Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-04-28 Town Meeting MinutesANNUAL TOWN MEETING Reading Memorial High School April 28, 2011 The meeting was called to order by the Moderator, Alan E. Foulds, at 7:34 PM, there being a quorum present. The meeting was started with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ARTICLE 18 Motion made by Richard Schubert, Board of Selectmen to move that the Town vote to delete Section 5.15 — Storing or Handling of Crude Petroleum or any Crude Petroleum Products, of the Reading General Bylaw. Background - given by Peter Hechenbleikner: Since the Town of Reading enacted General Bylaw 5.17 Storage and Handling of Crude Petroleum or any Crude Petroleum Products on April 26, 2004, there have been significant changes in how underground storage tanks containing these products are regulated in Massachusetts. Major changes are outlined below: 1. As of August 8, 2007, the Massachusetts Fire Prevention Code requires underground storage tanks and related piping to be inspected by a third party inspector once every three years. Third party inspectors must have a level of training that is approved by the State Fire Marshal. 2. As of April 1, 2008, the State Fire Marshal and the local Fire Chief may prohibit delivery of product to an underground tank for a violation of the Fire Prevention Code, including conditions that endanger public health, safety and the environment. 3. As of July 1, 2009, the Massachusetts Underground Storage Tank Program was transferred to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). MassDEP is now responsible for aspects of the underground storage tank system in areas of environmental concerns and leaks. MassDEP also has rule making authority to promulgate regulations governing underground storage tanks that relate to leak prevention. 4. Beginning on August 8, 2012 the Massachusetts Fire Prevention Code requires operators of underground storage tank systems to be operated by trained personnel. Among other requirements, this regulation will mandate a trained operator to operate underground tank installations and to inspect safety systems and leak detection systems monthly. Trained operators must have completed training that is approved by the State Fire Marshal. The local Fire Chief is responsible to issue permits for underground tank installations, the product stored, self service fuel stations and the removal of underground storage tanks. The State Fire Marshal and the local Fire Chief has the authority to conduct random inspections of facilities that have been inspected by a third party inspector to ensure the integrity of the system. Therefore the local bylaw is unnecessary and redundant, and can be rescinded. Finance Committee Report: No Report Bylaw Committee Report - report not given on floor: The Bylaw Committee agrees the Section 5.15 of the General Bylaw is now redundant of State Law and thus no longer needed. The Bylaw Committee recommends the subject matter of this article by a vote of 4 -0 -0. Presentation given by Chief Greg Burns - See Attached After discussion with Town Meeting Members Motion Carried ARTICLE 19 2011 Annual Town Meeting Motion made by Ben Tafoya, Board of Selectmen to move that the Town vote to amend Section 5.13 — "Demolition of Structures of Potentially Historical Significance" of the Reading General Bylaw, by deleting the term "twelve (12) months" from Section 5.13.3.6 thereof, and inserting in its place "six (6) months" so that section reads in its entirety: (note — Gress -t#Feugh represents language to be eliminated and bold represents new language) 5.13.3.6 If the Commission determines that the demolition of the Potentially Significant Structure would be detrimental to the historical or architectural heritage or resources of the Town, such structure shall be considered a Preferably Preserved Historic Structure. The Commission shall so advise the applicant and the Building Inspector, and a Demolition Permit may be delayed up to ' %�e (12) six (6) months after the conclusion of the hearing during which time alternatives to demolition shall be considered. The Commission shall offer the owner information about options other than demolition, such as resources in the preservation field, the Massachusetts Historical Commission, the Town Planner, and other interested parties that might provide assistance in preservation, funding and /or adaptive reuse. Background - given by Peter Hechenbleikner: The portion of the above warrant article in the third to the last and next to the last lines that is shown in bold and says "General Bylaws 69 Amended through March 2010" is the footer in the published bylaw and was inadvertently copied into the text when the Article was drafted. This language was discovered by members of the Reading Historical Commission and will be left out of the motion under this article. In 1996 Town Meeting adopted General Bylaw Section 5.13 "Demolition of Structures of Potentially Historical Significance ". This Bylaw was amended in 2006 and the timeframe for the demolition delay extended from six (6) months to twelve (12) months. The purpose of the Bylaw is to preserve and protect structures of potentially historical significance. The Bylaw defines potentially historically significant structures as reflecting the architectural, cultural, economic, political, or social history of the Town. A more detailed definition is contained in Section 5.13.2.4 and generally includes structures that are on the National /State Register of Historic Places; included in (or pending being listed in) the Town's Historical and Architectural Inventory; or by a vote of the Reading Historical Commission (RHC). The Bylaw further states that its goal is to encourage owners of historic structures to find alternatives to demolition. Administration of this Bylaw falls under the authority of the Reading Historical Commission (RHC). When a permit is filed with the building inspector for demolition of a potentially historical structure, it is forwarded to the RHC for an initial determination of applicability of a demolition delay under this Bylaw. The RHC determines if the structure is potentially historically significant. If the determination is positive then a public hearing is held. If the outcome of the hearing is a determination that the structure is potentially historically significant, then it is considered a Preferably Preserved Historic Structure and demolition is delayed for up to twelve (12) months. Through this demolition delay provision, the RHC works with property owners to seek alternatives to demolition. If after the 12 month demolition delay there is no likelihood that the property owner can find alternatives to demolition or convey the property to another owner who could, the restriction expires. If the RHC and the property owner can come to an agreement on plans for the structure then the demolition delay may be lifted at any time. Article 19 proposes to modify the regulations under Section 5.13 of the Town's General Bylaws and reduce the maximum amount of time a demolition delay order can be issued by the RHC from 12 months to 6 months and: • Allow property owners to make plans for their structures in a more expedited manner; • Boost economic development; • Provide a customer service benefit; Modifying the time frame will still keep the Demolition Delay Bylaw in tact and provide a tool for historic preservation, but will make it less burdensome on the applicant/property owner. The table below shows the history of the use of the bylaw to date, and indicates that, with a very limited sample, the 6 month 2011 Annual Town Meeting delay resulted in 2 "saved" properties, where the 12 month delay has resulted in no "saved" properties, and in 2 demolitions. Town of Reading - Demolition Delay By -Law Re -cap of Activity as of 3/1/11 - per Reading Historical Commission Notes: * Reading Housing Authority * *Estimated number per RHC Reading Historical Commission Report - given by Angela Binda and Virginia Adams: The Reading Historical Commission feels that the proposed change to the demolition delay period from 12 months to 6 months will seriously impede its work, and could threaten the Town's most treasured and historic resources. The Reading Historical Commission does not recommend warrant Article 19. The purpose of the Reading Historical Commission is to document historical assets of the Town and to develop a plan to protect them. Not only is this the legal purpose of the Reading Historical Commission, but it is also a Town goal that has been stated repeatedly, as in the Master Plan objective "to protect buildings of historical significance ... as part of the value the Town puts into its architectural heritage and character." The Board of Selectmen reaffirmed this Town priority in their 2008 "Vision, Mission, and Values" Statement which reads, in part, "In support of the Town of Reading Mission, Reading Municipal Government will... uphold the character of Reading by actively encouraging efforts to document and preserve the history of the community, its historic buildings and areas, and prized open spaces." The demolition delay bylaw is the tool by which the Reading Historical Commission can carry out this stated objective. 2011 Annual Town Meeting a) N E p Q U_ Regulation Outline of Issues Quantity Date N a) E �j X x C g 6 Month Dela 1 Town Meeting Adoption 1996 Number of Properties on List - 2 Town -wide 229 Application Activity (# 3 applications) 10 Case Disposition; # Residential; # 4 Commercial 8- Demo 6 1 1 2 Number of Properties on List - 5 West St Historic District 0 12 Month Delay 1 Town Meeting Adoption 2006 Number of Properties on List - 2 Town -wide 329 2010 Application Activity (# 3 applications) 2 Case Disposition; No. Residential; 4 No. Commercial 2 -Demo 1 1* Number of Properties on List - 5 West St Historic District 12 ** Notes: * Reading Housing Authority * *Estimated number per RHC Reading Historical Commission Report - given by Angela Binda and Virginia Adams: The Reading Historical Commission feels that the proposed change to the demolition delay period from 12 months to 6 months will seriously impede its work, and could threaten the Town's most treasured and historic resources. The Reading Historical Commission does not recommend warrant Article 19. The purpose of the Reading Historical Commission is to document historical assets of the Town and to develop a plan to protect them. Not only is this the legal purpose of the Reading Historical Commission, but it is also a Town goal that has been stated repeatedly, as in the Master Plan objective "to protect buildings of historical significance ... as part of the value the Town puts into its architectural heritage and character." The Board of Selectmen reaffirmed this Town priority in their 2008 "Vision, Mission, and Values" Statement which reads, in part, "In support of the Town of Reading Mission, Reading Municipal Government will... uphold the character of Reading by actively encouraging efforts to document and preserve the history of the community, its historic buildings and areas, and prized open spaces." The demolition delay bylaw is the tool by which the Reading Historical Commission can carry out this stated objective. 2011 Annual Town Meeting The demolition delay bylaw was enacted in 1996, with a 6 -month delay. The Reading Historical Commission worked with this 6 -month delay for 10 years, but found the delay period to be inadequate to find alternatives to demolition. The Reading Historical Commission returned to Town Meeting in 2006 to ask that the delay period be increased to 12 months, and Town Meeting amended the bylaw. The Reading Historical Commission has found the 12 -month delay to be a more productive and successful length of time, as it allows a property owner and the Reading Historical Commission more time to fully explore alternatives to demolition, and to concurrently go through other commissions' regulatory procedures and hearing processes (e.g., Conservation, CPDC, and /or ZBA). The Reading Historical Commission does not wish the demolition delay to be overly burdensome for property owners, and is judicious in its application. In fact, a provision for early release ends the delay when a solution has been formulated, or it becomes clear that the building will not be saved. However, the Reading Historical Commission believes that the 12 -month delay is sometimes necessary to protect the Town's limited, and diminishing, historical resources. The delay period is truly a time for unforeseen alternatives to be discovered. Ultimately, property owners retain all decision - making authority. There are currently 130 cities and towns in Massachusetts with a demolition delay bylaw, some with a delay of up to 18 months. Every year, more cities and towns add a similar bylaw to protect their historical assets, and every year several cities and towns increase their length of delay. Since 2006, when Reading increased its delay from 6 to 12 months, no towns or cities have eliminated the bylaw or decreased the length of the delay. Historic preservation is a vital component to economic development in Reading. Reading has embraced Smart Growth principles, with Town Meeting establishing the Downtown Smart Growth District zoning and with the revitalization of the downtown, both of which the RHC supported. Historic preservation is a major component of the Smart Growth movement; it is sustainable development, it supports mixed land uses, it fosters distinctive and attractive communities with a strong sense of place, it utilizes existing infrastructure, and it promotes a pedestrian friendly environment. Historic buildings are natural incubators of small businesses and provide a variety of rent levels and rental spaces, and often allow for more immediate occupancy. Our historic assets, attractive and historic downtown, and the "Sense of Place" created by those historic buildings are a major draw for business owners wishing to establish themselves in Reading, and for those moving here. Reading often markets its historic assets to attract businesses to town. A Smart Growth approach that does not include historic preservation high on the agenda is missing a valuable economic development strategy. Historic properties create a sense of continuity and rootedness that stabilize the Town's economy and create a sense of community. The current Demolition Delay Bylaw is an invaluable tool that enables the Town of Reading to protect its historic buildings. The regulation provides an effective measure of control over local historic resources. This is the only tool the RHC can utilize to assure active participation in the formal process when demolitions of historic properties are proposed. Article 19 would significantly weaken this proven and effective tool. Finance Committee Report: No Report Economic Development Committee Report - given by Russell Graham: The EDC recommends to the Board of Selectmen support of Article 19, by a vote of 5 -0 -0. Bylaw Committee Report - given by Philip Pacino: The Bylaw Committee feels the presently 12 month requirement should stay in place in order to preserve Reading heritage. The Committee does not see an undue burden from leaving the 12 months in place. By a vote of 1 -2 -0 the Bylaw Committee does not recommend the subject matter of this article. - Report not given on the floor James Bonazoli, Board of Selectmen wanted Town Meeting to be aware of the split vote among the Board of Selectmen in favor 3 -2 See Attached presentation from Historical Commission - given by Angela Binda and Virginia Adams 2011 Annual Town Meeting After extensive discussion a motion was made by Ronald Thomas O'Keefe, Precinct 1 to move the question. 2/3 Vote Required 94 Voted in the affirmative 45 Voted in the negative 159 Town Meeting Members in Attendance Motion to Move Question Carried 75 Voted in the affirmative 73 Voted in the negative 159 Town Meeting Members in Attendance Motion Carried Note: A motion to reconsider was submitted by James Bonazoli and later withdrawn ARTICLE 20 Motion made by Stephen Goldy, Board of Selectmen to move that the Town vote to delete in its entirety, Section 5.16 of the Reading General Bylaw, and insert in its place the following new Section 5.16, 5.16 Outdoor Loudspeakers and Public Address Systems No commercial establishment (except for restaurants as noted below) shall install or operate any outdoor loudspeaker or public address system on its premises except for the sole purpose of direct communication with a customer to assist that customer or to conduct a specific business transaction at the commercial establishment, as for example at a drive -up window of a fast food or banking establishment, or at self - service gasoline pumps. Any such loudspeaker or public address system shall be operated only during the regular business hours of the establishment. The owner of the establishment shall at all times ensure that the volume of sound produced outdoors by such loudspeaker or public address system shall be such as not to be audible from any portion of a public way or residential property. Restaurants, except drive - through food establishments, may provide outdoor loudspeakers for the purpose of providing music for their patrons while dining, provided that such music is not audible from any portion of a public way or abutting property. Any such loudspeaker shall be operated only during the regular business hours of the establishment. Motion made to dispense of further reading Motion to dispense Carried Background - given by Peter Hechenbleikner: Section 5.16 was adopted by Town Meeting on April 30, 1998. At that time virtually every business in Reading directly abutted residential property, and there had been no previous regulation of loudspeakers for drive through restaurants, gasoline service station, banks, and the like. The existing regulations have worked well and there have been no complaints from abutting property owners about noise from speakers from these establishments. However, since the development of the commercial development on Walkers Brook Drive, there are a number of restaurants (7) that have been developed which are isolated from abutting residential development. Several of these businesses have unknowingly installed speaker systems, and they have been directed to turn them off. However, it does not appear that there is any public purpose in not allowing speakers in these locations for the enjoyment of their dining customers; particularly with a requirement "... that such music is not audible from any portion of a public way or abutting property. Any such loudspeaker shall be operated only during the regular business hours of the establishment." 2011 Annual Town Meeting Finance Committee Report: No Report Bylaw Committee Report - given by Philip Pacino: The Bylaw Committee recommends the subject matter of this article by a vote of 3 -1 -0. Economic Development Committee Report - report not given on floor: The EDC recommends to the BOS support of Article 20, by a vote of 5 -0 -0. After some discussion by Town Meeting Members a motion was made by John Carpenter, Precinct 7 to lay the Article on the table Motion to Table Carried ARTICLE 21 Motion made by James Bonazoli, Board of Selectmen to move to indefinitely postpone the subject matter of Article 21. Comments made by James Bonazoli, Board of Selectmen Chair, Board of Selectmen met on April 19, 2011 in regards to this Article - Sidewalk Plowing and Shoveling - After great input from citizens it was decided to indefinitely postpone. Ronald D'Addario, Precinct 6 asked if Town Meeting could consider the Article and omit 5.19.1 removing in Residence from the Article. Camille Anthony, Board of Selectmen stated that we didn't want to do this as there were too many issues that we had no answers for, therefore at this point we don't want to look at it. Motion to Indefinitely Postpone Carried ARTICLE 22 Motion made by Camille Anthony, Board of Selectmen to move that the Town vote to amend the Reading Home Rule Charter as follows: (note — -t"Fuh represents language to be eliminated and bold represents new language) by removing "Board of Assessors" in the first paragraph of Section 3.1 so that the paragraph reads as follows: Section 3 -1: General Provisions The offices to be filled by the voters shall be the Board of Selectmen, School Committee, BeaFdof Assessors, Board of Library Trustees, Municipal Light Board, Moderator, Vocational School Representative and such members of regional authorities or districts as may be established by statute, interlocal agreement or otherwise, to re- number Section 3.6 as Section 4 -10, and to amend the language in the new Section 4 -10 to read as follows: Section 3-6 4 -10: Board of Assessors There shall be a Board of Assessors consisting of three (3) members elected appointed for three (3) year terms so arranged that one (1) term shall expire each year. The terms of the members of the Board of Assessors shall expire on the first day of July. Members of the Board of Assessors shall be appointed by an Appointment Committee chaired by the Moderator, consisting of the Moderator who shall have one vote, the Chairman of the Board of Selectmen 2011 Annual Town Meeting who shall have one vote, and the Chairman of the Board of Assessors who shall have one vote. Any vacancy on the board shall be filled by the Appointment Committee. The Board of Assessors may appoint prGperty appraisers and shall have all the powers and duties given to Boards of Assessors by the Law of the Commonwealth not inconsistent with this Charter, to renumber the present Section 4.10 as Section 4.11, Background - given by Peter Hechenbleikner: The Reading Home Rule Charter was developed in 1985 and adopted in April 1986. Members of the Charter Commission from that time have indicated that when it came to the question of the Board of Assessors being elected or appointed, a concern was expressed by 2 of the 3 incumbent members of the Board of Assessors at the time that making the Board of Assessors an appointed Board would have negatively affected their pensions because they were retired State employees. Largely because of this concern, the Board of Assessors was made an elected Board. Those 2 members are no longer on the Board of Assessors. There are several reasons to consider making the Board of Assessor's an appointed body at this time In the last 30 years, there have been 5 instances (soon to be 6 ?) where there was a vacancy on the Board of Assessors that had to be filled by a committee of the whole made up of the remaining members of the Board of Assessors and the full membership of the Board of Selectmen: 1984, 1989, 2000, 2007, and 2009. Additionally there was at least one instance where a vacancy was filled by a write -in vote because there were no candidates on the ballot. Again in 2011 an incumbent on the Board of Assessors has chosen not to run for re- election, and the options are: • A write -in candidate with as little as 1 vote could be elected; or • If there are no write -in votes the remaining members of the Board of Assessors along with the full membership of the Board of Selectmen would once again appoint a member to the Board of Assessors until the next election. 2. The work of the Board of Assessors is more technical than policy making. The Assessors are similar in operation to the appointed Board of Health or the appointed Community Planning and Development Commission, rather than a policy making body like a Board of Selectmen or a School Committee. This lends itself more to a deliberate search for residents of the community who have expertise and interest in this work. In some instances the qualifications that make a good Assessor might not reside in someone who is interested in running for election. 3. The Town has worked hard over the past several years to develop completely integrated financial systems through the use of technology. It is important that the Assessment function be fully integrated with the remaining financial systems, and that the final decisions on such matters reside centrally within the Town administration. 4. The Board of Selectmen is interested in examining the potential for regionalizing a number of services, and tax assessment is one that lends itself particularly well to a regional structure. Having the Board of Assessors as an appointed Board would facilitate such a process. One argument sometimes made for having an elected Board of Assessors is that it takes the politics out of the appointment process. To address this issue, the Charter amendment proposes to have an appointment committee process just like that for the Finance Committee and Bylaw Committee. The Appointment Committee would be made up of the Town Moderator along with the Chairman of the Board of Selectmen and the Chairman of the Finance Committee. A survey of other area communities reveals that a number of comparable communities have appointed Boards of Assessors: 2011 Annual Town Meeting Town Board of Assessors Bedford Elected -Burlington Elected Danvers Appointed -Lexington Appointed Melrose Appointed North Andover Appointed North Reading Appointed Stoneham Elected Wakefield Elected -Wilmington Appointed Winchester Elected The process for amending the Reading Home Rule Charter is spelled out in Article Section 8 -1: "This Charter may be replaced, revised or amended ... by a two- thirds vote of the Town Meeting approved by the voters at the next Town Election. ", which will be in the spring of 2012. Finance Committee Report: No Report Bylaw Committee Report - given by Philip Pacing: The Bylaw Committee feels that the Appointment Committee as set forth in this proposed Charter change should include the Chairman of the Board of Assessors in place of the Chairman of the Finance Committee. The Chairman of the Board of Assessors would be more familiar with the working of both the Assessment Department and the Board and thus would be the better individual to make a judgment regarding the best person to serve on the Board of Assessors. The Appointment Committee for both the Finance Committee and the Bylaw Committee on which this proposal was modeled after include the Chairman of each respective Committee as part of the Appointment Committee. The Bylaw Committee agrees that the Board of Assessors should advance to an appointment process instead of being elected. The lack of candidates in the recent election concerns the Committee. The Bylaw Committee recommends the subject matter of this Article as amended by a vote of 4 -0 -0. 2/3 Vote Required 7 Voted in the affirmative 132 Voted in the negative 159 Town Meeting Members in Attendance Motion Does Not Carry 2011 Annual Town Meeting Motion to adjourn made by Bill Brown, Precinct 8 Motion Carried Adjourned with 159 in attendance at 10:18 PM to continue on May 2, 2011 at 7:30 PM A true copy Attest: Laura A Gemme Town Clerk 2011 Annual Town Meeting ■ �r C 3 0 F- 2 r r O N ro*,00i 4-• 0 U) L a--+ 0 •� L � co V J E I ° 00 � o U r � � 0 n v m a) U) .� -0 L W Q L (DU � a� (D 0 a� o ° ° U N o 0 o* G :;• i49! O Qo``' -�1T�1Ye.3`bo � o •" SETTI%'� O V Fil O O v G� al U � O � 0 O O . o Cld U ct bb ct it a� C� N 0 0 �o a� 0 LI--� O WJ � V � .O U llwmp000l � � V 0 O O . o Cld U ct bb ct it a� C� N 0 0 �o a� 0 jj4d1l w V I . . O 0 o� O O N 4� V W 0 V V CAA O .o 0 .O V 4� W V O V V 0 0 V rA 4� V G� C� O 1 a� 424 c� bA O a w A O O C A 9 w FmN V rA C W � A � a� rA O 0 V 0 � O irl � � 0 .o V rA 0 c� N 0 V 0 V a� w .o Ammo 4� I �I �I rA c� a� a� a� a� a • O V V � 4� 4m*. � O � V a„� O � V E-� o �I O V � �O V � O �O V 4� • • �I O v1 � O '~ V � �+ O O v O � O � V W TT� V1 V •may �I V 0 V V FIRIJ 0 1 V • O POEM POEM v1 0 •may 0 w bV V V C� • •O �I V • •O �I �I • V 0 V �I �I • V V V V V O � 0 PEN O •0+ N 00 4,� bJ0 PIZ .Pm 4,o 0 Poo .PO V ago °' pq V �+ AA O i P-0 W •POO 4* 4* • PO O Q � V � � V � � c o � o � c� "t 5 w W; C .O ) o .O .�., PO PO -Ono 4=0 .o 4 4t of 4-� O ,� O 'PO -Pm 4-o •POO �" •� ;00 PRO A 4� •PO C •� •� �w w 4* C 3 0 El r TM 0 N G +cfs�o C 6 SEIt1 U co U .E cm C!) U 'O � = C r O .cn_ Co .E V � .� �. 2 U O � 'O Ocn � H 2 cn O O O m co o a a cn o n �E W - U C� U o C U � O E .� C6 = C/) 9.$CL�nr. ►t Fa �`Ff, . f 'kill .,a rya p Ic' r R y 1 Z L4 *C6 f - AA _rPmr, ME � 4 - a. � r Q A 11 l / / //,NA/ //IlllllllllUl , 3!�` �, f!P I w ! iAV1 G V SA .? 3 • 1' I� I■ rte.._ �•: ,, _►• LO do It t ,•' t 1: � :gip � � i + 1 Y 5 f wr�i �, .S •' a yr . V; M 41 ••r ,1��. i �' • . iii" � • �� tA u11 i, C � FIN \�✓ ° T 1' a avYSia/� roc i • y, '•PS ��. P" of I� +'�^ •� -1- -�� � ` f 0 h mmlp-77 N �` r �q( "r fp Cf ^ s r r+ ^E , l i -1� O U N L M Cfl ' V4o n\ >' y 11 AA A \; 1 �+"i� c /� t•'ne;: ��-,./�" � �' Il /�I /'fir \1 /h�/ /I % N AP�• ° s 7111 Y 1 l • low at tx I�•i i�a'.'��r 3 I w: ,l ricer i� n. .aw ...,- �%"���• � � n :5rp y�6�`° a ,�� yd k�,� • `�4/ �' Im R ( goo",y'�1•��\ y` �'�w� wa.rolr�r�� .. N�` per, p. JW t �t 1Y/ d��i�• @�I , r;p i�IIt �9.��h�:.�a Q E CO LO W N 01 a P it r -t-17N, . ~ �.- r 77 - kzr,�� .r � a �'. `ia , ; rt 4 f.. a t• s fRr��' ^_` s 3- . M b� �e'i J.� • , �� ..+��+i f;.: ' t: tS .. -� r%�'�,'���' ,.: ��d •46 �" t, S' ;f• !'��f�.y�i �Rr— !� '.. � � _ -., - , a _ r , Y 11d �i At Ln fu IVAr i s 110 t/ rt: T•s C NNNS4411�1�1� �� .f�t! i t• d 1, w l it R ' 11 :`!6 pw-r :r 11111111111! f !NN on, IIIIIIIIIII N U N ll�lll�i I.i�1lrl(!�I' �j 1 111fI11111H I�ilrf,r' i ii 1 P1ll9Ill1i NEI Rlllllllll f �iNIIIIk I C �''" � 1 Y r-r �-FLLIi miff M W- yJ fill I'll 11 ii'I -AJA 11'1 11'111'111 '1111111 Il '1'11111 X111 LL ro I I I I I I I illi i , i 11 11'111111111 11'1'11111 11 11 F1§ W f'1,111111111111I111� 1p '1111. ,111 ,1'11111 ,1'1111111 ,I II 11 ll I ll It 11 III III 11�'I 11 Ui 5 1 1 v _ �1 11111 � b"I I so L� 9 I , hp l�llll�t - llllllhh� . :. §� i / \�f} \ , < . :.� \/ � /\� � \�� \� / §� . \� Z 4: / :� ® J / 2 � : .. § ©/: � � `/ < `/ \ �� ` ( \��\ � �/ t : % { \� . < ?. . >: � 2 2 ' r. «_ \� � ) �/ . - » \ � .. < . r: �e• .t i '« � :�. t "ti - y+p._m•, fit �. =s0` - ' ;l / / / /111 /i� ■uuu�� lip iF Ln i rG � rif $MF � • W P . (r��w �� F sue/'. Y! 7{°ff� • ?,'�,` '5�, r ,� a'4�. r„•�•�. � •>�� � ` L +wit .,,, �'• •.,. _ — �': •`�,;A . �,�.�,; l�'' :fir':: ,.,Rf A,� •'�'� ,t. . < •V . -1�o. �;- .t •i SLR �• _ � }. :.re:? � �� • r.Q i � � _ IL..,... a � Y'< a As. k i ih lilt i�i ►f F9 �'• K7�r�. ~i•`.� Ulli�i���' /�e.�. r.i.. � .�- .- __._._.rr- . Y i err � Ira ti tit lit lit • �� .MEN" - f 1 \ I ,u ms Wt dt t y r Q) 3 U) L Q) T i N L 9 � r r ?d x F I ai t I Q 1+- h+a i M. �/=:��f}' Ilf �: Ol i} : I T. A-MW L. ,i r r � � ! � '� R{` *� h �i r }t L. � .. .- ., .. rrr.rurrrs •,, ... '. !u��Y *.• Qa `;�_ 'd' ♦ a'� }}.I: °� , `'fit -�� it�'�' ,. x_. .i Yr .; � lip •� , �•'- � r �4�♦- f ��� ••Ht'tr YL .y . _l'' :rjFi ��� •'J. s I• N7 r4% C. t: it 95ni ; et ^.: �JJJ177Y111.s .Te � Ira �l %• � �/ /'qtr �,�'° ,. ( r I^ -� r jy►G. ;l0ell t I� z i]] p' Y r; 1 E I w, ty r 'V Jul:: Y jiji dj. i i r y, t 2� i i .a �`s ' I mow■ y, t 2� i i .a �`s C: �i� 7; (�6 D E3 LL O �J E3 c�z� ■ �r 4) 5 C 3 0 El O N ?G x +qr v � o O a ,S� F,m O N V W, C6 L cu Q� Q 0 J L 0 O L E 0 a) E a m m L n� W LJ cn cn a� L El L 0 0 ca a� a L CL ■ C 3 0 H ca El T lirm O N � e _A b� S U) L 0 c� U) Q 0 N N 0 4) m lot c� a E E Q 0 L L 0 U E 0 2