HEX Final Decision #2025-09HEX NO. 2025-09
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
March 139 2025
PETITION.
Petition No. BD-PL20240007420 - Waslcals FL Dock - 185 Topanga Drive -Request for a
32.25400t boat dock extension over the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet allowed
by section 5.03.06.e.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code for waterways greater
than 100 feet in width, for a total protrusion of 52.25 feet into a waterway that is 209± feet
wide, to accommodate a new docking facility with two slips, each with a boatlift, one for a
28-foot vessel and the other for a 35-foot vessel, and a third lift to be decked over and used
for two Personal Watercraft (PWC), for property located at 185 Topanga Drive and further
described as Lot 90, Southport on the Bay Unit 1, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner requests a 32.25-foot boat dock extension over the maximum permitted protrusion
of 20 feet allowed by the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) for waterways greater
than 100 feet in width, for a total protrusion of 52.25 feet into a waterway that is 209± feet wide,
to accommodate a new docking facility with two slips, each with a boatlift, one for a 2840ot vessel
and the other for a 35400t vessel, and a third lift to be decked over and used for two personal
watercraft (PWC), for the benefit of the subject property.
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 Code 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. There was a letter of objection
received. At the public hearing, Gary Kiesgen on the Board of the Homeowners Association
and James Walsh of 5344 Barefoot Bay Court, as representative for Barefoot Bay and its
owners, spoke with concerns to the design of the extension and in support of a modification of
the dock. The primary concern expressed was navigation on the natural waterway which can
be shallow at low tide.
5. 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 fi°om the pzrblic hearing T°effects that ciite�ion HAS
BEENMET. The subject property is improved with a single family residence lvithin a
residential component of a PUD. The petitioner desires to construct a dockfacility with
hvo boat slips, each with a boat lift, one fora 35 foot vessel and the other for a 28 foot
vessel, and a third lift to be decked over for hvo personal watercrafts (PWCs).
Historically County staff has not deemed decked -over lifts serving PWCs to count
toward the boat slip count.
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 fi°om the public hear•ing reflects that criterion HAS
BEENMET. The sirbjectpropertJ�'s shot•eline consists of a natural mangrove �°ip-r•ap
bank that is located within a platted conservation easement (CE) that cannot be
impacted by anything other than a 4 foot -wide access wahhvay to the proposed dock.
The dock must extend past the mangroves to avoid impacts and reach i-eater depths
sufficient to accommodate both boatlifts. As demonstrated by the provided Cross -
Section (plans sheet 07 of 12) and the provided Boundary and Topographic Survey,
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 7
there is inst ff cient water depth to allow for the launching and mooring of the proposed
vessels at MLT without the requested extension.
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 record evidence and testimony fi°om the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
WEN MET. The proposed dockfacilio� does not intrude into any marked or charted
navigable channel and is near the terminus end of the bay with little navigation other
than fog° neighboring properties. The subject propero; is located at the widest portion
of this section of the waterway.
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 fi°om the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEENMET. The subject waterway is approximately 209± feet wide as measured from
MHWL to MHWL and the requested protrusion is 52.25 feet; therefore, the proposed
dock facility will occupy 25 percent of the width of the waterway. Given the mangrove
shoreline on the opposite shore, it is doubtful a dock facility could be constructed;
therefore, the open distance between the proposed dock facility and the MHWL is 160
feet, hence 76.56 percent of the waterway will 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 record evidence and testimony fr°om the public hearing reflects that c�•iterion HAS
BEENMET. The proposed dockfacl� is located ~hell within the required setbacks
ctnd, given the shape of the property), should have little to no impact on neighboring
dock facilities.
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 and testimony ftom the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The subject property has a natural mangrove shoreline that cannot be
Page 3 of 7
impacted or removed because it is recorded as a Conservation Easement; which
requires the dock to be on the ivateri-vard side of the mangrove fringe; the dock has
been designed with a 4 foot-1t�ide ii)alkway to transverse the conservation easement.
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 record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated that the proposed docking facilit)) has been
fully minimized by only providing a 4 foot -wide access walkway expanding out to 5
and 6 feet past the mangrove fringe. As designed, the dock will provide sufficient deck
area for routine maintenance, safe access, recreational activities like
kayak/paddleboarding and storage for these activities. The total over -water square
footage is 832 square feet. Couno� staff concurred.
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 from the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
NOT BEEN MET. The subject property) has 136.62::L feet of lvaterfr•ontage. The
primary vessels to be moored at this dock facility) are 35 feet and 28 feet for a total of
63 feet. Given that the proposed PWCs will be parked side -by -side, County staff opined
that it is appropriate only to include one for this measurement. Sixty-three feet plus 12
feet is 75 feet or 54.9 percent of the shoreline. The applicant's expert did not count the
PWCs in their calculation; therefore, there is a disagreement behveen the County and
the applicant's expert as to whether this criterion is satisfied
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 criterion HAS
BEENMET. The applicant's expert stated tTzat the existing on -site conditions consist
of a heavily vegetated natural mangrove shoreline. As proposed, the dock has been
designed within the designated setbacks and is consistent with the other existing boat
docks within the subject waterivay. The adjacentproperoJ to the west also has a docking
facilio) and a cluster of docks across the ivaterway. Based on this and the fact that this
is a boating community, its our' opinion that there are no netiv impacts to either the
adjacent property) owners' current vier-v. County staff concurred
Page 4 of 7
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 testimonyp om the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The submerged resources survey indicates that no seagrass beds exist
within 200 feet of the proposed 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 r•eco�•d evidence and testimony, from the public hearing reflects that criterion is not
applicable. The provisions of the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan do not apply
to single family dock facilities except for those ivithin the seaWalled basin of Port of
the Islands; the subject property is not located ithin Port of the Islands.
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION.
Environmental Planning Staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to granting this
request. The shoreline for this property contains mangroves. The proposed dock will be
constructed waterward through the mangrove fringe. The access walkway will be 4 feet wide and
built within the footprint of the existing dock. Any additional impacts to mangroves will require
written approval from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). A submerged
resources survey provided by the applicant found no submerged resources in the area 200 feet
beyond the proposed docking facility. The property contains a conservation easement just
landward of the mean highwater line (OR Book 1756 PG 1358).
This project does not require an Envirommental 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.
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 continents 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. The boat dock petition with
modifications meets 5 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.
The dock configuration shall be modified by narrowing the decking parallel to the shoreline from
6 feet to 4 feet (inside the piles), the proposed jet ski lift will be moved towards the shore by the
same distance (4 feet +/-), and the interior lift shall be reduced from 14'X14' to 12'X12'. These
modifications will reduce the extension request approximately 4 feet.
Page 5 of 7
llECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number 151J-PL2024000/420, filed by Jeff
Rogers of Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc., as amended herein, representing the owner/applicant
Waskals FL, LLC, with respect to the property described as located at 185 Topanga Drive and is
legally described as Lot 90, Southport on the Bay, Unit One, in Section 06, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• To allow a 28.25-foot boat dock extension over the maximum permitted protrusion of 20
feet allowed by Section 5.03.06.E.I of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC)
for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, for a total protrusion of 48.25 feet into a
waterway that is 2091 feet wide, to accommodate a new docking facility with two slips,
each with a boatlift, one for a 28400t vessel and the other for a 3546ot vessel, and a third
lift to be decked over and used for two personal watercraft (PWC), for the benefit of the
subject property.
Said changes are fully described in the Modified Proposed Dock Plans attached as Exhibit "A",
the Specific Purpose Survey attached as Exhibit "B", and the Boundary Survey attached as Exhibit
"C", and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A —Modified Proposed Dock Plans
Exhibit B — Specific Purpose Survey
Exhibit C — Boundary Survey
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property is located at 185 Topanga Drive and is legally described as Lot 90, Southport
on the Bay, Unit One, in Section 06, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
CONDITIONS.
1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
2. Before issuance of the building permit, a supplemental planting plan must be provided and
approved to plant native plants within the conservation easement.
3. A Certificate of Completion for the subject dock facility may not be issued until a
Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the principal structure.
4. The dock configuration shall be modified by narrowing the decking parallel to the shoreline
from 6 feet to 4 feet (inside the piles), the proposed jet ski lift will be moved towards the
shore by the same distance (4 feet +/-), and the interior lift shall be reduced from 14'X14'
to 12'X12'. These modifications will reduce the extension request approximately 4 feet.
Modified Proposed Dock Plans shall be submitted to the County as a condition precedent
to obtain a permit to construct the proposed dock.
Page 6 of 7
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,
March 28, 2025
Date
Page 7 of 7
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
WZ
/§)(
.
x§
\(�`
§»
(
fe 47f
<
/
)((
&
a)}
o'r- -
«ry§§
_
- -
%.7, ss¥}m\§
.}q
±/@L) C)
kom
@§/
-
2
. ............
z
N a
LLJ
pm N
Z J
J LL 2!Q
Q o
ZU) OZ
F
Oww ZZ LL wOJ
Z �- W= ¢ p ¢ LL� r
W
LL Z Z O D N E ga4 Z Lo Z LL CL ¢ N
LL' 0 E•- _ Z - e�p ¢ IN U N
X w W LL� Op v i o 0 0 0 W W m
W wLLo� U0LL (DL- a Wz
_ O W W - �g Fa. Q~ W o a
O W� WCQ
UOU=�>
LL U >f ZW Z JLL0<wU) o
>zw¢ �L. 0 �¢FF-,J�oZ z
W c� c� �z in wz�_¢=J o 0 o w n w
O > coJ OL— W ¢ W Q: pw�zc/)w U_` o ^ N {
W_ oLL�o m s �_Uo—ou cn w
J 0 w LL' J¢ { 0¢ J W LL LL _ J
(q NF J W:~ V^^ MdQ�J=w LIJ WU) Nr(n LL Q1wWI-
W aO 0 O O¢¢ N
co =
w<o) U Hro p U�dLL Z--Q0 N
a
O F ¢ K¢ LL w W �w ~ o a
o w o > O o 0 J = > z o N
Z ¢ Z ~ LL F o O cWc ¢
G
O Q O Z 0 O LwL %} o n W o
o�F- O >F Q w W O ¢ z EL z ¢M Q� z W U° d
O ti 3 o
LL W W >�F-W W ~ (nF- ¢ z W Z00 o o y¢ x
2iQ� F-co Z ¢ W(n Zo 75LLm �� Y
wzu~i �°�r'�U) m �z�z o C7Q �p(A Q� � amu~i
(n0� w WpWO w-I EJ 0 N>¢
a w2w w-wU mo v—mMaO W .0 to
0w
¢wQ WF�-QQ J LLQLL¢ LL L.L. ww(Moh LL �°](o0) > co
Q= � Oz O�O W FUw¢ZHoocoo rn�Q� wQoo
� O� m�CD z w
0z (N00¢ N¢ ¢ �ZZw ¢OOF z0('i wU WMX p>0U) QQWU)NE ZLL�LLCnZLW dN w=Lw wz
�
U > Zr=
0Zp z>o0 Q z� ZLL0 w� -> >�°
oQ=� U UOU} w> J ��v
OD¢_ =U�= Z w(nw -' F W i(I LL �QLL
LomQ ��U) Z�zw ¢� � LL! �
Qo F
ova 0 z< oJoZcf p<_00 ° Y p<0Of
LL W U L-=oU (¢j W =U==<=Q \ Q U apt o
Z it (rwzwLL
oowzmowww'Y0<K m / Q �nzz
�zz
•��OJzO�Oo==�=Owwo w — d¢U
(w� tn¢N W..U¢N<w ¢I-Z>2m -L% '^ JFz
v N M <t �n (o f� 00 J O \ V J O
U ofzaf
't� r
F (L �z0
# w wCnt45;U
Cl) NC7F NaE E
N
O W a N z ¢ Q Q Q z 3"'o 00mmc0
'- o- Z Z Z Z W w¢Q
?' W W LL LL LL U. W zw z
U U` U �' N 00 O > > LL o 2
M
C O' 00U z O Ln I� 0 <O� n. dj
W D w + LL zoLU
z
i Q 0 } II II II W II II II ii � Q J<
U J �¢<
_
} O ULL m W Z Owz
O i d ovwQ
~ z zo
Q' 0)
O k Q O O N � _ j ~ °�
Z U to 2 Z >
Q LL' w w Q
w CO
' ^r �>.,e. J o O J ¢_ -' Q 0 z z m m
MA-
,.. `° Q J O ¢ _ (Y > w Z W J w J �' z a
U` W W > LL z W ¢ W a 60
W ¢ U LL wO�F F U)z(n o�
..
s = o p= o ° w>b w 0 QjL=-o ozoU i `C'z
.YF r h �.'a ".. ,...,•-.. D W O U F' Z� __ z O J � I j� �z UwUZ A za
.I ¢Q w� 0 00) z = W cnwo> H LL °m¢
r p w
Jm LLJw jo zZZZ (�i II w=(' �z
¢ W w¢ Z w> ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ LL>QU) & o mo
D o��00 J¢ w w w w W Wu II—� "m
L ¢ L-L-U wZ g �wo�� SHEETiOFa
FILE NO.: 23.377
w
U
At VW4
E S L
w
C
}
m U)
0� W
mQ N
W
u~iSQ(D
W W K
O -j
h�
-1 =
w Z D
NO
U) w 2
U) W>0
CW�O
0 00�-
LL
a- 0O z
U
(D0)0
U w z w
a oo ZJ
U) u) j 00
J
2
H
e
O
N
�Sl>
\ ,9Z.90Z M,,9Z,95oON _ z
-_-- OZ'V66
w W '
\ o
Z o 0
amwo \ Z� -1
w 0
\ z2m \ C7mw w� F
m�Q w0 Z
W
N 00 d m \ N Cm0 ¢ >
QC) a wa0o W O
zo 0-icmin U o m
\ O Q \ 0 O Z �� W 0) Q a o
�> LL \�wJZW �oa.m d
J Z J z
>M OO�m o w w
N N Q
LL mM00
¢ W om �rn
�zinnowrn� z
L1 \cri
Zm ZZQ 0000.CD(o
0) r�QW¢o a? c
U. wCn Zw
vn N
mm w
MLL
N
CA
\ \
vd `> V1A� LL >- \
\ z
00\ W W (f)
a= ��EO\ON\ Quo
\ C w
CO
CA 0
(D
o
1�
/
JO
o z
U z
O= Q
wW
w _z
� J
�N.
CC( J
\
l /
N23 0035`�
W
U
Z C+a� o �t r Co i� o in o o
¢ M tf) O O O N (D 00 LO N �t O N r M
M N N N co (D to %i' d N N N N �j
rn N N �- �- Cfl M (Y)
W r` in �t LO �t LO d LO d LO dt in Nt Ln CD d LO
m Cn 0 Z Z Z W Z (n (n Z Z Z (n Z W W Z
W O T' N L() CO I�
Z J J J J J � --� OJ
J
r
a:
_}�
Q00N
U w
w w z
w�Q J
F�
J =
U w z
W-
J > N �O
J v
U)w=
4 w 10
z
S
(n MW�0
J
zZ LL
W J0
LL(D00
O w z w
mmz�
U)��0
UC7 amE E
U� Ntu E
w� m� mm
U} wX�._
1WL Z QQ 6
W� d UW
UN
O w
Z
W
ry
n
I
W
LL
DOE
Z
O zZ0J Q'
�Of P ww
O❑OwQ Q
oWQ O�zL
LJJ 0<
J p
vooZ Oo
= UQ UW=W-
QE Z
=mC�OQM o W m� U)U) w=�o n w
C/) >- LL LL Q w T. Z= �n w w
W �> 0LL 0w(�� LL
Vz 00~iz�=U O
_IzU� rnW00wZWCD F-...._._ F Q
QO=O hW J=QUZ W�wWWWW�wwwwwwF-WF' Z
Z LUU O=w F-WZz WWWWWWWWWWWWWWW ci
Jw' LLF —�O� Fz c� LL LL
LL LL WOW W L W LLLLLLL 11 U
Q- W p F- N❑ F- Cl) L n 0 0 N (O C V O N O 000 0 d
Q rzO W ULn W U W m C\l (C)mc �N����Lra N
LL LL
W LL LL LL LL LL LL
0('U: w=zo�zLL0 000000LL LL LL LL 000000000 J
W ZF'p OF-LO �
00co WWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
W ?00Q J W J H O= D N¢ N p Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z z z Z z Z Z z 2i
�J❑LOLL <00�L'UWw I��I�-L�-1¢-I¢-F¢-1¢-�IaI�-F¢F�-t�-F X
m Q Z" W z p Q O z O= U m m m m m m U m U m m U 0
C� J W Q 2 ❑ ❑ W W w F ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
�-JUJQm ❑Oo~�Q~Q� ������w0 � 0�w0� cl� C� Q
Q 0� UOLoLL�> �F ~F.l 000000000000000 U
W W = U W Q W } m — W LL LL LL LL LL LL LL. LL. LL LL LL LL LL LL wm
_ ❑ ❑ �Lu?: :ww:wwwwww Z
Q mDw ~ZQZQcrQm in inir)io[0EDininin r)inoinao U�
Dp❑ F- MDC'Oryt, MChN(+)NC7NMN(`�NMfhNT'
L cn� QO O Y co M0M00�0m0MOmfO�mO wa
O00 J Ln U LL U LL LL o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑
pd ZZ�p=>p N�(DNOooNwLo NNOLO N(,0dN(0 WJUOYW�
WL J
QvF- mCO f— J0���z z mmzwOQZ ZZZzzzzzzzzzZzzE
U❑ ra a W Q wwWwWwwWwwwWWWWUw
�O Q aUF-wOWOW❑ U
F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- h F- F- m I- O
Y
U
O
Z
W
wW
O
N
N
u
W
�+
W
N
J
n
z
m
a
�
N
m
W
m
N
w
Ci
amp
F
W�nlnLQWOmONMwg�wm�O_=�Jz�aolZa rnxxWQ°wNwzOco>
2g
(15w
o�00
zw
ZO�U
OE E
�:U 'm0'.M mw
Bc
Uw
�S30 rgsVan w 3imin Od01-l1CCZ +tP++f3^N FM3 SCt9CtlOngld'S'JYIad5 tlLN08
'VORIOiA s)Lmn00 N3moo j0 SOtl003u 0119nd wnrbweayWalnsw uxu aatl/alrwe SONISSOa0tl11110B uwZ %
TMm mnvxo'awaermr as0ar uri. vl usTZ '0a 33s 3H1 AO'3AISM0141'C9 H3nOa11,1114830tld'SI MOOS Md NI roHKiS(L[Zl:ktla uet wsm.w 0?m A
39Z m .d 9 .Gs 030a0O3a WAOM13M IVId 31-1101 ONIO'dO33V'3N011Nn'Ave �ZEZKt9(6CL1:3NOHd
oc .mwu�DWM 3H1NolaodHlnos'aeloijo aAHnSAHVONn08 'ONII 0
3 slN1833NIN3 N
0893 v,�'/H03
ANVdVYOOWuOnH1SNOOU31100 S331AllaN0A3AanS318WriCkroONn `JNIa33NILJN3 _
53]IAN3S M190W300atl N1N311N0aINi3 IVISVOO
a .I
S zm R g c o<
z
c
f F8 a H: a 3€a6�S
co
'zx
Ms �juoEw
ll
�=LT.
w Do.3 a
_iEo,3 09 F bg sg� � a
,. 9� :_ _
�� 3 30 a
cam
08 s �0s o
O. %mo nSN s U m 2
an
§MAZIz
s_e K wxzw WE
0M�oia029'Zaw 82$3w0000�i3sU6sgIZ`
0§Yllav A as �rc °
/
II _
00
I
/ / I
I / I
\\ co
Y i /
i a % /
I /
I /
04
gill
-tall I Qiwi
\ se
va
(S1SL9)Z 3.9&�SO • l l� Zo'SF
W ^ F>W
Krt4 4 :`
\\\
K L1 t \
`? a \ 9;#a.
3 \\
. 00
mod \ f \\\
z
\\ \\
orm Or
\ `
es
3 eA s =_ +\
e 2
U
NET
'"mx - \
J s
�� \