Loading...
HEX FInal Decision 2024-61HEX NO. 2024-61 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DATE OF HEARING. November 149 2024 PETITION. Petition No. BD-PL20240006029 — 687 Palm Avenue - A proposed 14-foot boat dock extension to allow a boat docking facility with two boat lifts protruding a total of 34 feet into a waterway that is 116± feet wide for the benefit of property located on Lot 11, Block F, Goodland Isles 2nd Addition, in Section 18, Township 52 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION. The petitioner requests a 14-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet allowed by the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) for waterways greater than 100 feet in width to allow a boat docking facility with two boat lifts protruding a total of 34 feet into a waterway that is 116± feet wide. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Approval with conditions. FINDINGS. 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this Petitioner pursuant to Sec. 2-87(4) of the Collier County %J 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. 3. The public hearing was conducted electronically and in -person in accordance with Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04. 4. The public hearing was conducted in the following manner: 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 at the public hearing. The Hearing Examiner was informed after the quasi judicial hearing of the pre - hearing voice messages received by County Staff, therefore, the Petitioner was not able to address it at the hearing, and nor can the Hearing Examiner consider it. Page 1 of 6 5. The County's Land Development Section 5.03.06.H. lists the criteria for dock facility extensions. The Hearing Examiner may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a boat dock extension request if it is determined that at least four (4) of the five (5) primary criteria, and at least four (4) of the six (6) secondary criteria have been met.' Primary Criteria: 1. Whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property. Consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate; typical single-family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi- family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate.) The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the cr°iterion HAS BEEN MET. The subject property) is located within a residential single family zoning district; the proposed docking facility will have two slips, each ivith a boat lift. 2. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should establish that the water depth is too shallow to allow launching and mooring of the vessel(s) described without an extension.) The record evidence and testimony from. the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS BEEIVMET. The applicant states. "The boat dock extension is necessary io accommodate the owners'vessels as the existing shoreline consists ofriprap and dense mangrove growth, which the dock ivill extend out past to avoid impacts. The proposed dock design is consistent with the other existing docking facility on site but will extend slightly firr•ther• out to accommodate the proposed boatlifts. Based on the owner's vessel's existing on -site water depths and mangrove shoreline, the BDE is needed to reach sufficient depths and to avoid impacts to the mangroves as shmm on the attached BDE exhibits. " Counly staff concurs and notes that the existing dock facilio) is to be removed andlor replaced by the proposed facility. 3. Whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable chaimel. (The facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel.) The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS BEEN MET. The applicant states: "The proposed docking facilit�� is located on an unmarked man-made canal; therefore, the entire ivater•way provides safe navigation between the docking facilities, and no new impacts to any navigation will result from the proposed project. Additionally, there is an existing dockfacilio) on -site i-which as proposed, 1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized. Page 2 of 6 the new dock will only extend out slightly further in order to acconnnodate an actual boatlift. " County staff concurs. 4. Whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the required percentages.) The record evidence and testimony from the pztblic hearing reflects that the criterion HAS NOT BEENMET. The applicant's expert states: "The approximate waterway varies from the east side of the proposed dock being approximately 116 feet wide and the west side being 135.32 feet wide. The proposed dock protrusion is 34 feet on the west side, approximately 26%, and on the east side, approximately 26.9 feet, which is 22% of the width of the waterway. " County staff concurs and notes that despite not satisfying the 25 percent threshold, over 50 percent of the waterway would remain open for navigation. 5. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.) The r°ecor°d evr.'dence and testimony fr°om the public hear°ing r°eflects that the criterion HAS BEENMET. The applicant's expert states: "The proposed docking facility design and slip layout has taken each adjacent docking facility into consideration to avoid any potential impacts. As proposed, we are confident that there will not be any new impacts to neighboring docks or their existing ingress/egress to their existing slips/boat lift. Additionally, as proposed, the dock will be within the allowed buildable, providing the required 15 foot and 20 foot setbacks. " County staff concurs and notes that a Boat Dock Extension was previously approvedfor the lot immediately to the west of the subject property; they were granted a 33 foot protrusion as part of BD-06-AR4563, CCPC Resolution 06-06. Secondary Criteria: 1. Whether there are special conditions not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds.) The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS BEEN MET. The applicant states: "The subject property shoreline consists of cr 1prap/mangrove shoreline, an existing docking facility, and associated boatlift. The special existing on -site condition taken into consideration when designing the proposed dock was the rip -rap and mangrove shoreline, and to avoid impacts to the mangroves, the best option was to propose the dock to extend out past into the subject canal. " County) staff concurs. Page 3 of 6 2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area.) The r ecord evidence a("d testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS BEEN MET. The applicant states: "The proposed docking facility has been fidly minimized possible and still provides deck area for routine maintenance, safe access as titWl as recreational activities like fishing plus storage for these activities the dock provides. The total over-ivater square footage is 380 square feet. " County staff concurs. 3. For single-family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner, exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.) The record evidence and testimony f °om t1�e public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS NOT BEEN MET. The subject property has 91. 7feet of water fi°ontage, and the proposed dock facility ii)as designed to accommodate vessels of 32 feet and 24 feet (combined total of 56 feet), which exceeds the referenced threshold by 35.7 feet or 38.93 percent. 4. Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of a neighboring property owner.) The f°ecor°d evidence and testimony frorn the public hearing reflects that the cr°ite�°ion HAS BEEN MET. Tlie applicant states: "The existing on -site conditions consist of a docking facility with a boatlift, ivith a heavily vegetated natural mangrove shoreline. As such, both adjacent neighboringproperly owners are used to having a dock along the subjectproperty shoreline. Additionally, as proposed, the dock has been designed 1vithin the designated setbacks and is consistent with the other existing boat docks ivithin the subject waterway. Both adjacent properties have docking facilities as well, and it is our opinion that there will be no neiv impacts on either adjacent property owner. Additionally, this is a boating community; therefore, docks are all part of the overall atmosphere in this community. " County staff concurs. 5. Whether seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.J of the LDC must be demonstrated.) The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS BEEN MET. The submerged resoz�rces survey provided indicates that no seagrass beds exist lvithin the footprint of the dock No seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. 6. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06(E)(11) of this Code. (If applicable, compliance with section 5.03.06(E)(11) must be demonstrated.) The record evidence and testimony fi°om the public hearing reflects that the criterion is not cpplicable. The provisions of the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan do not apply to single family dock facilities except for those within the secmwIled basin of Port of the Islands; the subject property is not located wthin Port of the Islands. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Environmental Planning Staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to granting this request. The property is located within a man-made canal, which connects to Gullivan Bay. The proposed Boat Dock and two (2) Boat Lifts will be constructed waterwayd of the existing riprap. The property does contain native vegetation, which will not be impacted by the proposed dock. A submerged resources survey provided by the applicant found no submerged resources in the area 200 feet beyond the proposed docking facility. This project does not require an Environmental Advisory Council Board (EAC) review because it did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. 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 Section 5.03.06.H of the Land Development Code to approve this Petition. The Petition meets 4 of the 5 primary criteria and 4 of the 6 secondary criteria with one criterion being not applicable. DECISION. The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number BD-PL20240006029, filed by Jeff Rogers of Turrell, Hall &Associates, Inc., representing Michael H Schiek, Trustee of Michael H Schiek Trust, with respect to the subject property described as located at 687 Palm Avenue, further described as Lot 11, Block F, Goodland Isles Second Addition, in Section 18, Township 52 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following: ® The petitioner requests a 14-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06.E.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) for waterways greater than 100 feet in width to allow a boat docking facility with two boat lifts protruding a total of 34 feet into a waterway that is 116± feet wide pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06.H. Said changes are fully described in the Zoning Map attached as Exhibit "A", the Dock Plans attached as Exhibit "B", and the Map of Specific Purpose Survey attached as Exhibit "C", and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below. Page 5 of 6 ATTACHMENTS. Exhibit A — Zoning Map Exhibit B — Dock Plans Exhibit C — Map of Specific Purpose Survey LEGAL DESCRIPTION. The subject property is located at 687 Palm Avenue, further described as Lot 115 Block F, Goodland Isles Second Addition, in Section 18, Township 52 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. 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. 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. November 26, 2024 Date Page 6 of 6 Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP Hearing Examiner L S] G '� :� tEl CL BDE-PL20240006029, 687 Palm Ave Page 2 of 8 October 30, 2024 0 r( 0 1 II um W 0 W r� v/ Z_ U J J 0 U J 0 o Z V N 0 NT rn � U W N00 0.p Z O � I- U LlJ p Z � {1-- V=-U zz wo a� Lo LL p ¢z LLJ CC)(D � C7 W LJL. ZZ H v�iQp �0 z z J p W A ¢ p W Q A n 0 V) W p � (D v7 v 0 zv �L Z a 0 �m W o= N 607 polm ovolCAD 1PERMITCDUNTY�23130BDE.dwO LOCA71DN Iu4AP f C CD LO I m � Q o 0 0 r� w O r- O O O N uLLJ z }} z 0_ QZ a !L W T N O_ Z f N n K z CL in N n Z C Ur Q R W 00LU t"' p .7 +u z 1 + W V > Z O r W J O Q J .. � n , :. p Q> Z O W a R z + w l.1 W. 0 pp Q mo r f w R o o LLJ p zQ U �uul um aa p+ rllr CD a �z uy CAP B Z ao o N 0 >I. 6 LL O N ���JJ i of D m w o .. Z U p L z. 4 ) 1 0 N coc Ww a ` a CI � 10119kLL to Elm U C umis ® J 4 g to s to (p \4` a (D O rn U m e4 cool) hl z Z � U _ as Wiom- am N D as u 6 Cl x y W 0 M O yU l0.V d ~�.. ! G vj P'.i'L'J 1Jtl.UU BCnIOk - UU/ Palm BV05UAU5YtlfMII-UVUN I7CLJ 1Utl-tlU t.UWO 1 WUt 4y MAY W1UlLUL4 �!got�X'0.�°l H u Z U) U cri W 0 X m X \ai 7 0 3 = 0 a °E °z zu w z w is WN N W z 4 j O W o N X z >0 a: u, J W to (taR,wc - j W U 6 K W zp WF7-O R O W z 0 P 7 O U 00 i ~ = LL7A .. 0N< wKz 1t. Trey KN N ,1Q t z N T no lN'J U I F W K �� n O CWi D°0Sr. rt��� W O •i > U S V S J NIz0 It- Z . ri Y• M 3o r p ) CA r M O X M N X o X X M O\ X pa2313©00 echlek007 pnlm nvolCAD4P ER MIL COON T192.113OBO E.dwg EXIS TING CONDITIONS N132024 i U Q Q Q � W aWz 0; z D m a w zI a. II / o C) O w �X n W ! o � l 1`Z fLl L+) HXE: lit l7 _Q¢ m W n �z J o 0 a u? Z Z� Z W Z W N W N LL LL z ID C 4 z iF x ,W a�� Wa I�lll0 avC� Z bI� K w zo` no Y��rcS °rcon 0w ILO f o W Fz 21Y>. V'ILLi g Z N O W F Q I LL Z �0 W w W� W VO�1 �0CWt m 0> �I �o Q0 OO�Iz-oLL�zzowo O WF yy KQ�O I� �IIINI Oz 1-LL W O Q W 7 U= O Z J O J J �NJI W WL, J LL Vl a M O i 2 0 1 11-- F F LA (=II L%$ WOO F d 1- 1- Z w 0 z 0 O F o z U � W W m 0 � p:123138.00 a chiek OB7 palm evalC AD1P ER MITC CU NTY123738 BO E.dwg RI1 Qr40asED PLAN WITH Dlta1[N SIO N^u 0113202.1 t� 4t, r< Ox( O M Y. M W M X I // I I FaQ a � Y J 0 O w Q J Id 0 _ oW x -- aL y X �I X o TIT o X X X 0 V o X X J X O Z�( Z Q (wq >� a lb �`m .at one o �Ga}} >y. W W H a�a�.y a z04 U n FWas Ka afi o ao x In �V) 0III a�s tog a a Io-ulU z�i t-o g'O� a0 V ZO : 11N ���VU) 0 N O 300q0 O�'a�a MIr ' 00w0Q0a Zoo=300a yWW3Wv�a� ��20 F, �J o F-F?•Jt u�i a�i1 �iF a0o Z W N s chlak 687 palm eve1C AD1PER MILC OU NTY123138 RD E.dwg RRQ,Y�tED PIAN WITfI DEP 4• � o r '!; 'I Foot, w Too s IU � rn v 4 v TV !] N �. ro �� •1 .� F-LI O(3 Wi (-1 r .r o �� U ~A a r�s c cs r p � i c1 _ •y ti~ pa2313B.00�chlok•607 palm evolCAD1PERffILC OUf1TY@31368D E.dwp BT OVERLAY PUN 8�132024 ,41 I ' •i r 2.5 1a, t t 24' 20' 2Q, r.r 28, 1r 30, 31'•►t � �T . 1 �\ R 1{ low *t (11 ay ,AI' u W I- �w X Q O2i r- 0.J d Q Q � �a Qw Z= 3~ O� U)° ZLL W 0 W U) c� m w W LLI Q zz�a N _d T_ 0 p:123138.00 echlek � 607 palm eve1CAD1PER MI TC OU NTY123136 BD E.dwp 803AID2NT DO 0 U❑ O ❑ � Nazw w I-,N W wzZF-w V LL W O O D U) CCA. LL IL N�OjtP1 W=dW mO OO z03:M o \ 201r, co \ r 5;FIJ Mr c 5�o And 0 \ \ \ 3 , 0Y / W \ \ (1)O \ \ aO Q \ \ EX \. a u W \ O \ �w CMD \ \ U p rn \ \ \ o 451 \ \ n \ �3 2 �z� \ p �LI y osw Q� x N w o �1 c a W p a2313D.00schiok 697 palm pvo1CA01PER MR-C OU NTI'129136 BD E.dwp SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY 01192024 r6o > WWO'm z r K 3 fo v = N a � a Q, ° 4 ry o 0 ot`+ �° am. _U- O Q cn z m °J• � II s b d o fn o �" h S ``'' W w N� w Fw.. Wz�.z( l7 v 0 b, C N 4 t%l C_ N z tU W S J Od' Z °d0 7 U.' _A �'' II C u O N Q ay 0 w Z Z ? N Qwo � yd of Oda Z 3 C '0 0`'T II N V; z O C/^, c m xI W lL O 0 O WwUr W4' w O OQi=.. N�' N 01 TZ it W 7 •E E = A nl 1L W �O v/ � = A 0 O tLL O �- J 0p a s Q ~}} ¢ �r++w w o uifri .n l7 l7 rn w v ii >. cn U v Q dOcT d�00 WO mO Q W� mo w=tm �0 Wd d �G# 0Fm-a Ycn Q Z rn m o. W a. O s u SN'ay' � C rd- 0 s W d m �� u " E �' lL O U QF =J r J F O�Nm~U N LL U n m E O J O w g~o w°`ozouz i �� o U` z 3 M `U Otn (po tr aZW>0oFo w w � c� �cv �rfn� z d V r`OGNo L)O y U 0 tic (� m (n W�Zo�m�W MIN V 06.J li pow yy W z W p a w p j w 0 z< 7 c wwza¢ pir ,fa ,2zx aj a~)� Z u`ly OU a rc"UZha OJn NKiV tN wm u o ^.W6 ° w 1 chi o III z;kz O=oz WyRO,,,o .3>". Y?C z Mgoo = 3 o a q= uzw> ? wou �zWIM c ppp� Vu}°>k1YOW SnFMWR QwW Ww3 S=QW da y Yl.�"UFWO� d OWK�gW W So 0 mjtt�Kz 0ptv V2 cow W 0 7 SQ O O P � ZZ U N d w ° F. z �y n$ E>z �zaLL Gwez iwo mow( ou' ¢ $o} i xo;'--'�y, wo" p 3; t; Let O y �6 S°�oz z6LuttO >O'i pU, IpSCW �yy,, Vi a K= S 3` {{{{{---au c4'6Wx W X W W Yam)) 4 U ry Ow O¢Q>>>00 4��' y }m ZUI�ZWa W aYmwV Z � ��N Or 00 UJUWW ZOLLK OzZ O�pw O �KNz yi U `+U LOJ�~~Z O_ �6d WSwf zz � um o�wg w=�a o z~auzl"� owzrc �nmf'gW`a` oJn�w �z�wu Wk(V5z�}}ay Joc�0'm 5FEnDw mo�i L?o qqq M8oW WInn! In za,!2 Wawzm �yy opp u� W�jw It 4K 02 ¢ a iLL y• > K (�SW��K VOA � •S UOW �aKd7 u6 /i OmUmW W<w w0=z �nm Vw po >�C lirtC OO,Co aq nXI NZmN4 Wen s 0 O 0. Hv 5G�eo a J ",� V 6 {-. M qq xwYw 2N -d� > O-4wl-Npo> "L'IJ p.• Cr Ui•iU L>U "•' �" U �Ly 4WD W. O ow ! WULJOaIll4 6:30 W Q K W<HN, +- WifuKW QUO = KqprOmWV JOO W � 2 Y WZ° 0WC `1]oz MW ZWMZ O m1 i�^{JJ w w 0 O 6 Z O. K O a O 4 Z'Sr1- O OCF 4 Oa_z� mW" �FW 2wm�ZW z C 2 O OJT dOpU 4 w F" O Ww Z uroo 3� `� o", o y wa°sd zd<Wo x o $sw ooto � o z o u �' o = w o m <w �u Zx;d ¢ny4� W< Z WOV i �b�ry Wgic tot0^u. 4m VZY 2f-•Y.JUW vwi mF z_ yz� 8a z `zz� Zz o 0 ow no co z azz q3S o ; w wo`ouna a z c? ou. o' w oo f- �'or "!� is osnm rcPc., 4_ rc �o c, �w�55s $Z;w oq of= wo doya-,U F�F n.z"_ir 5F,ciprco z u Z a�gaa ',~ov=i tt C o�u Wzamg l4 00 SQ¢g¢SwS" W>�� °< willv"Swy,oa�2{+�In � o�uG'o ow'u� "naozw�a"Zpogw�a�• FO- IZ-ieynU wU;Wt� � �°ZO �.C„ No ��< l�,W? ioW go><2D� Nml_ In tliV��Qa. 1�iy��'� N�1-mN VOPomw W WW'. z.-.O¢O fva a7K[G SO'nCO ai2No.? Q4 ei v, fY ZAfu7'L en OQe Q�oO1Ii Ec%:O.dGmV �`J -F+` w W .J Nw U ENO O Z m ¢Z LL LL 4 V O WW w QY Teebb Y ", H (_ ^ N. U pin �` o U a?�. Z W o? a tf� u'-Tj \ m a t1%. W 0= <Nrc m vr� uz �• rn w L V W� �jV c�'^Uoa v V' Q " Z qq z = = Z -dip U a. p SIP 300 1p lRpp�N =�j �p�0 0• GS.• Zee o ele UOO u? a - 0In In : In Oae*60� � dJ Z� Z n a as mo- a ~O�—tt ¢� yJa�J w t] > � � W W7 In � w Q' W III If-. o a rva' '`� o °� znU`Q°' oou O� O �� �z x, �h a Uu i z m g° Q a ��. A��otia0. Z o S �AaoQ bre-w� > m $o �b I4� �allop° z Z Q n u O !l. x < c� �lili o LL 03 %be �O ZZ IL 9 4� U F fM , J FO O 7 m NC y N "M tie) zQ w - mz `?+�` O W "z \In ���U W ((/N/�� ' to Win iC �WKg a ZZn4 InO hL) UdJ In F W 00 / u � \�I\/ � "0w 0 $w M II W elm Q U Mm OfV to N ONi O v `mom m U tn�N 'L N O O J J f7 O O W f- j f0 0 0 0 U Q N N Q�1 J ul >U U U i- a o 0 `W awyzo �U IN- U ryry w J 90n 7N W 7 V C O J m W o�oao v o 0 0 ry o rn {{ N O WO(� V W Qt to 0 w W Dam W Ol �� V = ID W W Y J OfY w a oaaN [� �� o rn��N� N>> tw Lim O O �� Ztn �wo w O� o ��Zw D M 0 U oo oo aT rsNin ° 7 v U) �� O aLL O d —� �� Kart QM U. HQ t� wo W rn.8Z w a��i � E c m } tY o" �v� 1 _ LL Q o� oQ wY mo � �z<r u�t+Ni`'' Z ON t` p m ti m o w o� � � cc to oa w o o � 3k I - _ QO <ED w ^ Ux uya�N yzo= �� w dm �� m o u L� u. r- m to E o^ u w �o w=�oyzocSW o I=o o Z g () Qto IL 00 m iF4 av�wj oo�w u w w cb nWn ,,nn LZO WKQLLWO �% Q Q 0 O N AL�LV f- l4vG..Ve�j pt-:UO5� fD ii U �(0�1 arc w VaOg� pow' wt i V) Lr. Z V- Z Z cV 2 LU w w 3 LL � Z) 0 w 520 00, �Pl 1�p0 cn z 35'E O F- 0 5 0°38 Ml Z N z2 m �o �p013� p wU) W u? _ - Ww LLUJ 0 Q z r � LLI X \\�\ w O O_Zwj �m t` V N t 1 kSL `! \ w coZ 'z x x to Iifx x ei t \ �Ly O O _I x x OD 0 49* Y/� S o�'J CV) Z O N 1 00 z x N N c1��o wp4J f` v x ti x Q\ \� LL1 N N N� C O. ..1.� 'S/ x N % M w J � x Y N ` H ry % m x co �i 4 , �� Z O O LW tD x x f7'7 N. x Q a Q X q' % th Oi O w to x o o xa. to w n� vY, v X v M M N Z x x cn x,; Z Q O Q ry x OU 11 X X x � y I % x x x x x x O N II ' w Q U