HEX Final Decision 2024-68HEX NO. 2024-68
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
December 129 2024
PETITION.
Petition No. BD-PL20240003998 — 203 Goodland Dr. E —Request fora 13-foot boat dock
extension, over the maximum 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06.E.1 of the Collier County
Land Development Code for waterways 100 feet or greater in width, to construct a new dock
facility that will protrude a total of 33 feet into a waterway that is 100E feet wide. The subject
property is an unplatted boat dock lot deeded with and located north and immediately across
Pettit Drive from 203 Goodland Drive East in Section 18, Township 52 South, Range 27 East,
Collier County, Florida.
CONCURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS.
Variance petition, VA-PL20240007332, to allow the side/riparian setback to be reduced to zero
on both sides of the subject dock facility.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner is requesting a 13-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion
of 20 feet to allow a new boat docking facility that will protrude a total of 33 feet into a waterway
that is 100± feet wide.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Approval with conditions.
FINllINGS.
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this Petitioner pursuant to Sec. 2-87(4) 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.
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
Page 1 of 7
rebuttal by the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative. Multiple concerned residents who
reside further "up stream" on the waterway but use the same ingress/egress canal connecting
the bay as the Petitioner spoke in objection to the application. There were two public speakers
at the hearing who were originally opposed and met with the applicant's expert and as a result
stated that they would support the "alternate design" with the 446ot wide dock. None of the
abutting property owners expressed opposition to the Petitioner's application.
5. The subject property is a rare "boat dock lot" associated with Petitioner's main property/single
family home across the street. Based on historical aerial photographs, it appears that the
shoreline was altered sometime between 1952 and 1963 (when dredge & fill was permissible)
to make room for several docks including Petitioner's, recessing these docks landward,
resulting in the true property boundary to now be in the waterway. The entire waterway is
very tidal making navigation (especially the channel leading out to the bay) and docking a
vessel challenging.
6. County planning staff reviewed both the proposed dock design and the "alternate design" and
the staff report applies to both. The length of both designs is the same (30 feet) but the
"alternate design" has a thinner 4400t (rather than 546ot) width, allowing a slight adjustment
away from the abutting property owner's dock.
7. The Petitioner must satisfy the LDC criteria for both the dock facility and for the boathouse.
8. In accordance with LDC Section 5.03.06.H., the Collier County Hearing Examiner shall
approve, approve with conditions, or deny a dock facility extension request based on certain
criteria. In order for the Hearing Examiner to approve this request, at least four of the five
primary criteria and four of the six secondary criteria must be 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 criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The subject property is located r��ithin a residential single fcrn�ily zoning
district; the proposed docking facility comprises a finger pier ivith a single boat lift for the
n� ooring of a single vessel.
2. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 7
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
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated: "Most boatlifts vary between 10 feet and 15
feet in length and vi4dth on the lift pile centers. If a lift of this general size were installed
inside the 20 foot protrusion limitper the Collier County LDC, this lift would be placed in
a maximum of approximately 2.2 feet of water at logy tide per exhibit 04 of 08. This depth
of hater (at low tide) is not sufficient to allot-v ingress or egress of the applicant's vessel
from a boatlift, cis most vessels of this size require about 1.5 feet to 2 feet of water above
the lift bunks in order to launch. " County) staff concurred and notes that the existing dock
facility is to be removed and replaced by the proposed facilio,
3. Whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation
within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should not
intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic
in the channel.)
The r°ecor•d evidence and testimony ji°om the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated: "There is no marked or charted channel at or
adjacent to the project location. Therefore, no marked or charted channels will be affected
by the proposed project. " County staff concur•r•ed.
4. Whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width
oI 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 fiorn the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
NOT BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated: "The width of the ivaterivay at this
location behveen properly lines is approximately 68 feet hide. However, the actual Mean
High -Water Line (MHYVL) to MHWL measurement is significantly larger at 100 feet. The
applicant is proposing a dock and vessel that will protrude 33 feet into the waterlvay from
the MHWL, which exceeds the 25% criteria. However, only 7 feet of protrusion ivill occur
outside the applicant's property boundary, iMich does not exceed the 25% criteria.
Identifying ilMether this criterion is inet or not is, therefore, somewhatproblematic because
it depends on hoiv the waterway is being measured And, 14)hichever• lvater•way
wasurement is utilized, 50% of the waterway tivill remain for navigation. In the interest of
being conservative, this petition ivill consider this criterion as being not met unless couno
staff opine otherwise. " County staff concurred.
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.)
Page 3 of 7
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated: "This dock facility is oriented in the same
direction as the neighboring docks along this portion of the wateri-nay, which is in a shore-
norrnal configuration. Neither the proposed side setbacks nor the proposed protrusion is
atypical for the area, and no neighboring docks should be affected by the project as
proposed. " County staff concurred.
Secondary Criteria:
1. Whether there are special conditions not involving water depth related to the
subject property or waterway that 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 crud testimony fi°om the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEENMET. The applicant's expert stated: "The parcel on which the proposed project is
located is an unconventional sized lot that is too small for a principal structure to be
located and is intended essentially exclusively for the use of boat mooring. The lot is also
too narrol-n (especially considering the standard 7. S foot side setbacks fr•omi both riparian
lines) to reasonably moor a boat in a shore normal configuration, i-Which all but requires
mooring in a configuration A, shore normal configuration within the standard protrusion
limit per the Collier Couny) s LDC limits the property owner to mooring boats of 20 feet
LOA or less, which severely restricts the overall and intended use of the lot. Furthermore,
numerous of the adjacent boat slip lots already have docks i-nith similar configurations,
protrusions, and provided side setbacks. " County) staff notes that the subject property) is
not the only "boat dock lot" in the immediate vicinity and concurs that all such lots are
too small to support an allowable principal structure; however, staff did not research horn
use was authorized as in the case of the subject property it is deeded 1-With an upland
structure immediately across Pettit Drive. The fact that the tivo properties are deeded
together essentially creates a single lot despite being split by a street; therefore, the
required principal use is on the upland portion of the subject property, and the accessory
residential dock use is subsequently alloii)ed Count) staff concurred that the above
constitutes a special condition and, therefore, concurs i-nith the applicant's expert.
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•ecor°d evidence and testimony fr-orn the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEENMET. The applicant's expert stated: "The proposed facilitJ> >vill utilize a single S-
foot wide by 30 foot -long area of decking, which totals I50 total square feet. This square
footage is sarbstantially less than many of the surrounding docks and is, in our opinion, not
excessive. " County planning staff concurred
Page 4 of 7
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 ji°oin the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
NOT BEEN MET. The subject property has only 20 feet of water frontage, and the
proposed dock facility was designed to accommodate a single 31 foot LOA vessel, ti-nhich
exceeds the 50 percent threshold. However, Count) staff noted that this lot has historically
been used as a nonconforming boat dock lot.
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 record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEENMET. The applicant's expert stated: "The proposed dock configuration is the same
as the existing structure, only 10 feet longer (13 feet with the vessel included). This design
1-gill remain in line with the neighboring docking facilities. Additionally, the use of the
facility for private recreational purposes will be consistent with the surrounding area cis
well. Therefore, the proposed project should not constitute a major impact to views of the
neighbors. " Count) staff concurred
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 fi°om the public hecii°ing reflects that the cr•itei•ion HAS
BEEN MET. The submei°ged 1^e5otirces stir vey provided indicates that no seagi°ass beds
exist i-vithin the footprint of the dock. No seagrass beds ivill be impacted by the proposed
dock facil ity.
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 r•ecord evidence and testimony fi°on7 the public hearing reflects that the criterion is not
applicable. The provisions of the Collier^ County Hanatee Protection Plcm do not apply to
single family dock,facilities except for those i-nithin the sea-lvalled basin of Port of the
Islands; the subject property is not located within Port of ,the Islands.
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION.
Environmental Planning Staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to granting this
request. The proposed docking facilities will be constructed waterward of the existing rip -rapped
Page 5 of 7
shoreline. The applicant's submerged resources survey found no submerged resources in the area;
the exhibit sheet, page 6 of 8, provides an aerial with a note stating that no seagrasses were
observed within 200 feet.
This project does not require an Environmental Advisory Council Board (EAC) review because
this project 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.
The Hearing Examiner concludes that there is enough competent, substantial evidence based on
the review of the record that includes the Petition, application, exhibits, the County's staff report,
and comments and testimony from the Petitioner and/or their representative(s), County staff and
anyone from the public, to approve the Petition for the boat dock and boathouse. The boat dock
petition meets 4 of the 5 primary criteria and 4 of the 6 secondary criteria with one criterion being
not applicable. The criteria are set forth in Section 5.03.06.1-1 of the Land Development Code.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number BD-PL20240003998, filed by Nick
Pearson of Bayshore Marine Consulting, LLC, Noble & Noble Investments, LLC, with respect to
the property described as located at an unplatted boat dock lot deeded with and located north and
immediately across Petit Drive from 203 Goodland Drive East in Section 18, )Township 52 South,
Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• To allow a 1346ot 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 (LLC) for
waterways greater than 100 feet in width to allow a new boat docking facility that will
protrude a total of 33 feet into a waterway that is 100± feet wide pursuant to LDC Section
50034064HO
Said changes are fully described in the Site and Dock Plans attached as Exhibit "A" and the Map
of Specific Purpose Survey attached as Exhibit "B", and are subject to the conditions) set forth
below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A Site and Dock Plans, including the "alternate design."
Exhibit B —Map of Specific Purpose Sru•vey
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property is an unplatted boat dock lot deeded with and located north and innnediately
across Petit Drive from 203 Goodland Drive East in Section 18, Township 52 South, Range 27
East, Collier County, Florida.
Page 6 of 7
CONDITIONS.
1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
2. Approval is predicated upon the approval of the companion Variance, VA-
PL20240007332, by the Hearing Examiners absent such approval, this boat dock extension
decision is void.
3. Prior to or concurrent with obtaining a building permit for the dock, aRight-of--Way permit
shall be obtained for access improvements to prevent damage to the roadway and drainage
system if not previously obtained.
4. This dock is private in nature and shall not be used for rental purposes.
5. This dock shall not be used for any commercial purposes, including the mooring of
commercial boats, unless specifically permitted within the Goodland Zoning Overlay
(GZO).
6. This decision is for the approval of the "alternative design" with the 4-foot wide finger
pier.
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.
January 7, 2025
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 7 of 7
J 9
MW
b j ii7d
Alk
0
Q
}
J Z
O O
W U
W
� J
O
U
� W \
Z fA \
ore Marine Consuhingl2411
207 Goodland Dr. EICADICC1Colller BDE set B-7-2024.dwg LOCATION MAP 811/2024
f
F-
w
W
o z
� W
J
Q
U
� �
�1
0
�..
K
w �;
� � �
awe,
��a�
d � Q
�W
Q � -
Q��
X�w�
OOP:
�m�,
� i
Q
•e
i
�� i
���� a ,
��� o
z �
�� � a
,. .. � z o
_ w O
01= � �_- J
Z
1 X
W �
X X hX
'\ ��
X
,X �' .X ,;
f
��' �OZ
X
�• ��
- ,�X .X
X�
z ,1 �'�
JI �:.:
Z
Q
Q
W
C�Uc�! �
Z Z_ Y
��p �$
Oo -
w=
-_ w
Z
z
Q
Qw
,6�
��: � �
r
.{
� � �
5'L6 'lo
��
� N
,Z'66 r
o
z
N�� � � �
0 o x
N JC
jXa
�a
�a¢¢
. awi-'
¢��x
�W I— � �U3o
� �
i- � a ��=LL
W W � °�>z
� d Z QQ3o
� O � z3w�
�iCn W m �o3a
UF�F
('/% d f/1 p f�
�— QW3 W
Z
�,1
r
.:e � M� �
�' O
<-
�o
o�
� �m
z
�gLL
0 00
a pz
� og
ui �
fn ,.� p
00
N (�
'�
`� i 65
'n
z
O
Z
I�
i
•
• -
�•
C:1Bayshoro hlarine Consulting12/11-Aquamarino-Noblo, 20] Goodlantl Dr. E1CAD1C01Dollier BDEset 0-1-2024.tlwg E%ISTING CONDITIONS 811/2024
d �:!;:!
rot, p i
0
W
w
LL
Z_
W
J
Q
U
N
O
o�x
o�o
°�w
�
I
�
z
I
��
O �
O
oo
��
-��
o
C:\Rayshore Marine Consu Nlnp12411-AquamarinnNoble, 207 Goodland Dr. EICADICC10olller RDE se18.1-2024.dwg CROSS SECTION AA 81112024
L:ltlaysnor¢ Ma�l�¢ l:¢rls ultl rlg11411-Aguanfa�l�e-Noble, 2U3 (ioo¢1a 110 Uf. t1GAU1GG1Gollle� 6UE 5¢t 8-1.2024.�wg GROSS StGll(lN dti 6/112024
w
W
W
U.
O
z
ui
W
J
U
LO
N
\O
i
J LLJ
Q cl)
Uz
~ I—
Cq _
W
Q�w
0
Q 0� W
Omry
z O co
i
_aY .. i�I
If
I
1��
` r i -
rAp
__
rr
/r1
;��-'
R-
;,
;:,-
;'
��
��
Z j0 L 133HS I 'S1NWO A1NO 113d S31ON 031V0d0 Vz/6ZlL :Aau
lW :A803NO3HO 1 9£9VVZ :'0N 80f I 6Z/6Z/L:31V01 M=.t :31VOS
l8 A8 NMVaO
DNIddVW ONtl7NIA3A9N5
iJ0 ONV70000 EOZ ONlfVWuu
Ohl7£ 13'ONtl10009
a0 0NV10009 £0Z
NULLJII nN0i
WWW enbd
SS3W10V EWS / U0d 03NVd3Nd
7Z£L ON NOI1VZIa0H1(1V =10 KWMJU1 23
9909-909 (199) :3NOHd3l31
777££ ld 'H3V98 M-190
ZIV llNn 'MAI 0-119NV1 OZZI
DNI 'DI1HnbVH31
Wl 03NVd3Hd
I I -Q rn ry
Lri
n O
I
`Ir� I TJ Mz
' a O 00 I fa =1 N (;'1 zdo
I .� w Y N i O
71---r ----�---�(-4I 0 Z
Q � ci I J ¢
1 'ANNa
Ida
�F
Is Iz 3„0UMTON `"
; ,00'6T 31i0£,ZS, LON I � z: ,'� s a
Q O 006 100.0i
v o oil „ z
�'f W
w
V/ �M� M C om O N Q
_, H ;r M 1 u u �
ILI I
p d F a 00 W WoLL ma
AX�i
addOW y�Qz
.or
100'OT ?Y tzmwua
LL � / 68'iyZ M„0� ZSaTOS �j �,00.0Z M„0£,ZS LOS ' z
a u. 2 o N x> zwmz
m ,nOODOv�i env
/ LU
/ k o W F
aW0 �a
al 2g; o
u'u'� �owNuaIt
b /------- g0 GZ ��aQ
c
OZ xW yW
O K dip �o TF o_ o
Z m,n N / 00u z0 mnD<Oya
F>Ij F uQN�of°
__ Jo ¢ m aWa
Z- u >
o / ?", o3z �w�ndo
3 a nl------------- a, Z W u W ~- m < W
— — — — — x
0
m
a a zY F- � uU¢
00
Ua�1
o w o z re no Z � �zwWxgoFW=
OIx-uy0�1-u m S
i �" �J o �", uZ o`"oo•Qw."r30mLL6a
�' ¢ O ¢ w Oug , Zu,p = w¢ Fw ¢p Hon
I"1 z x 20 z'^m w� r n� �S z�lx-°'m"' F..00
a u r ao za g o¢ zm zouEzroaz
g zWF: 0 z >0 Sao Won o �0 uW oma ozo O.,NF
-1 z mz 0 o >o Iwo 22z LL tT1- uxdggzLLdzyz
It o W � z zN FKw � D o ow >IF-dno°- Mozo
r ao F. z0 � o. mmz tz9¢O o0> p �WW X!2 w0z2109 „z,Nwwmu
Ww $�¢a5o N zou��� azw G WW og 3Wo>03=
wt�33wu z n of FaViW mz= m.A xuN<�•• ¢_
1 ~um aO.Lg ° ¢ m�o�t< .m-iFp-z o- 1—zw �Fa- zOmzlOLLza mnZ
SWW now a zdp-� ,00 uv,p�m¢ m 00. Rt p mNa
F oww Zs, 1:5 iM; W png �3 oz wW o� z zci m
JJi-0 z F-u z z- po �" 0 7 a>x aug oam o�aez�
N aa zwoou��0LLc�oyay o�w"ao �xW uuYon =_�a8a-aaF1-noa
sY� ,ay, Uuo u U� W 722zo 0. j Q-F-w-a,Oa d >F-p0 ¢quu' z FxN ~O:T D aN°, Zx w z
Ow W0 zOZ ONO w o w O p z¢ C9�� zwF-n Lg
`f1 N z- >mw3 �oou 0(D zLLMLoo-(m-
m N zw f zue:o:,,,a�0o z aLL >zo'o
LLI w �3W a_ ��Wo� o �viO�moK�zm ada Z�=¢zza
It ZQ 10l s.�.-,mom =3>m �n u�i z<omw ow¢MOZWOU='! FFw}'� �= i��omo=�zz
3uu�mI!5 2 zooI u o,nzu'zaaW 6 3 �owuo ip '-uo>Foo-o now
�a G wa6Wd¢ Wz_wo-� o �io--
p .> z- o xu, n0-F3a¢>> r`i,n zWOaz z zd
Ox J k F—x 2 Z O O l0 F 2 a m N Y N O � O n O J x mm ¢ z
�LL 1 ¢��z`-` FN <.Wu0 zm= aN Ow Wot6zw=_ u >O
D i i dt°x3aooGo xb°d°.wogw0z x m= ouroa_WOZ; �
'J i `/ -.1 �� �3=o>uLLG rc�w out-nzQ LL Z omm` ~gzt�o
ai �� , \ p AL I =ate o�<LL zao��w0Q oo so <oZ<°°;°s „Z
�l n.0 `,l, tt lt -� . a WS z�aoOwo:zwisu,n u¢ z,- J0 muzm >
1�1� xu i,;} Q�..:4-�_ J.fi.�� GF a m000'-oi�Nlx-om�6o� owF w" <UuizWx-aoio<
Zw Y..,0 g G z 3*�zuZP�sWo6awzooz d mz \"o3zoZo5r �'
Or mF=-u N—Yuu.ud mJmO aF pF O(uv
3� tv' Emuowg3"o>wa aoa=2Wo " WWw aj'o^o<oarw'nLa
l OO .� D"Wz, now (D w x0, ri xa. I_ 17a� ¢m
F..0 Z Ow,n=w2Jda:50Q l0 �wp NF- Yn,f�� F- wm t a¢MNmQ
Cd O jE %luo w aaY o>200 N ��u 3 W X,,,o N wl7
Q Z m O O Q
1. i / '� z ()F-OwAwmc Z�N2 w Z z price 6 =0'�` FW� m,'V pm OZ
Z �..L-• uWm W<MuI O< gu¢o �nN .moo t0ao¢r0o0..,o QZ
0 4` �'� Zu. oWoQNz�>YF�oo=Nz m oW� �`a^MoLL<uW�ln�
����U r<-I�' Q�ozFwzWo��3°o�LLg"zow `a pis zYo�Gmoz 3m
,wry .1 •-� gjzoox>-'Wmwmz� WTi>,od� d o�u iow oN's 000
tO-oF-f F-xom,n
N�L > aD-Ga WsZ3:wwW.CamoFu o F ma o00 omLLz
8 z »w0 zo:NW mm-000z o o>m o ooau_ z
Ouio�noozza 3zaOo,<W, Ho uni u0a W5=) FlwzmwN
Lfto� $ W�p�FzFd�3o m3 1�1�z�o� FpMW 0 az� zgmwo poW . o
�0 2� NO FOC ?Ow :Jw�Z owu.a Wft 0O0 oz O w m= oar
It ajn �z NxOww w=- F-O�0" p �z2 ���z o-}'�Fxx�,r,
v00 6FLLzg ZN potz,,;xumzzwopF-Ioo p N-ya vwWF mW 5'o'�uw.
az u >J xz x r
1 >� °""� LL�wzaW.00eooz Fj SzOo W�?o= mwa aom Um'^ 3: W
' OZNNZQWI-a0iF0 oupnwo�a�ON z NapDw� awzuuow`a"po3_3ry
e �o��Fo�GwaQZZ�ozaxz3ziuowvtI� ¢ avmxwm ww" mmo
¢a��F�mFa K a G,nOz �~O wjKQ C nz t7Q!-�:y 01-U, N U i0
o Na>> oa <c�0< ^oF Ndoa� u zo zzt0 ziDz z .m
y z ny,w Ng¢z Oz>F� v,muw w Q0 20z Z�w za>
oWo s�rcosaa� u o 0
�. o=io=��z=zg°a�� z Wx how >'3zoz3g x=
W �wF-F-uF-LLowF �mLLmN�o���od a a� im�Fzz"z�zwm
N o �irvm �W' o�o 000w000w000�
A lV m O of ldr 00 Ot 'i rl rl rl J u u V w m a:utLuz m z,
Z �O Z 133HS �A3N
121f �A803NO3H� 9ESL-4Z �'oN eOf 6ZI6Z1L �31tl4 .OZ=.L �3ltlJS
l9 �AB NMtlN❑ Bxp'1IW213d 210 ON'd7000�J EOZ �`JNIMtlaO
9NIddtlW ONV �NIA3AH05
N I
a �I `
J \
¢ \
z y � � � J
Z \
N \ 3
3 rc
o � �
_ � i
1 z
� �
p22 Wj 1�
�UQ��o 00
O 1, WO J �' o u
I
hWp2�� HO�O ¢ I
,��Wy� g��� o n °° � � I
o � � m `,
��4WWti <ana.a F � � y /
a���aJ aooa a m e �
poW� N <da� � 0 3 / I
�WW�WW x3az � � z � y
In�¢W�W ��Hz a /� //
��4� irz>w � J /
W¢�Z2¢ ohm o /
W c0 J i � /
�WOWN2 I i
z�aew� / I
I
,/ I
I
I
I
I
I
Ohlh£ �d 'ONV10009
as aNv�a000 £oz
NOIl�n211SN0�
3NI�dw vnbd
ss3aaav fills i and a3avd3ad
7Z£L 'ON NOIlVZIa0H1f1V d0 31VOIdIli130
9809-908 (194) �3NOHd3�31
777££ �d 'HJV38 J.Val30
ZIV llNfl 'aa31 Ol39NVl OZZI
�NI '�Ilt/nbb212131
��e aaavdaad
,\ � �.� I
-. � `� � � I
� � � I
-� \ W I
� �1 � I
W `- � W I
a 2 1 w � I
� � I o � I
o I � 3 I
� I � � I
3 I p I � x a I
� � I � z � I
I -.
O p, ° 2
ti� �' tit°,�o°,��.°,�ti°^,^�° a° �'° •;° h°la°
I�
(3Nn dObd I W
3N/I Ny.��� /BJ I 4
6
h �.
l
I
I
I
I
I
.rviyydy ' � y ti
p/ O
___
r
`.
?
,s�y
,0'fZ
j
a
o �
000
0
K
6'ZZ
N 2
_