Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 8A_5/10/1990 MOCK, ROOS & ASSOCIATES INC.M N R 1 d ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS A ;1 11 I 5720 CORPORATE WAY • WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. 33407 Pt46 / 83-3113 May 1, 1990 `? ��LI.c /•� 4, , EST4 MEMORANDUM _ "r 0 To: Tom Bradford, Manager, , pFF�'JO ci Village of Tequesta From: Tom McCarthy Subject: Lot 8 , Block 2 - Plat of Country Club Point as Recorded in Plat Book 27 , Page 112, Palm Beach County These are my initial comments after making a cursory review of the material furnished to me by your staff: 1 . The lot width definition in the Village Code is poorly written in that it really only works where the side lot lines are parallel and the front lot line is straight. Obviously, there are many conditions which this definition will not fit and this particular lot is one of those conditions. Nevertheless, it is probably safe to say that at the building setback line there is at least 75 feet lot width for proposed Lot 8A and proposed Lot 8B. 2 . One thing that does bother me about this proposal is that the original plat defines the easterly boundary of Lot 8 as apparently being the mean high-water line of the Loxahatchee River. Subsequently, a bulkhead has been constructed which enlarged Lot 8 substantially over the + dimensions shown on the original plat. Therefore, I am not sure that this entire area can be described as Lot 8 , Block 2 , without describing the property that has been added to the original Lot 8 . This also brings up the question of whether there is sufficient land area to meet the Village Code. I am inclined to think that this proposal can be brought into conformance with the Village Codes but it appears to me that there are some technicalities which need to be addressed, especially in view of the controversial nature of the proposal. 06W4L-.0/&---+ Tom McCarthy, Jr. , P. E. TMc/drh VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA BUILDING DEPARTMENTPost Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (407) 575-6220 :a; ca FAX: (407) 575-6203 MEMORANDUM: TO: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager FROM: Scott D. Ladd, Building Official 5j DATE: April 9, 1990 SUBJECT: Application for Subdivision Review JARA, Inc. , Lot 8, Block 2, Country Club Point Tom, attached are nine ( 9) copies of a submittal packet with full size survey of the above referenced subject. We are notifying the president of the Country Club Point Property Owners Association with a courtesy letter informing them of this proposal . Please place this on the agenda of the April 26, 1990 Council meeting under Development Matters. SDL: j ms attch. VILLAGE e. ) OF TEQUESTAFILE COPY BUILDING DEPARTMENT • ._ 4,.. Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive ' t• Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (407) 575-6220 FAX: (407) 575-6203 April 9, 1990 Mr. Timothy E. Goldsbury President, Country Club Point Property Owners Association _ 20 Tradewinds Circle Tequesta, FL 33469 Dear Mr. Goldsbury: Subject : Lot 8, Block 2, Country Club Point Subdivision. This is to advise you that we have received an application from Joseph M. Arbree, President , JARA, Inc. , for the subdivision of the above referenced lot . We have requested that this matter be placed on the agenda of the April 26, 1990 Council meeting for consideration. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at 575-6220. Very truly yours, ,fit h . Uack& Scott D. Ladd, C. B. 0. Building Official jms Q s . dp teIR, VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA 8Z.1g-or �? ar BUILDING DEPARTMET 1! ApRA` y Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive rj'/1,_0 l99j I r� f Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (407) 575-6220 9 �Mr- F �.r7- FAX: (407) 575-6203 _'"tRS 2 Co, _.. r \\ Ji.i, 't "uD April 10, 1990 Mr. Joseph M. Arbree President, JARA, Inc. P. 0. Box 14656 North Palm Beach, FL 33408-0656 Dear Arbree: Subject : Lot 8, Block 2, Country Club Point Subdivision. This is to advise you that we have requested that your application for subdividing the above referenced lot be placed on the agenda of the April 26, 1990 Council meeting for consideration. This meeting is tentatively scheduled to begin at 7: 00 P. M. Please contact this office prior to the meeting date to verify the meeting time. Receipt of your check No. 10630 in the amount of $220. 00 for the subdivision review is hereby acknowledged. You and/or your representative must be in attendance at this meeting to present your application. Very truly yours, ,bjtD. Xadct Scott D. Ladd, C. B. O. Building Official jms / cc: Village Manager ✓ Am/ /220 °° VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW NAME OF APPLICANT: Jam, INC. By .risniR t,/ ARRRFF �,- � DATE:Apri1 4, 1990 MAILING ADDRESS: P. O. Boot 14656 North Palm Beach, FL. 33408-0656 PHONE NUMBER: ( HOME) 407-848-4649 ( BUSINESS) Selt RECEIVED LOT/PARCEL ADDRESS: 31 Tradexinds Circle PROPERTY CONTROL NUMBER: 60 42 40 25 12 002 0080 APR 04 1990 Y1Ltr,C L: OF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION: TEQUESTA BLDG. DEPT. Lot 8, Block 2 according to the plat of Country Club Point as recorded in plat bock 27 Daze 112, Palm Beach County, Florida public records. PROPERTY OWNER: S ( If Other Than Applicant) NOTE: APPLICANT SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING WITH THE APPLICATION: 1. THE ORIGINAL AND TEN ( 10) COPIES OF A PROFESSIONALLY PREPARED SKETCH PLAN OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION, MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE II, SECTION 1. PARAGRAPH ( 1) , SUB-PARAGRAPHS 1 - 7, OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. 2. WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM PROPERTY OWNER, IF NOT THE APPLICANT, AUTHORIZING APPLICANT TO ACT AS AGENT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER. 3. ANY OTHER DOCUMENTATION PERTINENT TO THIS APPLICATION. . 4. APPLICATION FEE OF TWO-HUNDRED ( $200. 00) DOLLARS PLUS TEN ( 810. 00) DOLLARS FOR EACH LOT PROPOSED FOR THE SUBDIVISION. 4/6/2 . APPLICANT' S SIGNATURE: ,Q_.q, "GP/C ,t2 •, y ,',ter. NOTE: ALL RENDERINGS, MODELS, = OS, ETC. SUBMITTED TO THE VILLAGE WILL BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA. ."'., ^^ssaa•^" ueex RAMCO FORM 03 C #11 -139/ej it Prpand ►fir a _ -U 1, p oOlrod A.,dtt_to : ,'li, 9 0 L 703ii 0 LAWREN( C GGRFFN =Cromwell,Pfafkinberger 531 U.S.'Highs.,in •Sults 410 1 - nr -__ .O. Ion 14036 _ s.vir a —� Palm slues PortalFtI0i1sm a.S Numbtf(s): {. C _ 1 i�.t� _ i 1: L v'�.. :1': i -25-12-002-0080 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDING DATA 1latrial iarrantuPeed Made the 26th day of Fe yes A. D. 19 90 by BANKS TR. 1NY, N.A., both as Personal Represent tive of the ELATE OF J�A�N��E�P1 VE'rrER, deceased, and as Trustee Testamentary Trust under the WILL OF JANEP WITER, deceased, dated July 12, 1989, hereinafter cared the grantor, to JARA, INC., a Florida Corporation, whose postoffice address is P. 0. Box 14656, North Palm Beach, FL 33408-0656 hereinafter called the grantee: (Wherever used herein the terms "grantor" and "grantee" include all the parties to this instrument and the heirs, legal representatives and assigns rI individuals, and the successors and assigns of corporations) itnesseth. That the grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of $ 10.00 and other valuable considerations, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants, bargains, sells, aliens, re- mises. releases, conveys and confirms unto the grantee, all that certain land situate in Palm Beach County. Florida. viz: Lot 8, in Block 2 of COUNTRY CLUB POINT, a Subdivision of Palm Beach County, Florida, as recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, in Plat Book 27, Page 112. It is the intent of the Owner that each lot will be serviced by a septic tank, duly permitted by the Palm Beach County Health Department . In the event that the necessary permits for the septic tanks are not available for any reason, then sewer service for the lots will be provided by Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District (see attached letter from the District) . Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District Co at 2500 JUPITER PARK DRIVE•JUPITER, FLORIDA 33458-8964 TEL.(407)747-5700-ADM.&ENG.•(407)747-5709-OPERATIONS W '-- 7.4- ,st' -- C FAX(407)747-9929 V 4'0) 1971 "- RICHARD C DENT II EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR April 4 , 1990 Mr. Joe Arbree P.O. Box 14656 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408 Re: Lot 8, Block 2, Country Club Point, Tequesta Dear Mr. Arbree: This letter is provided in response to your recent inquiry concerning sewer service availability to the above referenced property. Please be advised that, as of this date, service can be made available to the property upon the joint execution of a Developer's Agreement and the payment of certain costs in accordance with District Rules . Copies of the Developers Agreement and Chapter 31 -10 F.A.C. , are available for your review. Consistent with District policy, the developer will be responsible for all costs associated with connecting to the existing wastewater system of the District. The nearest available regional gravity sanitary sewer line is located on Country Club Drive near the northern entrance to the Country Club parking lot. Should you require additional information on this matter, do not hesitate to contact me. i erely, R rd C. Dent Execu ive Director RCD/aw JOE ELLS __ GEORGE GENTILE WM."ED"HUFFMAN WRING E'SNAG'HOLMES JERRY L.HOUGH The following residents of Country Club Point, qualified in engineering or science, have examined the Plot of Lot 8 , Block 2, According to the Pot of Country Club Point as Recorded in Plot Book 27, Page 112, Palm Beach County, Florida Public Records and agreed that if subdivided, it would not meet the minimum width requirements for R-1 district. The definition of "lot width" as set forth in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance does not define minimur lot width. The arguement that the definition of "lot width" would produce a rational answer for the width of a lot is unpersuasive. The definition is vague and meaningless. J. William .Adair ' N Rose-Hulman Insti to of Technology - Engineering Paul F. Hickeyr���l� �j*U � University of Notre Dame - ''athematics William. G. Kirkland University of Southern Ca_ o nia -Engineering (Reg.P.F. ) John W. Woodruff tj. k/e-1-4(4.7 / Yale University ,sic os L. D. Slepow ( University of"Fliami - n in ring ) -Zee, eireCai JOHN L. AVERY, JR. HAAS BUILDING • SUITE 500 1001 NORTH U.S. HIGHWAY ONE JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477 •-`. AVERY, �R TELEPHONE(407)747-6666 N'C••AEL U BURLEY TELECOPIER(407)744 0670 . 8 OF '2 April 25, 1990 ApRA AtivA,GE Mr. Thomas G. Bradford RS c' Village ManagerLP Village of Tequesta '4 P.O. Box 3273 Tequesta, Florida 33469 Re: Jara, Inc. Application for Subdivision Review Dear Mr. Bradford: I have been retained by Tequesta Country Club Point Property Owner ' s Association, Inc. along with individual property owners concerning the application to subdivide a lot located at 31 Tradewind Circle in Tequesta which has been filed by Jara, Inc . with the Village of Tequesta. It is my understanding that Jara, Inc . is applying to the Village to subdivide one platted lot into two separate lots. The survey of the lot indicates that it cannot be divided without leaving one lot with less than the 75 foot minimum width required by the Village of Tequesta. Also, the Village zoning ordinances permit only one dwelling per platted lot . The lot sought to be divided is platted and its division would create two lots on which construction of houses would be in violation of the zoning ordinance. It has also come to my attention that the restrictive covenants for a subdivision, which run in favor of all unit owners, provide that no lot shall be subdivided. My clients and more than 90 homeowners in the subdivision strongly oppose any action by the council which would permit the division of the lot in question. It is my understanding that the matter is scheduled to be brought before the Village council on Mr. Thomas G. Bradford April 25, 1990 Page 2. Thursday of this week. Although I may be wrong, I think that you will find that the town attorney will agree with my analysis of the matter and advise the council not to approve the attempt to subdivide the lot. Hopefully, the matter can be resolved without litigation. Best personal regards. Very truly yours, I JO L. AVERY, JR. JLA:nw cc: John C. Randolph, Esquire s, , 1. - . 1 . 1 I 1 I BROWARD COUNTY v. NARCO REALTY, INC. Fla. 509 Cite as.Fla.App.,159 So.2d 509 2. Counties a7 BROWARD COUNTY, Florida, a political County had no discretion to refuse plat subdivision of the State of Florida, L A. approval where landowner met all legal re- Hester, Broward County Administrator, quirements for platting land. Sp.Acts 1953, i Gerald F.Thompson, Hugh Anderson, R. c. 28946 § 14 as amended. I B. Barkelew, Ken Jenne, Anne Kolb, Jack L Moss and J. W.Stevens,as mem- 3• Counties (3='7 i bers of the Broward County Commission Granting approval of plat to landowner and constituting the Broward County who met all legal requirements for platting Commission, James V. Denkenberger, land was ministerial act which was not Jr., County Surveyor of Broward Coun- within discretion of county commission and a ty, and John M. Gerren, Jr., Director of landowner was entitled to peremptory writ ! Transportation and Planning of Bro. of mandamus ordering the approval; State , Florida, A ' , - ward County, Appellants, Case ex rel. Zuckerman-Vernon Corp. v. City of , C , ' No. 76-1920, Miramar, 306 So.2d 173, receded from. , . fl p. V.• { NARCO REALTY, INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation licensed to do business in Harry A. Stewart and Betty Lynn Lee, • the State of Florida, Appellee, Case No. Gen. Counsel for Broward County, Fort 76-1920, Appellant, Case No. 77-868. Lauderdale, for appellants in caste No. 76 I 1920, for appellees in case No. 77-868. Nos. 76-1920, 77-868. Robert E. Ferris, Jr., of Gustafson, Cald- District Court of Appeal of Florida, well, Stephens & Ferris, Fort Lauderdale, , i Fourth District. for appellees in case No. 76-1920 and for May 23, 1978. appellants in case No. 77-868. Rehearing Denied June 28, 1978. DOWNEY, Chief Judge. Landowner and county and certain of- Broward County and certain officials appeals filed a plenary appeal in Case No.ficials thereof brought consolidated ap 76 1920 to review a Peremptory from decisions of Circuit Court, Broward Writ. of Mandamus commanding appellants to ap- County, Frank A. Orlando, J., concerning county approval of subdivision plat of land. prove a subdivision plat of land located in 1 Appeal, Downey, C. the City of Parkland, Broward County,The District Court of t Florida: J., held that county had no discretion to . refuse plat approval where landowner met Narco Realty, Inc., has filed an interlocu- all legal requirements for platting land; tor appeal in Case No. 77-868 to review an • trial court correctly issued peremptory writ order which denied appellant's (Narco Real- of mandamus so ordering. ty) motion for contempt and partially • Appeals dismissed. granted Narco's motion to compel. Cross,J.,concurred specially with opin- Narco Realty, Inc., owns a tract of land ( 1 ,...,_ ion, in the City of Parkland which it proposes to subdivide. In furtherance of this plan Nar- co submitted its subdivision plat to the 1. Municipal Corporations a43 County Commission of Broward County for All persons similarly situated should be approval which was refused. Thereupon, able to obtain plat approval upon meeting Narco filed a Petition for Writ of Manda- uniform standards, otherwise, official ap- inus against the County and various county Koval of a plat application would depend officials seeking to require them to approve • upon whim or caprice of public body in- the proposed plat so that it could be record. volved. ed. The plenary appeal by the County, et - r 51Q Fla. 359 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES al., is from the granting of the Peremptory the County's construction that those provi- 1 Writ. sions of the statutes give the County unbri- While the plenary appeal was pending, died discretion to deny approval. this court entered an Order requiring the [1] All persons similarly situated should • County to post a supersedeas bond if it be able to obtain plat approval upon meet- ' wished its appeal to supersede the Peremp- ing uniform standards. Otherwise, the offi- tory Writ. However, the County chose not cial approval of a plat application would to post the supersedeas bond, whereupon depend upon the whim or caprice of the Narco asked the trial court to hold the public body involved. Yokley, in his work, County and its officials in contempt for Law of Subdivisions, § 52, states: refusing to follow the commands of the "Thus, while public policy requires munic- Peremptory Writ. Narco also requested ipal control of such development, never- the court to compel the County to approve theless, the authority of a town to deny a the plat for record. The trial court denied landowner the right to develop his prop- the motion for contempt and ordered the erty by refusing to approve the plat of County to approve the plat with certain conditions. The interlocutory appeal from such development is, by statute, made to that Order has been consolidated with the rest upon specific standards of a statute plenary appeal. or implementing ordinances. Thereafter, the approval or disapproval of the plat on With regard to the full appeal from the the basis of controlling standards be- t i issuance of the Peremptory Writ, the main ., comes an administrative act. 1 thrust of appellant's attack is that the ap- Section 53 of the same work, Likewise, in proval of a plat by the County Commission Lik Lik • 11 is a discretionary act and cannot be made theauthor states: the subject of a Writ of Mandamus. The "When the statutes and ordinances have appellant relies heavily upon our decision in been complied with in making a plat of a iState ex rel. Zuckerman-Vernon Corp. v, subdivision, the active approval by a vil- City of Miramar, 306 So.2d 173 (Fla. 4th lage board has been held to be ministers- ' DCA 1974), to support that principle. al, and such act may be enforced by a 1 writ of mandamus." Appellee contends, on the other hand, that its Petition for Writ of Mandamus and 4 Anderson, American Law of Zoning the stipulation of counsel at the hearing (Second Edition) § 26.04, (1976) states: i which gave rise to issuance of the Peremp- "Mandamus to compel plat approval tory Writ demonstrate that there was no has been successful where the court, ap- • discretion remaining in the Commission in plying common-law principles, deter- i this case. The petition and stipulation mined that when a subdivider has corn- „ show that all of the legal requirements for plied with all of the standards for plat approval of a plat for recordation have been approval, such approval is a ministerial • met. Those legal requirements are con- act which the court may compel through tamed in Chapter 177, Florida Statutes a writ of mandamus (1975) and the Broward County Plat Act.' There are numerous cases which apply this It appears to be the County's contention same principle, among which are: Knutson that, even though Narco has complied with v. State, 239 Ind. 656, 157 N.E.2d 469 all of the legal requirements for platting (1959); People ex rel. Jackson & Morris, land contained in the general law and Spe- Inc. v. Smuczynski, 345 Ill.App. 63, 102 • 1 cial Act, the County Commission still has N.E.2d 168 (1951); People v. Village of the discretion to approve or to refuse ap- Deerfield, 50 Ill.App2d 349, 200 N.E.2d 120 1. ` ? proval of any plat, because both Chapter (1964); Kling v. City Council of City of , 177 and the Special Act provide for approv- Newport Beach, 155 Ca1.App2d 309, 317 al by the County Commission. We reject P.2d 708 (1957). S I. Chapter 28946,Laws of Florida, Spectral Acts, 1953, as amended. 1 .t f.k Y• , BROWARD COUNTY v. NARCO REALTY. INC. Fla. 511 ::t Cite as,FIa.App..359 So.2d 509 ; 12,3] Section 14 of the Broward County mission dated March 1, 1977, and recorded j` Plat Act, which pertains to the granting of in Official Records Book 6927, page 518, of i approval of a plat provides that such ap- the Public Records of Broward County. .f. proval may be "subject to such conditions as Our disposition of the plenary appeal in the governing body of the municipality case No. 1920 renders the issues raised in li:- ; and/or the Boards of County Commission- the interlocutory appeal No. 868 moot. Ac- ' ers or Public Instruction may deem to be in cordingly, the interlocutory appeal is dis- the best interest of the public." Without ..7 1::. missed. '• pursuing the validity of that provision which has not been attacked here, we hold t<, DAUKSCH, J., concurs. that, having met all of the legal require- •• . • ments for obtaining plat approval, the coun- CROSS, J., concurs specially, with opin- ty must approve Narco's plat so that it can ion. be recorded. Inasmuch as Narco has met CROSS, Judge, concurring specially: l':4'. all of the legal requirements for platting ; land, the county had no discretion to refuse I concur in the conclusion reached by the this plat approval and the trial court was majority only because the parties to the 'j; correct in issuing the Peremptory Writ of instant appeal have stipulated that all nec- t•. essary standardsprescribed b• law for sub- Mandamus. y �1''_ We would distinguish our case of State division plats have been met by the appel- lee. ''. ex rel. Zuckerman Corp. v. City of Miramar, '•{. supra. In Zuckerman the court expressly I perceive broad areas of discretion "``• held: granted to the Board of County Commis- "Here, clearly, the consideration of the sioners which in ordinary circumstances plan involved the exercise of judgment would render the remedy of mandamus in and discretion. Did the plan meet the appropriate. E. g., Section 14, Ch. 28946, - zoning requirements' Were the zoning Laws of Florida, Special Acts 1953. More- ' requirements legal and binding? What over, I see no reason to recede from State g,� was the effect of certain condemnation ex rel. Zuckerman-Vernon Corp. v. City of : proceedings and other changes upon den- Miramar, 306 So.2d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA sity requirements Was the City es 1974). That case dealt with the situation } wherein the petitioner sought mandamus 1i topped." Id. at 175. ...1 before any action, either for or against the Whereas, in the case at bar, the property • 1' owner has done all the law required of him proposed subdivision, was undertaken by the city council. Even so, the court therein to entitle his plat to be recorded. At that recognized that mandamus would he to r point any discretion in the County Commis- • compel action, but could not mandate the Sion vanished. There are some rather broad course of such action where discretionary statements in Zuckerman which might lead matters remained unresolved. The Zucker- ' one to conclude that mandamus never lies to require approval of a plat. While Zuck- man-Vernon case has no application to cases s erman is clearly correct on its facts, to the such as that sub judice where all prerequi- n extent it might be interpreted to hold that sites established by law for the approval of 9 mandamus will never lie to require approv- subdivision plats have been met and the • al of a plat, we recede therefrom. approving body has withheld its approvalz. arbitrarily. f Upon remand the county shall approve 0 the plat in question in accordance with the Peremptory Writ of Mandamus issued Au- v, If gust 16, 1976, and such approval shall not ° ItttNUYe(Asrs,(Y .7 contain any conditions relative to this liti- gation as were contained on the plat ap- proval in the resolution of the County Com- r •' VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA BUILDING DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive .7.t `\ Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (407) 575-6220 ' � FAX: (407) 575-6203 MEMORANDUM: TO: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager DLe FROM: Scott D. Ladd, Building Official 5/ DATE: April 9, 1990 SUBJECT: Application for Subdivision Review JARA, Inc. , Lot 8, Block 2, Country Club Point Tom, attached are nine < 9) copies of a submittal packet with full size survey of the above referenced subject. We are notifying the president of the Country Club Point Property Owners Association with a courtesy letter informing them of this proposal . Please place this on the agenda of the April 26, 1990 Council meeting under Development Matters. SDL: j ms attch. counTry A SUBDIVISION IN SECT/ON 25. • S.D5 • PALM BEACH C �.z ivr TEQUESTA DEVELOPMENT �.?P L2.4 0E' TEOL/EST CORPLOR/OA.... .,•• _ , • ,•,.R...i .. 3 ".! 4 *)tisa 1. • I BLOCK :``.tti'S' .t I. /*`/ nO Vi>f or ` PI‘ xt 4' .1 C6trWTRY ,j/6EI41S}^ KIY\M \:1 ,\ f..,r o. . Q y • ". rY • • \ NTY 0/ 1 i • ,i••. r�r M ft. • .•✓ ,fo, i.r nbrrA If fIC • N4 /• a CANAL = SITS in..u..iai *. pi me»r cor 1 ,�M J of so.,rn P. 4 3 • 1 s / // 70,12,e. BLOC {/.; ;• OQ � ,,e "�\ I — :•- TRADEW#N � E l _ ' i= :.. I. ,e C.✓„o i " �• 1 a Alm t•. re.,: at the putti,C r. d\\ �'':� :.C !.• /G !S !. I I>I 4,3 /1 II /0 R f 1 O ,rs a rs.�a Nil 1 M Nan' that '. f��<y� '^' () Z /n 4; C A N A L = �` AI s.we„-� /Atide.re ,nr,A..n 1 _' `�V /�rM• - • r 3•z►•./ti=r PT •.n.: FM •irw ti'r 1 mf• �i.•�.y/'f4%Y W/1C1nvbl MO 4 7r'.. II. ' a, t. M AM.Mt w/�.lry a(i I .. .i J 1 •.•• , ' a 1 , ••' • . BLOCK :; •t. ... f� ,L... .r•ctb.., �• :LEEWARD_ SIRCLE_ 4-4'" D „ Alrva.v�Ena�xctir Qh' ZI : r--^.-.! . I �3^1• * 14,. fw' D�.4 y •4 . .fC "..,�-3. r UI 1 • 'IL, '• N I/ .ti •lY.?. T.Y,I Al AY O. C,,,,4 Cato 4 �! I of Gooyy I C y o#•I toner'/ Of y dr 4r J1 LC. - - ---- v..•a r.n...,.. �. t, P i.al�Y/.' s-fir'•/gel..v _- - •�..�.w .r .44 Ai OW t k It 1 •64 sill. • i 7 • 1 s • r I r> 1 0 BUCK i 4 S. ` •• I M A _ •\• /r [+ Y h 11•. NM. MII.G CO\w•C.l.✓.11.6/0.Ti h l /IV.. •/.C•CO.w•TY IL04.0A ' /11, 41O ~ •IA.�./ , - ..STARBOARD. .. .J N Nr• c0✓pY 0/ 1 I1.000. } l• W • , ' 1 BLOCK'S I I 1 r,.,. ,.,o •i. 410 by TIo r,pn o ,+t'` = .♦ _^.- - -_1.��•� � .�.�erf TPOOrPhOr-4 ,N/A]p. i/ •'•.iv. • j »Tf_HAibbD"J -�•.. „v V tfll/frrl ft/C CO✓ rI!fo/ 1 !'e'A.;' QE F-'MU0.4 TE22ACE �iC(: s� •�r,. `.'. rr./ c fO Wy Pa t! P.S.AS .^//.�`.f' :Phil r oaay q, l AP 5(/4✓£YCR'J NOTES, .•: - ,.ac.r/s •/.ro..c.w.1/a/rwr -•.. 1 [. •_�.Ww/.p./Oiv C.X•/I�J7.N A rN wr!/1/C r.O✓O.�.c LM./!r/MIO/o .,•(jy_ 9 tt:1` •I.i '\4,; . ... .•..•.. a•/10 ry/r w/,I or.M2.✓iSf L.o..•• ,....4i�- 'Si`.} ). �� '