts;
D. Ordinances appropriating money;
E. Ordinances providing for or approving collective bargaining agreements;
F. Ordinances providing for the compensation of or working conditions of City
employees and agents;
G. Ordinances authorizing or repealing the levy of taxes; and all such excepted
ordinances shall go into effect as provided by the general law or by applicable
sections of title 35A RCW as now existing or as hereafter amended.
The department is using the administrative policy/code interpretation process (with a
binding interpretation)to actually change code continually and circumvent the intent of
the State mandate.
Because of this incongruence with the State's intent, I believe the procedure currently
being utilized by the City of Renton is unconstitutional and needs to be addressed.
Relief Requested
I seek the following relief:
1. For issuance of Legal Lot Status for my two legal lots as submitted in the Legal Lot
Determination application.
2. For all administrative policy/code interpretations to be processed with the intent of
the State Mandate and for the City to modify their administrative policy/code
interpretation process to be more clear on what can and cannot be accomplished with
the process (and to match the limitations with the State's limitations).
Prehearing Conference
Last Monday, 4/3/17, in a meeting with Amanda Askren and Chip Vincent, I was told that the
current code interpretation CI-110 may be under review to be further modified.
In that event, I would like to have a prehearing conference to acknowledge undisputed facts that
would make relief of Relief# 1, above, acceptable. For example, if there was a new timeline
created for more public comment on the new interpretation and the existing legal lot definition
will be used for the submitted application, then I would like to receive relief and withdraw my
appeal.
A check in the amount of$500 representing the fee for an appeal of Hearing Examiner's
Decision is enclosed. Thank you for your consideration in this regard. I also include a copy of a
draft Administrative Policy/Code Interpretation that could be used as a template to start
discussions on a more comprehensive approach to the unclear/contradictory regulation.
Sincerely,
�,��.� �,-�
Laverne Graves
Property Owner at 905 N 28�' Place Renton, WA 98056
Cc: Chip Vincent, CED, City of Renton
City of Renton Clerk's office
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/CODE INTERPRETATIOI� #: CI-110
MLJNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS: RMC 4-11-120 Definitions L
� ..�-
REFERENCE: N/A � I
SUBJECT: Definition of a Legal Lot
BACKGROLJND: When the development standards for an historically recognized legal lot do
not meet the current development standards, it is considered a Nonconforming Lot. The City of
Renton has a code for developing nonconforming lots if thev first meet the criteria for bein�
Le�al Lot. Currentiv the method for defining a Legal Lot distin�uishes between L Lots created
prior to the effective date of the propertv's annexation to the City of Renton and 2. Lots created
within the corporate limits of the City of Renton. For each of these two methods there have been
numerous inquiries on how a structure constructed over a lot line affects the legal status of
historical lots. Currently, in the former of the two methods it does not affect the decision, but in
the latter of the two methods it does. Since most owners of historic lots, with structures
constructed over a lot line, never intended to lose their historically reco�nized legal lots, there is
a desire to modifv the method of defining a le�al lot to incor�orate a universal method of how
structures constructed over a lot line,historically and in the future will affect Le ag 1 Lot
determination.
JUSTIFICATION:
Because the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan indicates
1. We encourage infill development of single family units a.; a means to meet growth tar etg s and
provide new housin (g Policy L-3�
2. We promote efficient land utilization...and utilize multi�te strategies to accommodate
residential growth, including_..infill development on vacant and underutilized land in established
neig;hborhoods (Goal L-H and Goal L-I�,
3. We address...quality of life for existing residents b.��considering scale and context in infill
project design (Policy L-491, and
Propertv owners who own property with an already existing structure over a lot line ma, o�ay
not have intended to lose the legal status of their historical� reco�nized le ag i lot,
The City should expand the allowance of the existence of a structure over the lot line to all areas
of the City, but include exce�tions and conditions to the alle�wance (for example, buildin�a
structure over the lot line AFTER the EFFECTIVE DATE af this interpretation shall constitute a
de facto lot merger•)
The City's current Le�al Lot definition needs to be updated and revised to explicitly clarify how
and when structures over lot lines will affect legal lot status.
DECISION: Amend the definition of a Legal Lot as specified below. CI-110 Page 2 of 4
ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL:
C. E. "Chip" Vincent
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 24 2017 �
, � �
APPEAL PROCESS: To appeal this determination, a writte�l appeal--accompanied by the
required filing fee--must be filed with the City's Hearing Examiner(1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057, 425-430-6515) no more than 14 days from the date of this decision. Your
submittal should explain the basis for the appeal. Section 4-,�-110 of the Renton Municipal Code
provides further information on the appeal process.
CODE AMENDMENTS NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT DE7'ERMINATIONS: CHAPTER 11
DEFINITIONS
LOT, LEGAL:
A. A lot created in compliance with applicable State and lo:.al land segregation statutes or codes
in effect at the time the lot was created and meets the following requirements:
1. The lot was created prior to the effective date of the property's annexation to the City
of Renton and meets the following criteria:
a. A lot created before October 1, 1972, shall be recognized as a legal lot:
1. If before October 1, 1972, it was:
�a� Conveyed as an individually described parcel to separate,
noncontiguous ownerships through a fee simple transfer or
purchase; or
�b� Recognized as a separate tax lot by the County Assessor.
ll. If the lot was created before June 'a, 1937, it was served by one of the
following before January 1, 2000:
�a� Approved sewage disposal;
�b� An approved water systetn; or
�C� A road that was:
� � .
� �1� Accepted for mair►tenance by the King County
�
� Department of Transportation; or
�2� Located within an access easement for residential use
or in a road right-of-way and consists of a smooth driving
surface, including, but not limited to, asphalt, concrete, or
compact gravel, that complied with the King County road
standards in effect at tlle time the road was constructed.
b. A lot created on or after October 1, 1972, shall be recognized as a legal lot if it
was created:
l. Through the subdivision or short siibdivision process; or
11. Through the following alternative means of lot segregation provided
for by State statute or County code:
�a� At a size twenty (20) acres or greater, created by a record of
survey recorded before January 1, 2000, and not subsequently
merged into a larger lot;
�b� At a size forty (40) acres or greater created through a larger lot
segregation made in accordance with RCW 58.18.010, Assessor's
plat—Requisites, filing, index, etc.—When ofticial plat, approved
by King County and not subsequently merged into a larger lot;
�C� Through testamentary provisions or the laws of descent after
August 10, 1969; or
�C�� As a result of deeding land to a public body after Apri13,
1977.
C. In requesting a determination, the property owner shall submit evidence,
deemed acceptable to the department, such as:
1. Recorded subdivisions or division ��f land into four(4) lots or less;
11. King County documents indicatin� approval of a short subdivision;
111. Recorded deeds or contracts describing the lot or lots either
individually or as part of a conjunctive legal description (e.g., Lot 1 and
Lot 2); or
� 1V. Historic tax records or other similar evidence, describing the lot as an
� individual parcel. The Department shall give great weight to the existence
of historic tax records or tax parcels i�makmg rts determination.
(�. Propertv with a structure built over a lot line BEFORE the { EFFECT�vE
DA7'E } of this interpretation AND meeting all other criteria for le ag l lot
status shall be eli�ible far le�al lot status conditioned upon demolition of the
structure within 180 days of eli ibilit�
e. Building a structure over the lot line AFTER the { EFFECTI�'E
D,4TE } of this interpretation must apply for a subdivision to segre at� e the
lots back into two or more lots to ensure that the lots comply with currently
adopted development standards.
2. The lot was created within the corporate limits of the City, and
a. Before March 17, 1937 (Platting: Washington Session Laws of 1937 Ch. 186),
and on or before July 22, 1958, the lot was:
1. Conveyed as an individually described parcel to separate,
noncontiguous ownerships through a fee simple transfer or purchase; and
11. Recognized as a separate tax lot by the County Assessor; a�or
}��Nn r�.,:'��::�.:� ��...,.��:.:�� �;:.^,,x�.. .�. �u�u�c,l 1, L. ♦L, 1 r
C o„�:.,
accci "�vrrvr
b. Between March 17, 1937, and July 22, 1958, inclusive, the lot was created in
compliance with State segregation statutes ar�d codes; or
C. The lot was created after July 22, 1958, through a review and approval process
recognized by the City for the creation of two (2) or more lots or via a process
recognized as exempt from platting by State law; or
C�. The lot has not been merged via a lot combination as defined in this Section.
C. Property with a structure built over a lot line BEFORE the { EFFE�T�vE
DATE } of this interpretation AND meetin�; all other criteria for le al lot
. ' •
�
�
status shall be eligible for legal lot status conditioned upon demolition of the
structure within 120 da sy of eli ig bility_
f. Buildin� a structure over the lot line AFTER the { EFFECT1vE
�A7'E } of this interpretation must applti�for a subdivision to segre atg e the
lots back into two or more lots to ensure that the lots com�lv with currently
adopted development standards.
3. Each portion of a legal lot meeting the criteria above subsequently split by a right- of-
way under threat of condemnation shall be considered a legal lot.
B. A legal lot under this definition is not necessarily a buildable or developable site.
C. Each le�al lot, found to be buildable or developable meetin�the criteria above but not
meetin the City's current development standards (i.e. miniinum lot size width and/or depth�
shall be considered nonconforming and may be developed and used if the proposed use is
permitted in the zone, and the proposed development will complv with the remainin�
develoument standards for the zone and other land use and environment requirements as
applicable. (Ord. 5759, 6-22-2015�
<
��',� p � �f� (� � �.t 1��
` Cii`Y 4F �
__...r�/� w
��� �>
���
Department of Community and Economic Development
Planning Division
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/CODE INTERPRETATION
ADMINISTRATIVE
POLICY/CODE
INTERPRETATION #: CI-110
MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTIONS: RMC 4-11-120 Definitions L
REFERENCE: N/A
SUBIECT: Definition of a Legal Lot
BACKGROUND: The City of Renton currently has several lats, under common ownership,
throughout the City where structures have been constructed over lot
� lines. Typically these are older lots that do not meet the City's current
k`� � � � � ' � � � lot siz width ���,�r depth).
/ ���'�'� ructures are not permit e to `e c 'nstructe o line and any
�; structure constructed over a lot line v�ould not comply with setback
�,�t���``�------_-- xequirements. In addition, the construction of a structure over a lot line
J�results in lots functioning as a single I�t or one lot as opposed to two or
�,$����u�. ��,more underlying lots.
1USTIFICATION: The City should require that property owners apply for a subdivision to
segregate the lots back into two or more lots to ensure that the lots
comply with currently adopted development standards. By allowing
property owners to utilize the underlying iot lines, the City is permitting
. the circumvention of its subdivision regulations (Chapter 7), which allows
for the development of new homes that do not meet current
development standards,frontage imK�rovement rec��iremer�s,
landscapin�reguirements,tree ret t�.rene it�._ q.�,�irements, etc. The City's
--.�___.� _� _____�__
current Legal Lot definition needs to be updated and revised to explicitly
clarify that any structure constructed over a lot line results in an
elimination of that lot line regardless of annexation history.
DECISION: Amend the definition of a Legal Lot as specified below.
( � �
��{�'
� �.
H:\CED\Planning\Title IV\Docket\Administrative Policy Code Interpretation\CI-_10\Code Interpretation.docx �,�j� J
�.
ADMINISTRATOR
APPROVAL:
C. E. "Chip"Vincent
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 24, 2017
APPEAL
PROCE55: To appeal this determination, a written appeal--accompanied by the
required filing fee--must be filed with the City's Hearing Examiner(1055
South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057,425-430-6515) no more than 14
days from the date of this decision. Your submittal should explain the
basis for the appeal. Section 4-8-110 of the Renton Municipal Code
provides further information on the appeal process.
CODE
AMENDMENTS
NEEDED TO
IMPLEMENT
DETERMINATIONS: CHAPTER 11 DEFINITIONS
LOT, LEGAL:
A. A lot created in compliance with applicable State and local land segregation statutes or
codes in effect at the time the lot was created and meets the following requirements:
,
�F Q + n -..+rl rv+ae+�+4.e f�+ll���iinr+r�i+eri-n.
�1. A lot created before October 1, 1972, shall be recognized as a legal lot:
i. If before October 1, 1972, it was:
(a) Conveyed as an individually described parcel to separate, noncontiguous
ownerships through a fee simple transfer or ourchase; or
(b) Recognized as a separate tax lot by the County Assessor.
ii. If the lot was created before June 9, 1937, it was served by one of the
following before January 1, 2000:
(a) Approved sewage disposal;
(b) An approved water system; or
(c) A road that was:
(1)Accepted for maintenance by the King County Department of Transportation;
or
(2) Located within an access easement for residential use or in a road right-of-
� way and consists of a smooth driving surface, including, but not limited to,
asphalt, concrete, or compact gravel, that complied with the King County road
standards in effect at the time the road was constructed.
CI-110 Page 2 of 4
#:2. A lot created on or after October 1, 1972, shall be recognized as a legal lot if it
was created:
i. Through the subdivision or short subdivision process; or
ii. Through the following alternative means of lot segregation provided for by
State statute or County code:
(a)At a size twenty (20) acres or greater, created by a record of survey recorded
before lanuary 1, 2000, and not subsequently merged into a larger lot;
(b) At a size forty(40) acres or greater created through a larger lot segregation
made in accordance with RCW 58.18.010, Assessor's plat—Requisites,filing,
index, etc.—When official plat, approved by King County and not subsequently
merged into a larger lot;
(c)Through testamentary provisions or the laws of descent after August 10,
1969;
(d) As a result of deeding land to a public bociy after April 3, 1977;
'�etween March 17, 1937, and July 22, 1958 inclusive,the lot was created in
compliance with State se�regation statutes and codes; or
(f) The lot was created after July 22, 1958,throu�h a review and approval
process reco�nized bv the Citv for the creation of two (2) or more lots or via a
`i �rocess reco�nized as exempt from plattin� bv State law.
�-- ____
3. No residential structure (house or�ara�e) has been constructed over lot
boundaries under common ownership, which constitutes a de facto lot combination
as defined in this Section.
�r' 4. Each portion of a le�al lot meetin�the criteria above subsequentl�split by a ri�ht-
of-way under threat of condemnation shall be considered a le�al lot.
C �5. In requesting a determination,the property owner shall submit evidence,
deemed acceptable to the department, such as:
i. Recorded subdivisions or division of land into four(4) lots or less;
ii. King County documents indicating approval of a short subdivision;
iii. Recorded deeds or contracts describing tl-,e lot or lots either individually or as
part of a conjunctive legal description (e.g., Lot 1 and Lot 2); or
iv. Historic tax records or other similar evidence, describing the lot as an
individual parcel.The Department shall give breat weight to the existence of
historic tax records or tax parcels in making its determination.
� r�.,, i„+,. .,+�a ,.,�*��., +t,,, ,. .-,+„ i�.�,.,;+� .,f rh� /^��.. .,a
z. � �
a. Be#ere Mafc�i ��, �o�' ro�-.+�;.,,.. ���.,��,;,,,.,,,., �„ ., �., „f 1�]7!'M '1 4C1�
,a n� e n s r �e�re� �u�-�, �}�S,t#c���
CI-110 Page 3 of 4
. ,
e�ersla+�s-��r-e�gla-a-#ee s�i�;�t�ans#e�er �arEhase;�a
.� Q,,,.,,.,.,���.J -. ., �er-,.-,+„+-,.. �„+ 4,.,+l,e r„��.,+„ n«„« .,,�1
.� -,
�uF�irh r� no4i+��+or -+ �e f'-.i-+i+ �`++ r ml-�in-.+inn -+c r�nfin.�r� in thic- Co�+„+n� nr
� �
• i i � i i
rr�mnli-�nrr�u�i4� Ci�-+io rortrert-�+inr+ c4�-+F��+er �+nr) �-r+�nc. �
i
e. T-�e-k�t�aa�Ef�a�e��#�ef����, ,�z ��R
rn�r.nni�nr! L�v+I�n !"�+.i f.�.r+l�n nrn�+ir.n �f+��� I71 r rv�nro In+c nr vi-� -� r�rr�e�acc
r.+�`+R..�-..+.J -. .++f.-.�w� .�I-+++7.+.+4..i C+-�+.� I�..�•�'F
�
n� �. ...J.�.*4�r.�.-,t�f��rrl.�.w�n-.+i�r �l�-.11 4..� .-r.nrirlor.��J -� Ir.rt-�I I�+
B. A legal lot under this definition is not necessarily a buildable or developable site.
STAFF CONTACT: Jill Ding, x6598
CI-110 Page 4 of 4
�
�
�
�
�
I Y CITY OF RENTON Receipt �`� ' �;�'t��
�
r O�'� �� City Clerk Division
+ ,� + 1055 South Grady Way �
� � Renton,WA 98057 ' �`�, �
�NT� 425-430-6510 Date 1----� � ��� �
�
�f ❑ Cash �'� -� �•�-- �`} ❑ Copy Fee ❑ Notary Service
I L�Check No. l`�� :�`'-�' c�. ❑ Appeal Fee ❑
��
� ' f :�-.. �
Descri tion: :.`_�. � �; .y ._ c�... ' �,��__ ��,,�.:� � ,_� � i �-�.
p � , ,� c. _�-�.r._�. �. � _�� �...�;�.��, �� � —�--1I�
�✓s�` .v.� �r�. ��` ,�,��;;�� ��� —
� �_ -
Funds Received From: ,. �,_'-"-
Amount $
� ,z.��' ` �:,f��.��..�� __._.
Name _ �i. 1 � � ti.. .�- •
Address , � �,' �`
a { ' ''�` � i`�` i� �\�
� City/ZiP � �..-�,,...�.�.�:�e,��'�. � �w;.�.. � `� ,
I +� J .
i Ci Stdf�-Signa'�ure° �.
; �a
'3+';„ R :�,t
��' �t4"'a.�nk�,� �s
� +� ��ps'"�'"��
ad���' °�3 V�t�^s' q��5 m
a��' a("'���,�'�; r,+. .;��^'`v
,�.�c��E�'�`±'�°�i`��� � �;^
�+
d#`�``Y'��� �,�'a �'�vh'u��,��s
� t a
�
ai � '�? �����'f^',
� � r � ��'
�x �� a T�'.� :."� �a,-��.
��*� K��,r�
�t`` 'y� � � � � �"
�'c�.��,:�4,�#, ,� �+ ,�E'*
� Y".�„�C �t v 4 � � t�, s'�ya��,
'iSw'' �,�'�, 'ti �r q i � �� .�r��E»
�ny.���r� � '. t y; �rm ;( ,
��� } z �� ����t
�' � � �
,� �dd�ti k3"�.b. R� .!� . '�"hk �r"�.d
.Y w � 'y
���
$u��P��S ry Zh� {�+��
g�wJ !$ � � ;:�' .b
�`d'��� �� 1 ���� ^'k,'�
� . . . �..Y:�'.S��. � . �� . . r .�;H��n. d��'�"�. .