HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-129-87~ ,
.~
-, r~
~~~ ~~..~ ~~ C~
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
REPORT
~ETI~: General Purpose and Administration Committee
DATE ~ Monday, Maly 4, 1987
REPORT #: PD-129-87 FILE #: 87-1f~, and 18T-86076
~~~J
- File # ~
Res. # y S ~~
By-Law #
SUBJECT: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION - FILE: 87-1/D
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION - 18T-86076
AVELLINO HOLDINGS LIMITED
PART LOTS 23/24, CONCESSION 2, FORMER TWP. OF CLARKE
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-129-87 be received; and
2. THAT the kegion of Durham be advised that the Town of Newcastle recommends that
Official Plan Amendment Application 87-1/D and Subdivision Application 18T-86076
submitted by Avel l i no Holdings to permi t a 43 1 of estate residenti al `sub division i n
Part Lots 23 and 24, Concession 2, former Township of Clarke, be denied; and
-'`r
3. THAT a copy of Council's decision be forwarded to the Region of Durham, the
applicant, and the interested parties indicated hereto.
BACKGROUND:
In January, 1987, the Region circulated an Official Plan Amendment application and
Subdivision application to permit the Bevel opment of a 43 1 of estate resi denti al
subdivision on a 60.67 hectare parcel of land in Part Lots 23 and 24, Concession 2, former
Township of Clarke (see attached key map). The subject site is designated "Permanent
Agricultural Reserve" by the Regional Official Plan and zoned "Agricultural (A-1)" by
By-law 84-63, although the lands in the vicinity of Graham Creek are designated "Major
...2
-~~
REPORT NO.: PD-129-87
Page 2
Open Space" and zoned "Environmental Protection (EP)". The application
also indicates that an Ontario Hydro easement traverses the subject site.
A Landscape Analysis, Soils Investigation and Agricultural Assessment of
the site were submitted in support of the subject applications. The
Landscape Analysis notes that the site is characterized by variable
topography and vegetative units, with the most significant slopes and
vegetation occurring in the Graham Creek valley. The area to the south
of the creek, which is the area proposed for development, is comprised
primarily of upland open space with rolling topography. The Analysis
states that no major sensitive stands of vegetation are threatened by the
development. Graham Creek is a significant cold water fishery and the
Analysis notes that the gravelly soils on-site, as well as the
valleyslope soils and bottomland soils, are susceptible to erosion.
Measures proposed to control erosion include mulching on exposed slopes
along with straw bale check dams, erosion control settlement ponds, and
earth grading and road construction during the drier part of the year.
Development is not proposed to intrude into the valleyland areas, and
fencing is proposed along the top of bank to minimize intrusions into the
valley. The Analysis proposes that the creek valley be dedicated to the
Town. A building siting plan which maximizes the retention of vegetation
has been prepared. The Analysis notes the proximity of the site to the
C.P.R. line and states that 50 to 100 feet of vegetation will effect a
significant reduction in the degree of acoustical intrusion.
The Soils Investigation found the surficial soils on-site to consist
primarily of highly erodible and frost susceptible silt which is
generally in a wet condition. Avery dense and impermeable sub layer of
till was found over a portion of the site. Groundwater levels are
generally quite shallow, averaging 0.5 metres below ground surface. The
...3
kEPORT NO.: PO-129-87 Page 3 ~~~
Report identifies the many seepage springs that occur in depressional
swales to be the principal limitation of the site. The Report recommends
proper lot grading, the control of surface water run-off to protect the
highly erodible surface soils. As well, a permanent system of perforated
subsurface drains through perennial wet areas is recommended for
groundwater control and treatment of springs, wet depressional zones, and
seepage lines along slopes. The Report found the surficial layer of silt
and sandy silt to be suitable for soil absorption of septic effluent,
although the underlying till has a very low soil absorption capability.
The high groundwater levels will limit the construction of in-ground
leaching beds to the higher lying and/or non-depressional lots. Specific
lots that are wet will necessitate raised beds. The Report concludes
from well water records that adequate groundwater supplies exist from
granular zones in the deeper overburden to meet the needs of the proposed
development.
An Agricultural Assessment of the subject site prepared by a Resource
Management Consultant was also submitted in support of the application.
The Assessment states that the soil classification accorded the site by
the Canada Land Inventory (C.L.I.) Soil Capability for Agriculture, being
Classes 1 to 4 with topographic limitations, is inaccurate due to the
scale of mapping. Amore detailed analysis conducted by the Consultant
indicated that the northern portion has Class 2 and 3 capability with
numerous large buildings, while the southern portion has soils ranging
from Class 3 to 6. Over 50~ of the land in the southern area is marginal
to very marginal for agricultural production due to adverse soil
conditions, severe past erosion, excessive wetness and adverse
topography. The Report claims that, notwithstanding the site's
designation as Permanent Agricultural Reserve in the Regional Official
Plan, the property is not high capability agricultural land. As well,
the Report states that the development is proposed for the poorer land
resources in the southern part of the property, and the Graham Creek
Valley would act as an effective separation from the dairy operation to
the northwest. The Report claims that the property has not been operated
as a farm for at least the past 10 to 12 years and has contributed
northing to the agricultural production in the area.
Letters submitted by the applicant from 3 area residents, including a
farmer who has used the property, stating that the subject property is
not arable and has been used solely for pasture.
...4
~~J
REPURT NO.: PD-129-87
Page 4
Comments from various agencies circulated with the Official Plan
Amendment and Subdivision Application are summarized below:
Town of Newcastle Public Works Department
"No objection. Some minor changes are required with regard to the
cul-de-sac size, site triangles and the horizontal alignment of roads.
Also site drainage and lot grading concerns must be addressed."
Town of Newcastle Fire Department
"No objection. Emergency response would be from Station #2 which is
within the recognized safe response limit. Water supply for fire
fighting would be by Fire Department tanker truck."
Town of Newcastle Community Services
Since the estate development is outside the limits of the Newcastle
Village Urban Area, our Department recommends cash-in-lieu of parkland
dedication. This Department does not want to assume Block 44 as
parkland.
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
"No objections to the proposal. One point which we do wish to raise with
regard to this property is the fact that Fill, Construction and
Alteration to Waterways Regulations would apply to Lots 26 - 43 inclusive
and Block 44 of the proposal. This Regulation addresses fill placement
and/or removal along the stream valley slopes as well as construction
within the Regional Storm flood plain and alterations of watercourses,
with respect to flood and erosion control. The Regulation does not
address the alteration of existing vegetation or the establishment of new
vegetation.
The existence of this Regulation, administered and enforced by the
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority, may have some bearing on the
degree of control and type of development the municipality may wish to
exercise in the subdivision agreement, with respect to the valley land
portions of the proposal."
Ministry of Natural Resources
"Ministry Staff have reviewed the plan, examined the Landscape Analysis
and inspected the site. While we have no objections to the principle of
development on this site, we do have concerns which should be addressed
prior to the approval of the plan.
...5
~_
~~J
REPORT NO.: PD-129-87 Page 5
Ministry of Natural Resources (Cont'd)
Graham Creek, which traverses the site, is a significant cold water
stream. Two tributaries of this creek are also located on the property.
This section of Graham Creek serves as a migration route for rainbow
trout travelling upstream to spawn. Downstream and at the creek mouth,
this watercourse supports salmon, trout, smallmouth bass and pike
populations. Our major concern with this development, therefore, is
water quality degradation. On-site soil erosion and the conveyance of
sediment-laden waters to Graham Creek and its tributaries should be
controlled both during and after construction so as to minimize the
potential reduction of water quality and the loss of fish habitat on-site
and downstream.
Ministry Staff support the the retention of the "Major Open Space" and
~ "Hazard Land" designation in the Regional Official Plan, and the "EP"
'~„~- zone in By-law 84-063, for the valleylands of Graham Creek. These
designations assist in maintaining a natural buffer to the creek. We
note that the rear of Lots 26 to 43 inclusive, extend into the Graham
Creek valley system. The plan indicates that the valleylands will be
privately owned. The Landscape Analysis proposes farm fences with
signage being place on the top of bank to notify lot homeowners on
valleyland and valleyslope restrictions. The Ministry supports this
concept.
Based on the above, the Ministry of Natural Resources has no objections
to the approval of this subdivision provided that it be subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the EP zone be retained on the subject property as indicated in
Town of Newcastle Zoning By-law 84-63.
2. Prior to any grading or construction on the site, the owner shall
erect a snowfence or other suitable barrier along the top of the
valley slope within lots 28 to 36, inclusive. This barrier shall
remain in place until such time as all grading, construction and
lanscaping of the site are completed. It shall be maintained to
prevent the placement of fill or removal of vegetation within the
valleylands of Graham Creek.
3. Prior to any grading or construction on the site, the owner shall
prepare a surface drainage and erosion control plan, which shall be
acceptable to the Ministry of Natural Resources. This plan will
show all proposed surface drainage works, and will describe the
means to minimize soil erosion, sedimentation and the direct
discharge of stormwater flow into Graham Creek, both during and
after construction."
...6
REPORT NO.: PD-129-87 Page 6
Ministry of Agriculture and Food
"Staff of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food have reviewed the
above development proposal. Consideration has been given to the proposal
in terms of the goals and objectives of the Ministry and of the criteria
and policies of the Food Land Guidelines.
The property subject to this amendment is dissected by a major stream
valley. The area to be developed south of the watercourse is idle and
has reportedly not been used for agricultural purposes for thirty-five
years. Appended to the amendment is an agricultural soils analysis that
reports the soils as quite variable with Canada Land Inventory ratings
from Class 3 to Class 6.
Surrounding uses of the area to be developed include:
To the west is the stream valley and railway tracks; west of the railway
is the urban area of the Village of Newcastle; to the north-west
~r approximately 900 feet is a dairy farm that is far enough removed to
comply with the Agricultural Code of Practice which requires 857 feet.
To the north is the stream valley and associated bush. North of the bush
is farmland.
To the east is farmland and several rural residences in a strip on small
lots along the north side of Highway #2.
To the south are two farm properties with associated barns that generate
separation distance arcs extending approximately 350 feet into the
subject lands. The western farm is used for apple production.
The Food Land Guidelines discuss the location of Estate Residential
development in Section 3.12, paragraph 3. The two criteria are that such
development be located on poor agricultural soils and that the
,, development be well removed from agricultural activities.
As discussed earlier, the appended soils analysis reports that the soils
are quite variable with areas of poor soils being Classes 5 and 6 running
through the area to be developed. Information in the report does
illustrate that 63% of the soils are Class 3 and 4.
The second criteria of being well removed is more critical with this
proposal. As there is ongoing agricultural uses abutting to the east and
across Highway #2 to the south, as well as an active dairy farm to the
north-west, it is our opinion the site is not well removed from
agricultural activities.
...7
1
1
~' °~
REPORT NU.: PD-129-87 Page 7
Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Cont'd)
Considering the site is not well removed, and the soils although
somewhat variable, generally have a majority of area within the Class 1-4
range plus the fact the site is within the Permanent Agricultural Reserve
designation of the Region, it is our opinion the proposal does not comply
with the Food Land Guidelines and we recommend it not be approved."
Ministry of Transportation and Communications
"We have completed our review of the subject draft plan and offer the
following comments for your information.
This Ministry has
~-- definite concerns
~"'' The owner wi 11 be
right turn taper
improvements will
reviewed the location of the proposed entrances and has
with the spacing of these entrances.
required to construct a left turn slip around and a
into Highway 2. All costs associated with these
be at the owners expense.
As conditions of draft approval we request the following apply:
(a) That a 0.3m reserve along the entire frontage of Highway 2, with
the exception of the road entrance, be conveyed by deed to the
M.T.C..
(b) That the owner enter into a legal agreement with the M.T.C.,
whereby the owner agrees to assume financial responsibility for the
street entrance and related highway improvements.
(c) That prior to final approval, the owner shall submit for approval a
copy of a drainage plan showing the intended treatment of the
calculated run-off.
In addition, the Ministry will require all residential buildings be
setback a minimum distance of 7.5m (25 ft.) from our highway property
line. Permits are required for all buildings and the street entrance
prior to any construction being undertaken."
Ministry of the Environment
"We have reviewed the application and have identified a noise concern due
to the development's proximity to Highway 2 and the Canadian Pacific
Railway. We also note that the development is proposed on the basis of
individual wells. We therefore recommend draft approval be conditional
upon:
...8
-~
~~~
kEPUkT NU.: PD-129-87
Ministry of the Environment
1. Prior to final approval ,
consultant to complete a
features satisfactory to
Town of Newcastle.
Page 8
Cont'd)
the owner shall engage the services of a
noise study recommending noise control
the Ministry of the Environment and the
2. Prior to final approval, the Ministry of the Environment shall be
notified by a copy of the fully executed subdivision agreement
between the developer and the municipality that the noise control
features recommended by the acoustical report and approved by the
Ministry of the Environment and the Town of Newcastle shall be
implemented as approved, by requirements of the subdivision
agreement.
3. In the event that a slight noise level excess will remain, despite
the implementation of the noise control features, the following
warning clause shall be included in a registered portion of the
subdivision agreement for subsequent inclusion in Offers of Purchase
and Sale for the affected lots:
"Purchasers are advised that despite the inclusion of noise
control features within the development area and within the
individual building units, noise levels may continue to be
of concern."
4. Prior to final approval, the Ministry of the Environment shall be in
receipt of a Hydrologist's Report which ascertains the availability
of an adequate supply of potable water to service the development.
The report should comment on existing quality as well as a potential
for cross contamination and well interference."
CP Rail
"Please be advised
subdivision on the
increase or change
which would advers
or addition to the
of the developer.
that CP Rail does not wish to object to the proposed
condition that the developer ensures there is no
of direction in the flow of natural surface drainage
ply affect the rai 1 way right-of-way. Any modi fi cat ion
existing drainage pattern would be the responsibility
Also, due to the proximity of the lot to the rail line and the result ant
noise and vibration, etc., we require a clause to be inserted in the
Offer to Purchase and deed to the property in order to ensure that
prospective home owners are aware of the rail line purchase."
...9
/~
\~~
REPORT NU.: PD-129-87 Page 9
Ontario Hydro
"In response to the above-noted proposal, please be advised that Ontario
Hydro's interest affected in Lots 4, 5, 10, 11, 18, 19, 38 and 39 is
incorrectly identified as an easement and is, in fact, owned by Ontario
Hydro.
However, the right-of-way is no longer required by Ontario Hydro and is
surplus to our needs. We suggest the owner contact Ontario Hydro, for
further information concerning acquisition of the right-of-way.
As the plan is presently designed, Ontario Hydro cannot approve the
proposal."
The following agencies indicated no objection to the proposed
development:
~,,, - Town of Newcastle Building Department
- Northumberland & Newcastle Board of Education
- Peterborough-Victoria-Northumberland & Newcastle
Roman Catholic Separate School Board
- Region of Durham Health Unit
Letters from 5 area residents were submitted in objection to the proposed
development. Their concerns are summarized as follows:
- stormwater drainage from adjacent properties onto the subject
site
- site is suitable for grazing livestock; has been only 3 to 4 years
since used for grazing; poor upkeep of fences contributed to
termination of grazing
- small livestock barn within 200 feet of proposed development;
could jeopardize future plans to keep more animals
environmentally
possible impact
precedent for o'
availability of
Village
possible future
development
1 os s of privacy
sensitive character of site
on existing wells in area
Cher estate residential developments
residential lands in Bowmanville and Newcastle
extension of municipal water to service
and country atmosphere, reduced property values
...10
~~~
REPURT NO.: PU-129-87
COMMENT:
Page 10
As indicated by the above, a number of concerns with respect to the
proposed development have been identified by both agencies circulated
with the application and area residents.
The Uurham Regional Official Plan (Section 10.3.2.1) outlines criteria by
which estate residential proposals are to be evaluated. Generally, these
criteria state that the proposal not be located on lands having high
capability for agriculture; not unduly restrict the use of adjacent
properties for agriculture and must comply with the Agricultural Code of
Practice; not be adversely affected by existing or proposed utilities
such as railroads or hydrotransmission lines; not create undue adverse
effects on environmentally sensitive lands; and not require the undue
expansion of municipal or Regional services.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Food has objected to the proposed
development primarily on the basis of its proximity to active
agricultural operations. Agricultural Code of Practice setbacks from a
livestock building to the south would preclude the development of Lots 1,
42 and 43, while the 300 metre setback from agricultural buildings as
required by Section 3.19(c) of By-law 84-63 would further preclude the
development of Lots 2,3,4,39,40 and 41. The proposed development would
not be affected by the required setbacks from the dairy operation to the
northwest. However, Staff also reference the comments from an adjacent
property owner that his small livestock barn is located within 60 metres
of the proposed development, and the Ministry's concern that the proposal
is not well-removed from agricultural operations.
The Ministry has also commented that, although the soils on-site have
somewhat variable agricultural capability, generally a majority fall
within Soil Classes 1-4. Information provided by both the applicant and
area residents indicate that the property has been used as pasture. Area
residents state that one of the primary reasons for the discontinuation
.. .11
~~)
REPORT NO.: PD-129-87 Page 11
of grazing was the lack of upkeep of fences on-site. The applicant has
indicated that development is only proposed for the poorer quality land
south of the creek, while the better quality land to the north, being
Block 45 of the proposed plan, would be left undisturbed. Town Staff
note however that the subdivision plan as proposed would result in the
landlocking of Block 45 and are further concerned that the proximity of
Block 45 to the estate residential development would discourage the use
of this block for agricultural purposes. As well, Town Staff share the
concern of area residents that the proposed development would establish a
precedent for other estate residential proposals and further erode the
agricultural base of the area.
,~"" Ministry of Agriculture and Food Staff have indicated that, due to the
proximity of the proposed development to active agricultural operations
and the agricultural capability of site soils, it is their opinion that
the proposal does not conform with the Foodland Guidelines.
With respect to the criteria outlined by the Regional Official Plan in
regards to adverse impacts from existing or proposed utilities, Staff
reference the proximity of the proposed development to the CP rail line
directly to the west. C.P.R. has indicated no objection to the
development provided a warning clause is provided to prospective home
~'" owners with respect to noise and vibration. Similarly, the Ministry of
~"'" Environment has expressed a concern with the proximity to Highway 2 and
the rail line and has requested a Noise Attentuation Study prior to final
approval. The Landscape Analysis submitted by the applicant claims that
15 to 30 metres of vegetation will effectively mitigate the acoustical
intrusion resulting from rail operations, although Staff note that no
documentation to this effect was provided. In this regard, Staff note
that many of the lots closest to the rail line are not heavily vegetated
and would not provide the buffer referenced by the Landscape Analysis.
As well, vegetation would not mitigate the adverse impacts of vibration
resulting from rail operations. Staff are not satisfied from the
information submitted that the negative effects of rail operation can be
satisfactorily mitigated and will not adversely effect residents of the
proposed development.
...12
• REPORT NO.: PD-129-87
I fie)
Page 12 ~
Staff further reference Ontario Hy dro's comments that the strip of land
across the subject site shown as an easement is in fact owned by the
utility. Information available to Staff supports this position. The
subject applications cannot be approved until ownership of the subject
parcel is clarified.
The criteria established by the Official Plan also specifies that a
proposed development is not to have any adverse effects on
environmentally sensitive lands. With the exception of the Graham Creek
Valley, the subject property is not specifically identified as being
environmentally sensitive. However, due to the rolling topography,
drainage problems, the frost susceptible and highly erodible nature of
~`'
the surficial soils, the impervious till sub-layer, the high watertable
and the numerous seepage springs in depressional areas, extensive site
modification would be required to enable residential development to
proceed. In particular, Staff reference the comments in the Soils
Analysis that a permanent system of perforated subdrains should be
i nstal led, and that special treatment for septic systems wil 1 be required
on a number of lots. Staff also are concerned with the extent of
regrading that would be required and the impact such regarding would have
on site drainage. In this regard, Staff further reference the concern
expressed by the Ministry of Natural Resources with respect to the
potential for increased run-off into the creek and the negative effects
on water quality, as well the comments from area residents with respect
to existing drainage problems on the property. Staff do not feel that
the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed
development can proceed without signficiant adverse effects on the
environmental character of the site.
The applicant has proposed that the Graham Creek valley be dedicated to
the Town to fulfill the parkland dedication req uirements. The Department
of Community Services has advised that they are unwilling to assume
ownership of the valleylands, noting the responsibility for maintenance
and liability. Town policy dictates that such valleyland is not
acceptable as park dedication and further specifies only valleylands
within Urban Areas will be acquired for passive recreation purposes.
...13
C~)
REPORT NO.: PD-129-87 Page 13
The Regional Official Plan (Section 10.3.2.3) states that a sub division
application shall be accompanied by a detailed Engineering Report
confirming an adequate supply of pot able water, and adequate soil and
water table conditions on each lot satisfactory for the effective
operation of a private waste disposal system. Staff note that the
applicant's consultant only conducted a review of well records for the
area and has indicated in general terms that a number of lots may require
special treatment for the operation of waste disposal systems. It has
not been sati sf actori ly demonstrated as required by the Uf fi ci al P 1 an
that the subject development can be adequately serviced, and that the
development would not affect water supplies to existing area wells.
The proposed subdivision plan indicates the lots adjacent to the creek
valley as extending beyond the top of bank of the valley. The Landscape
Analysis has proposed that a fence be installed along the top of bank to
minimize i ntrusi ons i nto the val ley. Staff note however, that at least 6
of the proposed lots would have an area under 3000 square metres above
the top of bank as defined by this fence. Although the Region of Durham
Health Unit has indicated no objection in principle to the proposed
development, Staff note that the Health Unit has previously indicated
that 3000 square metres is the minimum area for residential lots on
private services.
Based on the above arguments, it is clear that the proposed development
does not conform with the criteria as outlined by the Regional Offici al
Plan for estate residential developments, does not conform with the
Ontario Foodland Guidelines, and could have serious negative effects on
the environmental sensitive characteristics of the site. It is therefore
...14
REPURT NU.: PD-129-87
Page 14
recommended that the Region of Durham be advised that the Town recommends
that Official Plan Amendment application 87-1/D and Plan of Subdivision
18T-86076 be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
war s, i.
Director of Planning
JAS*TTE*jip
*Attach.
April 29, 1987
CC: Avellino Holdings Limited
c/o Carmen Stanco
R.R. #1
Westney Road North
PICKERING, Ontario
L1V 2P$
Henry Kortekaas & Associates
82 Sherwood Road East
Village of Pickering
AJAX, Ontario
L 1V 264
~„- Patrick Lynch & Andrea Wallace-Lynch
R.R. #2
NEWCASTLE, Ontario
LOA 1H0
Nir. Paul Arsenault
General Delivery
NEWCASTLE, Untario
LOA 1H0
Nlr. E . Mostert
R.R. #2
NEWCASTLE, Ontario
LOA 1H0
Nlatt & Ann J ul i cher
R.R. #2
NEWCASTLE, Ontario
LOA 1H0
Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
l
~~
~; t
awrence otse
Chief A i istrative Office r
,~~~)
' '
C
a ~ ~ Y: y
~ c9f~ c~=: .'~
:e
e a y
py f~ R,
~~ .
np x7B 3
a
:,. o Bryn i E .;
I ~ ~ ?°i
LL e ~. ~ .
n 5s ~ F ~e.-~.
i~ 3~ ~
~ ....~ :~ Y; a C:I
v ~~:~~ I..~.JIE ~ `~ iyys
[L '.E 5:' l C A
I~ :S~
L yJ :~: .E S~
..'E _J'.K u ..~
. Y
a 4 Pe7~
e ~i: pE ~ Sp 5 ~ sy
p ~ qr~ i a~ 1 a I!t;
~ E e4 a a c^ p;
3 a ~1
5 ~'.
`K'
S:;'... w...: ''j. ~: ~.. Y..'<.': i..a
9.:Cki~.. YEe.7 _.... T.....
Y:txa Y"
iii i. ~ ~
i n Y
F La^ ' ~ ~ ~ !~'
~ I:e~~ ..
. / I
IR-~~- 11!M,.
Y I"^ ~I~__.I ~i~.ll_
;~~ ,.,
_ ,~
-_
=, fGJ-1r- J;t -
t p(_~y _,I .~IiI,S.~t~:
~ 1, - ~~~,
r~
'~a' .~ ~LL
~ O
a J y
`_~ ~ Y F ~
g g .e
~ U i~ Z .~lu
n~Y(1 JDU L ~ r1
1!J1 ~ LL~j~ 1~.Jaa~Nu
O u~~ Z U Y. G:~
~. ~ ~60~01~~~
aur- I-~cn~.e