HEX Final Decision 2023-10 (Corrected) HEX NO. 2023-10
AMENDED HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
(To Correct Scrivener's Error)
DATE OF HEARING.
February 23, 2023
PETITION.
Petition No. PDI-PL20180002749 — Request for an insubstantial change to Ordinance No.
97-70, as amended, Pelican Lake, a Planned Unit Development (PUD), to allow a screened-
in porch to be constructed on the TTRV lots in addition to and not in lieu of the accessory
storage structures, and a deviation to 5.03.02 C of the Land Development Code to clarify
maximum height for perimeter walls. The subject PUD is 101.3± acres and located at the
northeast corner of Collier Boulevard (SR-951) and Championship Drive in Section 15,
Township 51 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida.(Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach,
AICP, Planner III) (Commissioner District 1)
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The purpose of the proposed Insubstantial Change to the Planned Unit Development (PDI) is to
clarify Ordinance 97-70, Section III, Subsection 3.3.B.6.as it pertains to accessory structures. The
clarification seeks to authorize a 308-square-foot screened-in porch to be constructed on the RV
lots. The current language specifies these screened-in porches must be attached to the recreational
vehicle motor coach. This amendment would allow the screened-in porch to be detached from the
motor coach. It also clarifies that the combined area of the screened-in porches and the
utility/storage structures shall not exceed 616 square feet. A deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.
C.1.a. "Fences and Walls" is also being sought to allow for an 8-foot-tall wall along the external
rights-of-way.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Approval with conditions.
FINDINGS.
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this Petitioner pursuant to Sec. 2-87 of the Collier
County of Ordinances, Sec. 8.10.00 of the Land Development Code, and Chapter 9 of the
County Administrative Code.
2. The public hearing for this Petition was properly noticed and conducted in accordance with all
County and state requirements.
Page 1 of 10
INSTR 6379903 OR 6228 PG 2769
RECORDED 3/24/2023 2:23 PM PAGES 17
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER
COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA
REC$146.00
4. The Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative executed the Hybrid Virtual Quasi-Judicial
Public Hearing Waiver related to conducting the public hearing electronically and in-person.
5. A duly advertised NIM(neighborhood information meeting)was held on Wednesday,June 26,
2019, at the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Auditorium, located at 300
Tower Road, Naples, Florida. A second NIM was conducted on September 21, 2022, at the
Greater Naples Fire Rescue Station 71 located at 100 13th Street SW,Naples, Florida.
6. The County Staff presented the Petition followed by the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's
representative, public comment and then rebuttal by the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's
representative. There were no objections to the Petition at the public hearing.
7. The County's Land Development Code Sections 10.02.13.E.1 and 10.02.13.E.2 lists the
criteria for an insubstantial change to an approved PUD Ordinance. The Hearing Examiner
having the authority of the Planning Commission may approve a request for an insubstantial
change to an approved PUD ordinance upon review and evaluation of the criteria in the Collier
County Land Development Code.1
Section 10.02.13.E.1 Criteria:
a. Is there a proposed change in the boundary of the Planned Unit Development(PUD)?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there is no proposed
change in the boundary of the Pelican Lake PUD.
b. Is there a proposed increase in the total number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or
height of buildings within the development?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there is no proposed
increase in the number of dwelling units or intensity of land use, or height of buildings within
the development.
c. Is there a proposed decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation, or open space areas
within the development in excess of five (5%)percent of the total acreage previously
designated as such, or five (5) acres in area?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there is no proposed
decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation, or open space areas within the
development over 5% of the total acreage.
d. Is there a proposed increase in the size of areas used for non-residential uses, to include
institutional, commercial, and industrial land uses (excluding preservation, conservation or
open space), or a proposed relocation of nonresidential land uses?
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 10
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed
insubstantial change will not increase the size of institutional, commercial, or industrial uses.
e. Is there a substantial increase in the impacts of the development which may include, but are
not limited to increases in traffic generation;changes in traffic circulation;or impacts on other
public facilities?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there are no
substantial impacts resulting from this insubstantial change pertaining to traffic generation,
traffic circulation, or impacts on other public facilities.
f. Will the change result in land use activities that generate a higher level of vehicular traffic
based upon the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the request does not
change land use activities and does not generate a higher level of vehicular traffic. The
proposed changes will not create any additional vehicular-generated trips based on the ITE
Trip Generation Manual.
g. Will the change result in a requirement for increased stormwater retention, or otherwise
increase stormwater discharge?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the request does not
result in a requirement for increased stormwater retention or increased stormwater
discharge.
h. Will the proposed change bring about a relationship to an abutting land use that would be
incompatible with an adjacent land use?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there will be no
incompatible relationships with abutting land uses. The proposed changes will not bring
about any changes to an abutting land use that would be incompatible with an adjacent land
use.
i. Are there any modifications to the PUD Master Plan or PUD document or amendment to a
PUD ordinance which is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element or other elements of
the Growth Management Plan or which modification would increase the density of intensity
of the permitted land uses?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed changes
to the PUD Document are consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. Both environmental and
Transportation Planning staff reviewed this petition, and no changes to the PUD Document
are proposed that would be deemed inconsistent with the CCME or the Transportation
Element of the GMP. This petition does not propose any increase in density or intensity of the
permitted land uses. This modification is in compliance with the Future Land Use Element
Page 3 of 10
of the GMP. The modifications to the PUD ordinance do not increase the intensity of the
permitted land uses.
j. The proposed change is to a PUD District designated as a Development of Regional Impact
(DRI) and approved pursuant to Chapter 380.06, Florida Statues,where such change requires
a determination and public hearing by Collier County pursuant to Sec. 380.06 (19), F.S. Any
change that meets the criterion of Sec. 380.06 (19)(e)2., F.S., and any changes to a DRI/PUD
Master Plan that clearly do not create a substantial deviation shall be reviewed and approved
by Collier County under Section 10.02.13 of the LDC.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the Pelican Lake
PUD is not a DRI, therefore, this criterion is not applicable.
k. Are there any modifications to the PUD Master Plan or PUD document or amendment to a
PUD ordinance which impact(s)any consideration deemed to be a substantial modification as
described under Section(s) 10.02.13 E.?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed changes
are not deemed to be substantial.
Section 10.02.13.E.2 Criteria requires an evaluation of the findings and criteria used for the
original PUD application, to wit LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5:
a. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to
physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer,
water, and other utilities.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that this criterion is not
applicable. The subject property is already developed, and the pattern of development is not
proposed to change.
b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or other
instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to
arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such
areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the PUD document
and the general LDC development regulations make appropriate provisions for the continuing
operation and maintenance of common areas.
c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives, policies, and the Future Land
Use Element of the Growth Management Plan.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed PDI is
consistent with the GMP.
Page 4 of 10
d. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include
restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening
requirements.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the currently
approved development, landscaping and buffering standards were determined to be
compatible with the adjacent uses and with the use mixture within the project itself when the
PUD was approved. This PDI change of the screened-in porch area and external wall height
will not change the project's internal and external compatibility.
e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve
the development.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the existing open
space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC.
f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available
improvements and facilities, both public and private.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed change
of the screened-in porch area and external wall height will not change the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities.
g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed change
of the screened-in porch area and external wall height will not affect the ability of the subject
property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the
particular case,based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public
purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that this PUD is existing
and other than the proposed change of the screened-in porch area and external wall height,
the subject site will conform with existing PUD regulations.
Section 10.02.13.E.2 Criteria requires an evaluation of the findings and criteria used for the
original PUD application, to wit LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F (Rezone Findings):
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and
future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects the proposed PDI is
consistent with all applicable elements of the Future Land Use Element(FLUE) of the Growth
Management Plan (GMP).
2. The existing land use pattern.
Page 5 of 10
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that this PDI will not affect
the existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern will remain the same.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that this criterion is not
applicable. The districts are existing and established.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on
the property proposed for change.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that this criterion is not
applicable. The districts are existing and established.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment
necessary.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects the proposed PDI is not
necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such
amendment to allow the owner the opportunity to change the screened-in porch area and
external wall height along the PUD boundary. Without this PDI, the property could be
developed in compliance with the existing PUD ordinance regulations.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the amendment will
not add more dwelling units but will allow for a change in the screened-in porch area and
external wall height along the PUD boundary. The proposed change will not adversely impact
the living conditions in the neighborhood.
7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create
types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or
projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of
the development, or otherwise affect public safety.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed
amendment will not adversely impact traffic circulation.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed
amendment will not affect drainage.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the PUD requires
compliance with building setbacks and height restrictions as identified in the PUD document.
When meeting these requirements, light, and air will not be reduced to adjacent properties.
Page 6 of 10
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that this PUD amendment
will not adversely impact property values.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement
or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the adjacent properties
will continue to be developed in accordance with the existing regulations.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner
as contrasted with the public welfare.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed
development complies with the Growth Management Plan which is a public policy statement
supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of
this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with
the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent
with plans are in the public interest.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with
existing zoning.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the subject property
could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning designations; however, the
petitioner is seeking this amendment in compliance with LDC provisions for such action. The
petition can be evaluated, and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing
process. The proposed amendment meets the intent of the PUD district, and further, the public
interest will be maintained.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed PUD
amendment is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood.
15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in
districts already permitting such use.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that this petition was
reviewed on its merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC at this particular site only.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMP as it is proposed to be amended.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be
required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed
zoning classification.
Page 7 of 10
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that any development
anticipated by the PUD document would require site alteration and these residential sites will
undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during
the building permit process.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services
consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan
and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance [Code ch. 106, art. II], as amended.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that this petition has been
reviewed by the county staff responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the
amendment process and they have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely
impacted.
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem
important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that this criterion is not
applicable.
Deviation(s):
The petitioner is seeking one deviation from the requirements of the LDC.The deviation is directly
extracted from PUD Section VI.
Proposed Deviation
Proposed Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C.1.a., "Fences and Walls,
Excluding Sound Walls," located within "Residential (RSF, RMF, RT, VR, MH) and TTRVC
zoning districts",which states fences or walls shall be limited to a maximum height of six(6)feet
to instead allow a maximum height of eight(8) feet.
The Petitioner's justification is that "This deviation will allow additional screening along the
northern portion of Championship Drive and Treasure Cove Boulevard and will also match the
height of the fence/wall already installed along the southern portion of Championship Drive and
Treasure Cove Boulevard by Fiddler's Creek."
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that approval of this deviation
is in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element
may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community"
and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is `justified
as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such
regulations. "
Page 8 of 10
ANALYSIS.
Based on a review of the record including the Petition, application, exhibits, the County's staff
report, and hearing comments and testimony from the Petitioner and/or the Petitioner's
representative(s), County staff and any given by the public, the Hearing Examiner finds that there
is enough competent, substantial evidence as applied to the criteria set forth in Sections
10.02.13.E.1 and 10.02.13.E.2 of the Land Development Code to approve Petition.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number PDI-PL20180002749, filed by
Adamczyk Law Firm, PLLC representing Pelican Lake Property Owners Association of Collier
County, Inc., with respect to the property as described in the Pelican Lake Planned Unit
Development(PUD), Ordinance No. 97-70, for the following:
• A request for an insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 97-70, as amended, Pelican Lake,
a Planned Unit Development (PUD), to further clarify the development standards for
accessory screened-in porches,to allow a perimeter privacy wall within the required buffer
areas, and to add a deviation increasing maximum perimeter wall height from 6 feet to 8
feet around the PUD boundary only.
Said changes are fully described in the Proposed Pelican Lake PUD Amendment, attached as
Exhibit "A" and Master Site Plan attached as Exhibit "B" and are subject to the condition(s) set
forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A—Proposed Pelican Lake PUD Amendment
Exhibit B—Master Site Plan
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
See Ordinance No. 97-70
CONDITIONS.
All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
DISCLAIMER.
Pursuant to Section 125.022(5)F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any
way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency
and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant
fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or
undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law.
Page 9 of 10
APPEALS.
This decision becomes effective on the date it is rendered.An appeal of this decision shall be done
in accordance with applicable ordinances, codes and law.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS: SEE CLERK OF COURT, MINUTES
AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR
VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND BOAT DOCK EXTENSIONS SHALL BE
NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.
X.2..;Z•1.........-.—*-
March 20, 2023
Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 10 of 10
EXHIBIT " A"
An Insubstantial Change to Ordinance No. 97-70, as amended by Ordinance No. 14-03 and
Ordinance No. 17-26, as follows:
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
LIST OF EXHIBITS i►
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND SHORT TITLE iii
SECTION I -PROPERTY OWNERSHIP& LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1-1
SECTION II -PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2-1
SECTION III-RECREATIONAL VEHICLE LAND USE 3-1
SECTION IV- CYPRESS PRESERVE 4-1
SECTION V- GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5-1
SECTION VI -DEVIATIONS FROM THE LDC 6_1
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
3.3 USES PERMITTED
B. Accessory Uses:
6. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with travel trailer
recreational vehicle lots, including:
a) An enclosed utility/storage area of up to three hundred eight(308)square
feet inclusive of all added roofs over entries, except typical roof overhangs.
Any utility/storage area may be located adjacent to its associated recreation
vehicle in compliance with the setbacks provided in Section 3.4.0 of this
document. The utility/storage area may be a continuous part of a screened-
in porch where such a porch is attached to the vehicle as herein provided.
However, the combined square footage of the enclosed utility/storage area
and attached screened porch shall not exceed 308 616 square feet.
Notwithstanding the foregoing,the following conditions shall apply to any
enclosed utility/storage area installed, constructed, or expanded after the
effective date of this Ordinance: i)it shall not be used as a place of business;
ii) if trees or vegetation are removed during installation or construction of
the enclosed utility/storage area,then they shall be replaced with like-kind;
iii) an enclosed utility/storage structure may not be used as a dwelling unit
or a guest house. It shall not contain a bed or bedroom. Sleeping is
prohibited in the enclosed utility/storage structure and the enclosed
Pelican Lake PUD Page 1 of 3
PDI-PL20180002749 Text underlined is added;to uek through is deleted
1/19//2023
EXHIBIT "A"
utility/storage structure shall not be occupied unless an occupied
recreational vehicle as described in Section 3.3.A.1 of the PUD is present
on the lot; iv) the an entrance to the enclosed utility/storage structure shall
face the recreational vehicle as described in Section 3.3.A.1 of the PUD and
the doorway() to the enclosedutilit y/storage structure sha„ 13e eater
than a 45 degree angle when a corner mounted doorway is utilized; v) the
height of any enclosed utility/storage structure is limited to one story not to
exceed fifteen(15)feet in actual height;and vi)any expansion of an existing
enclosed utility/storage structure shall include the footprint of the existing
enclosed utility/storage structure, except where the existing structure may
encroach into the side yard setback. For the purposes of this Section 3.3.B.6
(a),the height shall be measured from the lower of 1)the proposed finished
floor elevation of the enclosed utility/storage structure; or 2) twelve (12)
inches above the applicable FEMA flood elevation (NAND).
b) An attached A screened-in porch elevated or at ground level with a solid
roof structure, architecturallycompatittle— ith its--asso eiate€1 recreation
vehicle not to exceed three hundred eight(308) square feet,may be located
adjacent to its associated recreation vehicle in compliance with the setbacks
provided in Section 3.4.0 of this document. , not to exceed an area equal to
the area of the recreational vehicle to which it is attached. Said screened-in
porch may provide for any site utility/storage space requirements as herein
provided and shall not contain any other interior walls. All such screened
enclosures must be permitted and constructed according to this Code and
applicable building codes. No heating, air conditioning, or heater systems
or parts of systems including ducts or grills may be constructed or contained
in such screened-in porch. Exterior lls hie be enclosed with vinyl
windows, except that the storage area may be enclosed with the same
material as the principal unit. For clarification, a screened-in porch does
not have to be attached to an enclosed utility/storage structure and does not
have to be located ten (10) feet from said enclosed utility/storage structure
or other accessory structure(s) on the lot unless required by law, ordinance,
or code.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
3.7 REQUIRED BUFFERS
A. Adjacent to State Road 951 and Championship Drive: An area,not less than twenty
feet (20') in width shall be provided. This area shall include a landscaped area of
five feet (5') inside its entire length. The landscape plan for this area will be
determined at project plan approval in accordance with Section 2.5 A or B of this
document. The entire buffer area may be combined to achieve a visual screen
between State Road 951/Championship Drive and the TTRV park. A perimeter
Pelican Lake PUD Page 2 of 3
PDI-PL20180002749 Text underlined is added;tetstiaise through is deleted
1/19//2023
berm and swale may be permitted within the buffer area. A perimeter privacy wall
up to eight(8) feet in height may also be permitted within the buffer area.
Irrespective of the foregoing, a minimum distance of fifty (50) feet shall be
maintained between the proposed on-site road pavement surface running parallel to
S.R. 951 and the most easterly pavement surface on S.R. 951.
B. All other project boundaries: A buffer strip at least fifteen feet (15') wide in which
ornamental screening composed of structural or plant material shall be provided.
The landscape plan for this area will be determined at project plan approval in
accordance with Section 2.5A or B of this document. A perimeter berm and swale
may be permitted within the buffer area. No buffer shall be required between the
Cypress preserve and the project boundary. A perimeter privacy wall up to eight
(8) feet in height may also be permitted within the buffer area.
C. No buffer shall be required between recreation areas and TTRV lots.
D. Required buffers shall be maintained and constructed in accordance with the
landscape provisions of Article 2, Division 2.4 of the Collier County Land
Development Code, or its successor provision.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
SECTION VI
DEVIATIONS FROM THE LDC
DEVIATION 1: Relief from LDC section 5.03.02.C.1.a., "Fences and Walls, Excluding
Sound Walls" located within "Residential (RSF, RMF, RT, VR, MH) and
TTRVC zoning districts", which states fences or walls shall be limited to a
maximum height of six(6)feet to instead allow a maximum height of eight
(8)feet along the perimeter buffer of the PUD only.
6-1
Pelican Lake PUD Page 3 of 3
PDI-PL20180002749 Text underlined is added;t 'k through is deleted
1/19//2023
EXHIBIT " B "
17---i a 1.
.
IVO N'Ill'
.01,74.01 it ii
igtiAiii! 11;10 §
f iciiiiiI
•••I; .
I . . . . . . . • g lifigi!
: ,_
g i 1
ill g - I i pi
l'i -- — ; ,-Iir . . - . i*° ' ! I _ .: I i PII i It • : 1 i
0:1
i
0tt,!
=if! I/:: • ,12-1'; I-!
..1.; I i i !it-! 11 , .101 r ii E-1
.Tg41 I L
i Vi li r.ii Ii it';I II ill 1 11• ; - .I,i i I; lb 1:2 V• ria••!'eir: !iii ii fil,I-let . Si I r li
!..i?-1 1 I e e • • 1 hr- 111 4 ;h• 11'1--- Ir. 1.1:. - le ./ •( t..
1 .i I; 11T 1 1. 1% , 1-
10-.1 ; 0.:i
:!: !!!1 i:i it-li ii'!i lg liiii!!!:Inl.i 11 it:i•:II;i! ; i! 41 di !
t
io! !!!Ii!
t' ililtiiii .!./reIrrii - . . • . • • •e : r : e 1.• ! : I !,. E —5
. §E,
i
.9 3
i t.J.1
!_
i'
1- :4 _. .
II ,.... - 71.] . ,e46,1b ,
,
J li FF ,i 1 Itiztvolro , , II , te eigrA r 1
),..... - il:ii --.....,,,4 ; _ :
r:4 :
1
i• :resp.--_ , „...
. .
L...., ,..,, ,- ..„--,,,,,,,,,..•4, ..
! . ,
el 1!/ . : •'• tli I 114* .Nuir.,.....„, _ ._e 0 it mg; ,
—su
4 -w., :in : t i ' -i: : •
. ,ar I 1 1 . ! ' lq i 5 •400:i i!
; II . I ' -""-"7-.47.1--
7 A -
9
1 °
I C., 1 :1 1,•3 ' • <:::71. -, MY 1
7--
-
I :i ;.=.111II -.-.. 4- 11 • :. * . A\ J I
I z") ' Z
1 ..:,.....4 ! I I ! a : :. .-. __ I".....
•.._____.7) : ;/......,: I
1 _ 4111 It, filasosi 2 '
i \.•I' I / -
•- MI / el 1
i 2 • MI ll --" ....
1%_11°1-... ....
I
I
- // 1
,„„„___—, moo, i
—
-
-
1 uilli =
,.,„_
1 ,
IL ao
I . " ri 1 ------ . .::.. . ,i ,,,
• i •E
, :a L._'-'1 • iH-47 1 7.i- ,- - 1 . ,
iii. zc:c
I 1 - - . ---. 1• - w ..:1 .. • I :7- 11111(1074,
---. Is . .1.
Miiir 1--!---,1 i;-.--'arkL0 1111, i
! .: A.: 1 ,.. . I, - :-.0
1.
--
:: ,
.!•• • ' / ' .ft A7 , 0
...1 I . -1- . ..
! 57-01 lit mil?-7 1 g g
1
- i• 'L3
EP III i i ,
et. i
u_., 1111 I, j • ,. _ :, i i! • -1---7:7—;
•4. ---.----*-- i:' 1 1 C.5 4
rz:
,....t, WIWI 1 • II 7 i i 711 I 'i 1• -- + 1 -.,-_-_=-- --—- .
______ , • r.4 •••:
-'10111,1L, •I 7 1 t ' el ..t.',: . ' I — . 1 "
/, icioAA 4,1,....
1110.10-di"•.%\, ..4.1fg;
1" 1-•' ix—
, 1
___
1 I
I I
1:II
- -
. 3Z31.8,4.1141110S I 1 --'4ilfeillirt-... 2—
i!I'ii?I,e 1 111;j11.f,.1 II 1
•• '��i 1 'ill � �.
ia•s• i
If;i;�yi � I�a Ali
I2, ���AI it i���It1 y�
f[
W
I
4 it
lV
w la
.o
W g
H
4 2 W q
u
i 1 i o� Li ' I
S '1 �y i Yam - ili. .li. ,sk i jii
ph
r4,\ L. { i� ya 1 I I l *xi;
g Oh
' ���,V.) ;_if'*e$ , '.0. 1� !' . frc �, ':,,; all
� t �i'"
j
TitiTi
.t,▪ 44!hi 1 kiht,41„.:, 41/tratimv„:116.1 PO
a s
I l M I 1 u1
i Lx' U If fril � �• a I Ij! j W I! ii' y
I' ° s
21 i 's:'�y
+ Ii� l J.„,„,
•. �, II 3'$�31
f- j✓2- 2 !,2 ?� �I .1 c
i 'k. 4iumprit a
-!1,1 1
_., , i _ i .
t�t I[(,atua���1 i L.y LC+. / ]NO IIM1,F .L.11....
rr-,
/ CL °
tx
i I i {�w�/ V
4 ' U 4
i al
L i a t- 5 ` 11 W V
ir.i I I;E+ J
o
l o
r .i
L q!Iw
:g
eu
,� I 1 1
fL r� I ��2 I.i II
I
g ti, r- i! - I I ilityd z a�
— as if lI ti F II I —1 R11s11 d
33N41 iNn � . ,
', II , �,N1.UN� .. I _i..•....i C]