Loading...
HEX Final Decision #2025-18HEX NO. 2025-18 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DATE OF HEARING. May 225 2025 PETITION. Petition No. BD-PL20240011787 - 249 2ND STREET -Request fora 22-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width to allow construction of a second boat docking facility protruding a total of 42 feet into a waterway that is 280 feet wide, pursuant to Land Development Code Section 5.03.06.H for property located at 249 2nd Street and further described as Lot 24, Block B, Little Hickory Shores No. 1, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION. The petitioner requests a 22-foot boat dock extension beyond 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 wider than 100 feet, to accommodate the construction of a second floating dock that will protrude 42 feet into a 28046ot-wide waterway, as permitted by Section 5.03.06.1-1 of the LDC. 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 rebuttal by the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative. There were no public speakers at the hearing. Page 1 of 7 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 from the public hearing reflects that triter°ion HAS BEENMET. The applicant's expert stated, "The subject property is zoned for a single- fcanily residence, which warrants no more than two boat slips per the CGLDC. There are two proposed docking facilities consisting of two lifts, one to accommodate a 40- foot LOA vessel, the other for a decked -over platform lift used to safely launch (2) PWCs. The proposed floating dock mill be used for temporary mooring of the vessel when the boatlift isn't available due to loin tide levels, for recreational activities, and access to the bay for kayaking and paddle boarding. As proposed, both docks ivill meet and exceed the required side yard setbacks; however, the floating dock will extend out 42 feet from the MHWL/property line, which is 22 feet of protrusion past the allowed 20 feet. Therefore, we are requesting a 22 foot extension. " County staff concurred. 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 hearing reflects that criterion HAS NOT BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated, "The proposed docking facility location results from the proposed floating dock and the associated access gangway. Due to this dock being a floating dock, the gangway needs to be designed longer to ensure a safe angle at all tide levels is provided. Therefore, the ganginay is 20 feet, pushing the entire dock out past the allowed 20 feet, which is what is generating the BDE request, not water depths. " County staff concurred; however, they note that the applicant did not provide inater depths for the existing dock facility. Statements made throughout the application convey that docking is difficult or impossible at MLT, thus necessitating a need for temporary mooring. ' The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized. Page 2 of 7 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 r^eft ects that criter°ion HAS BEENMET. The applicant's expert stated, "Tlze proposed docking facility protr^zrsion out on the subject bay is consistent iidth other docks to the south and adjacent waterways. As proposed, the dock and moored vessel ii�ill not impact navigation within the subject water^vvay, nor ~mill it alter the existing ingress/egress to any neighboring docks. The subject waterway is unmarked; therefore, the entire i-vaterway provides safe navigation between the docking facilities and adjacent mangrove islands. As proposed, in our opinion, there are no new impacts to any navigation as a result of the proposed project. " County staff concurred. 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 public hearing r^effects that criterion HAS BEEN MET. For this criterion, measurements from two locations were used. The existing northern dock protrudes 20 feet into an 80 foot -wide canal; therefore, this dock occupies 25 percent of the waterway. The measurements provided on Sheet 12 of 15 indicate the distance M14� een dockfacilities on the opposite shore is 43 feet, which is 2 feet greater than 50 percent of the waterway. For the newly proposed southern dock, the narrowest point of measure to an opposite shore is 280 feet; hence, the proposed dock ii)ill occupy 15 percent of the i-vateri4wy, and more than 50 percent of the ~vaterway is 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 fi^om the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated, "The proposed docking facility location tivas selected to maintain a previous dock location but also to ensure there would be no interference with navigation or any surrounding neighboring docks on this bay. As proposed, the dock will be ii4thin the allowed buildable area by providing and exceeding the required setbacks, and therefore, as proposed, there 1-vill not be any impact or alter the existing bay conditions. " County staff generally concurred and fin^ther noted that the contour of the subject property ameliorates any impacts the proposed floating dock may cause. Secondary Criteria: Page 3 of 7 L 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 r°ecord evidence and testimony fi°om the pzeblic hearing reflects that criterion HAS BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated, "The subject property shoreline consists of a mangrove/riprap shoreline. The special existing on -site conditions taken into consideration when designing the proposed dock ivere the width of the ivatei°way that allowed for the proposed dock protrusion without impact to navigation, as well as a safe access gangrnay ramp doAm to the proposed floating dock The access gangway had to be designed to provide a safe angle down to the dock at all tide elevations and try to maintain a 10:1 slope. Due to that, the dock was pushed out to accommodate the required gangway length, increasing the overall BDE request, especially then with the temporarily moored vessel alongside. " County staff concurred. 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 fi°orn the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS MEN ME The applicant's expert stated, "As designed, the subject dock is for most going to be used for recreational activities, and on a temporary basis, the vessel will be moored alongside, furthering the overall extension request. The dock design will still provide safe access to the water° and be si fficient for routine maintenance without being considered excessive. " County 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 BEENMET. The subject property has 390� feet of water fi°outage. The combined dock facilities are designed to serve a single vessel of 40 feet and two PWCs, each measuring 12 feet, for a total of 64 feet, ilMich accounts for 16.41 percent of the property's linear water frontage. 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 fi•oin the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS BEENMET. The applicant's expert stated, "The existing on -site conditions consist of Page 4 of 7 m existing dock within the proposed dock location lvithin the man-made canal, consisting of two boatlifts, which is consistent with what we are proposing in the same footprint. The floating dock, which requires the BDE, will be within an area of the waterway due to the subject property's shoreline shape and existing mangrove vegetation that will not be visible from the adjacent property) but only from the lvater-way. Based on these factors, neither dock will alter the existing neighboring property's current view of the subject water•ivays. " County 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 from the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS BEEN MET. The provided submerged resources survey indicates that no seagrass beds exist within 200 feet of the proposed dock; cis such, 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°ecord evidence and testimony fi°om the public hear°ing r°effects that cr°iterion is riot applicable. The provisions of the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan do not apply to single family dock facilities, except for those within the seaivalled basin of the Port of the Islands; the subject pr•opero) is not located ivithi'n the Port of the Islands. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. The Environmental Planning Staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to granting this request. The property is in a man-made canal adjacent to Little Hickory Bay. The proposed docking facilities will be constructed waterward of the existing riprapped shoreline. Although the shoreline contains native vegetation, the proposed docking facility will not impact this vegetation. 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 does not fall within the scope of land development project reviews as identified in Chapter 2, Article VI1I, 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. The boat dock petition meets 4 Page 5 of 7 of the 5 primary criteria and 5 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 Peon Number BD-PL20240011787, filed by Jeff Rogers of Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc., representing the owner/applicant Michael Beyer and Lisa Trautner, with respect to the property described as located at 249 2nd Street and is legally described as Lot 24, Block B, Little Hickory Shores No. 1, in Section 05, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following: • To allow a 22-foot boat dock extension beyond 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 wider than 100 feet, to accommodate the construction of a second floating dock that will protrude 42 feet into a 28046ot-wide waterway, as permitted by Section 5.03.06.1-1 of the LDC. Said changes are fully described in the Proposed Dock Plans attached as Exhibit "A" and the Map of Boundary Survey attached as Exhibit "B", and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below. ATTACHMENTS. Exhibit A —Proposed Dock Plans Exhibit B — Map of Boundary Survey LEGAL DESCRIPTION. The subj ect property is located at 249 2nd Street and is legally described as Lot 24, Block B, Little Hickory Shores No. 1, in Section 05, 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. 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, June 19, 2025 Date Page 7 of 7 Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP Hearing Examiner I 0 J LL LL 0 W 1r� 1 i _U J O U N O OJ O O O M M Z N O Z (n 0 O� Z LLI O H d �U UrU �O Z� J r U) 3� �o d U O OL LL Lu O z (D � M Z Z I— N�LLL. Z Coln ow AN UQ a `n=Z o~¢ V w N N W u Z n w w Q s r e co V d y U) Z Y K O 750.001a hnson-2•192nd snCA01P ERMITCO UN TYQ•IWOCOUNT Y.dwp LO CATION b1AP •L20R025 '� _" A. •y,:`y/ i �, 0 V� ��t {1 _ p', �i � "1^>. �[?� �* �' Z 4� 3 J O � 2 Z O U � 1 °z z ° a � z z "� non O w rc w °1 yy Ul � ry N a � 7 O � N X � a �aa z I- uiw� aa= t u'wx ?�� o� rc;t7� wFo `74 aoW zut- �v rct-rc 5 ou❑ wrcz a ° rc Nam' w � z is � � i ¢o � aiurriio �y �u�iu�w;rc ^n u w z � t rc °Q K Otrc11 yUy jQZQ OU' LLO [>T w OtQ W �UZ=°2J �jJ w t J rc a �_�((o ° F-HG 1N QW�f O =_ Z . 1 ;� �t -- -, _ +�• ,r �'a '� t ':� � �. ` r `-- � � �� ` �. �� M N N W U Z r L a I m o tD r Z W � � ni � O -' � � '� w � � g ie p u N o c� i� 0 {t W� J 2 �_ F u Zz o Noy z. 0 �� d' Z� NWo (j bA M er+i � � � �M• M C/] � C �_ C p � .,J, c� U m �� U u ���w a ��z� � �w °'� �� ¢� � • F-i � C CCCC t) �O H � W a M O U P- �' e H pa2-0050.00 �ohnaon• 2AJ' 2nd a6CAD{PERMIL CO 1 �U� w ., tiZ LL c COO J z Z Q �coot Sw00 00 W > LU LL w0 LL. Ftsts Nw O z Z O U w � � o w Q " Q � � z a I w 2 11 n W ry P a w W � a R N ry n F ' • X u U a m 0. R Z ? X ( a J �u1us o W 21w `u wr0-O 44 R O W 7U1— D y ou❑ Ill LL Q it 1~ll 2 W O o . * rc a 2 a1111''a z NzF w O p U. U LLIll F W O RRR Fyy •I jjj: W re a 5 DI IDUFti.Q� 7F p SpII , Z= Q S J y> 071 1-Q 22 W F J W (ILn Q F1- ZZZ in ( e m Lima o N Z 0 0 u QQ I^I j K le O N pa2405000 lohnsom 2A02nd s11CAD4P ERMITCOUN TYl2.105000UNT Y.dM'g EXISTING CONDRIONS WITH DIMENSIONS 4202025 (l{ �� i! � 4 •�;jr. �. � �X�' .� e % � n a: +�t i..�.. �� R a �`-'. L� Y W ❑ m O ❑ � � C7cn ? 1~i. a � J z Q X; �� pap,. � Q_L i1� � , oG I� � `\ � —''�Z6 ��� �, �9 'S �5 z_ f" (n a X LJ� W a w ❑ ao T � ' -,�' ` J ��•� • o Z U U w r � o w � � o z Z z .� w } rc -� w Z w n w n o rc m w a � � z � �.. � o � wx � a �naa Z j xa €Nw� ��z o� w Z�`T w�p '?4 rco� 3�r UO w�t O > Zp O N w � ¢ O = � > L 2 N} p p �! Q in0 N D1w Q � „pq 2K�K O}wFF'i Kr ••O]p O K�)> Z G��� 2 0 W )U LL r •� O Q W�� Z� O S J yo�z3.m��F�i� ��1J.I ��(( a 1� r E a a Q W 3 r O =_ 'Z. N O � ~ M A z IJi ANcn rn W N J n. � � Q z w N N W (� Z a d Z �� H �N"aO N � K Z o Q Y o e��m� W 0 0 � o � N Z W C �_ 0 C Y i? N� rn� L V 6 i N= a en N e-, SU� q � � M,�,i v] �' $ � � � HP� C� V f�'1 �! •�U1 �4 � aNi rs. e0.s � •� z� �`� a� � a �, �� U � l.Li �' V7 M � ( J V I � M A .� �1 8 W p.12•i050.00 ja hnsam 2402nd cI5CAD5P ER MIL C0 UN TY12•IOfi0�COUN7Y.dwg EXISTING D0CK Wli 11 DIMEN SIONS •4202025 V �� `" �. ;L` fi, l� HXE: �° �` <.� a. w X o� a¢w aaz ¢ � J ilk �,�+ �+ s 2� � _� .- st r'. �1�L�= :r�i1�1� .:- ,. ���► Ap � • t::� � �' +� +��� 1� + + }Y1�d rr, <-�, +� J ` J } Iz � _ W d ow a z �� I� QN d � � ry V t� Z w ~ � IV o CV I I � � • - •-- U v ¢ W a J_ z �- w W � J_ J w W � d Q Z O O � � w J a w o� �m o o l- aoc� n. a�� � 3 J o � z Z O U w 1- i o �� o z Z z � K ,rj �� rvry o oH. Z 111 � O N � � �t oK 1„ W O.�( N N (L Z In R r � ..XR alp t J R � Q � x w n- rld W LLW= one u a 'o'Ow� zii� 4R7 0 ul �: Zli OUI �. ICKK nOx�^ww� � �PiO ?�w�oy�w q�°>�° '0°7 Oj`�� ¢ QORF �W �KR11 Olu l-OLLZ? 7 W �10 W O t w1u 7 O T O° f$ O O n. t%1 tnW'>7u1��?�s�a 2.� ZI �� 2�°O aoo Lc Z F n. 1- I . �; � z X -� � � a¢w a�-z ¢Q:J �` � s� �� .. � +� ��d � ,� , �� <� �`.�+ +t• �� + `� } +.r = �� � a ��* + o �y � � / 19� b` s. YC�=. �P�` ��� + COOg Z2Y F r ¢ + s� m LJL �+ �apzz- _ W 2 Q w� Ow H `�� °ao a �- w w N z i ° W d (� ° Z H _.,,, d x = rc 0 �- N M Irc lr'Iry lol -nf -'. nl�l�lol�l N Qz (' J Y U Z� J t N�f >! O N 0 U C M M e � � M Uj � �_ Q � O� �� r,vc �o� ¢� � ;. �z� •'� a M �w a'� .`I", o� c a, r°'.ri � v U .n� F-I � w o. � � M � �'i b G c a w p:12N59.001oM�on • 2482nd �t4CA05PER MIT•C OUNT1124059•C OUN N.dw9 bYe.Q9Q9.DOCK PLAN w N it r �( °C, , C oU LLJ oz •�- �� 00O 0.. c m H FF x °gam i� MLL mmJ Ai SU IN Is; ,oz 11 a ,b4 �OZ w o O Uw 1- n M ? z z = w a J K w oo n R w w R Z � LL •. ul a O N X R X R R V "i ohKa w Z o 9 W? p 4 4 0 a Ore. Z O 1- _ a o00 wrc n 0w KIRO ao T�> LNUL K �pzwto zwz�rc-'L!Lrcl1-m o01110 o i 1118w oa I -I riz o fw%1 wW.1 M�N�((o�22 of F! 1 VI f 1,1 reO O ? . Z F- R 1- 1- Z KI Io co v d Z a 00 f K o r Z 0 oil w r N Z J Mm Y 0 0 NLU X WL n.dwu nrssmooci�rLnit .trzorzo2s 3 - § ( \ � / � ■ , e \ w....i § a ; § ..0 n ri N i N z n Q F o rc � V a N IY. 3 Q p a2�U59.00 �o hnsan 24D 2nd e14C AD1P ER btI TC OD E�( � c r . r .. o ice! <yLwx A K, I �7414t a T AV Age 7 Ap Ito — pop II F Off 6 tas 86 .� FEZ r z t EZ J0 :J OZ I �rs L6 �I �I ry .__4w• y�,sI Q 131ZAt I Lv s - ILl. 10Z 02 goem I- = err t 96 ryM -+-• 410Z � go �10Z L4 z I t I I { N Xz elk I -10Z y N ��. Jv uu11�I g r ''e Wtop' '.. e rc a v o N Z o oo � w U iu N °i g r of Z ER MIT•C OU NTN24059C OUN TY.dwp AQOMOf±NT 0 cl 111 rAfi {`i r�HXE;�°i o r f � i u 1, 1i w LU NX� 0 Q.. aw �Q Qw Z= 3: O0 Z Z OY UQ z �^ w w Lw Q Food, O 2 Zi ZHQII N o< Z 0 0 0 {for 0) p'.LiU50.00olinson 210 2nd sI4C A01PER1�11 TC OU111 Y12-005000UN Tl'.dwn WIOTIi OF WATERWAY N1020� z z o u z z ° 4 w n" z w w ry o rc � w o � � z o u w? 0 99 aow zul rci-n 5 uo wre _x 2 Z�711'T f]p U.OF Nw�K zrcwrcos �W ••�� ;on�Too3��Z Zoo=3 rc w � � n q i - I n . N W Z p.12•%75000 Johnson 2A0 2nd et4CA0lPERMITCO 0 c� 10' C p'.Ltl5900 �olinson2192nd sIlCAD1PER1�11 iC OU NTY�24059C OUR N.dsvO GU BMER GEO RESOU RCE SUR VEY AI1972025 0 0 0 r d7f A N N o N Z i p'.1�U59.001ehns on2172nd s14C AO4P[fi l�fl TC OUNTY42.1059C ODU TY.d,vp Si OV[RLq}•M1,fAP •YJ9R0 0 MHO �rws3 iro ll"A iw u 9Y mYtYa A9 i Jo L o9ao-4Z smw IAua (J � O tqj O id 9d b 17 o h vi a a f\ of N r: In o l0 v O I\ Ic O N M CN N O cd OI a� O o a U H p O N ����WruW��� Wry Qi yi Oi r1 a0 M b N vt O W b N N N "t N b 0 O z tp � 10 h0 Oi N Ul O h "1 OI h tV to tp �- h m m � v m Z m 2 2 2 Z 2 i/�i Vt Vpi tpit l��t ti 2 2 2 2 2 l/�i 2 co 2 W v vt b N W O^ O h b b W ? J �nl rn 2 F �v I n• O µ •. ". c L� I I� 11i lit J % I N00'30'OOiV / 180,001 (P)1 1 N00'30'Q21V/�,180.00' io 9:v:9 /l99'oN �a wiom,a mw av� WEST AVENUE J` ii y o'Ci as Sorrj of r` .� ' i 3 :t3 �I a vl % t� k� I J+ o y p �❑ cro jb g 3 7 '� ♦A t d.� �,, r, d?I031,71H SZLIIT a 2 00 t t p e0 rPip O Z z b O O W Z 2� W` V W W U Q W ro �ao� �� In �� I ¢a tO�n r Nmh 0 Ozm p03 v�ji O¢�pp �i N acc 2O R 2 N¢ O Q W W K S p W H N W gg )• ¢ ^ O i! i o :� o U xao m aga o � �200cs ggIoutWin W NNW 30in0 K � �oz � DoN 20S O ONO IZnz"tn WO OWOU 2 �� V Z ONW a O - (�j gg x W oW "' av_t mow('' zGmtz., vl cvta wZE =aW Q� ww � _¢��� o 0 1= `zocpi a pp n z 3O� ?O W OWO� pOpW� poO V O W.Z.. at ct mIt WO n S ii 2 OW WOW 0; Qhti 2 W¢ �`' > U slit ��.. a 6 6 (n ��• o:a wv) x Wo l^c5�� �+ 3m ¢W x p w lon cWi'' 3 a o IW.i N 8 g g gg os� iw awWJ¢za =�z $� maw Z Y . Y Y 1 W Kp io p� W®$ 0©% •® m=� io ~v¢ai m� V W W z o �F •O Zz 5w a Np ^i^I- <GC Vt v) �p �po;2 r:� �Od of i�i J s dR � r4 co H L2lON U 14 CAL; Z — 2 d z a o .. 'y I I I I la II II 11 II II t uY �� yP� Y1111 1 1111•.- - '.111j11111'1,�11 1�11111 1 Illl,li '