Bajkowski and Ors & Act Planning and Land Authority (Administrative Review)
[2011] ACAT 82
•5 December 2011
ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BAJKOWSKI and Ors & ACT Planning and Land Authority (Administrative Review) ACAT 82
AT 16 of 2011
Catchwords: Administrative review - multi unit housing development in RZ3- solar access to development and adjoining property private open space- basement carpark and set backs to habitable rooms—articulation of façade- building envelope
List of Legislation Planning and Development Act 2007
List of Regulations: The Territory Plan
Inner North Precinct Code, Rules 14 and 15, and Criteria 14, 15 and 16
Multi Unit Housing Development Code, Rules 19, 63, 122, 135, 146, 159, 160 and 163, and Criteria 19, 146, 159, 160 and 163
Tribunal: Mr B. Hatch, Senior Member
Mr G. Trickett, Member
Date of Orders: 5 December 2011
Date of Reasons for Decision: 5 December 2011AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
CIVIL& ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL )AT 16 of 2011
RE: EUGENE & JOLANTA BAJKOWSKI
ApplicantAND: ACT PLANNING AND LAND AUTHORITY
Respondent
AND: PHILLIP WILEY & JAMES XIRAKIS
Party Joined (1)
AND: OZTAL ARCHITECTS
Party Joined (2)
AND:ZOE MOULLAKIS
Party Joined (3)
AND: DAVID WORRALL
Party Joined (4)
AND: GEOFF & SUSAN DAVIDSON
Party Joined (5)
Tribunal: Mr B. Hatch, Senior Member
Mr G. Trickett, Member
Date of Orders: 5 December 2011
Date of Reasons for Decision: 5 December 2011ORDER
1. The decision under review is varied by imposing the following additional or varied conditions to the approval:
a) That the courtyard walls be replaced with advanced hedges as shown in drawing A001;
b) The developer provide further drawings to demonstrate that solar access to units 1 and 5 allow for proper solar access even where that requires articulation not in accordance with R15 but in compliance with C15 and C16;
c) The north windows to the kitchens and bedrooms of units 3 and 7 are to be retained and that the glazing to those units at that point is to comply with table 2 in exhibit 18;
d) That the storage as shown on the amended Basement plan, dated 1.9.11 in Exhibit 9, that shows 8 storage spaces, each with a 4sqm area, is constructed as shown on drawings A100 E.
………………………………..
Mr B. HatchSenior Member
For and on behalf of the TribunalREASONS FOR DECISION
1. This is a review of a decision of the Respondent to allow subject to conditions a proposal for:
· a lease variation for Block 10 of Section 2 in the Division of Braddon to permit 8 residential units
· the demolition of the existing dwelling on Block 10 of Section 2 in the Division of Braddon;
· the construction of 8 residential dwellings over 2 storeys with basement; and
· associated site works.
2. The proposed development is at 7 Lowanna Street Braddon, on the corner with Ijong Street.
3. The block was first developed in the early 1950s. While there are still a number of similar houses in the area, much of Braddon has become Multi-Unit Housing.
THE ISSUES
4. The proposed development is in the RZ3 Urban Residential Zone.
5. This matter was brought before ACAT by the Applicants, Mr and Mrs Bajkowski. The Bajkowskis have lived next door at 61 Ijong Street since 1975. Their two sons were raised in the house. The Bajkowskis are now retired, although Mr Bajkowski still works on a consulting basis as an economist. This work is done from home.
6. The Bajkowski house is typical for its time. It has 4 bedrooms and a living room, dining room and kitchen. The house squarely addresses the street, so that the front of the house is facing in a southerly direction.
7. Mr and Mrs Balkowski are concerned that as result of the proposed development they will lose a considerable amount of solar access to their home. The living room to the South of the house has a window on the eastern side of the house which currently enjoys winter sun. That will be largely lost by the proposed development.
8. The appeal then brought into focus for the proposed development:
i.the areas of Private Open space (POS) for the units and in particular the court yard walls;
ii.the location of the driveway and garage entry door in relation to the living and bedroom windows;
iii.solar access to some of the units;
iv.the building envelope along the west side in the rear zone;
v.the articulation of the façade of the building; and
vi.storage areas for the units;
9. The issue of traffic and parking in the street was also raised by the Applicants and other objectors.
CONSIDERATION
SOLAR ACCESS TO ADJOINING LAND
10. The first issue is the solar access to the Applicants’ house. Rule and Criteria 146 of the Multi-Unit Housing Development Code (MUHDC) states:
R146
Development is sited to allow a minimum of 3
hours of direct sunlight onto the floor or wall of
the internal primary living space and the private
open space of any dwelling within the
development and any dwelling/s adjacent the
subject site, between the hours of 9.00am and
3.00pm on 21 June (winter solstice).C146
Optimum winter sunlight to north-facing windows ofliving areas and private open spaces is achieved.
11.
The lounge or living room of the Applicants’ house faces south east. The house is about 25 degrees from south to the east, and the same to the west on the northern side. The Applicants gave evidence that the living room is the primary living space for the house. That room has an east facing window that the shadow diagrams show currently has at least 3 hours solar access at the winter solstice. This accords with the evidence of the Applicants. This solar access will be lost, perhaps not entirely, if the proposed development proceeds. Adjoining the living room is the dining room that has windows to the north and east; next to it is the kitchen which also faces north. The dining room and living room are meant to be divided by double doors which were not present at the time of the view.
Mrs Bajkowski gave uncontested evidence that the doors had been removed for renovation and that they would be returned in due course.
12.
The Respondent and developer argued that the dining room and possibly the kitchen also constituted primary living space, and as those areas will still receive
3 hours sun at the winter solstice then the Rule is met. The design of this house makes that a difficult argument for the respondent and developer. Had there been no provision for doors in the opening between the dining area and living room the argument would be stronger. Indeed, the proposed units have a combined living, kitchen area that could not be divided in that way so that solar access to any part of that open area would be sufficient.
13. We find that the primary living space for the Applicants’ house is the living room and that it will not receive 3 hours of sun pursuant to R146.
14.
That leaves C146. We find that the dining room is a living area in the Applicants’ house. We do not find that the kitchen is. Do the windows to the dining room face north? North facing is not defined in the Territory Plan (TP). There comes a point at which something moves so far off north that it could not be held to be north facing. North west is defined in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary as the mid point between north and west, that is, 45 degrees from both north and west. By that point it may be that a window is not north facing. The window in this case is about
25 degrees off north to the west. We find that to be north facing. We make no finding as to at what point away from due north would not be north facing. That may fall to be decided in another matter, and it may be that the facts of different cases means that there is no definite ruling. It may, perhaps, be something that should be defined in the TP.
15. We find that C146 is satisfied with respect to the Applicants’ house in that the north facing window to the dining room receives optimum winter sunlight. While energy was devoted to considering the trees in the back yard of the Applicants’ home which overshadow the north facing windows that is not a matter which we can take into consideration.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
16. The next issue is the POS for units 1, 3, and 4 which are on the ground floor. Each of these together with unit 2 have courtyard walls. The court yard wall for unit 2 is not surrounding POS for the purpose of R90 as it faces south south-east. Unit 2 has a POS on its north-west side and we consider both of these spaces satisfy C90.
17. The difficulty is that the MUHDC allows courtyard walls at R63, but Part C(3) which has specific rules for the Inner North and Gungahlin states:
R122
Free standing walls or fencing are not permitted
forward of the building line unless previously
approved in an estate development plan or
consistent with a relevant precinct code.This is a mandatory requirement. There is no
applicable criterion.
18. Part C (3) states at the outset that These controls apply instead of those contained in Part C(1) of the Code and therefore R122 takes precedence over R63. The developer provided drawing A001 which had the walls replaced with hedges. The evidence is that advanced hedges can be obtained and planted to provide adequate privacy immediately. Such plantings would be a condition of approval.
ARTICULATION AND SOLAR ACCESS TO DEVELOPMENT
19. Articulation of the building façade is the next concern. The Inner North Precinct Code (INPC) states that:
This Precinct Code applies to multi-unit housing in the RZ3 Urban Residential and RZ4 Medium Density Residential Zones of Inner North Canberra identified in the zones’ development table as being within the code, merit and impact assessment tracks.
20. The INPC therefore takes precedence over the MUHDC. The INPC states for articulation:
R14
Development is built to the minimum front
setback. The front façade of the development is
articulated to a depth of 2-3 m behind the front
setback, for all storeys of the development
(Figure 2).This is a mandatory requirement. There is no
applicable criterion.R15
The articulation of the front façade of a building
must exceed 40% of the width of the building, at
every storey level.C15
The front façade of a building is articulated to:
a) prevent continuous walls of development
b) provide visual interest to building alignmentThere is no applicable rule.
C16
The articulation responds to:
a) architectural design
b) local character
c) accessd) environmental conditions
e) landscape features
21. These Rules and Criteria raise a number of issues. Does R14 require that all articulation be 2-3 metres? The articulation pursuant to R15 must exceed 40% of the width of the building; R14 requires that the development is built to the minimum front setback. Do these 2 rules allow the articulation to be, say, 90% of the width of the building with only 10% at the minimum front setback? In that case it may be that the “articulation” becomes the true front setback and so fails R14, with the actual articulation being the 10% and therefore failing R15.
22. Rule 14 of the INPC refers to Figure 2. That diagram shows buildings with articulation, but not a building on a corner block as we are dealing with in the proposed development. The longer of the 2 buildings depicted seems to show in the centre an articulation much less than 2-3 metres. Unfortunately, the figure is small and poorly defined. But that raises the issue as to whether any articulation could be greater than 3 metres. Figure 2 has marked on it “Front Articulation Zone”. While Articulation Zone is defined in the TP, Front Articulation Zone is not. We do not consider that the definition of Articulation Zone adds anything to R14 and R15. It is worth reproducing Figure 2:
23. As Figure 2 appears to show a Front Articulation Zone which corresponds with the reference to 2-3 metre articulation, and a smaller articulation in the middle of the longer building, the conclusion we draw is that articulation greater than 2-3 metres is not permissible.
24. Considering the wording of Rules 14 and 15 and Figure 2 we conclude that the requirement is that the articulation must contain elements that are at least 2 metres, but no more than 3 metres; articulation less than 2 metres is allowable, but not articulation which is more than 3 metres. The articulation (both 2-3 metres and other articulation) must be at least 40%, although that may be less when C15 is considered, but cannot become the dominant feature. The dominant feature in relation to the articulation must be that the development is built to the minimum front setback.
25. These conclusions are drawn after hearing the evidence of Mr Christian Hemsley who gave evidence as the representative of the Respondent. He was also the second Assessment Officer to consider this matter. Mr Hemsley gave evidence that the articulation issue was confusing and an email from him with replies from other officers of the Respondent tends to show that the Respondent has the same difficulty we have had in interpreting these rules. The conclusion of the Respondent’s emails is that not all articulation must be 2-3 metres, and all articulation counts toward the 40%. The emails also says that is probably not the intent.
26. Mr Dominic Maiuto, the developer’s architect, gave evidence that he had difficulty in determining precisely what is required in light of figure 2 (Ex 9). He concluded that it is only the 2-3 metre set backs that count toward the 40% figure required by R15.
27. The plans as approved do not comply with the articulation rules as we have found them to be above. The main problem, based on our conclusions above, is due to this proposed development being on a corner block. Plan A103 Revision A at T104 and A104 Rev D at T105 show units 1 and 5 as having a porch for unit 1 and balcony for Unit 5 facing east toward Lowanna Street. Being on the corner means that the south face of these areas faces Ijong Street. Each of these areas is, south to north, 4 metres long. This means the articulation for the Ijong Street façade is too deep. It may only be up to 3 metres.
28. Any alteration to the unit 1 porch and unit 5 balcony will affect solar access, see R146. Mr Maiuto went to some effort in preparing further drawings to accommodate the articulation issue, and to then demonstrate that solar access in line with R146 was still possible, particularly in relation to unit 1. It was accepted by Mr Hemsley that solar access to unit 1 did, by what appears to us to be the closest of shaves, receive the required 3 hours. The Criterion 146 is not relevant as the window does not face north.
29. Another possibility in relation to unit 1, and indeed unit 5, was not raised but may be worth considering. The unit 1 porch and unit 5 balcony as drawn in T104 and T105 could be closed at the southern end by a solid wall. Clearly that would not affect solar access. It would fail R15 of the INPC. We are of the view, however, that C15 may be relied upon. Being a corner the visual interest is created by the articulation on Lowanna Street being visible although not greatly from much of Ijong Street. A continuous wall is still prevented on Ijong Street by the porch and balcony to units 2 and 6. That articulation along Ijong Street would be less than 40% at about 26%. The next issue would be that the porch to unit 2 and balcony to unit 6 are now shown at T104 and T105 as being 1.5 metres and would need to be increased to 2 metres. Criterion 16 also notes that the articulation should respond to:
a) architectural design
b) local character
c) accessd) environmental conditions
e) landscape features
30. Providing greater solar access is a response to environmental issues.
31. The new drawings provided by Mr Maiuto appear to satisfy the requirement for articulation and solar access. An approval by us could be made on a condition that those revised drawings form part of the development. We regard a better outcome to be that any approval be subject to further drawings being submitted to the satisfaction of the Respondent. This would allow the developer to reconsider its proposal and remain with the revised drawings or a modification of those, or to consider the issues raised above.
DRIVEWAY
32. The proposed driveway in the approved plans is off-set from the north boundary with Block 9 at an angle and located along the northern façade of the proposed residential development. The driveway extends approximately 16 metres into the site and is approximately 2.1 metres below the natural ground level at the garage door. At the end of the drive is a 5m wide garage door located in the northern façade. The bedroom, kitchen and dining room windows of Units 3 and 7 are located directly above the driveway and garage door.
33. The relevant Rules and Criteria of the MUHDC are as follows:
R135
In relation to driveways, access/internal roads and car parks:
a) Walls of dwelling incorporating an opening to a habitable room are to be setback are to be setback (sic) a minimum of 1.5 m. This setback may be reduced to 1 m where there is an intervening fencing 1.5 m high or greater, or where the window sill is a minimum of 1.5 m above the driveway, access/internal road and car park.
(This would appear to be related to safety rather than privacy, however, the wording in the rule is repeated in Rule 160.)
R159
a) Bedroom windows are located a minimum of 3 m from internal roads and driveways and parking areas of other dwellings.
c) Garages are not located adjacent to bedrooms of any dwellings.Criterion 159.
The building design and siting provides acoustic separation between active recreation areas, parking areas, driveways and service equipment areas and other noise sources (eg, busy roads) and bedrooms and minimises high levels of external noise entering dwellings.R160
Openings to a habitable room are as follows:
a) living areas: set back a minimum of 1.5 m from internal roads, driveways, noise generating service facilities and car parking areas. The minimum setback of openings to living areas may be reduced to 1 m where:
i) there is an intervening fence of 1.5 m or higher
OR
ii) the window sill is a minimum of 1.5 m above the level of the internal road,
driveway or car park.b) bedrooms: set back a minimum of 3 m from internal roads, driveways and car
parking areas.
Criterion 160.
Vehicle circulation routes, communal open spaces and noise generating service facilities and parking areas are acoustically separated from openings to habitable rooms through building design and siting.
34. R135 has similar wording in part to R160, however, the term ‘setback’ is mentioned twice and is one word rather than two words and is repeated in what would appear to be an error in drafting. In the Territory Plan Part B Definitions of Terms, the term ‘setback’ is stated in part to be a horizontal distance to a boundary. The tribunal considers that the wording might better be ‘set back’ since the word ‘setback’ is a defined term and in these Rules would appear not to mean a distance to a boundary as does the defined term. The tribunal does though, in the case of Rule 135 and Rule 160, consider that the dimension is required to be a horizontal distance rather than as could be determined in Rule 159 a distance in any direction. Criterion 159 does though refer to busy roads which would be located a great deal further away than 3m from a window in any development.
35. With respect to Rule 159 and C159 the garage entry and driveway are located directly below the bedrooms of Units 3 and 7. The tribunal considers that the building design and siting does not provide acoustic separation between the driveway and bedrooms. With respect to Rule 160 and C160 the openings to the kitchen and dining rooms of Units 3 and 7 and their bedrooms are directly over the driveway; there is no set back. The kitchen and dining rooms windows have a sill above the driveway and as such should be set back 1 metre from the driveway and the bedrooms should be set back 3 metres to comply with the rule. The tribunal considers that the building design and siting does not provide acoustic separation between the driveway and bedrooms.
36. Mr Rodney Stevens, witness for the Respondent, is a Principal Consultant with SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd. Mr Stevens provided a witness statement dated 12 September 2011, refer Exhibit 18 Appendix A, that set out “recommendations of windows glazing for the façade of a 7 unit apartment proposed for Block 19 Section 2 Braddon”. We note the numerical errors in Mr Steven’s ‘Introduction’ with respect to the block number and the number of units, however, note that there is no Block 19 Section 2 in Braddon and that there is a reference to Unit 8 in ‘Table 1 Glazing recommendations’. The statement makes reference to AS2107 2000. The tribunal asked Mr Stevens whether his recommendations in Table 1 were for fixed glazing or were relevant to openable windows. He informed the tribunal that the recommendations were for openable windows. We note that this may be inconsistent with the note below table 1 where he states “It is important to take note that the Rw performance of the glazing recommended must not be degraded by the frame system”. Mr Stevens would appear not to have made recommendations in his report with respect to a frame system that does not degrade the Rw performance nor to sealing around the frame and adjoining walls and soffits of the building.
37. Mr Stevens made recommendations about reducing both air-borne and structure-borne noise generated by the garage roller shutter. These were that the roller guides and the drive motor fixtures are to be via rubber ‘Rawlnuts’ and soft neoprene washers. He also recommended that the shutter be selected so that the sound pressure level 1m from the shutter is not more than 60dBA when in operation. The Respondent submitted amended drawings, A100 and A101, in the additional witness statement of Mr Dominic Maiuto, Exhibit 9, which showed a walled planter extending 1200mm to the north of the north façade of the building adjacent to Units 3 and 7. The drawings A101 and A102, both revision F, show that the north windows to the kitchens and bedrooms of Units 3 and 7 have been deleted.
38. The tribunal makes it a condition of approval that the north windows to the kitchens and bedrooms are to be retained since they enhance amenity and the other openings to these rooms will allow the north windows to be closed without detrimentally affecting natural ventilation. To comply with C159 and C160 the glazing to all units is to comply with Table 1 in Exhibit 18 with the additional requirements that the glazing frames are to provide acoustic separation and that the perimeter of the frames are to be fully sealed so that there is not degradation of the internal ambient noise levels above 30dBA. The tribunal makes it a condition of approval that the garage door roller guides and the drive motor fixtures are to incorporate rubber ‘Rawlnuts’ and soft neoprene washers and that the shutter be selected so that the sound pressure level 1m from the shutter is not more than 60dBA when in operation. The tribunal makes it a condition of approval that the walled planter extending 1200mm to the north of the north façade of the building adjacent to Units 3 and 7 is constructed as shown on drawings A101 and A102 revision F.
BUILDING ENVELOPE
39. The developer pointed out that there is a breach of the building envelope along the western side of the proposed development. Mr Maiuto notes this in his statement dated 20 May 2011 which is Exhibit 8. Drawing A700 which is annexure “E” to Ex 8 shows this encroachment. The Tribunal regards this as almost de minimis non curat lex but it is still present. The Tribunal is not a court of law, but this is a principle that should apply even in an administrative tribunal. Perhaps the better expression for an administrative tribunal is the statement de minimis non curat praetor. We have no difficulty in finding that while the breach of R19 of the MUHDC is present, C19 has been met. This breach of R19 cannot be said to cause any problem in relation to spatial separation or privacy and while there is some affect on solar access that is at best so minor that it is of no relevance.
STORAGE
40. The approved Basement plan, T087, (there may be another as this shows the proposed basement ventilation sketched on) includes 8 storage enclosures with a combined total area of 25.97sqm. the Rule is as follows:
R163 An enclosed space of storage is provided as follows:
a)studio and one bedroom dwellings: 4sqm with a minimum 2m height.
41. As there are 8 one bedroom units in the development the combined total storage area required to meet R163 is 32sqm. The proposed development does not comply with R163. As required, if the rule cannot be met then the proponent of a development must show how it meets the criterion.
C163 An enclosed space of 8sqm per dwelling is provided exclusively for external secure storage. This space may form part of a carport or garage.
42.
We are of the view that there is either a mistake in the wording of the criterion and that the 8sqm should refer to 8 cubic meters; if no height is specified then the criterion may have no meaning. Or that it is meant to be a reference to an 8 sqm area with a height that is to be determined on an individual basis. R163 provides for storage of 8 cubic metres. An 8sqm area with a height of 1 metre is the same in area, but would probably be impractical. With a height of 1.5 metres the storage would be 12 cubic metres and more practical but the height may make the space less useful. The other factor would be the shape of the 8sqm and an irregular shape may well make a space less usable even with a height, for instance, of
1.5 metres.
43. If C163 does mean to refer to 8 cubic metres, then a space of 8sqm with a height of 1 metre would comply. Such a space may well be of little use, and as such we conclude that C163 means 8sqm with a height to be determined on an individual basis, with the shape of the space to also be a relevant consideration.
44. The development does not comply with C163. Mr Maiuto, witness for the Respondents, provided an amended Basement plan to the tribunal for the subject site that he believes would comply with R163, refer Exhibit 9.
45. The tribunal makes it a condition of approval that the storage as shown on the amended Basement plan, dated 1.9.11 in Exhibit 9, that shows 8 storage spaces, each with a 4sqm area, is constructed as shown on drawings A100 E.
TRAFFIC
46. The sixth Party Joined Mr Davidson gave evidence as to the traffic in both Lowanna Street and Ijong Street. These streets already have issues with parking and being used as access between the City and the inner north and further afield. The part of Ijong Street at Lowanna Street is in real terms the northern end of Torrens Street which ends to its south at Cooyong Street.
47. Mr Davidson gave evidence that at present when cars are parked on both sides of Lowanna Street it is reduced to one lane. He considered that a further number of cars coming from the proposed development would only worsen a bad situation.
48. Mr Graeme Shoobridge, a civil engineer, also gave evidence in relation to traffic. Mr Shoobridge obtained traffic flow data from Territory and Municipal Services, and he attended the area for one morning peak traffic period. Mr Shoobridge gave evidence that the traffic he observed is greater than the TAMS figures which are from 2005. Despite this he was of the view that the volume of traffic was well within the capacity of both streets. As an example we note that Mr Shoobridge considered that the 2 way traffic volume for Ijong Street to be 6,000 vehicles per day and 600 v/h during peak periods with Lowanna Street at 3,000 v/d and 300 v/h in peak periods. Mr Shoobridge gave evidence that the peak he observed was 210 v/h for Lowanna Street and 520 v/h for Ijong Street.
49. Mr Shoobridge also gave evidence about the cars parked on both sides of Lowanna Street. He said that could be addressed with parking restrictions in order to keep the street more open. An issue of concern to him in that, however, is that opening Lowanna Street may simply make the street more attractive to traffic ‘rat running’.
50. We conclude that while the traffic is of some concern to the current residents it is well within the capacity of these 2 streets.
DECISION
51. The decision under review is varied by imposing the following additional or varied conditions to the approval:
a) That the courtyard walls be replaced with advanced hedges as shown in drawing A001;
b) The developer provide further drawings to demonstrate that solar access to units 1 and 5 allow for proper solar access even where that requires articulation not in accordance with R15 but in compliance with C15 and C16;
c) The north windows to the kitchens and bedrooms of units 3 and 7 are to be retained and that the glazing to those units at that point is to comply with table 2 in exhibit 18;
d) That the storage as shown on the amended Basement plan, dated 1.9.11 in Exhibit 9, that shows 8 storage spaces, each with a 4 sqm area, is constructed as shown on drawings A100 E.
………………………………..
Mr B. Hatch
Senior Member
For and on behalf of the TribunalPUBLICATION DETAILS
TO BE PUBLISHED
To be completed by Tribunal Staff
PART A FILE NO:
APPLICANT:
RESPONDENT:COUNSEL APPEARING: APPLICANT:
RESPONDENT:
SOLICITORS: APPLICANT:
RESPONDENT:
OTHER: APPLICANT:
RESPONDENT:
TRIBUNAL MEMBER/S: BRIAN HATCH, SENIOR MEMBER
GRAEME TRICKETT, MEMBER
DATE/S OF HEARING: 8 August 2011; 11. 12. 13 October 2011
PLACE: CANBERRADATE/S OF DECISION: PLACE: CANBERRA
PART B
RECOMMENDATION:
FULL REPORT ( ) CASE NOTE ( ) UNREPORTED DECISION ( )
COMMENTS:
0
0
0