HomeMy Public PortalAbout3_Staff Report_32 Church Street_Final •�1630'�. Town of Watertown
�a� j X .
Department of
- Community Development and Planning
STAFF REPORT
This Staff Report is a technical analysis of the submitted application material and the required
findings of the Watertown Zoning Ordinance. It is based only upon information submitted prior
to the public hearing and may be revised or updated with new recommendations, findings
and/or conditions as new information is obtained by Planning staff during the public hearing
process.
Case Number: ZBA-2016-13 SP/SPR
Subject Property: 32 Church Street
Parcel ID: 31 87 0
Zoning District: R.75 (Residential) Zoning District
Petitioner(s): PNG, LLC, by Patrick Fortin, Century 21 Commonwealth, 10
Michigan Drive, Natick MA
Owner: Watertown Masonic Association, Inc.
Zoning Relief Sought: Special Permit with Site Plan Review
• §5.01(1)(g)(2): Principal Use: Row/Townhouses: 4 to 8 units
• §4.11(a): Exception for porches in the setback
• §9.03; §9.04; §9.05: Site Plan Review; Special Permit
Special Permit Granting Authority: Zoning Board of Appeals
Site Plan Review Meeting(s): August 2, 2016
Date of Staff Report: September 16, 2016
Staff Recommendation: Conditional Approval
Planning Board Meeting: Scheduled September 22, 2016
Zoning Board Hearing: Scheduled September 28, 2016
Page 1 of 12
32 Church Street September 16, 2016
ZBA-2016-13—SP/SPR Staff Report
I. PUBLIC NOTICE(M.G.L.c.40A,§11)
A. Procedural Summary
Petition ZBA-2016-13 SP/SPR is scheduled to be heard by the Planning Board on September
22, 2016, and is scheduled to be heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals on September 28,
2016. As required by M.G.L. c. 40A, Sec.11 and the Watertown Zoning Ordinance, notice
was given as follows:
• Published in the newspaper of record (Watertown Tab) on 9/9/16 and 9/16/16
• Posted at the Town Administration Building and on the Town Website on 8/31/16
• Mailed to Parties of Interest on 8/31/16
B. Legal Notice
"Patrick Fortin, PNG, LLC, %Century 21 Commonwealth, 10 Michigan Drive, Natick, MA 01760, herein
requests the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a Special Permit with Site Plan Review in accordance
with Watertown Zoning Ordinance, §9.03-9.05, in keeping with§5.01(1)(g)(2), Four to Eight
Row/Townhouses,so as to construct five(5)townhouse units located in the R.75(Residential)Zoning
District. The project will also raze the existing structure(former Masonic Building). ZBA-2016-13"
Site from Church Street looking towards Residential Neighborhood Adjacent to the
Watertown Square Site on Church Place (Private Way)
- CIA`✓' _
w
w
Rear of Winter Park Apartments;Accessed by At the end of Church Place; 100 Summer
r
Church Place Street Apartments on the Left
Page 2 of 12
32 Church Street September 16, 2016
ZBA-2016-13—SP/SPR Staff Report
II. DESCRIPTION
A. Site Characteristics
The 17,837+/-square foot(0.41 acre) site has a 1959 masonry structure that served as a
Masonic Center. The Historic Commission found in July 2016 that the structure was not
preferably preserved, and could be demolished. According to Sheet A1.0,the site slopes
downwards,towards Church Street, with the highest part of the site at the rear of the property
at Church Place, dropping approximately 10 feet to the opposite corner at Church Street. This is
evident at the abutting property at 24 Church Street as there is a large retaining wall on this
property boundary. Existing site landscaping consists of a vegetated strip abutting Church
Street,which contains a tree, hedges and a large white pine along the boundary with 24 Church
Street(See Site Photos).
B. Surrounding Land Use
The site is bounded by Church Street along the front, and is located diagonally opposite the
municipal parking lot with its small shops and restaurants. Watertown Savings Bank has a drive-
thru at the corner of Church Street and Summer Street. The First Parish Unitarian Church is
along the South, near the municipal parking lot. On the North side, the site is bounded by
Church Place, a private way, which is lined with two-story, two-family detached houses on the
North side of Church Place.To the South,towards Main Street, the site is abutted by a 3-story
brick apartment building.
C. Nature of the Request
The Petitioner is seeking Site Plan Review/Special Permit to demolish the existing 5,000+/-
square foot Masonic Temple structure and build five (5)townhouse units in two separate
buildings (A and B) on the site. Site access is provided by a single curb cut on Church Place, a
private way. As proposed,the project conforms to zoning dimensional requirements. The
building that will front on Church Street, Building A, will have an unenclosed porch that extends
into the setback,which is allowed by§411(a).
D. Public Comments
As required by§9.03(b), projects with four(4) or greater residential units must conduct an
informational Community Meeting. The Petitioner held this informational meeting on July 28,
2016 at the Watertown Police Station. A copy of the summary of the Community Meeting has
been submitted. Other than comments made at the Community Meeting, as of the date of this
report, no additional comments have been received on this project.
E. Relevant Permitting History
According to Zoning Board of Appeals,Assessors, Building and Planning records,the site has the
following permitting history:
• 1910: Lot appears on Assessors' records
• 1910—1955: The lot changes ownership several times,finally to the Watertown
Masonic Associates, Inc.
• August 1955: Demolition and Building Permit to Watertown Masonic Associates, Inc. to
remove a structure, and build a two-story, wood frame structure
• July 1959: Building Permit for a new Masonic Temple. One-story, reinforced concrete
with brick and wood. Edwin Sears Reed Associates, architect
Page 3 of 12
32 Church Street September 16, 2016
ZBA-2016-13—SP/SPR Staff Report
• October 1962: Building Permit for one-story, 11 ft x 14 ft masonry and brick addition
William H. Porter, architect
Department of Community Development& Planning (DCDP) staff suggest none of these permits
materially affect the request for a Special Permit.
III. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
A. Plan Consistencv
Watertown's 2015 Comprehensive Plan discusses preservation of the Town's neighborhoods.
This area is in-keeping with the Medium Density Residential on the Future Land Use Map.
Building a rowhouse-style project in two buildings is also in keeping with the general
characteristics of surrounding houses and apartments, and is appropriate and does not diminish
the surrounding neighborhood.
B. Design Standards and Guidelines
As required by§9.03(d)(1),for projects between four(4) and nine (9) greater residential units,
Watertown's Design Guidelines will be considered as part of the Site Plan/Special Permit review.
DCDP staff has analyzed the proposed project for consistency with Watertown's Design
Guidelines, and suggest the project as conditioned is sufficiently consistent with and reflective of
the Design Guidelines. The following summary highlights the nine Design Guidelines
components:
1. Public Realm Interface:
• Building A, which is on Church Street, has a front porch and individual doors
• The project will incorporate plantings to visually soften the building
• The sidewalk on Church Street will be rebuilt
• The site is served by a single,two-way curb cut
2. Parking and Access:
• The parking is in the center of the site, with minimized surface parking between
the two buildings
3. Sustainable Design:
• The Petitioner has stated an intent to preserve a large, existing site tree
• Existing trees along Church Street will be protected where feasible
• Permeable pavers are proposed
• The Petitioner states the project will incorporate energy efficient lighting, low
VOC paints and adhesives, and low flow plumbing fixtures
4. Building Massing:
• Zoning could allow the Petitioner to build the project as a single structure, but
the development is being broken up into two buildings
• Overall massing on the lot is approximately 2,500 square feet less than what the
WZO would allow
• The facades are broken up with bays which create vertical elements to further
accentuate the rowhouse styling of the proposed buildings. The porch creates a
horizontal line at near the base of the larger building helping to define it.
S. Building Height:
Page 4 of 12
32 Church Street September 16, 2016
ZBA-2016-13—SP/SPR Staff Report
• The Proponent is building just under maximum height (35 feet), but the
development will be broken up into two buildings
6. Building Setbacks:
• Proposed project meets all required setbacks and uses the allowance for
porches to extend into the setback,which is encouraged within the Design
Guidelines.
7. Fa4ade Treatment:
• The building fenestration (Sheet ALA) on the front elevation (Church Street) of
building A is regular, and helps break up the horizontal mass of the building.
The roof is flat but provides a larger and defined edge with details similar to the
style of typical triple-deckers built in other areas of Watertown.
• The full length porch on Building A creates an inviting presence, activating the
public street
8. Material Selection:
• The project proposes cementitious material and uses clapboard which is in-
keeping with surrounding two-family buildings. The base of the building is
defined by a porch with substantial pillars to reflect it as a key aspect of the
building.
9. Signage:
• As a residential project, this criterion is not applicable
C. Special Permit with Site Plan Review
Projects must meet the four conditions of approval for a Special Permit set forth in §9.05(b) of
the WZO. In addition, the project is subject to the review procedures under§9.03,Site Plan
Review, in which the ten criteria listed in §9.03(c) must be evaluated.
Special Permit Criteria§9.05(b)
1. The specific site is an appropriate location for such a use, structure,or condition.
Met: Zoning for this site is R.75, which would have allowed construction of a single building,
and up to a maximum of eleven (11) units. However,the Petitioner is proposing two
buildings, with only five (5) units. In addition,the overall development is approximately
2,500 square feet less than what the WZO would allow, with a lower lot and building
coverage percentage, and a higher percentage of onsite open space, all of which is
appropriate for this location.
2. The use as developed will not adversely affect the neighborhood.
Conditionally Met: The project is in-keeping with the neighborhood with proposed 5 units
and removes the current facility which allowed for larger events and regular congregation to
occur with some parking located adjacent to the neighbors, on site.
The proposed re-development would also improve the site's stormwater management, by
infiltrating runoff on site, which is not treated in the existing condition. The Petitioner
states the new system is designed to capture,treat and infiltrate 100-year storm events,
which will diminish surface runoff to adjacent properties.
Page 5 of 12
32 Church Street September 16, 2016
ZBA-2016-13—SP/SPR Staff Report
Comments from the Site Plan Review meeting recommend the Petitioner incorporate
visitability concepts into the project to the greatest extent practicable, so that persons with
mobility limitations can live there, or visit.
3. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles and pedestrians.
Met: The site is currently accessed on Church Street adjacent to Church Place, a private
way, and has rights to access the site from Church Place. The entrance is along the side of
the building and a fence that abuts the travel lane of Church Place which creates an
awkward entrance and exit from the site and an unsafe situation with vehicles exiting the
rest of Church Place. With the proposed redevelopment,the curb cut will be defined with
review by DPW, to serve Church Place with no driveway access directly on to the site from
Church Street.
The Petitioner submitted a July 8, 2016 Traffic Evaluation Letter(Letter)from Jason Plourde,
PE of Tighe & Bond. The Letter analyzed estimated trip generation from the Masonic Center
if it was reused as a fully functional fraternal organization/lodge, and as the proposed new
residential/Townhouse development with five units. The Letter also includes an analysis of
the site as a church, as it is currently utilized by the Greater Boston Church of Spiritualism.
The Letter concludes that the proposed residential development is expected to generate
between 30 and 180 fewer vehicle trips on a daily basis than the religious use. Peak hour
generation of the residential use is expected to generate between 18 and 65 fewer vehicle
trips than the existing Masonic Temple use.
Based on this,the Town has determined that further review is not warranted for this
development proposal.
At the Community Meeting on 7/28/16,the abutters, particularly the Winter Park and 100
Summer Street Apartments, expressed concern about impacts to Church Place, especially
during project construction. Staff recommends that the Petitioner provide an outline of a
traffic control plan for the expected 18-month construction period and how Church Place
will be impacted and what upgrades will made to the Private Way.
4. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the
proposed use.
Conditionally Met: The proposal will be required to meet all building, health, and safety
requirements.
The proposed redevelopment will manage site and building stormwater with an
underground infiltration system, catch basins, and a new Swale. The project must
implement a Stormwater Operation and Maintenance Plan (Plan)to handle the runoff from
impervious areas in the redeveloped condition and must implement construction phase
BMPs to reduce runoff during this period, including use of erosion controls.All with DPW
review.
The location of trash/recycling toters are indicated within the private garden areas (Building
A) or an enclosure (Building B). All trash and recycling shall be managed by a private
contractor, and as was identified during the Community Meeting, a clear spot needs to be
indentified to allow vehicle passage on pick-up days.
Page 6 of 12
32 Church Street September 16, 2016
ZBA-2016-13—SP/SPR Staff Report
Exterior lighting is addressed below in the Site Plan Review Criteria under the Design
criterion (#10).
Site Plan Review Criteria§9.03(c)
Prior to the official filing of the Application, a meeting of the Site Plan Review Committee
(Committee)was held on August 2, 2016. Present at the meeting were members of the Site
Plan Review Committee (consisting of Town Staff and Committee members),the Petitioner, and
consultant team, who presented the proposal, after which members of the Committee
responded with questions,comments, and suggestions.
DCDP staff has reviewed the ten criteria for Site Plan Review provided in §9.03(c) of the WZO
and incorporated Committee comments where appropriate. The following are the Findings as
identified through analysis of the updated project and the initial Committee review:
1. Preservation of Landscape: "The landscape shall be preserved in its natural state, insofar as
practicable, by minimizing tree and soil removal, and any grade changes shall be in keeping with
the general appearance of neighboring developed areas.Adequate landscaping shall also be
provided, including screening of adjacent residential uses, provision of street trees, landscape
islands in the parking lot and a landscape buffer along the street frontage."
Conditionaliv Met: The current site is almost entirely paved or covered with structure, except
for a grassed area along the Church Street frontage,which has two trees, and a grassed strip
and a large pine tree to the Northeast.
The Petitioner has indicated that the "existing tree on the sidewalk frontage is to be protected"
and had stated an intention at the Community Meeting to try to preserve the large pine tree.
New site landscaping is shown on Sheet A1.0, Existing& Proposed Site Plans, and in the 3-D
color renderings, but no information has been provided as to species, size and quantities. No
details have been presented on how the existing trees will be protected. This information
should be provided as part of the building permit application.
2. Relation of Buildings to Environment: "Proposed development shall be integrated into the
terrain and the use, scale and architecture of existing buildings in the vicinity and shall be in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan or other plans adopted by the Town guiding future
development. The Planning Board may require a modification in massing so as to reduce the
effect of shadows on abutting property in all districts or on public open space."
Met: As noted above, under§9.05(b)(1), above, the Petitioner's overall project is less than what
the WZO would allow on this size lot in the R.75 District. Row house architecture is in keeping
with the larger two-families and apartments that surround the site. The project takes advantage
of the maximum height in the district(35 feet/it will be at 33 feet), but the massing has been
broken into two buildings.
3. Open Space: "All open space required by this Zoning Ordinance shall be so designed as to
maximize its visibility for persons passing the site, encourage social interaction, maximize its
utility, and facilitate its maintenance."
Page 7 of 12
32 Church Street September 16, 2016
ZBA-2016-13—SP/SPR Staff Report
Conditionally Met: As noted above under the discussion of site landscaping (Criterion#1),the
site is largely devoid of vegetation. As such, the proposed redevelopment will increase the
amount of usable open space on the site,through creation of landscaped areas within and
around the property boundaries. In addition,the Petitioner's development program will provide
just under 50% (49.8%) of the site as open space.
4. Circulation: "Special attention shall be given to traffic circulation, parking areas and access
points to public streets and community facilities in order to maximize convenience and safety of
vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to adjacent streets."
Conditionally Met: As shown on Sheet C-2, Utility Plan, in the Control Documents, vehicular
access to the site will be from a single,two-way access from Church Place. The entrance/exit
drive is 21.4 feet wide at its widest point. The parking for the site according to the Petitioner is
11 total spaces. The Petitioner has also stated that each unit will have inside bicycle storage.
5. Surface Water Drainage: "Special attention shall be given to proper site surface drainage so
that removal of surface waters will not adversely affect neighboring properties or the public
storm drainage system. Proposed developments shall seek to retain storm water runoff on site
to the maximum extent possible, incorporating best practices in storm water management and
Low Impact Design techniques. In cases where storm water cannot be retained on site, storm
water shall be removed from all roofs, canopies and paved areas and carried away in an
underground drainage system."
Conditionally Met: The proposed redevelopment will improve the existing conditions, as there
currently is no stormwater management at the site. The proposed redevelopment will manage
site and building stormwater with a new subsurface system. Staff also notes the stormwater
design will require a final review and approval of the proposed system by Watertown's
Department of Public Works.
6. Utility Service: "Electric, telephone, cable TV and other such lines and equipment shall be
underground. The proposed method of sanitary sewage disposal and solid waste disposal from
all buildings shall be indicated."
Conditionally Met: The Petitioner states that new sanitary sewer connections will be provided,
one to serve each building,via the line on Church Place. New utilities will also include domestic
water and a 4-inch fire protection line. The existing water and sewer mains will be cut and
capped. Sewer and water design will require a final review and approval of the proposed
system by Watertown's Department of Public Works.
7. Environmental Sustainabilitv: "Proposed developments shall seek to diminish the heat island
effect,employ passive solar techniques and design to maximize southern exposures, building
materials, and shading; utilize energy-efficient technology and renewable energy resources;and
minimize water use..."
Met: As a single use (residential) project, and located in the R.75 District,the project is not
subject to the LEED requirements. Nevertheless,the Petitioner states the new buildings will
include "energy efficient lighting, automatic lighting controls in common areas, recycled building
materials [and] low VOC paints..."among other sustainability technologies. The project is also
Page 8 of 12
32 Church Street September 16, 2016
ZBA-2016-13—SP/SPR Staff Report
subject to the Stretch Code and will be required to complete an energy assessment to
determine the viability of a photovoltaic system.
8.Screening: "Screening, such as screen plantings, shall be provided for exposed storage areas,
exposed machinery installations, service areas, truck loading areas, utility buildings and
structures, and similar accessory areas and structures in order to prevent their being incongruous
with the existing or contemplated environment and the surrounding properties."
Met: The unitswwill have at-grade individual HVAC equipment which is appropriately screened.
The Petitioner has also stated the buildings do not have service areas, and the fire suppression
equipment is in a room incorporated into each unit.
9.Safety: "With respect to personal safety, all open and enclosed spaces shall be designed to
facilitate building evacuation and maximize accessibility by fire, police, and other emergency
personnel and equipment."
Met: The Petitioner states that the site will have new addressing per the Department of Public
Works,to facilitate enhanced 911 access to the property in the event of an emergency. The two
buildings will also be equipped with a residential fire suppression/sprinkler system, as well as
heat, smoke and carbon dioxide detectors.
10. Design: "Proposed developments shall seek to protect abutting properties from detrimental
site characteristics resulting from the proposed use, including but not limited to air and water
pollution, noise, odor, heat,flood, dust vibration, lights or visually offensive structures or site
features."
Conditionally Met: The Petitioner states that the site lighting will be "designed to avoid
negative impacts on abutting properties." The Petitioner's representatives also stated at the
Community Meeting that there would only be lights at the front entries and to illuminate the
porch on Building A. No exterior lighting information was provided in the Petitioner's materials.
Based on this, DCDP staff recommend the project be conditioned to conform to the
requirements of Article VII of the Zoning Ordinance,Signs& Illumination.
The project will be conditioned to require a plan to be created and implemented for on-site
noise, odors, dust, asbestos, and rodent abatement prior to and throughout demolition and
project construction.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
DCDP staff recommends that a Special Permit with Site Plan Review under§5.01(1)(g)for the
proposed 5-unit Rowhouse/Townhouse project should be granted with conditions.
Compliance
To be
# Condition Timeframe Verified
by
Control Documents.This approval is based upon the application materials and
1 Control Documents titled 32 Church Street, Watertown, by Gala Simon Associates, Perpetual ZEO/ISD
Inc.,dated 5/15/16, latest revision of 9/14/16,and titled Watertown Townhouses by
Harrison Mulhern Associates, dated 9/14/16, as modified by these conditions:
Page 9 of 12
32 Church Street September 16, 2016
ZBA-2016-13—SP/SPR Staff Report
Compliance
To be
# Condition Timeframe Verified
by
1. Records Condition Plan, 6/9/2016
2. Plot Plan (Existing and Proposed) (9/12/2016)
3. L 1.1, Landscape Plan (9/12/2016)
4. Sheet C-0, Existing Conditions/Erosion Control Plan
5. Sheet C-1, Drainage/Grading Plan
6. Sheet C-2, Utility Plan
7. Sheet C-3, Details
8. Sheet A1.0, Existing and Proposed Site Plan
9. Sheet A1.A, Building A, Floor Plans and Elevations
10. Sheet A1.6, Building B, Floor Plans and Elevations,
11. Sheet A1.1&1.2, Renderings
12. Sheet—Sun Shade Diagram
13. Project Narrative by Winnick&Sullivan, LLP dated 8/9/16
14. Historical Commission, Demolition Determination, dated 7/26/16
15. Traffic Evaluation Letter, by Jason R. Plourde, PE,Tighe&Bond,dated 7/8/16
Plan Modifications. Neither the Petitioner nor any present or future owner of any
interest in the project shall change or modify either the control plans referenced in
this decision, or the project itself,without first filing a formal request with the DCDP
2 Director,Zoning Enforcement Officer,and Building Inspector,for an opinion as to BP ZEO/ISD
whether or not such change or modification requires further review from the Special
Permit Granting Authority. Minor modifications including changes to floor plans may
be considered and approved by the DCDP Director that are found to be consistent
with the project approval.
Recordation. Upon application for a Building Permit,the Petitioner shall provide
3. evidence to the Zoning Enforcement Officer that this entire decision has been filed BP ZEO
with the Registry of Deeds,and/or Land Court.
4 Codes/Regulation Compliance.The Petitioner shall comply with all other applicable CO ZEO/ISD
local,state,and federal requirements,ordinances,and statutes.
Certificate of Occupancy/Final Inspection. A copy of the Building Permit with final
5. approval signatures from all relevant inspectors must be submitted to the Zoning CO ZEO
Enforcement Officer upon completion of the project.
As-Built(s).The Petitioner shall submit a certified "As-Built"foundation plot plan
6 showing all dimensional setbacks at the time of foundation inspection. An As Built BP ZEO/DPW
site plan with utilities,topography,and buildings,shall be submitted to DPW as
required.
Demolition and Construction.The Petitioner shall:
A. Follow the required demolition permitting, including,a plan for the control
and mitigation of accumulation of standing water for the prevention of
vector borne diseases to the Health Department(Nuisance Control Prior
to
7' Regulation Section 3F)and a plan for the control and mitigation of on-site Demoo
Health/ISD
Permit
noise,odors, dust,asbestos,and rodent abatement to the Health
Department.
B. Submit a traffic control plan for the expected 18-month construction period.
Permit Expiration. In accordance with WZO§9.13,a Special Permit granted under
§9.04 shall lapse one year from the date of grant thereof if substantial use thereof
8. has not sooner commenced except for good cause,or, in the case of a permit for Perpetual ZEO
construction, if the construction has not begun by such date except for good cause,
or as allowed by applicable State or Federal law.
Page 10 of 12
32 Church Street September 16, 2016
ZBA-2016-13—SP/SPR Staff Report
Compliance
To be
# Condition Timeframe Verified
by
Stormwater. The Petitioner shall:
9 A. Implement a stormwater system and an Operation and Maintenance Plan BP/ ZEO/DPW
and Best Management Practices,subject to DPW review and final approval Perpetual
prior to Building Permit.
10. Utilities.All utilities servicing the site shall be underground. Sewer and water BP/ ZEO/DPW
connections will require final review and approval by DPW. Perpetual
Landscaping,Site Plan and Screening: The Petitioner shall:
A. Install sidewalk and granite curbing along the property frontage on Church
Street per DPW requirements and approval process.
B. Provide appropriate screening for HVAC and other systems.
11. In addition: BP/ ZEO/IDS/
C. The Landscape Plan shall be subject to review and approval by DCDP staff Perpetual DCDP
for species appropriateness, mix,size,quantity,and spacing. Street trees
shall be protects and any new trees shall be coordinated by the Tree
Warden.
D. All exterior lighting for the site shall be fully shielded and full cutoff.
Refuse. The Petitioners shall:
12 A. All trash and recycling shall be collected by a private waste management BP/ ZEO/
company. Provide a temporary location on the site for scheduled pickup Perpetual DCDP
days.
Page 11 of 12
32 Church Street September 16, 2016
ZBA-2016-13—SP/SPR Staff Report
�� 9pm NNU §O�Sa e 1
�l
rl
'1 rc_ca 3�p-gg au uAN en i� = n n qwm
mUKK==—UJ2NNNrOaanK N
NDDIDDIIDDDD�DDDIII�na����®�2�2���_Jzy2
CN
�4C,
�o
^� P
�Q
� 4
y
J o
� m
d 0
m Z W N o N
n# 0 LL
ui ss
a a a
a (n
oe
F-
rv�
# rg-x -O
Page 12 of 12