Loading...
HEX Final Decision #2025-35HEX NO. 2025-35 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DATE OF HEARING. September 115 2025 PETITION. Petition No. BD-PL20240009955 - 1609 Gordon River -Request fora 13-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06.E.1 A the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) for waterways 100 feet or greater in width, to allow a boat docldng facility protruding a total of 33 feet into a waterway that is 122± feet wide, pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06.H. The subject property is located at 1609 Gordon River Lane and is further described as Lot 16, Nature Pointe, in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION. The petitioner requests a 13-foot boat dock extension fi•om 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 100 feet or greater in width, to allow a new boat docking facility protruding a total of 33 feet into a waterway that is 122± feet wide, pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06.H. 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 i°eflects that critei°ion HAS BEEN MET. The subject property is located within the residential development area of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Section 2.03.B.1 specifically calls out private boat docks cis a permitted accessory use to single family dwellings; however, no development criteria are provided therefore we default to the LDC. LDC Section S. 03.06.H.1.a. states that the typical number of slips for single-family use should be no more than two. The proposed docking facility consists of installing a floating dock iWth one boatlift. 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°oin the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated that, "Tl7e proposed docking facr.'lity is necessary due to the existing on -site iiwter depth conditions, ii�hich are unavoidable; therefore, the best option is to propose a slight reconfiguration to alloii� the applicant to ensure the safest utilization of their dock In short, there is a large cap rock that lies within the existing slip, which hill be partially removed to provide just enough space and depth to ensure access to the slip. The entire rock cannot be fidly removed due to its size and the potential effects the removal could have on the shoreline and upland residences. Therefore, it was determined that removing the outer section i-nas the only feasible option to provide access and allow for fill functionality of the slip/boatlift. " Coumy staff concurred. 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 1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized. Page 2 of 7 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 criter ion HAS BEENMET. The applicant's expert stated that, "The proposed docking facility design is similar to other docks along the subject and adjacent waterways, but would protrude out slightly fitrther than most. This additional protrusion is being proposed due to the existing on -site conditions as outlined within Primary Criteria 2. As proposed, the dock and boatlift will not create new impacts to existing navigation within the subject waterway, nor will it alter the existing ingress/egress to either adjacent neighboring dock. The subject waterway is unmarked; therefore, the entire waterway provides safe navigation between the docking facilities and the adjacent shoreline. It is out* opinion, cis proposed, that there are no new impacts to existing navigation, as there are other more restrictive points all passing vessels have to navigate along the subject waterway. " 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 pzrblic hearing reflects that criterion HAS NOT BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated that, "The approximate waterway width is 122- foot wide ftorn MHWL to MHWL. The proposed dock protrusion is 33 feet from the most restrictive point, which is the property line on the north end of the property. As proposed, the dock will only protrude 30 feet from the MHWL; therefore, it will be just under the 25% allowed width of the waterway. However, due to the existing waterway conditions associated with vegetation growth, specifically on the CE (ivest) side encroaching into the waterway, the area open for navigation has been significantly reduced. As proposed, the dock would only leave 40% at best open for navigation, but due to the waterway being an idle speed zone and that no new docks will ever be built on the western shoreline, it is our opinion the dock will not have any effect on safe navigation. " 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.) The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS BEENMET. The applicant's expert stated that, "The proposed docking facilitJ� design is consistent with the previously existing docking facility and other neighboring docks on the surrounding waterways. As proposed, the dock will be within the allowable buildable area by providing the required setbacks, and therefore, as proposed, there Mill not be any new impacts nor° interference to either adjacent docking facility. " County staff concurred Page 3 of 7 Secondary Criteria: 1. Whether there are special conditions not involving water depth, related to Lite 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 from the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated that, "The subject property shoreline consists of a steep rip -rap shoreline with a large natural caprock that extends out below/past the MHWL, which then requires the dock to extend out past. Additionally, based on the waterway width, maintaining the parallel dock/slip layout is the best option to remain i-Within the allowed 25% width of the waterway and be consistent with the other docks thong the subject development shoreline. " 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 f °om the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated that, "The proposed docking facility has been designed to provide sufficient deck area for routine maintenance, safe access, as }a)ell as recreational activities, plus a storage area. The deck area on the landward side of the dock could be considered excessive; however, when you put a kayak with a paddleboard and a dry storage box on the dock, the overall open deck area is still necessary to provide sufficient area for safe access and other activities. The floating dockportion of the dockprovides safe access for the family, cis well cis provides access to the iliwter for recreational activities at all tide levels. As proposed, the overall over - -eater square footage is 800 sq. feet. " County staff concurred. 3. For single-family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel oi• 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 BEEN MET. The subject property hcrs 75 feet of eater/canal fiontcige, and the proposed dockfacility has been designed to moor a single 30 foot vessel, which equates to 40 percent of said waterfrontage. •ontage. 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.) Page 4 of 7 The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated that, "The existing on -site conditions consist of a dock 1-vith a boatlift and an associated boatlift canopy, lvhich are all proposed to be replaced upon approval. Additionally, as proposed, the dock has been designed to be constructed within the designated side yard setbacks and is consistent with the other existing boat docks along the subject waterway. Based on this and the fact that this is a boating community, it's our opinion that there are no new impacts to either adjacent property owners' current view. " 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 pztblic hearing reflects that criterion HAS BEEN MET. There are no seagrass beds present on the propery) nor the neighboring properties 1-Within 200 feet of the existing dock structure. 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 f •om the public hearing reflects that criterion is not applicable. Criterion not applicable. The provisions of the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan do not apply to single family dockfacilities exceptfor those within the sealvalled 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 the granting of this request. The property is located adjacent to the Gordon River. The proposed docking facilities will be constructed waterward of the existing riprap shoreline. The shoreline does not contain native 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 MAC) 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. The boat dock petition meets 4 Page 5 of 7 Af 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 Petition Number BD-PL20240009955, filed by Jeff Rogers of Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc., representing the owner/applicant Eric J. and Heather D. Krukow, with respect to the property described as located at 1609 Gordon River Lane, further described as Lot 16, Nature Pointe, in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 25 East. Collier County, Florida, for the following: • To allow a 13-foot boat dock extension from 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 100 feet or greater in width, to allow a new boat docking facility protruding a total of 33 feet into a waterway that is 122± feet wide, pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06.H. Said changes are fully described in the Proposed Site And Docic Plans attached as Exhibit "A", the Map Of Specific Purpose Survey attached as Exhibit `B", and the Plat — Nature Pointe — PB20_PG20-21 attached as Exhibit "C", and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below. ATTACHMENTS. Exhibit A —Proposed Site And Dock Plans Exhibit B — Map Of Specific Purpose Survey Exhibit C — Plat — Nature Pointe — P1320 PG20-21 LEGAL DESCRIPTION. The subject property is located at 1609 Gordon River Lane, further described as Lot 16, Nature Pointe, in Section 35, Township 49 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. Page 6 of 7 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. September 15, 2025 Date Page 7 of 7 Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP Hearing Examiner «A» LJ.. 0 Z J Q pa24011.00 knk vw � 1G00 gold on iNoi :A0IPER MITC 0UNTY124011BOE.dwO LOCATION MAP fi�1020� t s y aIt is-� ' t � • efilp slop 3 4 `+ 'r1 w e • ' if • f ' 5 Nl b3nl�i NOa?�OJ II L J ,9L (V N cV N �a 0 z o w n. 9a U U ? W 2 J �w� nm rc In W N Vwl a Y�� o Z N LL O w 'w N X pxm (DU a:j ao�u z�0 LU a 0: S ao U) ¢ZInT 1�0�-4 W w V �ij 1zO-pLL��2 ¢ Woa Z0 i/jW�3rcu,ayr��a lLllx <� a��q F ¢a ¢ 3F Z . _ N N W oro 1G09 ga don ibm In nolCAD4PER MIiC OUN7Y124011�DE.dwg EXISTING CON D1710N5 G119R025 a �nl 45' f � U Z ova a0 aW p � W z O N rc ~u N w? W > W> Z = w> times mWo o rcrc N w N a o ' ��wQ aas aF�arc � d � �zou o Y'�rco N � now z�f o�Fnrc. Z Z ou4 wai ��� i � n�o oG� rcrco 0 � �Z�o Nrc> WinZ F- �u���z3a A11,rci'-'uo�i Ra0'IU�20LLF�Z Q111� , d � o � X ow�- w>rc u, �u�Oai3ooa � �gS. d• <%1 �x�rcNa����� a�� � Z �t1xt��o n�oo °a•oo 0 z 07u�w 4"- c� O W N Z w II U W o- J � a J J w w a a Q W _J a p:@4011.00 kl lk om � 1000 go i don 1 Hol 0 0 Q > cn I z w z> O 1- > z }Li 000 w z of o ( J O r 0 LL 0 O II ly c 0 >> 0 z �I 0 w O pww0 �_o x w LL0 �w z_ � J w d 0 w U U)WZF—/ _J mw0 F-m wd0%`. OW Q �, / /� z 0 padU11 00kmkow- LOCO Roidon iHai IpnolCAD1PERfw11 TCOUNTYL�U1 UBD E.drvp CR O55 N12J3Nb NOCRJOJ P. O n O >Otto =i Q 0 z D O m F- w ( W am 0 & a. root, N N W p.52A011,00 knk orv- 1609 goidon iNei OUN 0 a� 1r: r '✓' , :» , - kr t? r t Wd 44 o rn U; m Q �,. O W Q .:Teat.• C) d' W Z 0 O O .IV" rLli i; I o; a. 0 N� �EAI�d NOQ�JOJ M N N N N ih O CV CV M co � U m O O ❑ a O � � W X R rC W 0 � J � Q Q � Q W z� O0 LL �z Zw OY w w LlJ 0 Q O�ZQ CV IMF CVi o m rcINS CI w'n o F ..= Z J 0 c� p.52401100 ki �k wu. 1GO�J go,don,No, InnaICADU'ER MIT.0 OUN NL•,0i1.�DE.dwg ADJAC ENT DO CN C�tOf1025 0 V +r n s a I I M • N N W a 0 p.124011.00 kI Ji av1000 guidon INm to no4CA05PER MITC OUN TYI2•i011BD E.dwO WID TII OF WATERWAY CJ102075 rim z aL cn t> W uO WKON^UILI In a1 MOa INw ~ ae Z owowU d z�a�z $ =FO< �Zoo ) En i Z0^�Not■ w®'Une 0 W� oovl7 mq 6. } rp u.H z `OW zNWrcz� z _I O00U..> 0 n> CI NOwT °- oNC0 oaOr�wdFC no�n ra Z 0>-w noO0 cwFu 0Qit. O W�w �"a J wo�p>o■ D 00m_❑ .O Oa EaFW ]MISS oZ p Z� Z�QuuMalWGM@� Must 0 O 6iooFp g N V �oun<ww'a OJ U O O i rn m =Ur Io Rgaco O N U N r WWUp ONrW y Om q J 11 a F (wj w zzd x wuz'-w �54a - wm d� -- u. o 5zn �: a S❑ �eto }ax Z o o ° < ¢�o�$W o � r : e 111 ��,'.r-o wZ ww°you _z w o>> ao y `+f' PEE � 3 �iN"'�is wq( w Y�Yo � oa��,�'ww ymo zo a �wa� ��ui' N W ❑O N r 2)n �N a Zor W60 r m �� q... O O WW m�pw z w =Iwp(2 O y maW OZq wCroLWw SE K I- m�S.'vOa K�'f W U N • O}4wow/ Q OU-' y wz .i �J6a8 EzV<Q 0w a. p O }m¢O®� - pWK 4 O YYf, u 2U6x.V�W'� K utyi W-�-aY wQ wyqrc O �O NOmZ o>OLLO 7} O w N U _ FC Y{WY�¢kv ..{rS 4V�, ;0{} Jtt m� N qo ry �wr o�WOD ¢� Oat WS �W? W NF " 0 6 � n N NmJV;z ,-- y �U 0O O>�=j+Y �Wto ONNZ U ZZW Z w OG Z D .- W4 Iy <l w �� �wo°. 1?0w 0'2� za oFF'z�o i NN O OonV"' w,^a`,U�zar a1YI,to h�n,oa�ao- yF O ivF Z UN w UGN.•'w & .- O^'W r•t WVtt } Z k 0 xb UOWUIW y. K O NC 1A 0 w ozwo ,.. wrc @ acw��Fp w'^ ro WON rzz oqg Rw� o_ >� N W z Cgu F gg eaUOo mz0 n am11 U`b�1wL U? KK? FP �ow D >WN<Fn pp yfL :3�N DO 1- W ¢❑ W WN �Z nt i1z Owoa °j �0 n ON ' ❑ ?' 00 i cc�� F UJi O J N w 4 Y- �N ... tO nON�-O ml�ppiE wWK .-y O}Kto >a4�V Op yaw .._IO �- Z❑ Z NO Zj�Oe GF,2 C d I. mNN�tr w000 ¢Wi 41I ❑>W z,YZma ZC~FO q W� mO�W (a[ OZ`m n0 F%-Z O C �`u J OQWUKwW : 2w It W¢ N, z:i�¢ w z2w &Z �nw OQ� ud go woD o U o a ❑� r m z 0 zi w Vzo $z �m W,2 "rz yoY'o ❑No 3i °dam°Q-oma zHzo� om'a �$in zW-"„ aC z�zrc �. �p a aW ZFc ^"a'F . a m"F o�wty4 tea❑' W¢ t-w°m$ o '1 }ots as wUtAt v=ip p�w's 4`?Cayr uim ❑ o a u m rc o Wwooc� z "' w o r zzr" U wow�Wa`�a�J NZU -a rcz= w wNCNn[ Uwz. z uZ a �Nwo ot- Motd,� :P a 5 mar o�52<rr ¢3 .z oo$ 4 Nuo,"o_m ¢Tcoiuxu° Wo wdUZ❑Uow an z c z i z Y�magmon�k' nG azom�j w xZW a mq_q KWIgL ttNC U O- •+ to mwio &i o5`�' k N 2nww m o>"d iw m�o Fmw Wui �'}y'=J w ❑ 4 vr: y° m °oil®a rc: "�3i °m5oj: yw u °GNU nw Um a Sno,# J go} quiz Mod ot�AA�w cl' t- �O x e aLL o..�LL �v"iU° ^�uw OZN:i ?fit ulw0 0 rzzK tl?Z g00 K z•IY ZOJ .:ZS 2L`Va^m N Z .-BQO rvC M¢K v �6QOd0 a N� m7,❑ iixwf Dzw�, �N6 OQ■QQQu.� n.LLdU gOr OmUWotlJa .`�U (9Ywt Hflf)OMH18ect S30Vd 'B %MOOS M'O1N3W3SV3 0 3 n^ NO11VAM3SNO0'8a'O'd) V _.. - 1N3W3SV3 SS3N�J31SS321'JN� .._ .__ (30 M A9) (w arm F (.3. 10Z mo w• 3NM) 82E)oRllno (d)Ao'9t oa _ _ _ _ MszMOOS `3 o- (d)AO-L99^ Eyo j ess� 39il6S.00N e=g _... i W LL � � o~ gf� O O K0 n g-$ n� 0040st �39Z,i5.00N-._ c o 77 ' wK ¥ zoo 5€ =-vWNSorg �� fig... LL W C� Q a W WH oa Ea 0 MIN {L v a LL d (00 ? v0 0 w OU M Mawr U UZ N J � W m 0 Ye Z) U EL m W W F FJ CL00 nOU zw w F- N J H Fm oLL z0 Q HQ n wp '6 0 ^w � 0 �z id V� L Za o a o w'w ¢ala-O� ozAc�W a �W 3LL'aZ� ZON J O O O x 4fi N b" Cc r�h�G N w w N p It o w Q) LL 0 w W to U 010- wa 0 LL H O wahe Q a 8 00 � ib of z LL 0 O- x W Q M. 3 O 0(0 aim �W 1pOoB o Z oCC o � mto N w O Z 2 00 w ¢ p Z a o0�n �U a0. s� J �M Q h0X LL (W) ,00'3L y ° o 3.B&MOON w (d) .00'SL 3 5Z� MON mrh CR 6 Y o SX ' / }/ XS q�X — —�/ LL m oZq � � w V v M �o F- N uj QQ C R J _ J W Q W jra �gmo Ot1J10� Z a Z �O h� 0 04 Q a 0 4Z 0 LL Z ,1 Z � N J Q x O W O m x Z 0 w� H J 0� 0.0 Oj Z � 0 � II Q x a N c LL a N m 0 N W Q � c� 0 0 N Y O O m F- t- W Q W �_ �� o� mW� � U oV Yu. �� o� � W .�a� g� o N ��� R }�gr yi `gyp x ��� ��� � _ _ o J W `� S U >- Q I— w z f-- Q O U � LL1 N �—i "' W C7 � �' � Q F- O � � O O ? n. N a o E-- M m (� N � '"i I °- I1. �M �o I— N z Z /W o w � o y � M � IL.�JI� ~ ¢ Z �' Q n- o c� J � U W WAY � o � � � � Y O 0 OM d W Q Q J =d �a N �p � a' wo� �w z w= 0 U d F N y W �< a� •o �LL mz 0 < U J R M U J 40 � U W jo N `zs O I�. U O W N o� 6 m fL � a Z W N z 0 N < W o- `` c+ o �w L 'u�u � -\.. t.�, �g ,� avoa iwa,.n � \ \ �� � d �� �a S � rt � Z 0 � --�a9tTiwv Q � "''t o � J "— OVON ll ICCM -�-u- o� _- a N � V o Y� C w �1 � J �� a H � u=oi � 6� N m3�po ' W � mja t1 i�w?ufi� 2 - _���� .,o u...- �xo u... ��'a w 6 5 U N C 0 W N x.� "��� .�¢ __ �) �R � ' � ��� m �� � n �: Z �� !ll.��� W s�' W �4 W � Ko `� rr ��YYW J c Jt W� � Fi o 2qo Y "� __ � z :� i < wu � z< Dui �z �p 04 0 .. ,..F adS 0 o�g�Ws w jay � pu: �Zf< t -+ z� � �^� 3 cwza��wa N� �� m; ^�< �a ��mAsm• ����4ca �"o d-c w ULc � N �' � 6< W��W iao� •�- <ymw"s .-a .zw �W�w 'g�owo L W��U �a .w^< :..mw �oi��i N U (6 N O U U .� U 0 Q U �_ U a. L N N .� In n. d N �_ N � W �'^ � � 9 S; : ., Q p�g� S W Fn €ggR ��o� � ` w3�2 N o Y� S O N 8I o a,"x m �� _��II— W W R� � J 2 W (n �R �c� b dg�l ��� a � $8_�w d c z$�a„ sa��� ���s� � d- � '— W Y � O N 0]CW G ��C� W����� lL j} � '_' • � W H QH� W Z � O � � 0 � ��� W i �. a. - 9� W �, W �I�z J LI- —� Z a �� � <"> o N �, f� N � I M z d' M t—NZ WHO � a � W �, �K ~¢W Q � N a�p�r —� ���� a' W $a"` � O o�o9gc F— wss`qq ¢ � a aS Q� Q F� g�8 �gg?R o E=�m ����a i b � u� K< .s/1 NOT PLATTED SOVTNEflLY LINE OF N 1/2 OF N 1/2 OF N i/2 OE SECTION J9 N I l � � .eo .1 ._____ __ _________ _____P _ _______ ________ ___ ____ l r- � - ���� ,8, II I I p '� ® rt C '�u+�� O QC I I h•s phi ��h i � t11.9]-- _ __ ] O � i I �\� III , ®ti I 1 �.� I 1 A / , i0o� II '� li ' I I � � I I nnL°azi ox � � 3• i l .01.9f.9lX it ., n 1 1 I III i I $11 m •i �'.. I I l I'o i I I to .091 I I f9•cu I I I nsf.9o.ee v � I I_ 11 II $ I I I I^o i I I m 1 h _— �l i I I^ yl 11 Il 1 I 9a�sz6 t I <I 1 1 n.cc ea. 9 W I II o i i I la ;;m "I 1 �'" w ^ " o I 1 �z y 11 1 I oe.tLQ I I W � I I n. cC.fO. B y 1 1 IL IF } ell 11 F I I I I'o W .�.I F ° 1 1 � 1 Iri r� 1 I I i" o� p I1 iI I I 00•tLe l I 1 1 n.rc.9a. e X I 11 II i I l � I$ i 1 ly . I I � ; I. I II I I 1 1 00't21 I I I I I M1.tL90.0 M 1; I it 1 I � 1 I I I$ < iW I l _ i Iri" 1?�n i I I h � i t I i w 16 L� 1 1 00 •SLI I l $2 IK Wry I 1 M1. t[.90.61 tl Qj � W� I I I i n ', 1 I � �$a i�W ..x iI 11 _ 1 Iw SU.O UIWW �� � 00•fZl I i �[CIyU 1 1 n.t[.90.tB N I I DO ~IW� I � 1 I IUD I 1 I t$ ��� I I i In I II li I 11 II I i I I I 1 n. Lf.90?(t P II 1I I i I I i I -- I I. �:�.. 'I 11 i '1 1 I 1 1 n.tf,90LeB N I I o f II II I i 1 I$ � I i — l I� I Il it II 1 I oo•ozl I I .y9 i I n. .9 .eB X 1 1.—t I I I I 1 I$ I 1 i 1. I I I le `Q. I I I I^ 1 I 0•s21 I I 1 I rt. Sf .90.19 N ly I t � � i�e�y II �! I I � w2'�r I1 1 I 0 r%; I I Oa Inat.00s9. ��'--I i I , q Oii i I ry~]ry - I I N ¢'' oG� ., li 1 1 P�/ I I �oN � ' T 9.tC,90 �69 9 00.001 4r Oi 1.0 ph�� 1 ti � w ,a/ (r V� a i zZ M1 yp� �p2P Ik'J' / ev ,; oe 9- [OW O ®/' N s r%9 � � U N hrv/ �01 cry W N �'=i K W U a®1 � • W d K < / O CYD mom O Fj a. of ti _ ® � Y =�'•. ® � ^i � o;l F �11 - 8� I - I o ^' - �"' _, ©; . YI �.il �I u=I ��'\as •\ � 2 � 6 ~ W D C N O uu D , [2 y a o �.���LL z z'1Nz �a ��T11 $J s�iw�8 .. Wm' ��NwRg 70:h� - a $ - _ �n S� - �� - __ „_ 4$$ 40 ohm -'S"«�« -- 'R""RTS - E 8$� II �e - - - - - - g� d �n _ _=-_0R7. ___ -_ _ „_ t N N