HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-06-162 - Procedure For Listing Privately Owned Non-Designated Property On The Municipal Heritage Register
)
R
Development &
Technical Services
Report To:
Date of Meeti ng :
Submitted By:
Prepared By:
Ward(s) Involved:
Date of Report:
Report No.:
Subject:
Development & Technical Services Committee
November 20,2006
Jeff Willmer, Director of Planning (519-741-2325)
Leon Bensason, Heritage Planner (519-741-2306)
All
October 31 , 2006
DTS 06-162
PROCEDURE FOR LISTING PRIVATELY OWNED NON-
DESIGNATED PROPERTY ON THE MUNICIPAL HERITAGE
REGISTER
RECOMMENDATION:
That the process for listing non-designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on
the Municipal Heritage Register, as previously outlined in Staff Report DTS 05-213, be
approved.
BACKGROUND:
Currently in Kitchener, only properties subject to a heritage conservation easement;
preservation or maintenance agreement; and that have been designated under Part IV
(individual property) or Part V (as part of a Heritage Conservation District) under the Ontario
Heritage Act, are formally recognized as being of cultural heritage value or significance. Though
the Heritage Kitchener Committee has maintained a Heritage Inventory for over 25 years and
which includes approximately 800 properties, the addition of properties on the existing Inventory
was undertaken at the advisory committee level only, and did not include formal City Council
endorsement or approval. As a result, properties currently listed on Heritage Kitchener's
Inventory have no formal heritage status under either the Ontario Heritage Act or the Planning
Act.
Recent changes made to the Ontario Heritage Act through the passage of Bill 60, now affords
the opportunity to apply status to local heritage inventories by enabling municipalities to list
properties that have not been designated under the Act but that the municipality believes to be
of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. Further, the Provincial
Policy Statement (PPS) issued under Section 3 of the Ontario Planning Act, has recently been
amended and expands the definition of "built heritage resources" to include properties listed by
local jurisdictions. Together, the amendments made to the Ontario Heritage Act and the
Provincial Policy Statement of the Planning Act, offer an opportunity for the City of Kitchener to
update and strengthen efforts to conserve property identified as being of cultural heritage value
or interest to the municipality.
City Staff previously advised Council via DTS 05-213 (see Appendix 'A') of the recent changes
made to the Ontario Heritage Act and the Provincial Policy Statement of the Planning Act, and
recommended that Council approve a process for listing non-designated property on the
Municipal Heritage Register. On January 30, 2006 Council resolved that it would proceed to list
City-owned non designated properties located within the Centre Block on the Municipal Heritage
Register, but deferred consideration of approving a process for listing privately owned non-
designated property, to allow an opportunity for public consultation.
REPORT:
Mav 24~ 2006 Public Information Meetino
Following Council's deferral on January 30, 2006 City staff undertook hosting a public
information meeting to present the recent legislative changes and the recommendations
regarding a process for listing privately owned non-designated property on the Municipal
Heritage Register. Over 800 invitations were mailed out to all owners of property listed on
Heritage Kitchener's Inventory; professional Planning and Architectural consultants; Regional
Homebuilders and Real Estate Board representatives; and local neighbourhood associations.
The information meeting was held on the evening of May 24, 2006 and approximately 90
individuals attended. Most of those in attendance were owners of property or representatives of
owners of property currently listed on Heritage Kitchener's Inventory. A small percentage of
those who attended made comments with most expressing some concern, trepidation or
opposition to the proposed listing process, and a few others expressing support. Most of the
comments received expressed concern with such matters as the rights of property owners to
make changes to their property; the suggestion that listing property would impact property
values; and of the apparent lack of an appeals process. Staff responded to these questions and
comments as follows:
Why is the City Pursuing This?
Municipalities have a responsibility to identify, evaluate and conserve those cultural heritage
resources that have lasting cultural heritage value or interest in their community. Listing a
property of cultural heritage value or interest is the very first step a municipality should take in
the identification and evaluation of a property that may warrant some form of heritage
conservation, recognition and/or long term protection. Such listing will provide accessible
information about the cultural heritage value of properties for property owners, land use
planners, developers, the tourism industry, educators and the general public.
Though the Heritage Kitchener Committee has maintained a Heritage Inventory for over 25
years, the methodology and selection criteria used to evaluate properties for listing property has
been inconsistent or lacking; there has been little or no property owner consultation or
notification; and additions made to Heritage Kitchener's Inventory were made by Committee
rather than by Council resolution.
Recent amendments made to the Ontario Heritage Act and the Ontario Planning Act have
affirmed that there is a need for the City of Kitchener to re-evaluate the way it identifies property
of cultural heritage value or interest. City Staff have identified a proposed listing process that
2
serves to standardize the selection criteria and methodology used to evaluate cultural heritage
resources by introducing consistency and a level of objectivity to the process; property owner
consultation and notification; and 3 levels of review (recorder/evaluation committee/Heritage
Kitchener) before being considered by Council.
What is the Impact of Listing My Property on the Municipal Heritage Register, and Will it
Restrict What I Can or Cannot Do With My Property?
Listina non-desianated orooerty on the Municioal Heritaae Reaister does not imoose any
orotection under the Ontario Heritaae Act. Prooerty owners are not subiect to the Heritaae
Permit aooroval orocess and do not have to seek Heritaae Kitchener review or Council aooroval
to make alterations to their orooerty.
The Ontario Heritage Act does however increase the amount of time Municipalities have to
process demolition applications made under the Ontario Building Code for non-designated
property listed on the Municipal Heritage Register, from only 10 business days to 60 business
days. This is meant to provide Municipalities with sufficient time to evaluate whether the
property merits some form of protection such as designation under the Ontario Heritage Act,
which is subject to a separate formal notification and appeals process.
The other implication of listing property on the Municipal Heritage Register relates to changes
made to the Ontario Planning Act and specifically the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). PPS
Policy 2.6. 1 states that "Sianificant built heritaae resources and sianificant cultural heritaae
landscaoes shall be conserved': The Provincial Policy Statement has recently been revised to
include properties "listed by local jurisdictions" as meeting the definition of built heritage
resources. This means that Municipal decisions on Planning Act applications made for property
listed on the Municipal Heritage Register, such as Plans of Subdivision or Site Plans for
example, shall be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. Where the Planning Act
application impacts the heritage attributes of a property listed on the Municipal Heritage
Register, conservation issues may be addressed through such measures as establishing a
Conservation Plan or undertaking a Heritage Impact Assessment.
It is important to consider the context of the relationship between the PPS and the Municipal
Heritage Register. The PPS includes numerous policies addressing such matters as public
health and safety, the quality of the natural environment, as well as providing for appropriate
development while protecting resources of provincial interest. The policy direction provided by
the PPS is aimed at achieving an appropriate balance between all these interests. At issue. is
that the conservation of identified built heritaae resources remain an essential oart of the
decision makina orocess in Plannina Act aoolications. so that orovincial oolicies are
imolemented within the local context. Experience suggests that this may lead to a full range of
possible conservation options that meet the intent of the PPS; from retention of the built heritage
resource in situ to relocation; and from adaptive re-use to disassembly and documentation.
How Will This Affect Property and Re-Sale Values?
It is highly unlikely that listing non-designated property on the Municipal Heritage Register would
have a negative influence on the value of the property. In fact, if the identification of property as
being of cultural heritage value or significance has any affect on property value and real estate
prices, it's probably a positive one. This is supported by statistical evidence gathered in 1992
and again in 1998 by Dr. Robert Shipley of the University of Waterloo, researching the impact of
3
heritage designation on property values and real estate prices. The evidence suggests that
heritage designation has a positive rather than negative influence.
Some 2707 properties in 24 communities across Ontario were surveyed (including Kitchener).
Trends in the price histories of heritage properties were compared with the average market
trend in each community. In 74% of the cases the heritage properties performed as well or
better than the average. The numbers were even better in Kitchener, where price sales of 85%
of Part IV or individually designated properties and 100% of properties designated within the
Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District fared better than the average market. It was also
found that individually designated properties had healthy turn-over rates and that their prices
often resisted downturns in the market cycle.
Though not available at the time of the May 24, 2006 public meeting, staff are now in receipt of
data collected in London, Ontario which seems to continue to support the positive trend
identified in Dr. Shipley's research. Greg Thompson of Royal LePage Landco Realty, examined
the effect of the recent designation of the Old East Village Heritage Conservation District on
neighbourhood property values between January 2005 and July 2006. Property values within
the City on residential resales, excluding new home construction and condominium resales,
increased by 12.4% over the course of this period. Mr. Thompson's analysis of residential resale
activity in the Old East Village Heritage Conservation District during the same period indicated
an increase in market values based solely on resale activity of 17.6% (over 5% better than the
City average).
It would appear from the statistical evidence gathered to date, that far from hurting property
values, recognizing the heritage significance of a property may actually have positive impacts.
What Right of Appeal is There?
The provision which allows a municipality to list non-designated property on the Municipal
Heritage Register as being of cultural heritage value or interest, is established under the Ontario
Heritage Act. The Act does not provide direction or guidance to municipalities regarding the
approach to follow when listing non-designated property, nor does it provide the legislative
authority to establish a right of appeal with regard to the listing of non-designated property on
the Municipal Heritage Register. The absence of a right of appeal is likely attributed to the fact
that listing non-designated property does not afford any formal protection under the Ontario
Heritage Act.
Listing a property on the Municipal Heritage Register may have implications where such
property is the subject of a Planning Act application and the policies of the Provincial Policy
Statement; and where the nature of the application may impact the heritage attributes of the
listed property. As mentioned earlier, properties listed by local jurisdictions are now included in
the PPS definition of a "built heritage resource': and in accordance with the PPS decisions shall
be consistent with the statement that built heritage resources shall be conserved. In this reaard
it is worth notina that Plannina Act aoolications do have a riaht of aooeal. and that if an aoolicant
obiects to a decision made by the aooroval authority. for examole because of the way it
addresses the conservation of the listed orooerty. the aoolicant has a riaht of aooeal to the
Ontario Municioal Board.
Though the right of appeal would exist for Planning Act applications, City staff's primary
objective will continue to be to work with property owners in a cooperative manner on both the
listing process and the Planning Act development review process, so as to achieve a level of
4
conservation that addresses both property owner and City objectives. Ensuring that property
owners are well advised of the City's interest in listing their property; are circulated copies of
documentation describing the significance of the property; and are provided with opportunities to
provide input and make comment before a decision is made by Council, are just some of the
provisions staff believe will assist in addressing property owner concerns.
Survey of Other Municipalities
In addition to hosting a public information meeting on May 24, 2006 staff circulated a
questionnaire to several municipalities in Ontario, inquiring about their current heritage listing
process. Staff made inquiries on such matters as whether their listing process involved Council
approval; whether property owners were consulted; and what action if any the municipality was
taking given the recent legislative changes. Thirteen municipalities responded to the City's
questionnaire including the local area municipalities of Waterloo, Cambridge and North
Dumfries. Existing heritage inventories ranged in size from 75 listed properties in Ajax, to 8000
in Ottawa (Kitchener has approximately 800). The results reveal that the way in which
municipalities in Ontario maintain heritage inventories varies widely, and that Kitchener's
proposed approach to listing non-designated property on the Municipal Heritage Register would
be more transparent and comprehensive than most of the municipalities sampled. The full
results of the survey are attached as Appendix 'B' to this report, however some of the more
interesting findings are summarized below.
· 6 out of the 13 municipalities responded that their inventory or register of non-designated
property is approved, endorsed or in some way formally recognized by their City Council.
Staff propose that Kitchener City Council approve the listing of all property on the
Municipal Heritage Register.
· 8 out of the 13 municipalities responded that they use some sort of formal methodology
in evaluating property to be listed. Kitchener City Staff have identified a proposed
listing process that introduces consistency and a level of objectivity to the
process, and serves to standardize the selection criteria and methodology used to
evaluate cultural heritage resources in Kitchener.
· Only 2 out of the 13 municipalities responded that property owner consultation forms
part of their methodology for listing heritage property. The methodology
recommended by City staff proposes to include property owner consultation and
notification, and 3 levels of review (recorder/evaluation committee/Heritage
Kitchener) before the listing is considered by City Council.
Several of the municipalities surveyed were unable to provide clear direction regarding if and
how they intend to transfer properties currently listed on an Inventory to the Municipal Heritage
Register. Many municipalities cited concern over the volume of work that would be involved in
re-evaluating listed properties and in engaging property owners in the process. Some
municipalities, particularly those with very large Inventories, anticipated transferring all their
listed properties to the Municipal Heritage Register at one time by a resolution of Council.
Notwithstanding the above, City staff believe there is considerable merit in re-evaluating the
properties currently listed on Heritage Kitchener's Inventory, using the methodology and
evaluation criteria recommended in DTS 05-213. While this would involve a considerable
5
amount of work and time, such effort would help to legitimize the selection of properties
previously listed on Heritage Kitchener's Inventory, and provide continuity in the evaluation of
new properties to be added to the Municipal Heritage Register.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Work on re-evaluating the approximate 800 properties currently listed on Heritage Kitchener's
Inventory, and to maintain on an ongoing basis the Municipal Heritage Register of cultural
heritage properties, will require time and staff resources. Currently, monies to pay the part-time
wages of the Assistant Heritage Planner position have been funded out of existing reserves in
the Heritage Conservation District Implementation Account. However, these monies will be
depleted by the end of March 2007 and the Assistant Heritage Planner employment contract will
expire.
While the Planning Division proposes to extend some heritage planning responsibilities to a new
Planner to be hired in the near future, it is entirely feasible if not probable, that additional staff
resources will be required in the future on a part-time, contract or full-time basis, to meet the
increasing demands of an expanding Heritage Planning program. As a result, an evaluation of
staff resource needs will be undertaken in 2007, with any requests for additional resources
coming to Council's attention as part of the Department's annual budget deliberations.
COMMUNICATIONS:
A copy of this staff report has been mailed to those individuals who attended the public
information meeting on May 24, 2006, and to the President of the North Waterloo Branch of the
Architectural Conservancy of Ontario.
CONCLUSION:
Identifying specific local cultural heritage resources is a vital first step toward upholding the
City's responsibility to protect and conserve its heritage. Part of taking stock is deciding as a
community what resources are most important to current and future generations. City staff are
of the opinion that the methodology for adding non-designated property to the Municipal
Heritage Register, as previously outlined in DTS 05-213 will prove to be an important tool in
managing the conservation of Kitchener's cultural heritage resources.
Leon R. Bensason, MCIP, RPP, CAPHC
Heritage Planner
Jeff Willmer, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
Attachments
Appendix 'A': DTS 05-213
Appendix 'B': Questionnaire to Other Ontario Municipalities
6
APPENDIX 'A'
City of Kitchener
Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form
Address
Period
Recorder Name
Description
Date
Photographs:
Front Fac;ade D
Setting D
All Facades D
Details D
Currently on Inventory/Register?
No DYes D
Design or Physical Value
Style
Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular architectural style or type? N/A D Unknown D No D D D D Yes
Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular material or method N/A D Unknown D No D D D D Yes
of construction?
Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, N/A D Unknown D No D D D D Yes
composition, craftsmanship or details?
Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? N/A D Unknown D No D D D D Yes
Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or detail noteworthy? N/A D Unknown D No D D D D Yes
Notes
Contextual Value
Continuity Does this structure contribute to the continuity or character of the street, N/A D Unknown D No D D D D Yes
neighbourhood or area?
Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping noteworthy? N/A D Unknown D No D D D D Yes
Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? N/A D Unknown D No D D D D Yes
Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the region, city or D R N/A D Unknown D No D D D D Yes
neighbourhood? (indicate degree of importance) D C
D N
Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or N/A D Unknown D No D D D D Yes
external features that complete the site?
Notes
Integrity
Site Does the structure occupy its original site? N/A D Unknown D No D D D D Yes
(note ifrelocated, i.e. relocated on it original site, movedfrom another site, etc.)
Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and design features? N/A D Unknown D No D D D D Yes
Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that have taken place N/A D Unknown D No D D D D Yes
over time?
Condition Is this building in good condition? N/A D Unknown D No D D D D Yes
Notes
City of Kitchener
Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form
Historical or Associative Value & Significance
Does this property or structure have strong associations and/or contribute to the
understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that
is significant or unique within the City?
N/A D Unknown D No D D D DYes
Is the original, previous or existing use significant?
N/A D Unknown D No D D D DYes
Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage
resource or cultural heritage landscape, as identified in the Provincial Policy
Statement issued under the Ontario Planning Act? - A property or structure valued for
the important contribution it makes to our understanding of the history of a
place, an event, or a people?
No D
DYes
Further Action/Follow Up
Recorder
Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Sub-Committee
D Add to Heritage Register
D High Priority for Designation
D Heritage District Potential
D Additional Research Required
D Additional Photographs Required
D Request Permission to Access Property
Setting D All Fa<;ades D Details D
D Add to Heritage Register *
D High Priority for Designation
D Heritage District Potential
D Additional Research Required
D Additional Photographs Required
D Request Permission to Access Property
Other
Other
General Comments
* Date of Property Owner Notification
Recommendation
Heritage Kitchener Committee Recommendation
Council Decision
D Add to Heritage Register
D Add to Heritage Register
D No Action - Keep on File
D No Action - Keep on File
Date
Date
2
ec.
\JJ
~
~~
~ c:
E 0
o c:
tJ 0
:; '~
o ~
=6
~
\JJ ~
et''E~ 0
~ .s ~ a ~
.~ ~ ~ ~ Z
u,g~:-'
tJ"'O
~
~ -
:-. ~
0":
E-i ~
~
] ~~
8 ~ ~
o :-. ~
E-i00
ec.
:-. ~
~~~
E -; ~
E-i 0
E 0
o - ec.
~ C ~
:-. 0 -
~ '5'~
~ ~ ~
~~
ec.
~ ec.
;:~
~ l;/l
.=:: 0
::I C.
rIl C.
c: 0
U l;/l
:.. :..
~ ~
c: c:
~ ~
o~
,0-:
:.. ~
~..c:
e:s
~
ec,
~
:;
:c
,S
~
....
OJ)
o
'0
"'0
o
;S
~
ec.
,... -;
tJ :>
c: 0
::I :..
o C.
U c.
<
'-~
~ ~ ~
~,~ ~
~ -9 e
c: c: ~
~ 0
z
.€
";
'ff
'2
::I
~
Q
o::l
~
o
Z
o
Z
~
~
::::
.: ~ @ .~
:::: ~ 0 ........
~ g ~ ~
u..o 8
~ ~ ~ ~
::I 8 ~ .~
g ~] ~
u B 8 ~
. U a
~ ~~ :
~ u.... ~
>-. ~ 0 ...
"E ~ ~ 0
A B': '5
s.]~ 8"
~.~ ~ c.
>- ....] z
~ :g
:9 'E
S ~ g
~ ~ ~
~~........
.~ ~ ~
'E ~ ~
U l5.'~
~.~ 8
~ ~ ~
::I :::: 0
] .~ g 0
~ Q'~ ~
~ ~ ui
'" ~
~
~ .~
;'::::t2c.
~ ~ s.
~.s 0
~ ~
o
=
e
o
E--
Q
o::l
~
o
Z
Q
o::l
~
~
~
~
s
o
~
c:
.9
~ S
~~
C'j ~
o gf
OJ) '.p
~~
. s o::l
~~
~~
>-.
..0
]
~
:g
8
U
..... ::::
o ;:::i
c. 0
~U
~
S
o
~
ui
~
o
Z
~
~ .'~
~ g 8"
~~~
~ ~
~ ..~
~ ~ s
~~~
~ l2
..c:
OJ)
::I
e
o
i
~
~
OJ)
::I
,;
i
Q
o::l
~
~~~
"E ~ p.,
~~~
....... 0 >-.
@~]
e~~
c: 0 ~
: ~ ~
.~ g .~
c. U C'j
~ ~ s
~
Q
o::l
~
Q
o::l
~
Q
o::l
~
o
Z
Q
o::l
~
Q
o::l
~
Q
o::l
~
Q
o::l
~
o
a
::::
.9
~ E
~ :::: ~
0.9 :g
]'8 ~
.~ ~ .9
E g ~
] 8 :g
0..... 8
U 0 .....
~ ~ ~
~] 5
;~ E
~ g 0.,
c. 0
8 l5.
c. 0
Z z
~
o
Z
o
r---
~ ~ ~ ~
o .... ....... .....
ui S]~
~ ~C'jg
..0 r---
c:
~
's
~
=
.~
~
z
o
Z
::::
.9
E
~
:g
8
~
c:
.9
~
~
a
c:
.....
~
o
'5
c.
8
c.
o
Z
S
8
~
c:
.9
~ _5
~
~ ~
o gf
gf .~
:gC::;
. s o::l
o::l~
~~
o
~
ui
~
~
~~
~ g 0.,
~ N 8
~.s ~
~ r---
~
~
9
E
~
OJ)
~
z
.....
o
~
:g
8
B
p.,
o
~
o
~
.~
~
J:
o
Z
~
z
::::
.9
E
~
:g
8
~
::::
.9
~
~
a
c:
.....
~
o
'5
c.
8
c.
o
Z
:g
'E
;.a
~
~ :g
~ 'E
~;.a
gp~
~ ::::
~ 0
o
..... 0
o 0
c. :>
~u
~~
~
~
ui
~
~
~ oo~
~ l2 c.
- ~ 8 ~
~~~
~ ~
:..
o
.0
c:
~
~
z
~..gB
frs~ 0
~ S 5 '<:)
o 0 ..... ....
8 ~ ~&
.~ ~ ~
a .9< g ~
A.:!::: ;:::i _
s.s8 e
B gf ~ ~
]:~ g.@
~ "E '.p
~8C'j
o
Z
~
Q
o::l
~
Q
o::l
~
~
Q
o::l
~
.~
~
~
o
Z
::::
.9
E
~
:g
8
~
c:
.9
~
~
a
c:
.....
~
o
'5
c.
8
c.
o
Z
~ ~_o
.~ <-s c:
e ~ ~ ~
o ~ 0 .....
..0 c: C.
_ 0 .....;
g U 8 .s ~
].~~~~
~ ~ ~ .~ C'j
~ '.p :::: ~ g
~~~]8
.~ ~ ~ ~ ~
:a 0 € 8
~'5g.~
s~ a
l5. S
"E]
~ ~
'-' .S
] ~-~
~ ~,
........ '8
~ ~
'U ~
o ::::
o 'E
.~ @
8 ~
~ .~
o
~]
~ C'j
o ..0
Z
~
.;;
Q 0
o::l~
~ ~
~
::::
~
o
Z
~
.;;
o ~
z ~
~
c:
~
o 0
~
~ ~
8" s
c. OJ)
IF) 0
r--- o::l
o 0
~ .....
o ....... &
>- S 8
OJ) A
o 0
o::lo
\0
~
~
<'
c:
~
OJ)
c:
~
o
~
.~ ~ .
S B ~
8 ~ ~
_~ .g .S
o p., 8
~o..:s
~ ~ c.
OJ) 0
:::: ::::
C'j
A
U
~
~
o
Z
o
Z
OJ)
.,S
~~
~~
o 0
8""E
c. ~
C'j 0
~ 0
o..c:
8 ~
.~ .~
~ fr
.~ ~
~E
8 ~
~]
fr.....
U C'j
~ .S
6
Z
B
~
~
S~
o U
~ ~
~ -~
~ 0
t::1 >-.
o 0
10::::1"
e 8
o 0
OJ) \0
::::
~.s
~
.~ :
"S
..0
6
Z
o
Z
~
o~ 0
~ ~ 0 R
~@~~ S.
~ e.s 0
o::l:g ~
..c:
~
::I
~
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
o
o
r--- .....
~ g.
~ S l5.
OJ) 0
o 0
o::l~
~
~
,S
o
~
"E '5
S t: 0
~ ::I U
c.u........
gb~
~u..:s
~ 0 p.,
]~]
o~
~ S: 0
:::: ::I
C'j ~
..c:
U
~
~
z
~
z
Q
o::l
~
U
c:
::I
o 0
ZU
B
c.
~
o
Z
t::1 ~
~] .~
s : .~
~ :::: .....
o .... 0
~~~
o ::I 0
~] .~
.~ ~ g.
~ :g ~
C'j .9 0
<-s:a~
~ .....
........~~
~ ~ U
.~ S. g
~ ~u
uuB
~ ~ 8
~ ~ @'
~
000
>-~~
~
OJ)
~
,.Q
E
~
u
~
~
Q
o::l
~
~
~
]~~€~
~ .~ ~ g.]
~;€l5.~
E ~ g.~~ 8
c:z.....oo
~ ~ .~.~ a
>-. c: 0 .....
"E .~ ~ ~ ~ ~
s~:;~~-?
l5. ~ 0 0 ~ d:)
]"&~ g a]
_ ;:::i o..c: >-. C'j
~Ba'O~
~8E~6'
.9 :~ ~ ] ~
~~;]]
~eR]~
~ ~ s. ~ .~
-OJ) 0
>-. .S ~
~ ~i ~
:E '5 ~ A
~:>~~
C'j . S .t:: '._~...
-2~~:;
~ - C'j t
a B] t)~
~~~] ~
~~~>'E
:~~~~
.8 ~ .~ .~ .8
;~'5&~
..o~ c.:: 0
~ ~ s. i
~.~] ~
o ~ -
~~~]
C'j .....
~ 0
~
080
>-~~
~
;S~
; E
Z ::I
~
Q
o::l
~
o
>-.
a
z
~
~
a
.~ ~ g
~ ~ 'B
::I C'j 0
:g ~ B
8 B :
..... 0
o 0 c:
~ >-. ~
;:f~ €
~"O &
c.c.o
S. g l5.
o
z
]
o~
o~
..... C'j
o
.~ ~
t::~
8 ~
c: .......
o 0
'€ ~
0..0
c._
8'@
p.,..o
o
Z
00 0
o~o
>-~~
o
~
~