HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2014-02-24 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board
Monday,February 24,2014 at 4:30 p.m.
Aurora Room,Town Hall
*The second meeting of the month by the Town Board are called Study Sessions and generally focus
on committee reports and informational presentations. Time sensitive action items may be scheduled
when needed. Please contact the Town Clerk's office at 273-1721 or nterwilliQer@town.ithaca.ny.us
with any questions.
Agenda
1. Call to Order
2. Presentation on Northeast Water Study
3. Review Draft Agenda for Regular Meeting
4. Continue review of the DGEIS —Comprehensive Plan
5. Town Official's Reports
6. Report from Committees
a. Budget Committee
b. Codes and Ordinances Committee
c. Comprehensive Plan Committee
d. Planning Committee
e. Personnel and Organization Committee
f. Public Works Committee
g. Records Management Advisory Board(RMAB)
h. Ad Hoc Committees
7. Consider Consent Agenda Items
a. Approval of Town Board Meeting Minutes of February 10, 2014
b. Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract
c. Ratification of Court Clerk Appointment—Klein
d. Ratification of Court Clerk Appointment—Salk
e. Approval of Disposition List
8. Review of Correspondence
9. Consider Adjournment
Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board
Monday, February 24, 2014 at 4:30 p.m.
Aurora Room,Town Hall
Minutes
Item 1 Call to Order
Item 2 Presentation on Northeast Water Study—Attachment#1
Mr. Weber gave an overview reminding the Board that this study was done to evaluate options
by an unbiased third party and in the interest of openness of the process.
Board comments—Mr. Engman noted that the Public Works Committee was surprised with the
final figures for a complete overhaul because they had just been thinking about the Christopher
Circle tank but this study actually gives the Town a good roadmap to use in phasing in
improvements over the years and what those improvements will provide. The pipes are 55+
years old and will need to be replaced as we move forward. He added that the Engineering staff
was very happy with the report and the submitted resolution simply accepts the findings to close
the funding line used to pay for the study and in no way selects a particular option to use.
TB Resolution 2013 - 035a: Approval of Minutes of February 10,2014
Whereas, the draft Minutes of the February 10, 2014 meetings of the Town Board have been
submitted for review and approval, now therefore be it
Resolved, that the Town Board hereby approves the submitted minutes, with changes, as the
final minutes of the meeting February 10, 2014 of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca.
Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Bill Goodman
Vote: Ayes—DePaolo, Goodman, Leary, Levine,Howe,Hunter and Engman
Item 3 Review Draft Agenda for Regular Meeting—Light so far.
Item 4 Continue review of the DGEIS—Comprehensive Plan
Ms. Ritter recapped that the Board had decided to go through Chapter 2 which focuses on the
impacts and send format and typographical suggestions via email.
Mr. DePaolo asked about the rest of Chapter 1 that the Board hadn't finished reviewing yet and
Ms. Ritter responded that Chapter 1 is a rehash of the Plan and goals but not necessarily new
materials that the Board hasn't seen numerous times before where Chapter 2 focuses on the
impacts and she thought the Board was willing to move on to Chapter 2 and forward clarification
suggestions to staff via email because a lot of it is taken directly from the Plan.
TB 2-24-2014 Pg1
Mr. DePaolo then asked if we had gotten any clarity on the parameters of the GEIS and whether
we are attempting to analyze impacts or whether we are describing actions because he thought
there was no impact analysis but rather suppositions about what could or couldn't happen and
they seem to be subjective in many cases. He asked if there was going to be data applied and
Ms. Ritter responded that there would be in the appendices but it is a descriptive GEIS that is
what can be done on a Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tasman quoted from the State SEQR
guidelines stressing the generality of this type of document with reasonable assumptions.
Mr. DePaolo followed that by asking if we have gotten any clarity on whether we should be
basing these impacts on what is on the ground now or on what could be built under current
zoning. He then rephrased that by saying that on several occasions there are assumptions being
made that the development patterns that are being proposed in the current plan are going to
"save" automobile trips or otherwise be better than what would happen. So the supposition is
that if the 1993 Plan were carried out to its full buildout, or if they were compared side by side?
Mr. Tasman responded that this compares the changes in course from the 1993 Plan because if
this one were not to be adopted, the 1993 Plan would continue. There wouldn't be some kind of
development freeze; so we look at the difference between the trends of the 1993 Plan to what we
think will happen with the 2014 Plan. Mr. DePaolo asked if those were assumptions or based on
historical growth rates? For example, there is an assumption that TND is better than sprawl and
so you base your language on that assumption? Or is there actually some research in the Town of
Ithaca, based on historical growth rates, to support that current trend development under existing
patterns would be worse than TND development? Ms. Ritter responded that we assume that
sprawl means continued growth with houses dotting all over the place and TND means that you
can get busses and sidewalks.
Mr. DePaolo tried to rephrase again stating that it sounds like a lot of this language looks like it
is being pulled out of a Planning textbook, that Tradition Neighborhood Development is better
than sprawl development; so we can say that, but do we have any historical information, based
on the number of people who have moved into the Town of Ithaca over the last 20 years and
where they are locating. Is there any data to support these assumptions?
Mr. Tasman responded that there was, in the Appendix — Section 8. He added that this has not
been done in the Town but it is popular in other areas around the country so they tried to take
what was available out there, surveys, etc.
Ms. Hunter then added along the same lines, that although she is willing to accept this as a kind
of broad sweep, general document, there are some somewhat forceful declarations throughout it
that she worries might impact what we can say during the EIS for the particular zoning and
whether it will come into conflict and how to resolve that. Wd could essentially prove ourselves
wrong during the zoning EIS. For example, we may have trouble justifying the statement "this
will safeguard the natural environment from the impacts of inappropriate development." That is
a bold statement. "This will improve air quality with a decrease of vehicle miles traveled." It
seemed to her there would be increase in some areas so we might want to soften some
statements. She added that they are certainly our goals and what we are hoping to do, but if we
find later that it's not happening, or a closer examination does not bear that statement out, we
TB 2-24-2014 Pg2
have issues. She thought we should soften our language and also, in presenting this to the public,
we should be clear that these are our objectives but we will sound disingenuous if we make these
broad, general statements without the research and studies to back them up.
Mr. Tasman responded that that is what a GEIS does; it makes broad, general statements. Not all
of which are good and the ones that aren't list the possible mitigations. He thought this Plan was
more specific than many and this has a lifespan of 10-15 years because things are going to
change and the Plan will be updated. When you are looking at zoning though, you are looking at
buildout. We are not comparing the outcomes of 2030 with the zoning outcomes of 2090 under
the new zoning code.
Ms. Hunter responded by asking why we are doing one for one timespan and another for a
different timespan but she has put that aside and she is simply saying that we should soften some
language, for example, page 23, first paragraph where it says "this will safeguard the natural
environment from the impacts of inappropriate development." and maybe we could say "aims to
safeguard...." Ms. Ritter asked her if she felt we don't safeguard the natural environment
throughout the Plan and Ms. Hunter responded that we try to but can we say we do? This is an
analysis of our intentions and to state something as absolute when we don't know; so soften it.
Mr. Engman responded that we are doing a generic statement and plan using the best knowledge
in the Planning field that we have and that is why we have taken some of the stances we have but
there is no certainty and we can't predict what will be best for the Town we can just do the best
we can with the information and research we have. Ms. Ritter responded that if there were key
areas that the Board wanted softened we can do that. Ms. Leary noted that the Board had
decided in reviewing the Plan to be more definitive about what we thought the projected results
would be and Mr. Engman agreed, saying that one of the weaknesses of the 1993 Plan was that it
threw everything in it but didn't state what we would do about it and this approach does and the
analysis is whether it will have a positive or negative impact. He added that this is the seventh
year we have been working on the Plan and we really need to read the document and come back
with only those things we cannot live with. We need to get to the next stage of the process.
Mr. DePaolo turned to a statement on the page 25; "no adverse environmental impacts are
anticipated as a result of the policies related to the Town's proposed development pattern." He
thought that summed up the entire document in one sentence. It says that everything we are
proposing will not have an adverse impact and he thought that stepped over the line because we
are proposing some major density changes and there will be localized impacts and although those
are identified in other sections of the Plan, to say that there will be no adverse environmental
impacts as a result of olp icies, which is one step further because that is zoning. One of the
policies that will result from this action is the revisions to the Zoning ordinance so this statement
is putting the horse before the cart. Mr. Engman asked what he thought the language should be
then and Ms. Leary stated that she thought it should stay the way it is because this DGEIS is on
the Plan not the zoning and the policies overall, the whole goal was to not have negative impacts
so it is safe to say that about broad policy decisions outlined in the Plan.
Mr. DePaolo countered that the development patterns proposed in the Plan could potentially
double the population in the Town. Granted it is not going to happen in the next 15-20 years but
it is hard to believe that there would be no adverse impacts to doubling the population. Mr.
TB 2-24-2014 Pg3
Tasman noted that the 1993 Plan allows for the same thing and when comparing the 1993 to this
Plan, there is less growth allowed in areas that do not have sewer and water. Mr. DePaolo
responded that maybe the statement needs to be more comparative then so that is clear.
Ms. Ritter responded that they are changing the introduction section to explain more definitively
that we are comparing the 1993 Plan to the new Plan.
Ms. Hunter asked that the words "seeks to" in front of"safeguard" to read "seeks to safeguard".
There were no objections and that change will be made. She also asked the Board and staff to
think of alternative language for the "no adverse environmental impact" statement on page 28.
Ms. Ritter noted that this is standard language in SEAR and the suggestion was made to add the
word "significant" between the words "no impacts" to read "no significant impacts" where it
appears in the document or "adverse impacts" to read "no significant adverse impacts" which
would soften it somewhat and also follows standard language. Ms. Ritter will look at the times it
appears and report back to the Board the times it is appropriate and not appropriate in the context
of each instance.
Mr. DePaolo asked about the appropriateness of referring to a lot of other documents that are
coming like the zoning ordinance and development codes and we say that no impacts are
anticipated but we haven't even started looking at them. Mr. Engman responded that since we
mention them in the Plan we have to deal with them in some way and our intent is to limit
impacts.
Ms. Hunter turned to page 24 where the forming of a "greenbelt" is mentioned and Mr. Tasman
responded that those sections are meant to stay the same with no more development allowed.
Ms. Hunter responded that she was talking about absolute language and maybe we could soften it
a bit. Ms. Ritter responded that will look at alternate terminology. This is more visual than
actual; areas that are less densely developed. The Board also suggested taking out the reference
to the City of Ithaca.
Mr. Goodman turned to page 43 and the potential impacts in the transportation section. We do
not have a statement of no adverse impacts but we did get into some more detail but not about
the mitigations. He stated that he understands that because it is a generic statement and it is
comparing the 2014 Plan to the 1993 Plan there aren't many specific recommendations, but
when do we get into detail because we know we are going to get comments about traffic. Ms.
Ritter noted that there have been changes to that section and Mr. Tasman added that we are
shifting development and densities so we will be looking at what impacts will be happening but
again, compared with the 1993 Plan to the 2014 Plan. Mr. Tasman used the example of the shift
from Trumansburg Rd and Taughannock Blvd which is gone in the 2014 Plan and shifted to the
Mecklenburg Rd area. We also do not look at individual cars or trips but general impacts of
shifting development and types of development proposed. Ms. Ritter stated that more
descriptive language is being drafted right now with suggestions and references to the sections in
the Plan. We do acknowledge that there are choke-points out there and talk about mitigations.
TB 2-24-2014 Pg4
Mr. DePaolo asked about the predictions of the benefits of TND versus sprawl as it relates to
number of vehicle trips and the likelihood that we are not going to achieve the synergy that you
need in a TND within the life of this Plan and yes we are cashing in on the benefits of that within
this 15-20 year window covered by the Plan. He asked if we should be analyzing what is going
to happen in the next 20 years or what benefits we are going to achieve 50-60 years down the
line if everything goes according to plan. Mr. Tasman responded that all the academic papers
say there is going to be a 25% reduction but we are using 15% because we know it won't happen
that quickly. The studies are referenced in the back.
Ms. Hunter asked about pg 41, paragraph under the table; put more of a description there noting
that these numbers are achieved with mass transit, desired density, and trails etc. and Mr.
Tasman thought the summary two pages later is very comprehensive but Ms. Hunter just wanted
it referenced a bit more. Ms. Ritter said they would look at it.
Ms. Leary thought the main driver of the fewer trips is the nature of the neighborhood type itself;
public transit would be nice, but it is the nature of the neighborhoods that will reduce the traffic.
Ms. Hunter asked if the trip guide manual factors in public transit and Mr. Tasman responded
that it does not and that is why all the studies are quoted. Land use is the major factor. Staff will
look for a specific area to add Ms. Hunters clarifying words of public transit, sidewalks and paths
to the traffic impacts table on page 41.
Mr. Howe requested that the board and staff look at Chapter 4 again and ways to strengthen the
Alternatives section so we do not sound dismissive since we did spend a lot of time on
alternatives and it seems as if we did not. Mr. Tasman responded that other DGEIS's are not as
descriptive as ours is; it is a general description of alternatives that were discussed. Mr. Howe
responded that the summary on page 68 is very good but thought we should all look at it one
more time.
Staff will prepare the final draft for review at the next meeting in the hopes of accepting it as
ready for public comment.
Ms. Hunter asked Ms. Ritter to outline the next steps. Ms. Ritter responded that the next step is
for the Board to accept the DGEIS as complete and ready for public comment and once that is
done, it will be put on the website and notice sent to the DEC. There is a 30 day comment period
with public hearings being optional. We will collect those comments and staff and the board has
to respond to substantive comments and then a final DGEIS is produced with all the comments
and responses. The Town Board then approves that those responses are complete and Findings
are written, the Board accepts the Findings and that is the end and the Board could adopt the
Comp Plan. Ms. Hunter asked if the board would like to do a public meeting to explain and
answer questions. Mr. Engman thought an informational meeting to help people understand
what this document is should happen sooner rather than later. Given the problem the Board had
understanding that this is based on a comparison of the 1993 Plan and the draft 2014 Plan it
might be a good idea. Ms. Hunter would like to meet once more with the public before adopting
the Plan. Mr. Levine thought a one page explanation would be helpful. Ms. Hunter was
concerned that we have not had a public hearing on the Comp Plan as it exists now, with the
changes we have made.
TB 2-24-2014 Pg5
Discussion followed on the status of the Comp Plan and whether more input would be heard and
Mr. Engman noted that there has been more than 5 years of public input and Ms. Ritter added
that comments on the DGEIS would also, by default, be comments on the Plan. Discussion
followed on the type of public meeting the board would like to have and it seemed that it would
be a presentation on what a GEIS is followed by a question and answer. Mr. DePaolo added that
we have to be prepared to dispel the notion that the sky is falling so to whatever extent staff can
draw comparisons to existing trends would be very helpful. Mr. Tasman thought a lot of people
think that current trends are what the 1993 Plan calls for and that really isn't the case. The 1993
Plan allows for a lot more development than has happened and the 2014 Plan looks to target
areas and shifting it to where we think it will best fit.
Item 5 Town Official's Reports
Mr. Engman updated the Board on the situation with Lakeview Cemetery noting that there is a
new state law which enables the Town to help the cemetery financially which we are thinking of
doing with in-kind services such as accounting and administrative support. We need to be as
supportive as we can in the hopes that they can rescue the cemetery and not have to abandon it to
US.
Mr. Engman updated the Board on the Emerson property noting that things are moving along
relatively quickly and the trail easement has been agreed to, not necessarily the exact location,
but that it will be there and discussions on ongoing developing ways for the City and the Town to
work together in the various approval processes and possibly setting up a joint Planning Board
instead of our two separate entities to save time and yet have representation of each
municipalities interests.
Item 6 Report from Committee
Mr. Goodman reported that the Personnel and Organization Committee will began a review of
the Wage Benefit Study tomorrow at 4p.m.
Mr. Levine reported that the Budget Committee will meet this Weds at noon.
Item 7 Consider Consent Agenda Items
TB Resolution 2013 - 436: Adopt Consent Agenda
Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the
following Consent Agenda items:
a. Approval of Town Board Meeting Minutes of February 10, 2014—Pulled
b. Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract
C. Ratification of Court Clerk Appointment–Klein
d. Ratification of Court Clerk Appointment–Salk
e. Approval of Disposition List
TB 2-24-2014 Pg6
Moved: Eric Levine Seconded: Rich DePaolo
Vote: ayes: Levine, DePaolo, Hunter, Goodman, Engman, Leary and Howe
TB Resolution No. 2014 - 036b: Town of Ithaca Abstract
Whereas, the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for
approval of payment; and
Whereas, the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now
therefore be it
Resolved, that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in
total for the amounts indicated.
VOUCHER NOS. 4985 -5040
General Fund Town wide 40,027.25
General Fund Part Town 12,127.55
Highway Fund Part Town 51,021.89
Water Fund 38,805.62
Sewer Fund 13,114.71
Forest Home Lighting District 65.63
Glenside Lighting District 26.04
Renwick Heights Lighting District 34.71
Eastwood Commons Lighting District 45.03
Clover Lane Lighting District 6.02
Winner's Circle Lighting District 9.01
Burlei h Drive Lighting District 21.00
West Haven Road Lighting District 83.29
Coddin ton Road Lighting District 48.47
TOTAL 155,436.22
TB Resolution No. 2014-036 c: Ratification of Appointment of Court Clerk for Justice
Klein
Whereas, there is currently a vacancy in the Court Clerk position for Justice Klein; and
Whereas, Justice Klein,Justice Salk and the Human Resources Manager interviewed the top
fifteen candidates from an open recruit for the position; and
Whereas, Justice Klein has determined that Shannon Hoppes possesses the knowledge, skills and
ability to satisfactorily perform the duties of the Court Clerk position; and
Whereas, Justice Klein has appointed Shannon Hoppes as Court Clerk effective, February 24,
2014; now, therefore, be it
TB 2-24-2014 Pg7
Resolved, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby ratify Justice Klein's appointment
of Shannon I loppes as Court Clerk, effective February 24, 2014; and be it further
Resolved, the said position is in job classification"D" at full time salary status of 37.5 hours a
week, at the annual salary of$49,140, with full time benefits; and be it further
Resolved, a twenty six (26)week probationary period applies and shall end effective August 25,
2014, with no further action by the Town Board, if there is successful completion of the
probationary period as determined by Justice Klein.
TB Resolution No. 2014 — 036d : Ratification of Appointment of Court Clerk for Justice
Salk
Whereas, Betty Poole, Court Clerk for Justice Salk will be retiring effective March 22, 2014; and
Whereas, Justice Salk, Justice Klein and the Human Resources Manager interviewed the top
fifteen candidates from an open recruit for the position; and
Whereas, Justice Salk has determined that Penny Grant possesses the knowledge, skills and
ability to satisfactorily perform the duties of the Court Clerk position; and
Whereas, Justice Salk has appointed Penny Grant as Court Clerk effective, February 24, 2014, so
there is a training period with the current Court Clerk; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby ratify Justice Salk's appointment
of Penny Grant as Court Clerk, effective February 24, 2014; and be it further
Resolved, the said position is in job classification "D" at full time salary status of 37.5 hours a
week, at the annual salary of$49,500, with full time benefits; and be it further
Resolved, a twenty six (26)week probationary period applies and shall end effective August 25,
2014,with no further action by the Town Board, if there is successful completion of the
probationary period as determined by Justice Salk.
TB Resolution No. 2014-036: Approval of Disposition List Year Ending 2013
Whereas, the Town Board has adopted the Record Retention and Disposition Schedule MU-1;
and
Whereas, the following list of documents and tapes are eligible for disposition according to that
schedule:
1. Town Clerk General Files—6 year retention
2. Town Abstracts, End of Month Reports, Daily Transactions—6 year retention
3. Personnel General Files—6 year retention
TB 2-24-2014 Pg8
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the disposition of said
records.
Item 8 Review of Correspondence—None
Item 9 Consider Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. upon motion and a second.
Submit
WT----
Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk
Adopted 3-24-2014
TB 2-24-2014 Pg9
' nzx z
<_. 0 C Q
rim n =
v. Mtn. O S
3, ao
m
CWA [A�'
` 1 a V n \ /
m ° m
'a� m ..
rn
CD K - Z PIL
¢� :V3 C
:3 ♦
\`D
•a { 11
N J
I� ..t
1 C
O1
„ a �
0 CC
C
cn
CD
T
J
�m
[ l
N
DI
CD
CD CD
o o a
CN n N N .�. y � G/D
n O
X s of m A
N ca y
CD
BM&,o 10
CD m e eBell�J� O
d
s146�8H c
� n
0
(A�
O
f WBPP 7 7C
en Rd
S
m
0
m
- N
o�
N
s
a
da eOBy1110 umol -
n - uaptip 10 umOJ-
0
Z CO)
Na5a9�� C
w
o
o
CD 0
CL
,U w C to
3 _7
O
CD
3
(D
7
fA
[ l
m
I I
M
4 I It I
I I � ' � I
--
I rr " ; 11
1 Slli:113HVJMYJ _— __L --�I— I =--i I m
VU AO NMOI I I ---
YJ I
I I I I I n
!ARRENgo I
r �
`�\ 1'J �yppM lwARREI RD I
Ca 0
I
r- I F
a I
y I
m
S Vo*W AO
NMO1__
0 ------ ----N30AaUd0NMOl a!SOoomumnsm
—_—___
D
CD
cn z
Z <
CD
c
y f/f -1
CD
A
3 z
0
CD
3
cn
G]
. . m z
W 1 a o
a CJl = 5_ X
ilk
`< o 3• 3• �• c Z
O 3 3 3
3 (p <� M H
in
O CD, U) h
= r CD CD
cQ to ° CD 3 3
CD. 0 p 3 �D
�, CD -t CD CD CD
cn Vi N —�
CD A? a C
r+ �' W CD CD CD %<
�cn Q O cn
-% . . O • -%
CD
CD -�
3
Vi O C (Q
CD O 3
-a . . _0
3 N a
-0 O
0
cn• (n CD
w 3
CD
cf), �.
e (n
m
z
0
CD
w
w
co
cn
CD
N
(D
3
1
CD
3
CD
N
x
_0
y
rr
w m.
cn
CD
y
0
A ,
� a N y
m � o
N
V
m
d
x
N
D
y
y
m =
a
�D
<
-� CD
3
O N
M
D
n ^
41 m A`
Z
O _
m �<•
N
U Q
y CD
CD
-
C 3
y 3
CD
3 c
3 Q
O
CD
3
CD
CJ1
[ ] x
CD
y
3
CD
y
M
M
H rt
CD
o �gg
� S
07
7
� F
G
N
D
� � y
o y
a
oo—\
^D
3
O �
o Q
CD CD
^3
CD
C
CD �
3 CD
3
O
CD
3
CD
cn
[ l 3X
w _.
X y
= w _.
c 3
CD
„ c-) y
D
�
Fi CD
ml 3
x �
y
N
1OIL
_.
0
n
t
CL
CIE
3
d � x
Z F
0
CD
N look
CD
N m
w c
look
(D
3 O
c.
O
CD
3
(D
7
ch
CD o CD CD -
F CD N ..
� CD
3
o CD 0 CD
c�
Cn C7 CD �' �
�• � c W <■
(� Cn CD Cp' p 3
--% O :3 �.
CD
CD n m Cn
CAD =r =3 N
CD cn
C n• C F*
_0 p - m n CD
co o 3 � m
w 3 Cn O CD
C7 Cn O ( C
-t
CD
C : CD
n n _0
CD CD
(D Cn cn CD.
o O 0 m
�.
c 0
o
m 0
`.
z �_
CD T fn m
w CD �. Q
Cb Cn CD
w -L
CD
cn
� CD
3 Q 3 X.
a
3 C
CD 3 CD 3
CD CD
N
00
D_
CD
3 o =
<
CD
Q
_.
m 3 c� <
CD
cnV
0 (n O
CD
o
cD D
o CD
3 =
o CD o
CD D
cD, cn —1
o
o � �
o `<
Q
s �
m y
d �
z y
O
s
CD
m
v
CD
U)
N
CD
(D
3
3
0
O
CD
3
(D
7
cn
co
I � I
P QT T L
I I I POL
I ' I
---- —1-------------- --L-- —;— __-i I Cr4.
---------
-J__
I
RD
r^,441 _
� I I
�- -
i ' m _ I
� v I
m
cn
� Om + m xx iFF
{"n mZ a Cspm 5 I - _ f
Xnm Dc I
z m �� I J
_
---�
------- ----- SpCOM U3H3fISdVS
;mo
m M
r > n
� > m
C.
£ M
3
m c')
�f m m
O1 2 C X
Z
O cn
O
S D O D �
C O M
C m Z
C1
� � CHRISMPHER CIRCLE
U)
N O n
(D r
O y N m ao
m Z � v
my a
o Z I v0
CD cZi c z
3 < 0m
CD m
;o �
�_--------WARREN RO "---�_—.--.
.l
CD
-0
CD
m
v 0
CL
�.
N A
n
O
O
7
z
y
a
0
C2
3c
- _ CD
3 'm
CD
r►
01
n
d 0
Z
:L 3
CD
(n
CD
N co
c 0
CD 0 r CD
1 Q
3 0 1 cn
d c
CD
`m y (D
N n —
7 �
N N
O
N
[ l a
w
3
cl
PIL
il aN
U)
Q a $ o 0 o a o
N 3
7 V CL
`/D
F
3
CD
n
rc
V
31 CD
C
N �e
O
CD
O
� O1
a N
CD
c
d � O
x
a
CD
m <
CD 3
m m
3
cn
C �++
c c
y 3
v
m Q
0
CD
3
CD
.l
N
CL
CL
w � �
Cl)
a W
♦ ♦ ?t o
m ° CD Q
T_ 0
II II II II II II
W N
m
o `(D
a CD
3�
s
N
m f�F'
V \V
OL
n
n
N
d
7
x
C
N m�
G A
3 O
O d �
o CD
n
0"t O
0 m
o � C
� x
(D N �1
CD
� d e
w
cD m x
cn
CD to 3
3
3 3
v
0
CD
3
CD
N
.1
W
m I
>R sI
WA
2 Y x
I �
-- ------ -L
rIL
I I
� I
z
iw_ I
� - I
< M I
C
CD I
m I
F �m I
�n � I
--------- Z-- SDDDMIi3 ns.*IB
ohm
r nD
p D to
c g
3 °i
C
01 n
mm
d z
m CO:v n
CD < s >d�
y € $M
A
CU
Cf Z �:� CHIRIISTOPHERCRCLE
° m Z�v
o �C40` v o
CD czi c z
3 < A 9, --
CD m --I ..m
1 �
WARREN RD
1
3
m
PIL
C-
0 <
A A A a A A A �
N m
N
O
N %<
(n
CD
S
M 3
O
0 ��\
a \'V^
V,
� v r
d �A
x
� m�
< `r
N
0 W
0 CD
y, d 77
N
d O
Om
CD
N CL
CD
w 3 <
m
U) m
v
,c c 23
CD cn
3
v
3
0
0
CD
3
co
N
C-n
[yl cl a
m C _
w �
a
m Q
8 A A A A f �r
to CD
D � I
d
VHF,
3�
0 Al
� ?y
f=/1 r-h
O m
Q
� f11
d G
T Al
N
D
O
O
3 s
d �.
CD
� m \V
d
d m O
O _0
CD
N �1
cn
3
CD 3
m x
cn
3
cn
0
CD
3
CD
N
.1
[ ] o z n 0 � Z
-� � �-o _0 ° �
CD o o �D
CD CD -°
CD' cn 3 m c�u �' ° �
0 c ° 3
' j 7 n � O �n PIL
CD
X
0 n n n � C
,-+ Q CD �p ° N
cQ ,..F � mo n c N a a�
O
� m _0 C
U) ®.
= � W
c o O
CD o
O
O
-� CD
c N W �
00 -.4 O O O • 0
O O y0 O O , • CD.
O O �-
z
m O O • •
0
w �
CD
•
C/) •
N
CD •
3
3
0
CD
3
CD
a
cn
.l
[Al o z 0 O � G) z
CD � p r.' a
� SD CD
-v % � % �° 1-1. - - CD tD
m on n n m 03 n m O 0
Cl) 0(p < p m a �
-
<
0 c 3 m CD Q �
3 CD n < cn
cn cn O
cn
(D
cn 0
W
c o O
CD o
O
O c-
c'
-� CD
-co
.001
-co -co •
co w .i a) j
CY) 00 -1 IV 00 • • Q
O O
m O O O O , • C7
Z 00 O O 00 00 r+
0 O O O • • C7
CD a)
CA
O
•
co
cn •
CD cr
3
3 '
0
co
3
co
a
co
f
CL D
e
0
3