<%BANNER%>

Non-Contributing Buildings in Historic Districts

Center for World Heritage Research & Stewardship at the University of Florida University of Florida
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101205_AAAAAA INGEST_TIME 2010-12-05T05:22:30Z PACKAGE UFE0017820_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 32495 DFID F20101205_AAADHF ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH stansberry_a_Page_277.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
00fc33d88c448cf1c9617c77b05e2097
SHA-1
3952ace5305f84494efe6fc0aa805d80ffc9d192
27325 F20101205_AAACXX stansberry_a_Page_140.QC.jpg
1fb983fd351d812f3c6c51128ebb48c5
69feb50665001e4ab7afa0d3c03f3c5f71e0c4de
2640 F20101205_AAACKM stansberry_a_Page_234.txt
95a1589a3b89a7346e5f7ef2234844a5
fea6b8449b41fffacb51490d81089d45d0423e70
23758 F20101205_AAAADO stansberry_a_Page_254.QC.jpg
5f81cb5699d07c80308069b5c11c456c
dbcf5a59542f0e0a15a3e870926848d4905184bf
121513 F20101205_AAABAI stansberry_a_Page_189.jp2
41d98aba1cdf101b8b66c31a3cf316cb
292ce23978388c1b623fa4b36248162973863d89
1053954 F20101205_AAABNT stansberry_a_Page_242.tif
5dbe0de5b653b3570b2725db21555791
fc2606b482bf00077ab4743c765636b59fe9df81
7887 F20101205_AAADHG stansberry_a_Page_277thm.jpg
03d262d949d58858cbe8fc294c335097
755fcad836b2b7b3aa35bc1e4de369a71ee8cd3c
7735 F20101205_AAACXY stansberry_a_Page_140thm.jpg
e63e27b910390f36d191a5dc2fe3eaad
593aa152ed7ff73cf78ace67955e8263eb07421e
1375 F20101205_AAACKN stansberry_a_Page_235.txt
24910f76ab9d87171a408f6a6fd39e2c
a1d8a1a2ad477e7112ba00f029fb6cc9838e76f6
34312 F20101205_AAAADP stansberry_a_Page_225.QC.jpg
619823a053445a422b5e44225b22c9af
ef60fcfed2c3f92eb12f20726765df256f02fa62
8423998 F20101205_AAABNU stansberry_a_Page_243.tif
46652f0904fe4e75567d8a1bb1bcd6b1
408f3da083b9317cf645bf17b25587869a2fcbab
30702 F20101205_AAADHH stansberry_a_Page_278.QC.jpg
42687fc3b5904ad84a260b56c2adad95
379e09722ab86518166aeec4c1b568d61b49f6a9
22630 F20101205_AAACXZ stansberry_a_Page_141.QC.jpg
140c94194b7cff05c0af488e5cdc9678
dc511b8e0bd586262352bda38bf6c43bfe07e384
2037 F20101205_AAACKO stansberry_a_Page_236.txt
20dfa2326dc558693d79bbb3369a8244
2c98ae3a599c09fd452c7e435510807a7344cca8
110187 F20101205_AAAADQ stansberry_a_Page_302.jpg
772d4fa49360898fc307cade8066ff7e
1bf5112ec3ef04a19edd31675da0028164db59ae
113201 F20101205_AAABAJ stansberry_a_Page_190.jp2
491b85df59de8cbd72767d0cdeacd537
8ceceb9fdfded0961c676e1c3a0e39407ba8719f
F20101205_AAABNV stansberry_a_Page_244.tif
aeb1b830ff5fe9471bf2b29b8148cd2d
68e480ecfc45f0ed554ecc9209c465d6c0e891da
7815 F20101205_AAADHI stansberry_a_Page_278thm.jpg
fbfeb761f2f2d4ca7caf41925f3c8e87
6c998c6a7d55d7fc4cb7f52b0ad6a0c754ec7e06
1979 F20101205_AAACKP stansberry_a_Page_237.txt
473783c8c716edbe8c2277671d567e72
ee9fdb2cc41dd18842ec6ce6905eb7d6da707198
125994 F20101205_AAAADR stansberry_a_Page_177.jp2
15262d97d7207a1aadebdeefe9e8b1a9
00baf0a910ef001be80c6beb9647ca1adff6d334
100063 F20101205_AAABAK stansberry_a_Page_191.jp2
d0516bb34f75d94375d254718ba12a01
0d90c99253eab1c46ad01c571a9102d47a607eda
33326 F20101205_AAADHJ stansberry_a_Page_279.QC.jpg
f41c3e9467f1ab967819be0b70ab08a9
cac26366f35c934cef9b907d81b4dd6231a9eb93
2070 F20101205_AAACKQ stansberry_a_Page_238.txt
b2b6fc9df7ed3d21ad59cd29b825e30e
8a02165ff84d7c7bfb2251039685bab9ead0ec0e
5076 F20101205_AAAADS stansberry_a_Page_313thm.jpg
e7e41144a69baaf0b8181fe1dca793d1
5ccec235679f60b9f28e64df3edc270ea14204e5
115267 F20101205_AAABAL stansberry_a_Page_192.jp2
65f523783047b9db71914be9f60755b2
b5c87efc7de0047649714c9c807ea2a99bba519f
F20101205_AAABNW stansberry_a_Page_245.tif
776174d5e8b4657967acb386e72210a1
efbd8e20518685cfccad45e367033a5d9c6eed60
8094 F20101205_AAADHK stansberry_a_Page_279thm.jpg
579d24eb711f60234404c019f6689139
adb230410726b0c4756872f41097643699896250
2183 F20101205_AAACKR stansberry_a_Page_239.txt
051c04fcc3bef0870f937894a0f5741c
29370414271ee425ea53bcad4168e92868e25cfc
4944 F20101205_AAAADT stansberry_a_Page_134.pro
c3f7b5b435f401f9b408906928985e09
e1986254aa910a4329ec8aef7476dda7dec0eb74
121940 F20101205_AAABAM stansberry_a_Page_193.jp2
ac8c47cb057e51ae0ad59b4ebe5ec9a1
977e95fe140a176a36b73b7e2e2e423041938a43
F20101205_AAABNX stansberry_a_Page_246.tif
c23f6dfab83fa175512e2a64ce1227ab
a31804b5e5e5e199eb07b674c21154843438e22f
26558 F20101205_AAADHL stansberry_a_Page_280.QC.jpg
d649f9069dfb3abeb20d1da60d216848
c7735dac109dbc82f82dd92fd6a7a5b9fc26d963
57554 F20101205_AAAADU stansberry_a_Page_178.pro
9f01254a0113a3924f6534756b068493
deceeed4a974555c3169d7258f35e5f48b30eb00
114526 F20101205_AAABAN stansberry_a_Page_194.jp2
002459ba8c24332ef0e8915072774220
da0ed0cd5ef48a0dde83c220244e1ad451a24081
F20101205_AAABNY stansberry_a_Page_247.tif
9049024266ff46a3972398c8d17f3f2c
24b46237a12a5dd065d241c33715b9edd72342fd
7379 F20101205_AAADHM stansberry_a_Page_280thm.jpg
9b44acea08e333346154a296207d1de1
33ccaec41ce5c2c25e804b90ba42df46b06be3c9
2247 F20101205_AAACKS stansberry_a_Page_240.txt
61976b105ebeb41dfb90a0654cecb230
3fbf75af8e84f261086fddbadc6842434a359755
F20101205_AAAADV stansberry_a_Page_057.tif
f691d41e21ea255cece9957f077b1142
a453d1432f46b48da3f4d3676280be5ded150f89
107608 F20101205_AAABAO stansberry_a_Page_195.jp2
35c92ad739b891ad9eaf770737045a5a
3139c3d1425c880be802840880c888cb80dac232
F20101205_AAABNZ stansberry_a_Page_248.tif
4d45bb85e0485939c5b6fa8f01577bc7
6965c6379bb786ba7db8801e130e9f6fd8a8cbca
29830 F20101205_AAADHN stansberry_a_Page_281.QC.jpg
f9c4192cf31c5c3a49a9f0c1db049b3a
a45ebffd8a4af7025cf37c4ac4a52c70492a62ef
528 F20101205_AAACKT stansberry_a_Page_242.txt
fdd6a39b22e32e6d55a72e5e9c0c46af
ea31ea505644447c428b917b6d999be688cb4ad2
117104 F20101205_AAAADW stansberry_a_Page_077.jp2
6f4fd81c7efa0ed9cc6cdf22db4c895d
d75b0f3dd1ccbd96f6c33c743ae3180a8cbf7df6
117590 F20101205_AAABAP stansberry_a_Page_196.jp2
1ecde99986a306ac8e8eb1fb6f0c2193
5eb6704045dcbb3499cb3f12741966729b399599
3579 F20101205_AAACKU stansberry_a_Page_243.txt
a53006e30f59767aa0d039a269ea5092
d1988a586b08970811f8bdd6dc856f15637bf0a0
3187 F20101205_AAAADX stansberry_a_Page_044.txt
90d18e802c726ee4743aa030248c750e
7347cf38714d20c2ca1336e68a6df23178407948
117502 F20101205_AAAAWA stansberry_a_Page_069.jp2
2fa1e004f015e1490f271c2f52b64503
a9773213d562a94fc9d06fef93d4a1eea0257cf4
110480 F20101205_AAABAQ stansberry_a_Page_197.jp2
750fa4d9e989dbd75a71264db670342c
adbbbba97f5e4bcd3ac851c5671861fbd3075656
7697 F20101205_AAADHO stansberry_a_Page_281thm.jpg
afe2bdf319a567e14957d0d2e55f6179
d0a24d09a9374d67cc83484d4a093a691946a5aa
2812 F20101205_AAACKV stansberry_a_Page_244.txt
d609453099a929b7a5768dea7e829c4c
e19ed07ee4e5db439d5e7af5af8457221cf45b8e
1051940 F20101205_AAAADY stansberry_a_Page_117.jp2
86b34f5d1d91a98ade65ac7afb542bec
1779bf604d4a5fb79c857035dff0f75c3f8485e9
120621 F20101205_AAAAWB stansberry_a_Page_070.jp2
5697917be92a01efafafeee60f4c923a
9da9a52a933e8d56df5d2acfca2b99ae7341717b
47699 F20101205_AAABAR stansberry_a_Page_199.jp2
27b5c571e521fd52836a213d18cb233a
8453ef07dc67c5b08c24c218e0b1849e48a5e8b7
26383 F20101205_AAADHP stansberry_a_Page_282.QC.jpg
d890bd38a17991988ddeca828a7f7182
a6d39305d314bb8e31e63f4699d816732c6ef9a7
2954 F20101205_AAACKW stansberry_a_Page_245.txt
61877499f008dc29365cb8caadb723ae
3d8a6041b1a65387ef95bfdd898f43e093d6c026
9047 F20101205_AAAADZ stansberry_a_Page_050thm.jpg
18bc145f28839d5e2c15178b4266a637
1967f5276c4aad7d098a0852232985fdfdbd8241
115205 F20101205_AAAAWC stansberry_a_Page_071.jp2
683fc48a84b34048f9df2fcd8ed995b3
9329f62df96c5f552150f98fd6d61b8c58714bb0
1051931 F20101205_AAABAS stansberry_a_Page_200.jp2
3f418abc84d7f9ee26bf2648e5346920
08b02a7defa354016f08dd98a53e4cfbf895a731
7364 F20101205_AAADHQ stansberry_a_Page_282thm.jpg
0141e8d7f8340bad9c0c563f004e529f
c6043d46f326c6c8ccd95f6d7099cd5fcc7512ab
2962 F20101205_AAACKX stansberry_a_Page_246.txt
5710d16fce16067729dcedada5e2c436
239e6bd357abfc5890390b723e12f366f8cdadf5
122024 F20101205_AAAAWD stansberry_a_Page_072.jp2
2224ce24ad8a07969f1b8e6366cc6492
59880abfdad21b6f8f7bb75f31374e3a243def47
1051978 F20101205_AAABAT stansberry_a_Page_201.jp2
0852ac37c9f8d48a07f0874417f970f7
78ade4e7c29a84b10c8e00bcc302c3deff1fb4cd
22007 F20101205_AAADHR stansberry_a_Page_283.QC.jpg
a0d3575fdcbac91d35b39a739a995666
d1aa66328007c3986bf6b045b496d43b1a68e1f0
3186 F20101205_AAACKY stansberry_a_Page_247.txt
354fe0581d29a95445c351c2f1bd453f
0f42fa127eec251f3113b983406041d198db66b8
118645 F20101205_AAAAWE stansberry_a_Page_073.jp2
5428e570bb493b5f0265760bac59b04b
0e7f43d3df2e2b2c05d838efe0a3279e3f06c1b1
115574 F20101205_AAABAU stansberry_a_Page_202.jp2
39cd9427db7b7503c754dea58d64a819
75bfbfe8d19201fb35f13fc5801e0c7e3b30670a
6068 F20101205_AAADHS stansberry_a_Page_283thm.jpg
983a53cf18bbe478732f619d04e3ae59
91a7011b70a3a04a98748e577dfebc9839f65c5f
2963 F20101205_AAACKZ stansberry_a_Page_248.txt
bd4bd08e8df0341f1c48970156e21871
2000c878ebcbe9cc4efa601eca609da48fe1124c
132068 F20101205_AAAAWF stansberry_a_Page_074.jp2
b4eae12076260588a63bf9b55c4dd79c
033cf33a77fc210936c2c026727eec60756cf489
130401 F20101205_AAABAV stansberry_a_Page_203.jp2
57683c96e9f2302d48676a6ee5175bb1
71401fc9d1a93b721ae4ec7b99bd519c2d8e5054
23375 F20101205_AAADHT stansberry_a_Page_284.QC.jpg
5ec2f5ca6f7ed2bd9e6461bdfff72aff
7b5f0aae4a7dd7b6963043436e7e58e09467d644
114196 F20101205_AAAAWG stansberry_a_Page_075.jp2
9d204dfc288e15f3b830ec7bfaa40b81
cdce29a1b2fc85c4b3e679a35f77516e2b21e611
115539 F20101205_AAABAW stansberry_a_Page_204.jp2
03a1eb1bb13b02700faa32f2c6c284ff
6df6b2cea2b8db3fcd71fc898353471fb8012bb5
6424 F20101205_AAADHU stansberry_a_Page_284thm.jpg
0d9581eac7a482324b6450328e5c3c42
ec6bb3a2c7b4a0b94994d6c0c55f9a7d9c33f633
121485 F20101205_AAAAWH stansberry_a_Page_076.jp2
52e687f57107a59bd108faea8a80cd9f
427e4fa227f29dcc47b6a12541855c7bf583faa9
118588 F20101205_AAABAX stansberry_a_Page_205.jp2
7497e68fbc71634384d44aa41c1081e3
fccce971a9e9e5a6d13c5537659601a0dc62340e
56594 F20101205_AAABTA stansberry_a_Page_062.pro
428a00c593db2683279054d3fd7c1717
b08e4ee3c319fe884933cfef25a726a7a303f86e
23833 F20101205_AAADHV stansberry_a_Page_285.QC.jpg
b4a5f1b4c2fa2e5f0c3f85f85c03862e
b1372a96617ceb73529232bcc578a07e5cdf4ee8
118164 F20101205_AAAAWI stansberry_a_Page_078.jp2
09e18c369bd891d73883ce359aa7f189
c1a9943a6fa026c01ef2f27a6d6ab5ff5d573b37
127039 F20101205_AAABAY stansberry_a_Page_206.jp2
85c69762c69b10e460a9f9cca2f47a1a
85e51126b3ceed6a1a3e33bc7c95198e390a1b3f
59241 F20101205_AAABTB stansberry_a_Page_063.pro
0ad26ed6a4475c321d8a4c219c74c94f
4a9be8ac935b4fb8a1539e3ab1dbe5f0fca34289
25401 F20101205_AAADHW stansberry_a_Page_286.QC.jpg
4a98299f0748deee71cdb98b7d90008e
c01e4ad2e657029942309937a0e7405d08000813
118515 F20101205_AAAAWJ stansberry_a_Page_079.jp2
4041baf1d2cad7a404faf67b5e3875a3
dc9a873d460582a1e92e96764b199755a8b37e6b
122977 F20101205_AAABAZ stansberry_a_Page_207.jp2
b2e9dc5890b5842e79137f1e7fe48ee4
de79cd6478fb69927b10641837d4ece2385d6d00
59323 F20101205_AAABTC stansberry_a_Page_064.pro
4dc52a8cb087952275246c08484fa6d4
0e09a55187ca183ee9429d438f841450c9f13282
6274 F20101205_AAADHX stansberry_a_Page_286thm.jpg
5ebbdadc3793cc2646ef434dbd7ba91f
a6a25b47b2141d0c3d36c28ce5321988eecd6cfc
127304 F20101205_AAAAWK stansberry_a_Page_080.jp2
9e0ad713dc7d31eecb1400759ad809ad
617e7c0bb07915bfd51c508f613bd7510761015b
56778 F20101205_AAABTD stansberry_a_Page_065.pro
98d7260833f3ab98f6ff661a6deea7fb
bd5e584e88e50f1176eeb33addfad6e7312c8785
25846 F20101205_AAADHY stansberry_a_Page_287.QC.jpg
f1dd944a603a408cfcc6ff215aab30a9
f2898ab96845a831d160523e065eca30617823fc
116391 F20101205_AAAAJA stansberry_a_Page_027.jpg
b9ed6588bde1bfe3b1d011e877d3b80a
35054303c105333d47b0648f46f5625ddf1d67cf
118425 F20101205_AAAAWL stansberry_a_Page_081.jp2
6af2c9d63678e695741815c70f7171f6
ebcdb23a688610f9c75104c0eeee0b3e78dd3c6b
55235 F20101205_AAABTE stansberry_a_Page_066.pro
423c8dd205f765cb44bc82b30bffad36
cb6cb76cfb57380b9faee59be3c5925f4ed1e34f
6919 F20101205_AAADHZ stansberry_a_Page_287thm.jpg
c46698d14700f04269489ad7c5c87415
7f7fc60e4d5f070f3403270803ae79e6599004e5
111915 F20101205_AAAAJB stansberry_a_Page_028.jpg
1b9c15a77bc4d3ac8a1ff0a9dfd46530
7acb02e2d51a826cfe806c095bdf7a5d296a9b4a
115396 F20101205_AAAAWM stansberry_a_Page_082.jp2
435d7f5fcc859c285d6356d2d8aeb474
02cf09f0a80905fadcbc639fbd4445167cec4465
53394 F20101205_AAABTF stansberry_a_Page_067.pro
b99e4416262d02f072a0311d23f57433
a3c0bc58549e076a06b3951f58ce4d672e984d77
115468 F20101205_AAAAJC stansberry_a_Page_030.jpg
d2d341bf404189bd76ac55a7672d65e0
234f3d084480b1092932bfc4246fcce97c5748d6
135366 F20101205_AAAAWN stansberry_a_Page_083.jp2
4873c3b0fd79c7d0c5bddaf96b0d9813
c4c257218f925da7f22813ea45c5de58b2287aef
55916 F20101205_AAABTG stansberry_a_Page_068.pro
5aed64d4e7a77c7f877e18684d20d065
a942912ef95848927cefa46ec92cf5c0d11fc38b
8864 F20101205_AAACQA stansberry_a_Page_028thm.jpg
1b7a77dd998f2a999810eeb34115e28a
44d7e4425345f832fce87633405df40c7085afbb
125028 F20101205_AAAAJD stansberry_a_Page_031.jpg
dfe277d360400ef0ebc216807345e42c
7c5634c0fbc5a7c2775e9f6a728b141177f77462
130308 F20101205_AAAAWO stansberry_a_Page_084.jp2
060ab4c0c84b907ac86125b8a18ec10d
4dca659b3789d2b50d0089af766143fc7bdaaee1
57966 F20101205_AAABTH stansberry_a_Page_070.pro
83630872d39bd6e42501fbe6a09faaed
5deb8b1713cc661ec7ae30c7984bf3f8adb26c99
35100 F20101205_AAACQB stansberry_a_Page_029.QC.jpg
2b7786ad6f1c24c5faf50684dda9b1eb
34864b61ca9ffb109bfd2e437d73777d1186e7c1
112368 F20101205_AAAAJE stansberry_a_Page_032.jpg
484a1e69a770ea0641f2dd4a4ebaeb91
d48cb4a907a89ff3878f53b66c5edf50c0c00801
132808 F20101205_AAAAWP stansberry_a_Page_085.jp2
772b4e9729aa44ecff9ec7e79f4b14b2
2c388bc9c1e31d721ffb1e1a7729c8af924c9498
57773 F20101205_AAABTI stansberry_a_Page_072.pro
c12e99ca2bf50e38cf22caaf1ce84857
2a6c1cf4cc4e0604c425c57090d5ecc5a724fbc2
8635 F20101205_AAACQC stansberry_a_Page_029thm.jpg
fe626dc903ae2ea8ff55ffcb486633cc
f8bbf805cc03827400097b7d8c81beb260026368
104966 F20101205_AAAAJF stansberry_a_Page_033.jpg
0b3cff9432e68f5369a4607d8775ee57
fdca40cc1ce54c4f9b62e47f2b05946252e8b9de
115427 F20101205_AAAAWQ stansberry_a_Page_086.jp2
a44e233d64c64afb07f314aa188ad626
562e10c7fa28da5d07521a1709be9da8f2ae3635
55085 F20101205_AAABTJ stansberry_a_Page_073.pro
56c58a0c25c6168fb4da2955bbc714d9
f66d6e1e0ad1dc2752886b21821bf30e166562f8
37290 F20101205_AAACQD stansberry_a_Page_030.QC.jpg
6c0b043daf0ab8df56dc81d02f8b4bf1
32814726242e88396987285fbba5b9e043403e10
108782 F20101205_AAAAJG stansberry_a_Page_034.jpg
d35f65cd714c7415569a207dc0f9b969
ea4062e236d15d4a927935bb163e548fec246ca2
113849 F20101205_AAAAWR stansberry_a_Page_087.jp2
fa40fc74fe4908ea62811f7b91127513
21d28499cf6041447d487c06f8cc69e2a7212c06
64080 F20101205_AAABTK stansberry_a_Page_074.pro
5a6a523a1912fd1e40884760988b2e2a
4496fe29634e21872b98237becfc28217c64eb1e
9136 F20101205_AAACQE stansberry_a_Page_030thm.jpg
01ce2a17cf96c1008022fab16bc422b9
521924f1290b23b9f7fa8ab32c121dcf339132fb
107209 F20101205_AAAAJH stansberry_a_Page_036.jpg
609a6f7fb3b067a5230ac71bf7159b82
1f0166a36fd01b39eef85472b8e9dab5ac9351d6
F20101205_AAABGA stansberry_a_Page_023.tif
8b063c37054ca3c3bffc6c34b50969ce
6adf628b4612ce62f5ca51c9cbd070989cc82599
115411 F20101205_AAAAWS stansberry_a_Page_088.jp2
96f9fc4551fc08b0a3520a7c5a5ee9d8
761d44f4b8fe8d0939e8499b8d1c0e38a26b3277
54748 F20101205_AAABTL stansberry_a_Page_075.pro
02d0fe209499312bbed956647b4a3d03
1c4ce7d6c7efeced6f5de76d2b9ed0eaae04033f
39637 F20101205_AAACQF stansberry_a_Page_031.QC.jpg
2938d3d9ce157c141372ea3af156abbc
88f4d672cb0dd231edb18a7d5e6cc0692ed49371
101156 F20101205_AAAAJI stansberry_a_Page_037.jpg
915815516531138e10957297b1e7ab01
4445ebcfcf967e2f7d2a1e409bfc2e8092a945cc
F20101205_AAABGB stansberry_a_Page_024.tif
f5787e37b835b3584f6c2e4c353bbd41
21738d8831b5d82bb788f8df20e687d2be990ff8
129989 F20101205_AAAAWT stansberry_a_Page_089.jp2
4feee47d85165e47abbbbc14d656dbfa
044a8e45271f75bef969c6024217c8eb758881eb
59074 F20101205_AAABTM stansberry_a_Page_076.pro
a21fdcb4aef58b0fba9bba986fa803a0
56d7dd7ad93e6d6b81269fb8bb5facd10293f0b9
9214 F20101205_AAACQG stansberry_a_Page_031thm.jpg
b4ed8cea01669f214a52ba967b1c2f79
ca2b64cd899026332ab0920b112a883b355fefa7
109746 F20101205_AAAAJJ stansberry_a_Page_038.jpg
5784b55c99c7ba8159c71fc0fd60e14c
d85b36cce4c9e9ac19f51a8e04dda1ac7c60b912
F20101205_AAABGC stansberry_a_Page_025.tif
7968b6051afeee1faf1c377733e53246
31270a0aa9e11428910443ce250a4a287cb61ee9
118622 F20101205_AAAAWU stansberry_a_Page_090.jp2
22c85a9c9bf9f548e90851d28c6d554a
db53b58a86f91c8d5c2d4d677503a1151b1fefd8
55508 F20101205_AAABTN stansberry_a_Page_077.pro
6c0cb6904031eff5a07ba4473dde65eb
573f34995042534a057bbe1d03b7231b7b83807f
36829 F20101205_AAACQH stansberry_a_Page_032.QC.jpg
d7acdc3e0d89e47e24aa2ade8b95eb02
3a2571795b5b8e410fb0a3d6789b4fd190692568
107101 F20101205_AAAAJK stansberry_a_Page_039.jpg
2c7f5961a7f7adddb4fc9022a8c8e50d
cfa28aecb52434df026194f1384f3b184f15277e
25271604 F20101205_AAABGD stansberry_a_Page_026.tif
cf6108d720b79981bf4bc839c101009f
44841d4383f479ab3716448d5bc0c4a25a668a87
111912 F20101205_AAAAWV stansberry_a_Page_091.jp2
d481620197eae030caef373c5535693e
a8de9577717ccfa922c2ec0a3604e99fe7e08718
55325 F20101205_AAABTO stansberry_a_Page_078.pro
875a474e0c498b32093a9166b8d05616
14b9ee410f42aef2e5733cf191cf85ce44f79fc0
9119 F20101205_AAACQI stansberry_a_Page_032thm.jpg
5b30dba6226c799386d82d7eb4245351
9db4405d53e54813defe24ca88f6112e03b12de1
126080 F20101205_AAAAJL stansberry_a_Page_040.jpg
ccae04c439b2a45492e5d09ebe04170d
591359faa6dd11a8af22289aa8a05a61abf6c174
F20101205_AAABGE stansberry_a_Page_027.tif
9c2f87a929a2e639cbe79df3f6534589
a69778f876a5d523eb75f5cde3c3ab1c03320db8
135199 F20101205_AAAAWW stansberry_a_Page_092.jp2
4f60949ec0e7e8bbe33939b4df6e1a86
fe8f3f55617a143922f589e7f0eab92bb520193b
56010 F20101205_AAABTP stansberry_a_Page_079.pro
4d7da23123346ececdd04981ce8f02ec
5387349ee13c881bbecffa8f3eff6cb610d1c723
34717 F20101205_AAACQJ stansberry_a_Page_033.QC.jpg
005dbbb0d5f58f8f19603305d52ca446
86facbf1cb8b3e96156ab7c2006bfc48d0411a11
114644 F20101205_AAAAJM stansberry_a_Page_041.jpg
a668d38aa3fe2b4f2bc5afb399c42f06
b655b111eae25afebf585c27a7662b7871068197
F20101205_AAABGF stansberry_a_Page_028.tif
3b20d7fb86a70d2a6a2620e011889d68
1dcaa2f7b705bbbd3b4c36db2eb0d7ea060e14cc
122400 F20101205_AAAAWX stansberry_a_Page_093.jp2
9659c6a57e640b2291c886849d40f0d0
07fba6b47b200830fde1e5a48b43a37b115c78bc
60704 F20101205_AAABTQ stansberry_a_Page_080.pro
b1091360353e0cab6ad6704d0d18756a
051a6509445d90e1c00c49ec7186575f66cd37fd
8649 F20101205_AAACQK stansberry_a_Page_033thm.jpg
164cbb9225db8152dbbffddb0b6b3921
4b3616df1345e8546369a7eb37a327df8ae4f7b1
103830 F20101205_AAAAJN stansberry_a_Page_042.jpg
951596dba69ef89f8913ebb29efa765c
2754b66589f4928fb52960209107f9f4c557d8f6
F20101205_AAABGG stansberry_a_Page_029.tif
bb4097e95c6d481b62449a063f8a6114
4997917f9b644181f9ca01a14e21c28abd694bf2
120827 F20101205_AAAAWY stansberry_a_Page_094.jp2
3d88dc3353a1dbd9d7ae325314db9ef9
8a8f8c7bcbfab37702909b968bf5544576f5cbcb
55510 F20101205_AAABTR stansberry_a_Page_081.pro
fbb315f1ceb20e8b100b0b2d1191b612
072d042dd43cea32d537d3c1f71739c3730c96c4
35514 F20101205_AAACQL stansberry_a_Page_034.QC.jpg
eaa84c258b9f21b6e4a1e07e9ee60032
06c557ac9b52ef8fcaff11f393ae040ad12858d9
154413 F20101205_AAAAJO stansberry_a_Page_043.jpg
76f90cadc1fa6f10534c9e677a7fab13
fad14efa4e1f9f19d3a9e161c1085024fd2e894d
F20101205_AAABGH stansberry_a_Page_030.tif
8479399a9bdd525dcc2d00ebb3c0ac5c
31da8389f05439f8d982dc4dc7f13584ad756000
117743 F20101205_AAAAWZ stansberry_a_Page_095.jp2
774fff7c2a91873623e8a09615922ee8
caf6e40b81702c6d40df0c5f92c5010f89949237
2192 F20101205_AAACDA stansberry_a_Page_014.txt
e6893bbad3578b96e3850365e68b8f68
f3c77608e87ecbca383026c5808f09386063e7c8
53965 F20101205_AAABTS stansberry_a_Page_082.pro
8936dc3f8a825bd6b5331611a4855bd0
7d9b636176f657dd61d8be0a03568e934c6493ef
8785 F20101205_AAACQM stansberry_a_Page_034thm.jpg
f9e7d96ae8eb86efd50b69c90eac784f
79392e38ca9abd5a488f76f2e3c8a3984fb3d489
149588 F20101205_AAAAJP stansberry_a_Page_044.jpg
5610cf131bce5dc760bf8a0d8717a083
b92072af2536b574beb615785e82f42df8a870a4
F20101205_AAABGI stansberry_a_Page_031.tif
1f03aeccb895d21cf160ef735a529885
e2563576621480fe16511450c90b768aa539d903
2151 F20101205_AAACDB stansberry_a_Page_015.txt
1b8b3f652a2becd00e63f692130eba23
aaedac798200d4d8e010cb8b5b03246f966e930c
66766 F20101205_AAABTT stansberry_a_Page_083.pro
e29014a8350d4d052e30731d18cf7d08
ed94b4d8231b37eda06470076efef32afa23afd8
34749 F20101205_AAACQN stansberry_a_Page_035.QC.jpg
d0ac966dfa12b8751709f6f8f06254d8
b524a995624bebe0482e8fb8d231d7a3c5479f0d
109213 F20101205_AAAAJQ stansberry_a_Page_046.jpg
ee63437ff622f3283a445811224a6183
00f2fcd2ba6932fd26116a5ff2dcdd8405e2b466
F20101205_AAABGJ stansberry_a_Page_032.tif
bbb05e0ddf529cda9130bdd82357a640
19b9f2b84050e531af4667c43f7a301f9975c37c
2229 F20101205_AAACDC stansberry_a_Page_016.txt
d3bab1ed9439e921827c75203e661f23
6c42faaffb33eddfbf1f389b57a34e237a50c9c5
62612 F20101205_AAABTU stansberry_a_Page_084.pro
36658a1458991d9caf1a3c7e38249658
00a56775c29e48c00d533426d31c55b5fa48d490
8323 F20101205_AAACQO stansberry_a_Page_035thm.jpg
3b89a27bc5e6e7e78c2a174a40d60776
9f495d1fea69e7020fd2c02f118eababbe45a486
107013 F20101205_AAAAJR stansberry_a_Page_047.jpg
edec096e5fb24157459445f041c1c0cd
eac15920ab0069a85a1f9ed8b7205597c1988737
F20101205_AAABGK stansberry_a_Page_033.tif
83cd3b0c3e32c46e6cf81e8b54c7896b
77b8af1763262b114ee7e62587978090a33de4f6
2260 F20101205_AAACDD stansberry_a_Page_017.txt
4517c1217f508bdab838b34e3a12c232
b174642b38ad7f5256a2c18a049006b0a11c56e2
66077 F20101205_AAABTV stansberry_a_Page_085.pro
aa6bcf9efb51280df5bcf4a56ca827f0
2b1cb6f669875abd740bf2a58fe3ea177b6e9e69
35488 F20101205_AAACQP stansberry_a_Page_036.QC.jpg
85327d1ab1a749c3d4bcb0f6449e5a99
6b72d1fdb9b83336cb051d835f83270f1435e582
120756 F20101205_AAAAJS stansberry_a_Page_048.jpg
25708c07496f0ab74a186f7f923bef18
0fdf03b7f9af992f883f2444ee1406258437f850
F20101205_AAABGL stansberry_a_Page_034.tif
7e1ec0e5a30567da4897c39ff3ee15f8
4ddd414dc5465a3fff712f733ec77928fda89b54
2107 F20101205_AAACDE stansberry_a_Page_019.txt
03ff25cde6c0896356c6461775361463
4d56b9bb1191e17435295b519da1e343f5d36172
54861 F20101205_AAABTW stansberry_a_Page_086.pro
a1d801cccde27c2a71bc56c1a2345fc9
2742d53984498a802c9e55a16dc57b13af36be14
9001 F20101205_AAACQQ stansberry_a_Page_036thm.jpg
17a423cd5e48f653a37cceeacb653dfd
14385ed0102b4932cb758ebb66abb5c85df5da40
F20101205_AAABGM stansberry_a_Page_035.tif
3b94b5cd16b88eace572bad8be23762d
d5263b0a696dd8645399ff3608e0b8763cde215d
2098 F20101205_AAACDF stansberry_a_Page_021.txt
591cea2dbe872bd66a5ce89bda10a2e9
20b428c591e51da3f65a975909f22c794596b82c
52429 F20101205_AAABTX stansberry_a_Page_087.pro
f82a429b9f2132be0eb75c7deff337b9
dd2f93ea5b485025f6a74fcecf1a349d3560b5e0
32437 F20101205_AAACQR stansberry_a_Page_037.QC.jpg
39f0ee1c2c9e5b3563be75cb52358a95
b1d062041dc29be7d616c6c9939edc2702225376
101334 F20101205_AAAAJT stansberry_a_Page_049.jpg
14020b2e34aac007d55ed40180457222
5c09bccdc5b7c456b6ba0fdc7214ff8c281fd2f0
F20101205_AAABGN stansberry_a_Page_036.tif
e535128f8007a232e525e7670d5c7a66
1e3d3c539f415ab05b8b2b5dd2b4f73020aaabe7
2955 F20101205_AAACDG stansberry_a_Page_022.txt
ee0389b672463614a83edbbedeb3e835
fdbae3dc22f28a01f58a8ab79ecd664fc8909cf3
53936 F20101205_AAABTY stansberry_a_Page_088.pro
5f63ff7151b992a48596a1c9f1530515
fb9a912dba26ab3bf636d2ffd46a1d2af287e195
35843 F20101205_AAADAA stansberry_a_Page_171.QC.jpg
1cb844eb4b635ee9788776d7123fac11
1fc66d13d766e27eaea7283582ce54d334265845
8269 F20101205_AAACQS stansberry_a_Page_037thm.jpg
9fba0f19f90317a366402dabe98ea9b7
c349656282f92413b335883a6e3377158a43cc4c
130346 F20101205_AAAAJU stansberry_a_Page_050.jpg
2cf093e9ac1ccf196742bf739c397321
cd6775f85d08f2f39623f66d1cae6d2f87e96f0e
F20101205_AAABGO stansberry_a_Page_037.tif
de2112dd278bf605c9808012019b81ba
16336394d664ba634e422fd5074367499d04623d
2219 F20101205_AAACDH stansberry_a_Page_023.txt
83c1627e09168d56efb7ee124975d4aa
387ab81b3f89d3402845dda22e627ea41855a02a
62774 F20101205_AAABTZ stansberry_a_Page_089.pro
c90fed54b879689d2fe43b2c14b83da9
eca44bcbfbc6378b2c1e09523c1887e1e66a2c37
39104 F20101205_AAADAB stansberry_a_Page_172.QC.jpg
cc30fdbe6a8290356841a4212edeba8e
9dd33b019923dd0c396a06b744ae4320437d2913
35374 F20101205_AAACQT stansberry_a_Page_038.QC.jpg
ff54cf6a50201bac4e3e731fbaeb9657
c2253b917394d5895eaead2d3f191835cd5641cb
128940 F20101205_AAAAJV stansberry_a_Page_051.jpg
dbeeabba803b2a5ebfa067c809489bbf
f0b632b423ee2453c88f2f7cf2cbdd5584bf0be6
2892 F20101205_AAACDI stansberry_a_Page_025.txt
015d7262b7f9ed1b7d245d0bc535a4be
3e1d19a956c04b0b1c7ebe9e1edde910a3a9e6ee
32355 F20101205_AAADAC stansberry_a_Page_173.QC.jpg
16f27bc8ce20e19ec64242c0f901737a
a266bb5ce2dbc7a98271d27c7ae3b7498b00ddf1
8860 F20101205_AAACQU stansberry_a_Page_038thm.jpg
80471a75b0789459eb862701ccc410ba
c80af64f2fa6fa9d0c2297aff5e489c9c8431d11
F20101205_AAABGP stansberry_a_Page_038.tif
eeb72cba14e04a6e78d9662900d70b4c
e62da13539a9adadeae784ca955270df97d51e69
2246 F20101205_AAACDJ stansberry_a_Page_026.txt
9d3d3a0d84f8f36c9bbcad649c02c8e6
826a6fc2050573f3b6b18afb369a0b33ffea4a7b
139536 F20101205_AAAAJW stansberry_a_Page_052.jpg
d3490843642ccc3f7e1679cd6a5e07cf
965a30138dc5948fdb8be9a1cf0f6d76ce68cd6f
37003 F20101205_AAADAD stansberry_a_Page_174.QC.jpg
af075a01f51162ac919f7a711e4ec00e
8f0fb650cc38a090d309d9f746d33529087be2e3
34126 F20101205_AAACQV stansberry_a_Page_039.QC.jpg
9727da3132ed2262fd550619a109b8e3
2f9397759234ba52495324a7df1e652ca744bebd
F20101205_AAABGQ stansberry_a_Page_039.tif
6a01b520dc470db2939d5a0153243d61
2991f87d357fc1a2aea50689819aa1a760d411f4
2266 F20101205_AAACDK stansberry_a_Page_027.txt
d16220189d4813528fb590bf4f8bfbc7
c6e262bcb6937652352473a6c1e542d41cbb39d9
117573 F20101205_AAAAJX stansberry_a_Page_053.jpg
81a2451541f15a55ca283ecbfcb07807
1db64a504e97b121cd5f9385e2c6cbc4311d2258
9129 F20101205_AAADAE stansberry_a_Page_174thm.jpg
14fb8d6b1997c329e51d45af1aaccaee
9c46feedda39f503c1a4c5d73bbbfb1790585cfc
8717 F20101205_AAACQW stansberry_a_Page_039thm.jpg
23b80a117fc81cbfaaf513ecc1d2e7a8
bcb26a7995afbae96f4ef47a382345d9de9e72eb
F20101205_AAABGR stansberry_a_Page_040.tif
c0d406e047984fa0c0fdadc8638a56ea
024570d46afc25cfcff4a03f8f5184f09e488172
114469 F20101205_AAAAJY stansberry_a_Page_054.jpg
a46b2ff0e597b559202040110966a06a
76cd499154c45797826cdf88afa31c9289f40943
34556 F20101205_AAADAF stansberry_a_Page_175.QC.jpg
da5ecd5dce360221680f7f89ad97d8eb
e91d03bb7cb95c7c9bc7bbee83c1db232e0e7ea0
38602 F20101205_AAACQX stansberry_a_Page_040.QC.jpg
a1fbc7cdfafff4eab50ebe015e82149d
744b804c4eb538b6ad6aeef3cbe50f9d48d1ee62
F20101205_AAABGS stansberry_a_Page_041.tif
f9c7cab85ba8bf7098d0e86fae6ff13e
e873ea021ba93970228236d06bbe2727e0870112
2204 F20101205_AAACDL stansberry_a_Page_028.txt
8bc42308402bc20312662e15534f8d5a
ea735366f6def491e738313bc94a5b90c428f482
106629 F20101205_AAAAJZ stansberry_a_Page_055.jpg
efcee14ab0a71a25c061ef992541de0c
1309d3e017b8b90104050c2a2805eb035199b776
8516 F20101205_AAADAG stansberry_a_Page_175thm.jpg
74270edee210fbd02ae6a2603c15d11d
9338494c278f2f1771efdd0af9823aa1d4db19ac
F20101205_AAABGT stansberry_a_Page_042.tif
4218ef76f718fd20ac8144b6576c864d
8ab9975381c74d3eb78cd851241747c6713304cf
2336 F20101205_AAACDM stansberry_a_Page_029.txt
eefbe5925ac0d13ea5fd04c8ad96393f
b89a3ab437357b6f307d319ddb5aa2d83a4ef53a
9105 F20101205_AAACQY stansberry_a_Page_040thm.jpg
a24ff576d36246351219fa753f48b292
7e11899fbd6974ed5c508dcfd30f5df8c5b3efa3
F20101205_AAABGU stansberry_a_Page_043.tif
2f44d5e47c30c605d9abca26fd014036
8fe8ae833ad61f3933b27e385a077ffa67260ca9
2258 F20101205_AAACDN stansberry_a_Page_030.txt
0926d66d323562bce4aaecb474f47513
e8a5b62d68549fd836b4e8335e32243a1c7b24ac
34769 F20101205_AAADAH stansberry_a_Page_176.QC.jpg
76e030a871b52128c5e41dbc8e1db695
49815f6dac42abcb3f419265fbd21d0d90ae878b
36802 F20101205_AAACQZ stansberry_a_Page_041.QC.jpg
6efda6a5ece33beb7193f4d794b88c62
0a98042d121eb671299d46e3641839a165cfff6d
F20101205_AAABGV stansberry_a_Page_044.tif
78b9b17ef60af993a03a230b5755bbfd
95dd40b277d2c5a9dbb933b8894049f9f60f4e8e
2476 F20101205_AAACDO stansberry_a_Page_031.txt
521150c521b38d01d5530d6ff3e113fb
1406cf45ebf8a1d1d04d945ac1a2e16bfc00499b
8566 F20101205_AAADAI stansberry_a_Page_176thm.jpg
8f7e9223c970ada870ebb857c3ec8880
668c301c1439df01832f857d749d6b9bfb353b58
F20101205_AAABGW stansberry_a_Page_045.tif
1edb6680c2f0327da80221b3572dbc11
8eb3fa9f797a2de57d76dbebb7df6cfaac748e3c
25164 F20101205_AAABZA stansberry_a_Page_233.pro
52edee52c1d67ff5ed28c735b61f86f2
e7d7aa7fec76e6edfdedfb56446a149d10fce604
2056 F20101205_AAACDP stansberry_a_Page_033.txt
79acc46a0b98861c8f9d9a890bdbaa30
be881ee9a420a1a55083b671b9ab62a3b38330cb
38292 F20101205_AAADAJ stansberry_a_Page_177.QC.jpg
8d842d28543f745de24fb6861c0bb56a
511981dda8b2b2583e1912403e770c87b6d4bc75
F20101205_AAABGX stansberry_a_Page_046.tif
03697943375385416f3b2607e237a017
c57411da87c76e00c796006b0268c4f2f6285717
63434 F20101205_AAABZB stansberry_a_Page_234.pro
c82e85a7282c460fbf929a4bd9772146
316eb93fc97264a121999f9e457247e9a5f1ea39
2139 F20101205_AAACDQ stansberry_a_Page_034.txt
a6015390031419f759817d989dea4e10
1a926383f38ecd0eb7baf199769affb5d8016db1
9152 F20101205_AAADAK stansberry_a_Page_177thm.jpg
8e7ca636306ea6faf35e327fb6015705
71011f183e2234769d8379f89f14a606a739586f
F20101205_AAABGY stansberry_a_Page_047.tif
25fa9fc3fffea6baac998fccba2a0803
bda3be9ab491aa4320ab416710263dedc5f4a205
2097 F20101205_AAACDR stansberry_a_Page_035.txt
bb6824f612a3c418fb57e113d83199eb
60fa4ec214f8f54cd99551f9e6ba795b86700a9e
37590 F20101205_AAADAL stansberry_a_Page_178.QC.jpg
15fb6e71e13bd9a6b75fd6554d4a68c5
bef14fb298ab20e78ad87220cac9eb4867f346aa
F20101205_AAABGZ stansberry_a_Page_048.tif
f531860641423e308075ae9bad1b4f87
bac0486216bbb4631865d3b96a1e56cb427726be
33245 F20101205_AAABZC stansberry_a_Page_235.pro
dbc786c75160565eb1206d8de5474c2a
f607b9843eea174151cb73be89acce162398aab6
2102 F20101205_AAACDS stansberry_a_Page_036.txt
501973f98b8de7f49ea927a6ef4931d8
f740f1c071c126d141ac80384118785e9d10d31a
9219 F20101205_AAADAM stansberry_a_Page_178thm.jpg
ef167b2675ff494ffde77e74569d8734
c779983e7bf7c4488f97c2bfda22fe9d89f5c14e
50562 F20101205_AAABZD stansberry_a_Page_236.pro
3c04ca754fe1df02dd20ff4d3b586058
daedce568ce7667685148bf780ea43e9e402adc3
1967 F20101205_AAACDT stansberry_a_Page_037.txt
38b51e1ae1eb776f5caa536e03a648ec
a0cf075c547237c3c6a3d6c779c3bafdbc9325d5
38631 F20101205_AAADAN stansberry_a_Page_179.QC.jpg
01c48cb84c5639f9d62c6ffd729c9e69
12580f65e8cfde8b4f9207a3d05a7b80f6a82d88
48350 F20101205_AAABZE stansberry_a_Page_237.pro
c62b361565a0b32481d77dfd1ac54731
c36bc916ff9f0c7d39602f4aca0ddc2fb9bb1dd0
2164 F20101205_AAACDU stansberry_a_Page_038.txt
8345fafc1fc1d1df4c59ac3f83a5b670
7242a9312217fe2d2b530acb71da068e5660ef91
112481 F20101205_AAAAPA stansberry_a_Page_198.jpg
fff185698a83446bcc2030cba4f0a013
c57a8f882677b9a0d33d4bb0bb121d5c4aacd2ea
8975 F20101205_AAADAO stansberry_a_Page_179thm.jpg
b28872482802a6191762a70e8871c77c
d6f2923e466e6768ed53fb3d6db20477c154d8c3
52050 F20101205_AAABZF stansberry_a_Page_238.pro
49b45a406e301e54183a1f23aa2d1426
4098ee08a0be9f94a19182c60b12e044cca09d60
2096 F20101205_AAACDV stansberry_a_Page_039.txt
fee891ef2c265836e75b4f9005cc60ee
99f03ae54311c2c7cdd29c0708f9439320b4c9b6
45191 F20101205_AAAAPB stansberry_a_Page_199.jpg
75fd6bb079a26ae1cb2922d3927bf187
b69625658d877298a4afbe28ee57cc87ae5dc4ae
37892 F20101205_AAADAP stansberry_a_Page_180.QC.jpg
efd786280d734aed3651dd6f92f7b467
2e98e03cddc45e67d64f044f16c02d3299c0501b
53848 F20101205_AAABZG stansberry_a_Page_239.pro
38ab153c58bc3151d433e7c8e80c343c
6fb60a62529c9ba6731ea94b30fe64d8fea54739
2639 F20101205_AAACDW stansberry_a_Page_040.txt
5e7b6721e463cc0e093044874d4bbbbf
68e709a0b2e209a11cc72dbe2d48950559b82116
88930 F20101205_AAAAPC stansberry_a_Page_200.jpg
fd9762ffa9a28b4cb74557223d396819
e5502bde034b3794391a642e6acb6b7668c60ed6
9187 F20101205_AAADAQ stansberry_a_Page_180thm.jpg
637caea5aea0cd60503ea05eb8f2fd16
f07dc7825c3586bc37aabaecc3bdad1561b269ae
10475 F20101205_AAACWA stansberry_a_Page_115.QC.jpg
20cc4d952087258fe86f54ae3a04695e
45c55d75f1e5380373472a47cb7d2d3ced81ceaf
57078 F20101205_AAABZH stansberry_a_Page_240.pro
377bb64073fbcf2f8e971ae45ba7a20b
0b82da12d2abc3207fb2d8a3fab53533c7a4caf5
2256 F20101205_AAACDX stansberry_a_Page_041.txt
1779546b35c00d462fe482f5d09b1a93
3322443920bd3e503c0b0b02f0e0c4b495b2899e
93998 F20101205_AAAAPD stansberry_a_Page_201.jpg
1687c03ab66254ec2420088009aead78
e03dc5015ef36849efc870125b990e05b33ca610
37534 F20101205_AAADAR stansberry_a_Page_181.QC.jpg
ab54bf84f6f31bca9ffb29b96deb9638
75e7fc47da77c028a7d679b6c5bfac5350495dcc
3235 F20101205_AAACWB stansberry_a_Page_115thm.jpg
73a5934c323a54fa8029b49a54ffc86c
827502957ea99bc0026f1d1c73c21b268e2c8192
53314 F20101205_AAABZI stansberry_a_Page_241.pro
db42792450397d5116846490fd33d772
8b82344cd80b1bc7db4e905a8c16325bd436bb0e
2018 F20101205_AAACDY stansberry_a_Page_042.txt
6bfed18a384b0b2f1945b1b7a2003961
75ec79f23e32ab5634d9e8cdf708c8165274f5a0
109855 F20101205_AAAAPE stansberry_a_Page_202.jpg
989347d93d4c29a73db38884097d89d8
d6db8c7fc32cbb317020ea40d16808a3a31ec051
9032 F20101205_AAADAS stansberry_a_Page_181thm.jpg
941c063096c0ba510039618a37d42bbc
26614fefe73c5d8f17c90f59d0861695b2931fa9
17448 F20101205_AAACWC stansberry_a_Page_116.QC.jpg
e8e3ae0089d6b7ef82f4bde41e5f501e
fed63c7369cc8cc39392943df197229222130a9d
12946 F20101205_AAABZJ stansberry_a_Page_242.pro
e6a396a4ec6ca3f03c53677c79ea8952
210f64520e7e7b3c8729189f9e8d599b029a82db
3253 F20101205_AAACDZ stansberry_a_Page_043.txt
d938488b0edbfbc75ae37a55ed7509da
41436ad551896e90f645d36f3f2ec6fac0a7b606
124561 F20101205_AAAAPF stansberry_a_Page_203.jpg
f03dfd74ed61c2bf008080537c2a2cb5
3a03056b872ee1847e7c2042f1a212e23dd483d7
8797 F20101205_AAADAT stansberry_a_Page_182thm.jpg
4461cd6a860d0871303e07d7b4c68faf
6d0057e1029392fa4d1615a2b393008cbe4f3fef
5011 F20101205_AAACWD stansberry_a_Page_116thm.jpg
78dadf5018765d1f3a4da4f03029afe2
fdad999539ba1c9aa20b25b047abe5dae1fc9136
80309 F20101205_AAABZK stansberry_a_Page_243.pro
63b60af8386f2de05afaf489caf1f22b
3b70ea06a95cf5dc3916a7f64422f0f6bee72ab4
109300 F20101205_AAAAPG stansberry_a_Page_204.jpg
ca942b82c9b55ac6547a61a77bd90bc9
849afc5efbb4efb016b62f19fc7ffaa2ade5ea31
8709 F20101205_AAADAU stansberry_a_Page_183thm.jpg
bb0287f4d17a8b76b00d48242f2e65e2
151e346a8f55e17d11ffcb09d60718f8f629c209
18176 F20101205_AAACWE stansberry_a_Page_117.QC.jpg
28ddc0d1b4a0cc05c2d09279c25c486a
2f7c1d47fb1560b1824dbd139c02e7af2b993387
F20101205_AAABMA stansberry_a_Page_193.tif
f85b758637aad5da3b56f99e800ccf48
d2d37a47d105302866d41ee92f904bb789dfbcda
72740 F20101205_AAABZL stansberry_a_Page_244.pro
b124db3f4604ba68822722201eaf7186
d5e88c46f4c441eb466b347ac0dd9efe773d17d8
112956 F20101205_AAAAPH stansberry_a_Page_205.jpg
04ebdd42ad842249420e70d0e6494002
3bd4acc1314b1b030a56915b4b2b74bb72aa0154
33845 F20101205_AAADAV stansberry_a_Page_184.QC.jpg
e61ed9b6ff3d34c7d5a190c6c1b83362
331b0ae9eac2240cb866e1307853814a704de0a4
4801 F20101205_AAACWF stansberry_a_Page_117thm.jpg
aba50e11fab2b4445a91f9449dcddd13
13544c6475fde4f4b4b52e11984ad2cf08845e8f
F20101205_AAABMB stansberry_a_Page_194.tif
a2fd7a0586619e94c6cc91c71f816dfb
9b9ce2315309ea17368aca65141c80278a49f2fc
77044 F20101205_AAABZM stansberry_a_Page_246.pro
4384824acb74ace989f2d078e9d8bacb
00a10a8ccc156cb441d2ff36210720d6486d506e
120281 F20101205_AAAAPI stansberry_a_Page_206.jpg
dc88dd0c792ee8b0595adb5d05cc1b6e
419c24ae3ba5fdd8108495dea3e557813a09424e
8694 F20101205_AAADAW stansberry_a_Page_184thm.jpg
817d514f0cb75760a2dbe14bd389ff5d
dbafeb01db24d7db11d0b3fc92b31c3aa9003547
26845 F20101205_AAACWG stansberry_a_Page_118.QC.jpg
f5485bf687a4973d16e0794a0fd856cc
2c7623ca1355deebbc9d10e1d9253f86a5d9c14d
F20101205_AAABMC stansberry_a_Page_195.tif
26b27029b381dabdbb845cc8d4cdbdd7
be70725c12b94a69d1010342df89d2edad009ffa
82544 F20101205_AAABZN stansberry_a_Page_247.pro
aeded16fb0c23c6ed72b5fcf73e785ea
ef9879a1867335365852d4ddbf354dab1a77e321
115405 F20101205_AAAAPJ stansberry_a_Page_207.jpg
42cddd84207c37aa578b9d65f5a7a4f2
70cd120afd5df3274fcb604d7bf922783e4ecc3d
32703 F20101205_AAADAX stansberry_a_Page_185.QC.jpg
a8c85912f17182c94fe252797af47245
dda7efaf6fd51a32f0622df8c09d30a8f149d755
7021 F20101205_AAACWH stansberry_a_Page_118thm.jpg
b370955baaf21205c58b142197713742
797adbb4f89bc622b8e4b94c44469fa389807ba3
F20101205_AAABMD stansberry_a_Page_196.tif
075bffa4cccbbfd367ced290c273f0ae
accbb48e49badd24a39fc1fa11b30987b61b33a5
41770 F20101205_AAABZO stansberry_a_Page_250.pro
df7c1f0b1061672b3fa0ee09c605a095
100d91961fc8cd9fb01c2684892f23e032ce2639
109351 F20101205_AAAAPK stansberry_a_Page_208.jpg
2c7ccd513a590933c7eb9a8f5024608a
e87122af2d0ef2f8a8fa861d31750472f19eddd7
8186 F20101205_AAADAY stansberry_a_Page_185thm.jpg
092fb2e9cdd227447442a251c68db9ae
8bab8b56a8724d20b15ae47da6d18e91260c7ca4
37835 F20101205_AAACWI stansberry_a_Page_119.QC.jpg
481356878c27a0630c1b1f1754f8f45a
310e2262e0253f038b6c9b17bb494144d546d647
F20101205_AAABME stansberry_a_Page_197.tif
e5c0d3435c28ac432448fa32bec217ce
2bc6e0d9b1ae95ed59f10f1dfb19b9b10eaeedd5
35092 F20101205_AAAACA stansberry_a_Page_097.QC.jpg
65af634399d269380567c8e3a76bfe2f
da3eefc5b434b96bd5ba5fd03b418f8bb3be62f5
86032 F20101205_AAABZP stansberry_a_Page_251.pro
f69b43e621d3350e14cb77e2e299577b
a794f6037e2b34cb2f09cf220eb133a0ffd6b4bf
55431 F20101205_AAAAPL stansberry_a_Page_209.jpg
97ba45c3e78103145db401f2fddca7cb
f256fc26014cdd9055b8973eeb4852f78e33645e
36043 F20101205_AAADAZ stansberry_a_Page_186.QC.jpg
bbf66d456a058fdccfbcd673d54c5a07
81c62bbf09f4bac601281471eb04c7b701f7849a
9854 F20101205_AAACWJ stansberry_a_Page_119thm.jpg
3e975d20a422a60d83f9361191357118
c0572cfb541fb41fa7065277cd91b410a1535537
F20101205_AAABMF stansberry_a_Page_198.tif
03e140b6784b7fea6ac09f2bc587cbc7
ffff95af37e4b1238cd936b7974fd883bd7e8907
108447 F20101205_AAAACB stansberry_a_Page_166.jpg
df2c985cb22504327f76a39e58a53de4
2e64f3d4566822703eec1d1eabe65b9424c50157
37861 F20101205_AAABZQ stansberry_a_Page_252.pro
63da316f30a2a954429a3c5b9d27aa28
c0d11d9eb545b9da48011a9d35079d9faf4fc3ce
109099 F20101205_AAAAPM stansberry_a_Page_210.jpg
e67ca83cd990e3ff283200aa41883c99
5acd2b268e69e119672402c87bf4d823b1167d7d
19576 F20101205_AAACWK stansberry_a_Page_120.QC.jpg
264c697fb0addbcf8d4d0212302abd83
af0f48a242860a35eb53220effbfeeed6bb9ce03
F20101205_AAABMG stansberry_a_Page_200.tif
f24b6202e3a91b8a3768d1c2de546dd6
7923e071775097f5586886ee2a9c1c1a6120dfb5
38809 F20101205_AAAACC stansberry_a_Page_189.QC.jpg
6fde92df8cd566f34e146abb0240832f
500a8d0955a40df4670c4b22d43454d110e5a2eb
5933 F20101205_AAABZR stansberry_a_Page_253.pro
47645937437d783435b1001576f70a5c
2c5731a53f28341ca63512482d427f81c985d33e
136735 F20101205_AAAAPN stansberry_a_Page_211.jpg
5fbf38ef0aefbde53f5121a9b466d1d1
b6fefcd6fc6e67083849b53d17be6e6cb897d037
5351 F20101205_AAACWL stansberry_a_Page_120thm.jpg
4ccc12fa35e3608b98ae77ba759b82dc
dcc5605df0a5bd5e1f5e1a9ca6319762bbbb70cf
F20101205_AAABMH stansberry_a_Page_201.tif
8186acc460217034b6097561933ae93d
3eceb1c9c8fb76598313573f1041cb9347c852f6
2129 F20101205_AAACJA stansberry_a_Page_192.txt
1d96225a7b996aff63464d6debc47ac9
5b8e6eebd55dac2a0b7fdaed5edd8dcff77245e6
2117 F20101205_AAAACD stansberry_a_Page_057.txt
4b54f31fa7fb2f5ea448dbecbaf8b195
84175f4c6dcec4c0702f7309e885eaf686b1595c
6801 F20101205_AAABZS stansberry_a_Page_254.pro
00760287064e563875ae7e1ecf864450
7511b1e89c60a0532cc0797df5e9ca7f0a96707a
83344 F20101205_AAAAPO stansberry_a_Page_212.jpg
00ac2d9e87b39a42766ec0d8758a2538
2c75c911cca4f03e579bfcca329ce4bf7c910ee0
16536 F20101205_AAACWM stansberry_a_Page_121.QC.jpg
5cf51128cae3c4b034e095f8c9e7ec39
81c351ced69638f1f3960525b000ef37d633d5f5
F20101205_AAABMI stansberry_a_Page_203.tif
26025c2596e27a2775ba83b401cd218f
d9730a61364a0f98469dcff1f15dcd655fe7bc4b
2289 F20101205_AAACJB stansberry_a_Page_193.txt
8897a0bfc1b696a5a73bbca63ca29dac
880a7909567c9be5aa0577bec48a423d9136e490
2099 F20101205_AAAACE stansberry_a_Page_231.txt
4d40b3d25992d480612a195d2d45b87d
418dee35199cfb8b0c456989fe200968fdc4a2b1
5699 F20101205_AAABZT stansberry_a_Page_255.pro
e68f1883dcbef81ac12a13aeaf232fff
a91caf56b563d30afbdd62e1d249dc49d27307b9
119206 F20101205_AAAAPP stansberry_a_Page_214.jpg
c644557df050ee8109930c5bbca74c53
d6fbea5f0ce645e41dc847f1f544025f81ebf59f
4744 F20101205_AAACWN stansberry_a_Page_121thm.jpg
03238a1fab566add4383f25bd4a01f64
9a7821cf53291f95b7e4fa198116847c926187d6
F20101205_AAABMJ stansberry_a_Page_204.tif
61879c354820825130b3f1a0e64ba697
f94857c2cca30b8096772aa08a5ca338ea2708d0
2169 F20101205_AAACJC stansberry_a_Page_194.txt
94aa48c0d11cec8f2a8ccbff523c8cf3
811d2afadbfa07b2cd293d267676a36690f37f99
1951 F20101205_AAAACF stansberry_a_Page_330thm.jpg
32412b8e259b6ad697f1613327130b7c
1b3829afcbb8d39d30945670cf6f8f8eee6327d5
5387 F20101205_AAABZU stansberry_a_Page_257.pro
dfcb8081eea1ba8a090c17db58482dcd
7db0aaf39722efa9ca6aa559b587bc5b2c0dfd08
114658 F20101205_AAAAPQ stansberry_a_Page_215.jpg
bfaa0a36d0bcb4eacf8227f4f5fd1465
b477313db8b4f945af21388f1cd47a9ef5f7349d
13980 F20101205_AAACWO stansberry_a_Page_122.QC.jpg
a891c3c0f891e144f4bd78c24faa4682
cefdbc11efe125caee07bdd3d570e3b72ff653d9
F20101205_AAABMK stansberry_a_Page_205.tif
8c77af60483f342b81f6a4887fe87f82
167c1b0f816a8fa9bb264683e33385bbe914a9e9
2003 F20101205_AAACJD stansberry_a_Page_195.txt
d6c13ec9de3a81d97e02d1a4ad882a3c
7e837ad72cbd9c55eecfdf55385b6a64c27cd402
107381 F20101205_AAAACG stansberry_a_Page_241.jpg
e55ed0c0f786a4929e011a9db14cc7a4
a2e8621d48a988010199177e449c3e1df17f4391
5673 F20101205_AAABZV stansberry_a_Page_258.pro
8f415832cf0f949a5c2c9aa0a1c9ce04
f3050a56b68e83df047e4e4af5d43076098672e5
104163 F20101205_AAAAPR stansberry_a_Page_216.jpg
eab0770957a63ab95f3b52f28a12fe2d
364dc5328e2575c48b9a4606bee1382b7009d9a2
4012 F20101205_AAACWP stansberry_a_Page_122thm.jpg
32fd00a6e2c2b913d1d94cc840bea8f6
1e91e4d16a9393748bb217039f1febcb2c11c432
F20101205_AAABML stansberry_a_Page_207.tif
77c549cb1185c44b448fd05c04d2e89e
5cc3b99e54dda44428ab986f94b59879a7f244d4
2134 F20101205_AAACJE stansberry_a_Page_196.txt
717f4f2f5c02324db5f6ce93fb9935ce
02ba8ba231e01027a54c3a57066d8fdf5ae6cc6e
29327 F20101205_AAAACH stansberry_a_Page_298.QC.jpg
4f606edd849c6adcda75ed57091832f4
3e7dd88862245f0ce3981213e8e08a4f953624ab
65293 F20101205_AAABZW stansberry_a_Page_259.pro
0b474fb7510e8412cbf43a160711d11a
92c08c9b0be50fcbc56b787e52ccd47e7a60520c
113073 F20101205_AAAAPS stansberry_a_Page_220.jpg
fc333eeac746f0a5112d79020ad1bae2
fbd4b6a6c239a542755bfefeee9d6526db2ba714
17519 F20101205_AAACWQ stansberry_a_Page_123.QC.jpg
c638573858505194b809e5ee1bf11e7c
a87d8ca646fb7e8358aa355c73bca7cd1df0108d
F20101205_AAABMM stansberry_a_Page_208.tif
18c3574314fae0ff264535eb9a26b587
d53a7cbbd15ccf2bc946637d6335fd3b39e9fc84
2051 F20101205_AAACJF stansberry_a_Page_197.txt
a79982c86ed7c4c971ced483fc9b082f
93706e59995029ea1829708ae2cfaa602d0ebfc7
2241 F20101205_AAAACI stansberry_a_Page_094.txt
796d94ee0b7d90a8278b4f1b343d2989
d4ef7d48d08efbabe6cfc3170203d4be3842ee86
71651 F20101205_AAABZX stansberry_a_Page_260.pro
c0eecf4fbec9bd40a1ac76c21f920f04
4915bd7b547213e091a2d453c7392db3d18ec49f
109276 F20101205_AAAAPT stansberry_a_Page_222.jpg
c33cda7b565bbe550c00cdb702ea440a
d72495104d93774dc345fcadca76001d79eca3fb
4870 F20101205_AAACWR stansberry_a_Page_123thm.jpg
7ea72ab110b62355e793926c26501a2b
af740692cd8c4c1dda13a5da4d9907ed369b673b
F20101205_AAABMN stansberry_a_Page_209.tif
716a5c0ae82a94624a4a7a2cd25f693b
981b8a2316a0fd567a62a22fae4c4a575d5b011c
2227 F20101205_AAACJG stansberry_a_Page_198.txt
fc6179596c32a4871bcf12410c768d3d
8847037a09a4ba1a82dffaac26cfaedc30004499
8723 F20101205_AAAACJ stansberry_a_Page_076thm.jpg
9f07b800fc3409dd105d5b7b4e711ee3
9e10ab1c646f7fa67fb610279249d38df32ba02c
36607 F20101205_AAABZY stansberry_a_Page_261.pro
0a5c759aa9954d1e19658ac1a88db866
803f9dcd1ccbaed892edac84001609c8abe876ac
108498 F20101205_AAAAPU stansberry_a_Page_223.jpg
4de08d871078d84e68ccd83b7ecdfde3
3b3a21b81ab1f34f7f82ea5d18a157fb99eb5714
14772 F20101205_AAADGA stansberry_a_Page_261.QC.jpg
6a7b8a2a468b0a68cd20dc4bd5ef9269
269868f2320a7d4b053cc159af21345301370e56
22609 F20101205_AAACWS stansberry_a_Page_124.QC.jpg
55365907f3c006aa09df16b009f1ba6e
594339438a922033a7724385facfeecd72e87b85
F20101205_AAABMO stansberry_a_Page_210.tif
1ef7ae4c39cf7af6014d710ae168845c
8953497f77808d6b0c642874078a6b5d471a9d5b
842 F20101205_AAACJH stansberry_a_Page_199.txt
0c5e3c3839efecc93625f2c7d22ccf51
86d55ef3fef51a2c82f230e0e7baaba1c6306aac
F20101205_AAAACK stansberry_a_Page_262.tif
90b0bfe8200944295da1a6ed7fce1145
2ff710d5e262e2c4ea2af173ef79f32e267c10dc
66558 F20101205_AAABZZ stansberry_a_Page_262.pro
9e9daa972ccedd2937c9654929a71112
684f82b3145ce22eaa34b40836e85e59a2e2ee7b
104357 F20101205_AAAAPV stansberry_a_Page_225.jpg
8ae8d9995d4182fb650cce7d2db82ad1
b86cc5195e06c6e4a00ec12ccf9efaf39c8e222b
3730 F20101205_AAADGB stansberry_a_Page_261thm.jpg
8d4f33e308ba9f58a50b5270eaa7c6e4
27a67ff1224e217dc53852743fa73d3259b08dca
6650 F20101205_AAACWT stansberry_a_Page_124thm.jpg
f8f2d1f6e16550f196c3f4a20007c29b
c7543d1e7dabd910296eb9f884dfd61553772abd
F20101205_AAABMP stansberry_a_Page_211.tif
2e8b5909636952b14679557968d3a187
3e3a8123171bc7bf763e439936c61880f4ec446b
762 F20101205_AAACJI stansberry_a_Page_200.txt
d6677946e7d3882948f46b15465b26f8
21d6ab768d54e5917dd13efc4ed0203488b14189
3149 F20101205_AAAACL stansberry_a_Page_273.txt
8e24a1653cea85363dd4fc5314689c57
27e874fd122b94f0c9bc9f15d0bee5b5fbd25948
111564 F20101205_AAAAPW stansberry_a_Page_226.jpg
309d82b8cc75c798fbf1b975af7455a4
6a096ac3af35ed0624deb123b22a451418677c73
24714 F20101205_AAADGC stansberry_a_Page_262.QC.jpg
25a63c54fd03800bee82a814cb04c819
a479e055057bd7cf727cfc44fe02a78015551984
14607 F20101205_AAACWU stansberry_a_Page_125.QC.jpg
b401b17c23c7f03b06d0d247e45b13be
c6c6aaaf15d286ee132f4026db77178cb3b25757
F20101205_AAABMQ stansberry_a_Page_212.tif
c10512b3663897a908ef66172d795334
5aa0778c299f66814e4043dd832c8a267bc3ec4d
277 F20101205_AAACJJ stansberry_a_Page_201.txt
bf711ec4d9c4839fd8f1d20ee44c5380
79cfb3b62056fd82087c299c2180324b87208169
112751 F20101205_AAAAPX stansberry_a_Page_227.jpg
9b7c3c57016e804d4805879192f581b2
ccaff7f3774d59be0de5074a4f95c2293b13baf9
6378 F20101205_AAADGD stansberry_a_Page_262thm.jpg
4002adc8050684c5af1002100bb587a0
81bd959cdb4432f5b9e6462e2927b35381d9eef7
4235 F20101205_AAACWV stansberry_a_Page_125thm.jpg
87fbdfad3fe5ee9592b42d4c0e50a7a2
1e989e6604384276237530919e07217124243f1c
F20101205_AAABMR stansberry_a_Page_213.tif
bf47a3488f9a6588535a30952adabb6c
5a9c2ed6a711d4c73eff495830f22e7374def8c4
2234 F20101205_AAACJK stansberry_a_Page_202.txt
9ff98baec7ae7fc33a7a2f0e4808cac6
ed9933f0a51de9bdce1bc5b33f3470cbee03931a
82391 F20101205_AAAACM stansberry_a_Page_141.jpg
584320ca5c8ac813966e5b081c851921
bd42d2f71f872d240bddda7fc5913c1a4b9d665c
98088 F20101205_AAAAPY stansberry_a_Page_228.jpg
a2be6d051f7bf395ac135be3950c7a08
51eab82b11e7ab77519791a9afe429cb1e8becb9
32362 F20101205_AAADGE stansberry_a_Page_263.QC.jpg
9df866774f5ba213eefa781f4ffc28f0
5e32722e51d82e4139893d331e3cc40c1b4fbd6a
9626 F20101205_AAACWW stansberry_a_Page_126.QC.jpg
e82e91a6f2940bea5eae415707d6b160
09f2acf0fa7de452df46bda91f1ec62362279e18
F20101205_AAABMS stansberry_a_Page_214.tif
890ea036f94c4f832eaad7bfc5c7a4a7
c49d1e84cf2cfd4c5a8e22676e17123eadf523f5
2575 F20101205_AAACJL stansberry_a_Page_203.txt
ba1a8b4c66893b5d6e79416ba832c945
52411c4b1282406b86fdee7545b913fd42efccd2
111578 F20101205_AAAACN stansberry_a_Page_077.jpg
8805d9e9d7a171b6a647bf70037d2ee1
fe9c7ea317cc45f191f67ebf69b5e21fd182cd09
7932 F20101205_AAADGF stansberry_a_Page_263thm.jpg
e982c66e695db0c4db50c2f8d05ba601
75bca61e85ed71dd2985964fe1cdc7d11f8edd88
3230 F20101205_AAACWX stansberry_a_Page_126thm.jpg
574b3e7e10f1b4bfbe041a1ee2fdae96
60a85190ba51312b6853d4a458d174134cd0b118
F20101205_AAABMT stansberry_a_Page_215.tif
a1294b140f4ec5bd7ac329a1eeb49b9d
c4af12d6de6c3a415c82f9bca89d28bb3952b407
F20101205_AAACJM stansberry_a_Page_204.txt
4561f38a43bea5b319a18667102b08e7
88b9f1d79418ea9474f8dfe8e8d7054e7c4f8a2f
2253 F20101205_AAAACO stansberry_a_Page_215.txt
a554c8a3e843e89627c467b7c6be1f68
52250ad3f9c3418bf4a5c8fd6f34fb62b72b0afa
109885 F20101205_AAAAPZ stansberry_a_Page_229.jpg
566e45511101d716661d1172c5d3f2dd
2fa8e9ce7b36cc1d2ea74442de60c89d4647e791
27987 F20101205_AAADGG stansberry_a_Page_264.QC.jpg
c0e8aae089dc88f3e3f2dbfd25942ce9
90553f0cf7b1df35ca85ac09799481344550b6a2
25946 F20101205_AAACWY stansberry_a_Page_127.QC.jpg
85e7de44476d1bc731f8882d24ffefe5
a8cebd5c212356238335cc82dca42c8e3bde4007
F20101205_AAABMU stansberry_a_Page_216.tif
730b856c9ebe572a4418cc9dad101700
2f52232cb7638b75603309d5e8ce0eca266aa9c9
2193 F20101205_AAACJN stansberry_a_Page_205.txt
14636245f72c8bdf2399b48db1d20d7a
50d71153ed59da1126ae148501a61409f80d8869
38629 F20101205_AAAACP stansberry_a_Page_246.QC.jpg
216feef276669b1ea2d9036170d582b2
d904fc7828defea5f3e04aa35868f9ec6d6326ab
6664 F20101205_AAADGH stansberry_a_Page_264thm.jpg
39c0925c6a34a61fd9a7e4582765a3bf
92fd5f7c0efd9369772353bf21fc160afea26f98
7399 F20101205_AAACWZ stansberry_a_Page_127thm.jpg
12662ac4b004c35e8a6ecf15905b84da
22e1d15286c014e769f80b6e2d1ee05b898aa735
2431 F20101205_AAACJO stansberry_a_Page_206.txt
0f7ed98b6cf9f9f4c9dc2c9642ff6ad6
603c4913ced1a24d0b3e085c5a7b3bc1f778ce39
1950 F20101205_AAAACQ stansberry_a_Page_001thm.jpg
d6a36c9bdac3e83d34d04675230d8cd5
212df31c51d8bb74673dc0182c71285a1dc2a27b
24083 F20101205_AAADGI stansberry_a_Page_265.QC.jpg
1501d1468c169251f5f90ee100284167
3bc6bb3e3803cf3675c9334ffdebc4282de44d17
F20101205_AAABMV stansberry_a_Page_217.tif
3430310610f1c8e22cccc550e042b396
fcff5371a9aabfa46a42096c4539464b4b0c7e81
2251 F20101205_AAACJP stansberry_a_Page_207.txt
d2c1efa4817cdb6cab47a313a160730a
8a3d7e65af81b6b1313e49ea948622a9f515e707
53897 F20101205_AAAACR stansberry_a_Page_224.pro
731ef68551d6a4fd3f018a55af6c994f
ebd2bf3321f6af33e08e74df302727c1e09bd492
6135 F20101205_AAADGJ stansberry_a_Page_265thm.jpg
25867d47e234ad26092368be6c99cc59
7960369bcf6cf3932ac148f211ab99d084568ed1
F20101205_AAABMW stansberry_a_Page_218.tif
f83b036c79561dbc097637ad392b742d
573bbaae7003ad937933394b985e815cb304ecb7
2144 F20101205_AAACJQ stansberry_a_Page_208.txt
2cdff739e7541500f7ec4a8d2294c261
9eb287eb2278dd9b081b9fcd613a44cebfcefffe
8965 F20101205_AAAACS stansberry_a_Page_211thm.jpg
c457ef07739e7f81421bceb8abbc2a11
d1f99385eaa06b12dc817e05867e2f2060479466
27012 F20101205_AAADGK stansberry_a_Page_266.QC.jpg
b500411b56e4973da843969f0af6f89d
be1f3e1ccfa3531d9bf06378225f78adfc30abd4
F20101205_AAABMX stansberry_a_Page_219.tif
f8e336d2c37c4dc37da3eadb247dfbea
05288c42d39ebc2522f667b82c2e3904e9e05fc2
61803 F20101205_AAAACT stansberry_a_Page_024.pro
d704edd3c31c947b624532d5ab5cc9a6
81a846d892d474509b154984030a166576f84917
6660 F20101205_AAADGL stansberry_a_Page_266thm.jpg
e52532dac04c14ea4d9a69e7cc50bf8a
b0f6af37841d7047b5b53f4662f669c27b4dd9a7
1023 F20101205_AAACJR stansberry_a_Page_209.txt
1eecaf5d2f9a8aae2eabc3b1abbd809a
3bef6c37b5acc4a1a37d13b85f899ef5a256cec6
2499 F20101205_AAAACU stansberry_a_Page_024.txt
72a621695450908277ce293957110c16
3623ce28d3a9321816a9ae77c524ddb4c1650542
F20101205_AAABMY stansberry_a_Page_220.tif
2a792b35eab5b053c3189adf0cd08cd9
e6f04e75237cf6a1276e0b0367624575c12ae417
28804 F20101205_AAADGM stansberry_a_Page_267.QC.jpg
4427a1752bb254d8040dcdec4016e197
9dfc63bca7c31636c0df1c8e276dcd2fc8d6b00d
F20101205_AAACJS stansberry_a_Page_210.txt
32a5a1968ae0cc599b2c06b82e76f5f2
766aef5b748ed454866bfa3bcadf793f1ceae5ac
94686 F20101205_AAAACV stansberry_a_Page_280.jpg
d1838a6ca783b5de39df6977c59fd8df
18be906a6ee46ec86f72b8d1c32f09d93fef7411
F20101205_AAABMZ stansberry_a_Page_221.tif
9d1a3f4f52a2edc520ecfb820ba8893a
9311f0e41df1b91f028b0218f2de525353b7658a
2961 F20101205_AAACJT stansberry_a_Page_211.txt
95b6245f52a29b4a46f4d657f721e476
1d74a98d0ff9345976bb8efc2ff61eb88c685b6c
61034 F20101205_AAAACW stansberry_a_Page_213.pro
2838d083331a9aab6df78feabc0ce05f
c87acaa62d6c07cc8d939adaadbb1da1e400c12e
6839 F20101205_AAADGN stansberry_a_Page_267thm.jpg
4edb19b3f44c0dbce4e89ba9c287f58d
e9b1d701eb84b2afc65832b517b5724d141a1c72
1651 F20101205_AAACJU stansberry_a_Page_212.txt
b6ab1a080590460ab450face99aa9065
36c76740875a61fe5c330b65180765e063491993
108332 F20101205_AAAACX stansberry_a_Page_045.jpg
3ec1c36fbd0fda9be0dd3966aa5dadf0
0d28fd9fbddd1fc44fad00c881d6f50c838f632f
162495 F20101205_AAAAVA stansberry_a_Page_043.jp2
d5d79f65e9a031d705113c5bfaad8114
eef1810ceef7299f428009040795980522f738b0
26705 F20101205_AAADGO stansberry_a_Page_268.QC.jpg
63e0559cd4939c982257c7faa4fe45f2
f13456de634314069cc5a93bfb612b2506e3b260
2551 F20101205_AAACJV stansberry_a_Page_213.txt
6e9a2698be3413203e89e71f2beb7eed
b99c7e425781b7f1f5177a3447f12ae4c109d010
F20101205_AAAACY stansberry_a_Page_259.tif
8261014fd7af63d5490e662f21b2d6fe
91ba9f166335b28aa962d6d14a3087b40a115a34
154160 F20101205_AAAAVB stansberry_a_Page_044.jp2
c2b35d5ef959fd009c1437bd0c88fb69
1163b05c0b6d9db083a345baf533027d43ea2532
6512 F20101205_AAADGP stansberry_a_Page_268thm.jpg
75e042b10f99a2d05ad95e0c680d6f64
e94601c9fbb5d3b2837c00acae76064774541903
2309 F20101205_AAACJW stansberry_a_Page_214.txt
03a4917c520282274ec0fa623332d14a
85cf4a05c6559f960f354cfb9dff9259154da538
114974 F20101205_AAAACZ stansberry_a_Page_218.jpg
d3671de1028de75ca048c46cf9a9a435
2d64a2b1ae9638b991fa0a0c881f7c0df477a803
112812 F20101205_AAAAVC stansberry_a_Page_045.jp2
d06c200880421ca07c09dbb85027ddf5
775894a5e3634cb32182d18a616559eb1e643c63
25506 F20101205_AAADGQ stansberry_a_Page_269.QC.jpg
4a0ace4c7eb0b9c876e7401fa9a2e63d
002dc17acc77fc5a7dea6724048245e5c1d20010
2095 F20101205_AAACJX stansberry_a_Page_217.txt
5f74b420db99a4e17f0f2c5338bee639
366cbf974c2d2ae61fee776e60b935c93dfc5248
113563 F20101205_AAAAVD stansberry_a_Page_046.jp2
cf85ccc956071c6163e4b3383638fe1c
adb28a4b716897aa90fdd5749ea12bee6520e7b7
6620 F20101205_AAADGR stansberry_a_Page_269thm.jpg
dd161af4a73216ab3114cfa3338afac3
51464a3ab029263b233d0fc0b7a9b63d29af09ec
F20101205_AAACJY stansberry_a_Page_218.txt
806cbaec408faf33c9fb4b76a49cb670
49868a1577dd58cf6ab2e837ea4deb36b36b4e16
113190 F20101205_AAAAVE stansberry_a_Page_047.jp2
b6f39f5ad6a0a85e8317d6488b81c06b
c67a6e2c4e05a357337fa7b03dca08a05e6253dc
26347 F20101205_AAADGS stansberry_a_Page_270.QC.jpg
3a6ffc2c33ed209c99d2054266b38fa6
291e9cf0b9b28963b14a405e40e5556a0659e240
1911 F20101205_AAACJZ stansberry_a_Page_219.txt
e8ca00f4ce9dc87d9f0d78099121872e
287c646b35b85b4bbe789a50670e5299dd097fb8
126433 F20101205_AAAAVF stansberry_a_Page_048.jp2
db20fcffc0fea5ed8cde5b750aae4f13
a7b849f6deb9bad3c0d73b27b46d1dd13f7370b1
6609 F20101205_AAADGT stansberry_a_Page_270thm.jpg
29d0590c31540c54e2079e136562d868
bcfcbff420ec770e4515faea3f64220f01219055
105436 F20101205_AAAAVG stansberry_a_Page_049.jp2
735598e0cedceb1c2134e1260cc03b85
e5be33fce766cd1be1437b901829dc32ba0616df
29053 F20101205_AAADGU stansberry_a_Page_271.QC.jpg
9cee63d472971a42d754470a84afe13d
cce6ca85d496f119f7620219ec9708251b5b4997
138840 F20101205_AAAAVH stansberry_a_Page_050.jp2
90929f6b4dde275b48f035d1a45b6cb3
7c7a34ce72d2c88e840f2118fc2dc73ead6c76ac
52158 F20101205_AAABSA stansberry_a_Page_033.pro
abb2aeef6cbffced55fd3a1265cb926a
0d6f69b8638731574a6e1fb0d92b2c02056b36c7
7620 F20101205_AAADGV stansberry_a_Page_271thm.jpg
e12af850e43360439dc14d0f68d95962
8413022a35ca640b9a698c78c6c55c7e1f9fb8a1
134903 F20101205_AAAAVI stansberry_a_Page_051.jp2
c85780a2f55584c6983f4ce33d36184d
c49764baee51bb8c6f1facf1732d799bf7f301fc
50753 F20101205_AAABSB stansberry_a_Page_035.pro
d2c2fade4c43234f3ddd62af44a49b6e
252b533236da44aee7ae01f2f660533b1b432c07
6667 F20101205_AAADGW stansberry_a_Page_272thm.jpg
f338a77198f8784578affcd93565803c
303b7273f4bd45e74ee866c36823f0d5295cd1de
151169 F20101205_AAAAVJ stansberry_a_Page_052.jp2
7f5e0693a5b182f5311f970e8b5d8eb4
3493bd603df9def7941e3d81721cf3e1e9e908a9
52928 F20101205_AAABSC stansberry_a_Page_036.pro
6db429339d864746bd808ef40666e7fd
0883372fe4a580c56f287e127ab53c51c65576f4
28888 F20101205_AAADGX stansberry_a_Page_273.QC.jpg
9ef122b34e852cf1d5aba4d6c0f68b7f
c72c947d5420e9b62e0ccfaa38cff6c3597a34ed
122287 F20101205_AAAAVK stansberry_a_Page_053.jp2
c01393cbde6f9e06e1c3bb7e5dd3a176
5f7cfe9d7e6145079e9d57d7c78899da1f79c320
49619 F20101205_AAABSD stansberry_a_Page_037.pro
cb5d6b3374c0bf790b80714c4dd460e5
be49d047a4ee95f8064e8a260526e0ad9b3d1cde
7426 F20101205_AAADGY stansberry_a_Page_273thm.jpg
f5bb7f990327098d287c5fdc4dd7f35a
92cbe7e70b50486d10acb2e1da61936e9277fbc9
498181 F20101205_AAAAIA UFE0017820_00001.xml FULL
b6123741736c0df52e32d0960c157308
83369fee2928c950100509403fe7847e8893dd1c
120224 F20101205_AAAAVL stansberry_a_Page_054.jp2
b77805f45da309dd35e571fc4d5b4bc7
084594e09d0bd4db5a41f74fafa20f962f545b07
55092 F20101205_AAABSE stansberry_a_Page_038.pro
cae1dea28fc932d5ba40e89c76a89da8
d7a6d1b788c37453173998b066c4adc3d6c48818
28890 F20101205_AAADGZ stansberry_a_Page_274.QC.jpg
1e58977f0dad801964a4c1ca6a542110
9843d014e6d2b76ac007c6b46c10c8e5ccb0e377
110774 F20101205_AAAAVM stansberry_a_Page_055.jp2
1cc322612331023a9133e2ce6cd3ccfe
5269eb4ff4e32388db1bb23bb59203541b8455a5
53124 F20101205_AAABSF stansberry_a_Page_039.pro
93e197a009c6f0481915df6bec693463
1f64a5b9794f0df04cdcb3c1872b66f9bca415d1
107520 F20101205_AAAAVN stansberry_a_Page_056.jp2
434e402aff0f9e573744439e79fca446
01baaa11417daf3bd2548cfdec61b6830cd99fd4
64983 F20101205_AAABSG stansberry_a_Page_040.pro
c43a80da92cc4399bfe52c5279f297ff
dc5e997b0f65d8cca1c1c8bba302de904bb5f734
8374 F20101205_AAACPA stansberry_a_Page_014thm.jpg
31e1248a3c06678eba6384e8c4bc74a4
e8caa571d64bf4c20c860d636cb93bd9a6078b50
23944 F20101205_AAAAID stansberry_a_Page_001.jpg
7f0e6fca203f5fd976e069bd678d2e90
6216b253a7503c2f771e3b8343bf38a023eaa5b6
112943 F20101205_AAAAVO stansberry_a_Page_057.jp2
d899cbd3a357387d77c36af075a1c66f
0329cad53b73cc96f40f20eeacc12f2e79022751
57414 F20101205_AAABSH stansberry_a_Page_041.pro
b3b814d419a744421d5409a9e43c3ba8
52e7ae770f9aa16175eaf9a6c9269d4f1453b188
36299 F20101205_AAACPB stansberry_a_Page_015.QC.jpg
7f734a020e89f8b4b96ad0c393d030c2
a4800453bfdda91d500fe7c9298fa0c5142d37d9
4894 F20101205_AAAAIE stansberry_a_Page_002.jpg
4306246efb695dbec17a5dbea745e7b8
ed4d394406fe861727b12335c973968360736e34
104954 F20101205_AAAAVP stansberry_a_Page_058.jp2
e79b9ea6c5c80517a28f034e475f5ad2
a31929c5145b0d5aff7bbec807002bdbb6a1e993
50968 F20101205_AAABSI stansberry_a_Page_042.pro
f5eb9051065e0115b8e85e1cca3049f3
eef3098fbdfd2251520aae97d1cf81db26b1d30d
8972 F20101205_AAACPC stansberry_a_Page_015thm.jpg
13ed47d57fc54195017fb4b8d9316677
cc04144198b3e1748c9f6c922212687bb6723d31
6270 F20101205_AAAAIF stansberry_a_Page_003.jpg
95bb556b83fd2cbfc29c401ef6e3f1b5
68a109889ca9207b9d7d1cd27a57df294f4b3aac
115218 F20101205_AAAAVQ stansberry_a_Page_059.jp2
a2ed93ab87f92ca8e190f40361d20306
ddb5a341ca655cd82cec12c2c46447d00918a481
80693 F20101205_AAABSJ stansberry_a_Page_043.pro
b991bb115ea3466a6e0acd9e53a61795
1557094165ee1cb13dde1803cf6a4e74e4ebf40b
38006 F20101205_AAACPD stansberry_a_Page_016.QC.jpg
fbaac8672f6b5c8e65c6d64767161353
f0ae9b078d71d784f27f6eacf4469f832cc69aff
33320 F20101205_AAAAIG stansberry_a_Page_004.jpg
067014c89952d24a64e50f8a1ad99e74
09a76f5d2a34955fb7fee147fa244bef75e52470
134646 F20101205_AAAAVR stansberry_a_Page_060.jp2
8c900454512463da733e9fe469bb0617
d6ab51605eeb468f4ffc4c7b09b621c1056bb184
77048 F20101205_AAABSK stansberry_a_Page_044.pro
9d0fd53e4499c1b48e84a16ea4acd800
2738a99c5ffdfdb546e81e4b96964fcc297ce68b
8633 F20101205_AAACPE stansberry_a_Page_016thm.jpg
b491894c68bc10b53f854cae2d6788d8
093335d85a40d3f5587a8338f8dfcfa80c1402ef
128588 F20101205_AAAAIH stansberry_a_Page_005.jpg
c10a647557189494e1d731e2a5c9c6c7
ae792fe5ccf3bb63e1a727b2f41d3852bd36c9ac
54131 F20101205_AAABFA stansberry_a_Page_322.jp2
f46729d42632c592710d6ca47cd0dbbf
bc3736bf49093dff09eabe76a9176a2635205801
110238 F20101205_AAAAVS stansberry_a_Page_061.jp2
f3a0b36d322e76cd6352938f4e08bbb5
06c172facf55ad80d9b49d7cf0fde682665680e9
53498 F20101205_AAABSL stansberry_a_Page_045.pro
05425e6e394a955280b993ccdc291a88
4210e6c1e2cd2763d72be58eedd86307e375d092
8913 F20101205_AAACPF stansberry_a_Page_017thm.jpg
38cc9a176aa0d6ec44ff08dbf9437a65
974c2241f16cdfa7e0540bc6cad8b88dba768153
122561 F20101205_AAAAII stansberry_a_Page_007.jpg
e6345e880769e2efa7e125742ddfb90f
5d4f2b15fc8df37acd55dc892c30b9370a21a809
449134 F20101205_AAABFB stansberry_a_Page_323.jp2
c2d3e021c459601f513a6d7513d97ebf
5982b7c853f23966969ddd2c588f95266e468372
118476 F20101205_AAAAVT stansberry_a_Page_062.jp2
0ca7b9f0fdc2868313b91286893861f4
8583d3a259e27dbdedf63d0383cd24787f612c3b
53706 F20101205_AAABSM stansberry_a_Page_047.pro
093791e76193c5eed4d050bbe2103b83
891ebda7458415a9a8fa0c60026a5566e436e90e
10288 F20101205_AAACPG stansberry_a_Page_018.QC.jpg
094196925d7389a8146c25b4fce4530f
5b89f6d9bca2fd002ef30d9599fa945b0d4783a5
122054 F20101205_AAAAIJ stansberry_a_Page_008.jpg
9f23bb599c040052d22539ee0f3b719d
8adbd09b3509a2989df0069a9ff8407d7ae532dc
621884 F20101205_AAABFC stansberry_a_Page_324.jp2
00ef38c2d8e78965ce5b75cb6d946f17
1b4b7b9ecdc5c5ba73c88dad3d3dddb1122837eb
1051953 F20101205_AAAAVU stansberry_a_Page_063.jp2
9caa9524ed4e3fb1fa116b2196de192b
e1b87f084e2a3fcdb9aed3b8a72db4d524c00d99
60796 F20101205_AAABSN stansberry_a_Page_048.pro
3cddc2aba1451d56e8bc1ab17677c466
8c99b2d81d88b31e6332809472e5d892055bc843
2573 F20101205_AAACPH stansberry_a_Page_018thm.jpg
868294fb046aa1ca93f57c52ad38dfa5
11c58dc1c67a8f333d0d12a34d6db9f4a0ce41c4
136788 F20101205_AAAAIK stansberry_a_Page_009.jpg
75b2f0e18f18d6d6cf9e2a3e5427ea9f
8dd5d968441fae4fdd2673a4e2a717de864af3b1
561542 F20101205_AAABFD stansberry_a_Page_325.jp2
58e61f880704c2e90abba45cb7c9ab55
bd79b6258511368512f28d38de6b9529e157571d
F20101205_AAAAVV stansberry_a_Page_064.jp2
b82fe902dc0117358cdc2b1a9bd89f15
194bc691f0374d9789a97b339161cf98560078c1
50136 F20101205_AAABSO stansberry_a_Page_049.pro
491f4de11ea8015247dea22b253a760b
15da4f1ee9d79da4cbd35c0e52079ded41daf480
34764 F20101205_AAACPI stansberry_a_Page_019.QC.jpg
324d822cad7f9aa188d5a64e00068452
aa36c6dab015bd06a853d17486eb78b9810b85a7
148175 F20101205_AAAAIL stansberry_a_Page_010.jpg
7ee5c1bb2c1a2af2a213701fe4fb186e
38c2068cec50e9eab13c4a39d6904851e14890eb
938199 F20101205_AAABFE stansberry_a_Page_326.jp2
9fb5bd0f99b05450da063361d8450bbc
72d515420906eab141f0e019e95580ee0480de00
119286 F20101205_AAAAVW stansberry_a_Page_065.jp2
b33f8bf157d41944fadb695cb1ae1490
51838240beb07da0955f3772e3788fa3a703dfb5
68189 F20101205_AAABSP stansberry_a_Page_050.pro
a8e48434a70801536369a99ec4e9af3f
03b60583348319d573c72a037956a9cb026bec82
8251 F20101205_AAACPJ stansberry_a_Page_019thm.jpg
a23e5bcf3ce0601faedf01c8e2f68410
8103a76290b1d3bababf627dcb35673a027e2554
65921 F20101205_AAAAIM stansberry_a_Page_011.jpg
2690cba401cff30d76a6fd445ac5b705
9dadc2b13ba80b7df23ca7ffe3dc542f3e0154f5
21214 F20101205_AAABFF stansberry_a_Page_330.jp2
dcfeba69db408c9bad92b3620f8fedfe
b4e8cf54969d78b3fb7fcadb42b049db17837294
117035 F20101205_AAAAVX stansberry_a_Page_066.jp2
1ae6dcd9a2fd42f827369495a8e484c7
917323ce8bd629cf256b4ce3461183fe6f025890
65559 F20101205_AAABSQ stansberry_a_Page_051.pro
ae81b40730a64b3621cf78593b1cb887
2f3dcf302659e2ea399213de8c15f7bddfbb1a7b
8928 F20101205_AAACPK stansberry_a_Page_020thm.jpg
64629a38c207dc4c614b111bced50a56
6fa66eb89a4b97b5700bc5864debf008c7a57d83
106118 F20101205_AAAAIN stansberry_a_Page_013.jpg
5bfc139c2ea1a84ceededbd1da1c17f6
73ea2117cca2fd44d47fe0e154af191c8e301e8b
F20101205_AAABFG stansberry_a_Page_001.tif
16a6cb19fbb5ea53fcb2526379fcdfde
51b7db91816a24038e17d724d3215cc41e0674c4
112487 F20101205_AAAAVY stansberry_a_Page_067.jp2
79b508bfc85d760cbdcac10c19a88a38
75d36bae2be3eeff0564475f75f5bdb67e8d9b6e
72552 F20101205_AAABSR stansberry_a_Page_052.pro
bc5c4501d8c371165b9346293c7e31db
1fe292c38831439f64e795a5088b40625b06e289
35614 F20101205_AAACPL stansberry_a_Page_021.QC.jpg
a51d147b6dd71d0a04c74e69c24047aa
2129fca154edbf1a9a6d2638f417231e13f676e9
104763 F20101205_AAAAIO stansberry_a_Page_014.jpg
d6219f0da3f425a871c517df14331c2c
20d76d20604e682ffce116acfb90cc993d31f7df
F20101205_AAABFH stansberry_a_Page_002.tif
161c86a3a9dc68a85edb40b4e4442ca0
ed046ff13f31d02d87ac487f63e30b604fe7d787
116758 F20101205_AAAAVZ stansberry_a_Page_068.jp2
fd337d424d0edea685ea3f61676e4df7
1a3a153e0910f351aa7bf90ee2564cae3e3f66c8
38981 F20101205_AAACCA stansberry_a_Page_316.pro
8f822b51d97d22cc7725099b6e14899a
d8a2aea9f6b03b7318444c7b15f4be5aa6c2f36d
58535 F20101205_AAABSS stansberry_a_Page_053.pro
481ed2eca43d7785538e4ab5b333c01e
78e66e5ec5dd5795b49ed1c04adb52d6ab0babe1
8891 F20101205_AAACPM stansberry_a_Page_021thm.jpg
2e92df8b3864e12e630b1cac36581810
fb42ba1a891dc9ea2d5287bc4ae097fa774735cf
110949 F20101205_AAAAIP stansberry_a_Page_015.jpg
e33bc342024a028c3ef521e739b5d83c
ad76d16fe7651a52a295997e9ef7729e9c4af965
F20101205_AAABFI stansberry_a_Page_004.tif
25fc0fc349735f1448b71995a919aeb8
3df996bbd2872947613b587caaf500ebae7cb20f
12267 F20101205_AAACCB stansberry_a_Page_317.pro
c0a99bdaf8ed4e1d534d72278268f145
3327f614575d2d5ca3bcb6c2ae5f006087762fc0
58147 F20101205_AAABST stansberry_a_Page_054.pro
91c002b8e2f82db31cfa3099412b4118
795ed0730c0ba4f9a17063bc3084d0291966203e
39736 F20101205_AAACPN stansberry_a_Page_022.QC.jpg
e8ce7144606e5d809c2cc5bca642e589
50d84ed9adac1dbcbeb92d26d252bb160b2af7d7
113706 F20101205_AAAAIQ stansberry_a_Page_016.jpg
5bc7cd73abeb510f33a30bd3ba2469d0
969f512c014a7e47e0dba317aab01bd1480c54c6
F20101205_AAABFJ stansberry_a_Page_005.tif
574cab22c717b459f40759f2c0d003b4
d13abe6cae64758a1e4ab3d1af31de51ce3f3424
84668 F20101205_AAACCC stansberry_a_Page_319.pro
db3950cf2047f6dc00f057e46f9d35c8
01972b4a65c389fccd17e54a91125dbe8c6dd1b2
50403 F20101205_AAABSU stansberry_a_Page_056.pro
fc8c9c2b09b2386709ef614c91266855
3b5edc7a4549b80b2f7a64aa0af30839efff50e0
9216 F20101205_AAACPO stansberry_a_Page_022thm.jpg
ae89c1030d03afb9b6581e59cbf28ca9
cc09a279c4e7d074ae0766993c34a887e8b31624
114594 F20101205_AAAAIR stansberry_a_Page_017.jpg
03ba8014305d4a2b7d6c97259e6006ab
c92dfa863d7053bb6c775778a756672752e62f6f
F20101205_AAABFK stansberry_a_Page_006.tif
be9e85a6ccf3288ba48442cbb835f25d
563221754a0722e3705fe704d9c67c827cb0ee21
91221 F20101205_AAACCD stansberry_a_Page_320.pro
4d03ba2e364c4473793189bb030fd791
ba31cf50b47d6bbed6c06c22da5475ad0a24a3cc
53507 F20101205_AAABSV stansberry_a_Page_057.pro
cba5e4b179000d6c94a4956070bde9e6
42eb8297dcd2ab3fc2418e07f6c7ba980cb3b4dc
36261 F20101205_AAACPP stansberry_a_Page_023.QC.jpg
f804ad5b876c0e81fa35e2b2beb53bc5
be9dea196e947589779df924b23cb14de081f250
F20101205_AAABFL stansberry_a_Page_007.tif
d8f0667e6ea46f0f851b27132f5b38a8
d8745d9dee29315f61c8859626922e9fcab7218b
79195 F20101205_AAACCE stansberry_a_Page_321.pro
132b04e91f6102db071b024ae16ab7e3
fc629b2c46050a06c4eabdce6c7387b2f41fbccf
49409 F20101205_AAABSW stansberry_a_Page_058.pro
9c9cb5efa17ebb5f98600bff83566d12
b9beb9f636b43595294279b89749ad3895850361
9086 F20101205_AAACPQ stansberry_a_Page_023thm.jpg
98d0cdb64e67e9f95b79a34e29dfd6be
119b01d9ac5cd6f441c9d78f0c675b69e46416be
30521 F20101205_AAAAIS stansberry_a_Page_018.jpg
ec99918c2d5044cfb0b8fb58d89a5ca5
ceb35671594903b75e472e8d4be5f0650dfd549d
F20101205_AAABFM stansberry_a_Page_008.tif
62097243dd42405cb310e9e2af4c3611
8f6bfa3b7698de17e4e85bbce2d4bb8c72d175af
24136 F20101205_AAACCF stansberry_a_Page_322.pro
346abc8cd8f8583f31978f48ced4b920
16f0a501f84f04179d531a000f776972cb0ad948
53922 F20101205_AAABSX stansberry_a_Page_059.pro
85d58330d4f00ee0f7d01d4be5da2784
ca93a350d4fb1a43bca83228816605841ba1c41e
37113 F20101205_AAACPR stansberry_a_Page_024.QC.jpg
6f4bbc124167e5b1285a2c5f459bd9ec
8f57fc49a290b36da5c5f76925f539da79fae803
104556 F20101205_AAAAIT stansberry_a_Page_019.jpg
27a5cb7b821eca396878ed75ae83a880
1da12b4e0437bf9a4672006711bf19e1f1a4a074
F20101205_AAABFN stansberry_a_Page_009.tif
f3bd67bb1e767e649dbae9dc00ba0884
bcfb6531da9fae8424f6f33fd385b4c5fff386b8
10308 F20101205_AAACCG stansberry_a_Page_323.pro
ef219527291bad80afd2757baec6bbef
e25d6d9198cf3de63f0adbc98ed5db2329b45ae4
65722 F20101205_AAABSY stansberry_a_Page_060.pro
49d616e4feaa9278f12de7d5b3231e62
7bca2df4da86f370d710cda38c72ffdd13f7ddd5
8941 F20101205_AAACPS stansberry_a_Page_024thm.jpg
75f2f01266dd82e559b80cf086c91b5b
8930c7f02470ffcf2c6225fd47fa3da048da7052
112384 F20101205_AAAAIU stansberry_a_Page_020.jpg
b0e11bfdfb42011b7476c5f94d33b33e
a182779c04b4efde8f5b114eb2f73d3f9f227933
13498 F20101205_AAACCH stansberry_a_Page_324.pro
7d19465df5ac7cb180e95b02c9d86a70
23dee40b2a34bb5ecfa563e08d2aeb43a9a3b81b
51854 F20101205_AAABSZ stansberry_a_Page_061.pro
3971ebcd8a4123bd0da37aa0ab309375
14184e394c6ac523203de2b886254aa9624f3210
37834 F20101205_AAACPT stansberry_a_Page_025.QC.jpg
89a95c54cf7eeefbe069e288811c5b29
a8e9f56bdbbd26e2068f92275f4a33b30710151f
108620 F20101205_AAAAIV stansberry_a_Page_021.jpg
71f9ff26c4b28795ade0162e88232f0c
897c9535f69f2eabc2e9dc5c6932bb232c0e7a15
F20101205_AAABFO stansberry_a_Page_010.tif
7f941a0a8862da62016f781258468516
9f57a9ac46803fc28120cd2c4e1b9fb6b0af0f20
13206 F20101205_AAACCI stansberry_a_Page_325.pro
17f7b8d67e3786063b6d260d9b362106
05afb0215890786cfc07c8ad3e388b6819d0e3c0
8399 F20101205_AAACPU stansberry_a_Page_025thm.jpg
ecc5d94a44638fe09d6facb3d2caeba9
f8e08f1f24604e325bf2725339b8fd57bfe29a95
138212 F20101205_AAAAIW stansberry_a_Page_022.jpg
2fb987ef8c7aa777c7f0c8ffbf77df5f
3f967326509f374e1decd4055bb9de9d6e4420a0
F20101205_AAABFP stansberry_a_Page_011.tif
9c54e3e6c1a3fab38ffbac4f1cb24e77
b3ebc0bd526d10596e6ef70053ccb9cdfd70d52a
59302 F20101205_AAACCJ stansberry_a_Page_327.pro
5ba6d1ae0a1921e25b91245e7ee8d442
a70a788e5a391ebe34dd85e1bdf4eedb3cc040ee
37787 F20101205_AAACPV stansberry_a_Page_026.QC.jpg
e49d685a97ae3b52dd988d8b33ed22e5
35af872dba62115b5710e19a89b6a83ea52427f0
111681 F20101205_AAAAIX stansberry_a_Page_023.jpg
565d19a416597a0c8934bbd68c5bd9db
af7b682deb0ac5570d7e0cfa54d0e5b8b7540633
F20101205_AAABFQ stansberry_a_Page_012.tif
d44cd391df4968d52c001f7d8273e591
0b0ac90a61137fe21a63035f91e60a99d5479884
9097 F20101205_AAACPW stansberry_a_Page_026thm.jpg
39a5b924a4e3d2d953a6b3471a8f14dc
7f8b2fb4d34a2e3dc59647702be3449564d46cdb
119009 F20101205_AAAAIY stansberry_a_Page_024.jpg
9b69e13e4bc1455b438240ce4e0cddcc
e3adf51d093851a6f218250f2251fa1d6e2680b3
F20101205_AAABFR stansberry_a_Page_013.tif
eb307979b092689c0f87180155ecc1cd
3caf100777cdacc8161d8ba692f51ef48c586bf0
14926 F20101205_AAACCK stansberry_a_Page_328.pro
47a1b09522a14808f10843c11ca059dc
6ecef6eb1c35f72fb9906127cfebc967328a3c37
119106 F20101205_AAAAIZ stansberry_a_Page_026.jpg
09be899c9479b38f55b82d388423241e
6873087c3361bcf481a05fd357afed5a16469948
F20101205_AAABFS stansberry_a_Page_014.tif
e6c66f9b9b280bd5fdddb0a621aeedd9
b3507efc14aa47b7e422f9f92440a5fe8b972ece
57433 F20101205_AAACCL stansberry_a_Page_329.pro
ae6a851c3d97bfec23dd8bf4f1d41809
4b710539a9987f0efc92f457bd4d8829627aa543
38339 F20101205_AAACPX stansberry_a_Page_027.QC.jpg
fdd8d1d6ea7b9c73e98ef5801a03f9a4
a20c0d8042ba17a72624d11b60a2409370adb412
F20101205_AAABFT stansberry_a_Page_015.tif
80b0ac1d8216db72e3a2f7d8ffdec3e2
07f0dd3337306816555db916a614e460b64e05bd
8315 F20101205_AAACCM stansberry_a_Page_330.pro
4b0435288b26a685de9a942106bc428a
2ae323d22a119289e7a6525ef97ffddb91d29ab8
9313 F20101205_AAACPY stansberry_a_Page_027thm.jpg
d26a665e12e69fe051a4e15c682347e0
dc6e30948830255263506e9f07ac7328975d7866
F20101205_AAABFU stansberry_a_Page_016.tif
d959817563d42f847bb32a1fda110b3e
50d6cf5e103d6071c9511a5cb2d8cb454c967960
431 F20101205_AAACCN stansberry_a_Page_001.txt
ec3576f57f7d1c8221157ba77f85025e
021483ef07aafc1c392cc07aa7dda94efe0ecfd1
35928 F20101205_AAACPZ stansberry_a_Page_028.QC.jpg
7bbef2eff0de33fc50676a858faa27a1
d82bfd25e50cac65542cafe87e079a3df07cf537
F20101205_AAABFV stansberry_a_Page_017.tif
dc7dc6361d414ac5924ce10bb70d6610
9ea60930e27543e345191e61c3bf6186b331590f
111 F20101205_AAACCO stansberry_a_Page_002.txt
c551fe5b470cf68252856d3a2465b187
8af327d354a593b03644d25a2330b9bb1f0fb762
F20101205_AAABFW stansberry_a_Page_018.tif
02822c4e14d2a4a1b69a6b23362b583e
b48d2cf7c1c819bf3690544198b404a58368502e
64698 F20101205_AAABYA stansberry_a_Page_203.pro
23271f3cd92142f61f75c0a3636946de
78152aec0c913a045f7b09ada52eed0e4ba21025
126 F20101205_AAACCP stansberry_a_Page_003.txt
7bba8e13d4b2dd356f6c185e532628d8
580196d48aaa4e98b3cce86c4d0db2c91a95df3d
F20101205_AAABFX stansberry_a_Page_020.tif
7a645866d4c56ceddf6fcf5f254cb440
45606ecff4f023c2b78b80db1b7ecaf9e31addd9
604 F20101205_AAACCQ stansberry_a_Page_004.txt
9c7874d1608e629996e3e3ccd85786fd
dd42ac893538e50a8ce6e3201cffc1b62821fb0d
F20101205_AAABFY stansberry_a_Page_021.tif
815709640bde3a30fe91cdb965522b2d
67f8f2d179724cc794014d4c8a7e1852b83ef9e2
53902 F20101205_AAABYB stansberry_a_Page_204.pro
c5ccda75597a24fbbbb8a8f2d899914d
8e149729e4e7566da7b266d76ffdca95b5ddcfde
3413 F20101205_AAACCR stansberry_a_Page_005.txt
f361e9c20e49021f10f63018b23bf970
ce24f650f9c804332ad60332b1d3ce5aa3f32357
F20101205_AAABFZ stansberry_a_Page_022.tif
ab6ef9bbccd36ecdf31a253a9f2fedec
87da89419e96ae11f5ecd962b25fe47047a9e54e
56069 F20101205_AAABYC stansberry_a_Page_205.pro
ccbd10a8750a55b4e0b60a97f7f9ffe9
143b5961bbcdedcc2fb03c27bfc677f082deeacd
4011 F20101205_AAACCS stansberry_a_Page_006.txt
ee46604c2f94433ccb65c8a19a28430f
cb263745579d7bbb9dc0ccad7ee3825402c5b60e
57539 F20101205_AAABYD stansberry_a_Page_207.pro
08c0c6226ff50584f3cd6ef89280aae4
01c60c5303903c4e4613533102dba6049b184947
2627 F20101205_AAACCT stansberry_a_Page_007.txt
ec024c2b7d2cf47606466405fca18a10
d408986f4f7a88ff3382e3851a3950a6f5576dca
25503 F20101205_AAABYE stansberry_a_Page_209.pro
81715fc292f98983ac3c8c81da8cef50
dc3dd72234f7a99bf272a78d9283085550f6f1ed
2570 F20101205_AAACCU stansberry_a_Page_008.txt
69c11e7b3bcd5ad75daeb3cda1502d9a
d8e4ea03731372f057c2c77094ba901b63a2ca4f
105565 F20101205_AAAAOA stansberry_a_Page_168.jpg
17afdaf338db4f082a230975ba10140c
372411751430de3ebb09991fb9aa3e22bb2452e6
54040 F20101205_AAABYF stansberry_a_Page_210.pro
1822a3fc725d75498f33f9af420b53bf
19684b6c24ed80c4f596433ee15869b203164693
2800 F20101205_AAACCV stansberry_a_Page_009.txt
7616f22be553769b67c90dec2fdb8712
1384c6f99f3ecb00a7a6fce505c5608b8a89246f
115351 F20101205_AAAAOB stansberry_a_Page_169.jpg
7714c196ebf1b350f7f8d203e79694c3
f290bcd1905f10d78c6e2267fb18a75c8e046f3f
74605 F20101205_AAABYG stansberry_a_Page_211.pro
5cab8e85d1c76897b6dfc674672adf68
6d39145e24b59f9501145c70301ecc56b8f38589
2801 F20101205_AAACCW stansberry_a_Page_010.txt
74d7822b9552882c517cc92d47387fac
04a372a4b77727d9f5cca74b358c9858342b5980
110231 F20101205_AAAAOC stansberry_a_Page_170.jpg
91a2339d2a935485ac03ad3546599035
c80310f63bd363db72e8e5632ca436a36b30313b
37011 F20101205_AAACVA stansberry_a_Page_102.QC.jpg
043fc2e024b6830cc8950b2c94925390
fe9769a7506cef984e818cdc6a3c39ca0a582b2a
41248 F20101205_AAABYH stansberry_a_Page_212.pro
e4ec6c323c4b285b2c4a1248366660a7
5af7b9021933d59a86deba53d447ca045eb8d3c8
1164 F20101205_AAACCX stansberry_a_Page_011.txt
4b1f70dbcad0ff48f6f828ef63660dcb
abab53d3760a8e2e4b7c79b192fec2cff91718c8
110797 F20101205_AAAAOD stansberry_a_Page_171.jpg
d238df5f3eaadbeea4e4f9182c301016
ff436996ad016e844da7010f1c579250021aeb8b
8579 F20101205_AAACVB stansberry_a_Page_102thm.jpg
341a08095dfbba7d4ef42f614e538be3
25f69e16be148d444874c3727ab37e521333ed15
58550 F20101205_AAABYI stansberry_a_Page_214.pro
8b21488ce32844ce9561e2e17cec4e0e
d00cf9172e90cf94be06533f1177f37a7b930927
2171 F20101205_AAACCY stansberry_a_Page_012.txt
2e44353d4b0347c19f2dad4678837efe
c4b73fe66cb9323e12a4de9412e260d0c549d007
134073 F20101205_AAAAOE stansberry_a_Page_172.jpg
b5be8911db158203a5f9d6f84a88e462
9c17dd66369c0df2546fe9bdb60d048b7fe3cc9c
36994 F20101205_AAACVC stansberry_a_Page_103.QC.jpg
c8e732e9a51e8c59e9d03cb6cc3d1bcc
2153e08fd0ffc00a9ab4167d2447fcd15b0d0134
57405 F20101205_AAABYJ stansberry_a_Page_215.pro
39a61b2117c90147fe243dae299b1c8f
e397f62af7d39cf6a4a1551340ce330f541e761c
2077 F20101205_AAACCZ stansberry_a_Page_013.txt
604a3a84878b82643030711e55ab14ad
0a8252f9c35ec432b4529ecd81cda0852731ac8c
103097 F20101205_AAAAOF stansberry_a_Page_173.jpg
1f3b83aaaa8c17e7026fc0975db8dc7b
986227f49ae4e0425d9f7fb0f379c1008a19a4f5
9020 F20101205_AAACVD stansberry_a_Page_103thm.jpg
cd84f5ed8c2fd31ed179f0b6f15d4604
ed27ae7fb41af3200c2714e9774d9ede128dfdde
51110 F20101205_AAABYK stansberry_a_Page_216.pro
efd8fdc34d0c5475e6b774dff36998e7
8b8f728eeeccff8b1872439c6ef84e605158fe2e
108767 F20101205_AAAAOG stansberry_a_Page_175.jpg
0ac36a91d55af2ad0b22460eab424d00
b954e5bad6d9a8aa8b9b07a65fa7d107a7e9665b
34896 F20101205_AAACVE stansberry_a_Page_104.QC.jpg
a455d79954a6cda2591b129ed5b1fed2
b1dfa317f89636a2163ea2c634999744f47b9150
F20101205_AAABLA stansberry_a_Page_164.tif
3c8980cf12aeb6cdb915cd56f40117db
3ecf74c894d08b219c84ab9773a17cc4e7640341
52880 F20101205_AAABYL stansberry_a_Page_217.pro
097e43b5da3f401dc8d47e825193a008
0d11f8f234f9cb10e914840b132fc3e5151ee2f6
107078 F20101205_AAAAOH stansberry_a_Page_176.jpg
b2c3b059863b87f227b1d2c6b7324de3
11434a9061ca87cece4eda4f987c02fff6f3f117
8783 F20101205_AAACVF stansberry_a_Page_104thm.jpg
7c3500d4082a08c20cfd01568bdbc6c4
8ea8fdf3497dd1781b6ffb7efb597a94ad50353a
F20101205_AAABLB stansberry_a_Page_165.tif
5fedcdf2e866d12507154025d6c29c8b
df99b27a4670b98096558d14daad323eef0dba8a
57228 F20101205_AAABYM stansberry_a_Page_218.pro
6b3534da74f49176a132cf33a87b902b
1846b0336cadec5537ad9b5d871dccaa6be09ea3
121084 F20101205_AAAAOI stansberry_a_Page_177.jpg
adc3e4c8aa279cce38c467925fed1259
07fbfa15413565a0645858bb9e384c772b286826
36342 F20101205_AAACVG stansberry_a_Page_105.QC.jpg
4239f6cfe2b50aa1295a7893072d5f16
ab2bbde58f43acb28b212f4c017529a8fa004f97
F20101205_AAABLC stansberry_a_Page_167.tif
e219a9bfe7d1a0eb93546a66293341ed
99afce725c5508ab417e207ac4f08667c9653f84
48068 F20101205_AAABYN stansberry_a_Page_219.pro
4eea69724ab381458ae72dcf001d95e0
479767c66736dbddeef566b37e4ff7c6f8601dca
115044 F20101205_AAAAOJ stansberry_a_Page_178.jpg
34c3d0801e5ba2dd9f69849c8f297ac1
a2061b94f5140a98237085abe337bdc2c3ac913f
8794 F20101205_AAACVH stansberry_a_Page_105thm.jpg
8d0281fda1f72693d6c3ef4bf1165986
92b8440c0aaa50c1222f03c49915e7a530910d72
F20101205_AAABLD stansberry_a_Page_168.tif
9e42c2710f3be30bad3c2f26ae064717
4909f99b25f1d6d2886bdae53df36d34aacacacc
54805 F20101205_AAABYO stansberry_a_Page_220.pro
9148c688052b1fe661928694300924ab
6ba4af155403b138c19f353285fedf4f2cbcb3ee
120843 F20101205_AAAAOK stansberry_a_Page_179.jpg
f7bcaec04512423c91763f3b7853a701
dfc411a825f79562d02fcf1936ca33ab6c15a867
37615 F20101205_AAACVI stansberry_a_Page_106.QC.jpg
9f2ad161a32a786483eb33197e99bb87
24988d27a619dd01fc7c072c04ebd2acde98ca59
F20101205_AAABLE stansberry_a_Page_169.tif
5c8bb388bf9ed33c95bc305d3f5b9db4
95ec9c9b532b09dbbbfecc51dc82babb504655a2
34700 F20101205_AAAABA stansberry_a_Page_183.QC.jpg
9a474ec676df24a11d9c89452a3eac93
07507cd03ba9728a807e0f2d9fe76cff5c3e3cd7
51443 F20101205_AAABYP stansberry_a_Page_221.pro
9dbb482c99bcb28182392f0e481bd35d
f6b85643986dbd4be3752902860d0b903ae74d94
115176 F20101205_AAAAOL stansberry_a_Page_180.jpg
f0efd53c64eb7701a798147b9d730ebb
2d31a66b74187f044e78f672dc18f5ca1e875288
9151 F20101205_AAACVJ stansberry_a_Page_106thm.jpg
40b2bb37e0c127bbe7c26fc9caff718c
f756b7deb1d889b8deae09fab1fb6e7cd9c84d86
F20101205_AAABLF stansberry_a_Page_170.tif
5dc61c7aff33ac36fefa4dc8df34e722
b237ccb18f2a26ae3c0db7b60c74eca55298496f
140909 F20101205_AAAABB stansberry_a_Page_246.jpg
9932434cc1bcaede4dd77fadcc078c75
8dd000686c1ccf87395a6b755d950ae283c23cb9
53973 F20101205_AAABYQ stansberry_a_Page_222.pro
8a8c5402b985f95c7cb157ca1118d286
542865959d6653221121e8da88bcb0925e0baf48
111383 F20101205_AAAAOM stansberry_a_Page_181.jpg
e02833294b703d60dcac904dccfe30bf
d6a7a866ec62cbde53347f98da7f676992fe25bd
37037 F20101205_AAACVK stansberry_a_Page_107.QC.jpg
f6995bb2dc6d4b592b1e0051b9ea4203
5a3e72a763287a8ebeef20f6a3459fa657a5b99c
F20101205_AAABLG stansberry_a_Page_171.tif
54b801331fdfcb550ec20e8e1be61a90
3447671981fe79073bb1d0ced002aaaa2502948e
76842 F20101205_AAAABC stansberry_a_Page_245.pro
e6e636d0fcb3cf7d1197a085d8c26938
2914e578e6dcf6c07eea4b4961361f47444b5520
53649 F20101205_AAABYR stansberry_a_Page_223.pro
42c9b5b08ee00668d2292a28e02d3220
78f34d49b4234204f7107d2165422f2ec8b00bbf
107981 F20101205_AAAAON stansberry_a_Page_183.jpg
baf9ae813440054e1c31ad2a65871007
697ab95127437d28ee6e9aee2742f64bb55c70e9
9072 F20101205_AAACVL stansberry_a_Page_107thm.jpg
b4b52c067282bf4f58b80bff2b220a69
eafe3d1ecf4208e11008e3e858c9bcfd1c15d07b
F20101205_AAABLH stansberry_a_Page_172.tif
03f23f6d6cf13784a29d54f4a38960ef
d1cb6a1b5df1386a6db3ce60830f4b0c0b9f5818
1972 F20101205_AAACIA stansberry_a_Page_164.txt
edbb2d9e6a6b0ca34f7b6304fde2371a
b0089723d453601d3ea38e8ae822c38732ede5e3
6885 F20101205_AAAABD stansberry_a_Page_308thm.jpg
79ad2beb5b8abbde0b2951a5276929cb
28a12c219cd9c4be8a1ff3e943bf872ddcda96f2
51196 F20101205_AAABYS stansberry_a_Page_225.pro
9e6e313050548d600b74feb0eece1586
87edb7e8a363b5c097849f07aadebfd37bce625c
101069 F20101205_AAAAOO stansberry_a_Page_184.jpg
492cefd25ccbffade4c602d821e930e6
8258de686c3e0c158dec3337e183848126602e38
37309 F20101205_AAACVM stansberry_a_Page_108.QC.jpg
c8d46a607b2e5a241d53d8e269aa91ce
9eeb3ec28b1e12dbd9043b793ac2dd1b0a214b7d
F20101205_AAABLI stansberry_a_Page_174.tif
a45e7aca5d7adde8d02c4c2efdce15c0
867211c41463ae087a3e6802bd35950b42f2620c
F20101205_AAACIB stansberry_a_Page_165.txt
0335c498319ee64c3d173c8957a9b360
0c70ce46c378acdfd0ec64571255ce91dba71a54
228 F20101205_AAAABE stansberry_a_Page_149.txt
00e2d0322dab87e68aa90830cd0b3efe
0845e23c59071aeff75bd10536f8b756990e86a2
54588 F20101205_AAABYT stansberry_a_Page_226.pro
56139416cede276f3da0e1314c0891dd
cbeecec78eeae76f804205608424585e75a6aaeb
100780 F20101205_AAAAOP stansberry_a_Page_185.jpg
55df95f5b7834771c53536784b0fa870
2fb3b590554fe1c36415abdc5cb1d75864de63e4
9124 F20101205_AAACVN stansberry_a_Page_108thm.jpg
a4f62f22dc190a49c95d2c54a3db3fb2
8d767010dd2d76dfeded7c694794474ee570e5f4
F20101205_AAABLJ stansberry_a_Page_175.tif
a79d6caa592e158b2ebefbb3629769e5
d48f29630e86c79c82c5122acc50bf90d964aea9
2141 F20101205_AAACIC stansberry_a_Page_166.txt
cf4e3bec37ed3b1417695b5e495f9f2a
ff432b1fd365fcbddcbe67f5835ad18852839636
548 F20101205_AAAABF stansberry_a_Page_018.txt
d726cf754752cd95b1f1755db87f4421
779f76fbe2714eaf363bf7c56410bd6ab72d973a
55981 F20101205_AAABYU stansberry_a_Page_227.pro
b7df7026dae6d344e56f6ae477f92fd0
ec1f180bac74f600395d8ccc63a3644c33a25a80
109826 F20101205_AAAAOQ stansberry_a_Page_186.jpg
43e0fafbc601c2754a8711702dd7d9fe
3976d5b4e8d31105657fd859cf1b877f8104ec4a
34812 F20101205_AAACVO stansberry_a_Page_109.QC.jpg
8a571f0a55b2ce827bd0d7459d032aec
9f0f00b3f4ebd63890005dcd1dddccf1d4d8dd10
F20101205_AAABLK stansberry_a_Page_176.tif
6a87f2f7ad3f68bcd4b054a81ea3cacd
aa3b3b03244d70197d49916b978642a75957f9fa
2479 F20101205_AAACID stansberry_a_Page_167.txt
fd14b9b772142a9275ef961c63a777f4
0a8c2d8fce401cfe1329c6b5f9465c73d4a3e8d5
105706 F20101205_AAAABG stansberry_a_Page_190.jpg
7d39a7256e9ca53ce410a35205e5ef73
2093000c358105588cc74700a1d671be3e2e1624
47776 F20101205_AAABYV stansberry_a_Page_228.pro
c81c3a60c33612c038208b5f4cc64122
8d73e680f6a600496c55491ea0aadd2638920d2e
128496 F20101205_AAAAOR stansberry_a_Page_187.jpg
a994fd70ab0781d76f4f9dd2699339e6
3bb5486a511ec6f1bc995e8783cfad320642e7ee
8937 F20101205_AAACVP stansberry_a_Page_109thm.jpg
71345fed23e2e9a49aab3fbb855889fb
1e249be11c83bdba7896e6fe8c99de90946b8163
F20101205_AAABLL stansberry_a_Page_177.tif
3e117442b56bbefda4546907a30283f0
2920903ea879947aa800682b5cc9d8b043cea82d
2080 F20101205_AAACIE stansberry_a_Page_168.txt
b7eb5e3ece78e649454cdfbd1c4e677e
042f70e5183590050cccdb23380ec2daea530bb9
54337 F20101205_AAAABH stansberry_a_Page_034.pro
0b31318dae1bb9736410a494284f7adb
1c2388e4485c5f24b8f1320119a7a9de96951e03
53451 F20101205_AAABYW stansberry_a_Page_229.pro
696a1752e14f1524604fd5682db36ea1
5502175c081de65ed9bf9a8d3cd58a127ee9b2f9
111758 F20101205_AAAAOS stansberry_a_Page_188.jpg
92133c84ebc72c276659835317b404c8
eae541df1bfc34f592e361359327e0d779d30e5b
37929 F20101205_AAACVQ stansberry_a_Page_110.QC.jpg
49aefcac9b9c636a2443e47e8cc282e4
b9b262fed024a69830ba78233f9991a6dfbd0da3
F20101205_AAABLM stansberry_a_Page_178.tif
ba5b350334697b79991dc5bc40f252d3
db14896c06e176e520e0df19471d311834dd7969
2228 F20101205_AAACIF stansberry_a_Page_169.txt
137c7e4f32aa13444b11c2a8a2518a40
2eacd9938c8b9adabc013eb16c422e8ca357d124
76571 F20101205_AAAABI stansberry_a_Page_249.pro
ac1fb9513f78598953034fcf510f6055
87d0db6cf7cbc6b27cc2cfa0657c834f582b7612
49539 F20101205_AAABYX stansberry_a_Page_230.pro
73919a260c827ae3ab3150788a142f44
6fe11fd982e3e0024e3578b04c279e8b7558e719
117115 F20101205_AAAAOT stansberry_a_Page_189.jpg
d5c9e378f7f68d493834c7aa9758492d
e56aaa80514faff56b281d0a996cac38577095c1
8952 F20101205_AAACVR stansberry_a_Page_110thm.jpg
5366c4faa3eb40866e8310d10e1cbb07
78b872b5e757bdceecdce74bfe62490b1de83541
F20101205_AAABLN stansberry_a_Page_179.tif
102e228025276b4258fe0b47b1885a94
9c15fb5c33618a262c7d919da6e2003a25a1dcef
2143 F20101205_AAACIG stansberry_a_Page_170.txt
d683f6301f1e13aa03f886f8f18e06e6
e1348381fd54bccf31e7b928338fdf6321ce9943
F20101205_AAAABJ stansberry_a_Page_251.tif
3afcf0aa1d085e2e79d1ffdd67924868
84ef30d3d5562b1c67ac42aff000426e45fd302e
53036 F20101205_AAABYY stansberry_a_Page_231.pro
7d744988d488d97183f299cbef1ace7b
de7233105b0b54ecb676d1bb2e208e4b96c97b66
93159 F20101205_AAAAOU stansberry_a_Page_191.jpg
8ac4d61e08bb066c974776146997927b
912c232f40106abd399e5e0bd069088b68182c57
39688 F20101205_AAADFA stansberry_a_Page_247.QC.jpg
9549cb1bfc2167c5c077d1a18ef489f0
f5f205db43922eb6b18725a608fb982e922ba42d
23563 F20101205_AAACVS stansberry_a_Page_111.QC.jpg
4d8de7f6b125f422c92bab1fdada3c1e
8159c469ced4c6af9c427e966449216f41a0df5e
F20101205_AAABLO stansberry_a_Page_180.tif
cbae96fddbb6a801bcda1cdc26bb8231
51f5f96b157f7900cdccd556b9320eb015621fbe
F20101205_AAACIH stansberry_a_Page_171.txt
470495ac8dd8ddd8c5e7fd7b30a53d6b
c27bcf50c5f719bd0987d2f9eef7964fb6985429
2279 F20101205_AAAABK stansberry_a_Page_189.txt
b8813c5bc93665c5dd2b57ead50665d5
d9801dd6ae2b4751e424a854a877b57ec2eaf323
53155 F20101205_AAABYZ stansberry_a_Page_232.pro
cbf633a6d5bdc706b87ee6fdfcd2d733
38e861728ea89eb767aa449b39632d82d8086a9a
110314 F20101205_AAAAOV stansberry_a_Page_192.jpg
eafdca3789278af2d9427078d7f48168
82589dfd57caf12b936f1abf74bd74088315cacf
8979 F20101205_AAADFB stansberry_a_Page_247thm.jpg
5eec27b8714d0650cf869b23bb343233
cb8f4d8c38f503c23894483f7aebb3a758b0cc39
6308 F20101205_AAACVT stansberry_a_Page_111thm.jpg
ac3e3a0f1f93590168286fa96b91128e
12e92bcf41861e928b40496b8d2bebc4580f5ce3
F20101205_AAABLP stansberry_a_Page_181.tif
8d09036c96c3778718b9fd748bd2675c
030166a9d5412db77fbd9c68c2e9199a67d60157
2791 F20101205_AAACII stansberry_a_Page_172.txt
4c56caef75dc3652550563a57f1496ef
72ba1f77c797ee0561682b496184e3d21168dd9d
116684 F20101205_AAAAOW stansberry_a_Page_193.jpg
44c8c523fed4c082db0a95717aa8392b
1c50a56a3632ff77318dd66a20259a2d5a26e328
39404 F20101205_AAADFC stansberry_a_Page_248.QC.jpg
94a696b55d542049fb04fe3c089c87fe
11aa08aad04bd84ad6bb346af4514790d13bbd0f
27133 F20101205_AAACVU stansberry_a_Page_112.QC.jpg
35aeb7e4d880a1357a2a96ac5b6b3f8d
6210aa44d865cce381529d75b45297bc63d6c1b5
F20101205_AAABLQ stansberry_a_Page_182.tif
1f0fb649715beffcd54553f75da76ba6
b791313708ee7546f98d7a9c88f4949c9402ef72
2043 F20101205_AAACIJ stansberry_a_Page_173.txt
3b7d3748862ce1d27631f37e5cfde317
d3b8d4fe4aa5c3bfb3b88d34bdf2e0a692fd5567
2190 F20101205_AAAABL stansberry_a_Page_032.txt
fc17bf0a96c9feae340cd6bb562091eb
80e4c077c74abd909766fbf585a27a6d17e284cd
108084 F20101205_AAAAOX stansberry_a_Page_194.jpg
49779373e85a4e19f5d20111bc8907c3
60ee7e5f860152d95e052ba703dbf6035ef54fa5
8810 F20101205_AAADFD stansberry_a_Page_248thm.jpg
7eb5c619cd6ddc7925959f3ecacb96c9
4c5e1a22cce4f2901a0b5d8399d043b57a2deead
7594 F20101205_AAACVV stansberry_a_Page_112thm.jpg
0af988012eae8b1f7087bfc2578f8eb8
220456ffc0d5c8db78db3a31c6824f30e675b3cf
F20101205_AAABLR stansberry_a_Page_183.tif
f625056acf099135f62ec6fab2e654b8
1186d140f7b193d32127b16340c03e0e0e43f4bd
2220 F20101205_AAACIK stansberry_a_Page_174.txt
00bbf5cb4821b32b673c46ce50e94674
4841b2f01b58da46c30001b41f849b48b4bed518
6522 F20101205_AAAABM stansberry_a_Page_141thm.jpg
067faad92269b96a36a177cac7509488
a9e522374c3cfabfaaad3f2ee0cfa6fdf0975373
38595 F20101205_AAADFE stansberry_a_Page_249.QC.jpg
6e3a6936493c0682c8d040853ea9882b
66e6a2793983061cd6677d89579bf885d8b0927c
8787 F20101205_AAACVW stansberry_a_Page_113.QC.jpg
fdf2e61ca5accc6803d0a3f56560b236
577009bfc132e608471ff54abbb3e8d10452d920
F20101205_AAABLS stansberry_a_Page_184.tif
07d548ae2e1a43191a823e7bc9632f1a
28b9d7a82231e9c4b508c325de8bdcb96134accc
2167 F20101205_AAACIL stansberry_a_Page_175.txt
6cba98a0379c43739e17e20ed0592191
f4c6344583e91e7022493c20176078d3ee9da26f
114426 F20101205_AAAABN stansberry_a_Page_210.jp2
108dc561f6dff7e22d19ea8a7036126a
a13b2d3b7d1ae9c947c9e7010f3a9b6399f58323
103199 F20101205_AAAAOY stansberry_a_Page_195.jpg
eb2f757e21177790b598c88cda18f42d
6818e81c9c809dd9b1baeae2235c7e173b9849c4
9183 F20101205_AAADFF stansberry_a_Page_249thm.jpg
5ae9e27ca773ce9356d5f0518836567b
2f1ad475e0d77de28288d6727e7b75dbfdf27458
2719 F20101205_AAACVX stansberry_a_Page_113thm.jpg
c01d3305a8420a513fe962569255d6b4
e2efa12086bf10a239f9305aa2a8614ec1e3c309
F20101205_AAABLT stansberry_a_Page_185.tif
9ee5760dfcd920a8b00cc28f840f5139
09c0e611fbe11d09dad18e06a428ddbfa9cabd69
2108 F20101205_AAACIM stansberry_a_Page_176.txt
e254bc4a1c7877e432535a8eb169220e
e0318afee321c36f3c140938dca0c93dcde3b5ef
F20101205_AAAABO stansberry_a_Page_206.tif
730f3e3fb5c5f31ed5dccc8766821867
b773cc9fceb6cffeba2c9e190e9aa8565587ef5e
109912 F20101205_AAAAOZ stansberry_a_Page_196.jpg
8ec940013ce55dc013fd267befa9f992
1171682a7f6cf19a7ebdf678d88a921e09f3776c
20646 F20101205_AAADFG stansberry_a_Page_250.QC.jpg
6608671cd85b03faf0676701506d61d1
09f211bb038011317540025ff337d2af39e7e77c
19920 F20101205_AAACVY stansberry_a_Page_114.QC.jpg
ee0cd05ff58260d47519394eb720daab
59e7d3bc4de4d832d870c7bbe47b2a5830ca25fd
2374 F20101205_AAACIN stansberry_a_Page_177.txt
086c18cb0dd1dabb49f876d25ca20e48
a597c9e4b8814da01f0903a20f65d5474cc018fc
9016 F20101205_AAAABP stansberry_a_Page_189thm.jpg
03da4e1801e94c4e09d9efa3cf63bda1
683d310017edee94340de0bf530e8608a5945d69
5238 F20101205_AAADFH stansberry_a_Page_250thm.jpg
4ad7a5c020c8c0395a1485a3c163b645
86ca9f707e4930160acf8b50364b92d2b0bf2144
5929 F20101205_AAACVZ stansberry_a_Page_114thm.jpg
47bcddfc2b519c5240c74bee9c274679
b9fb9802225b4e98f1aae10437bbfafe760e029d
F20101205_AAABLU stansberry_a_Page_186.tif
36b8b4653b16525d78c2b1f2c13e7bfb
682f6370bbe96ebc3d50335691ceb63b838bde9b
2268 F20101205_AAACIO stansberry_a_Page_178.txt
e38eefbd603d27b08e95757e580fc097
19fc36d68c5d1da77715d81b220a2f81a6b0f85f
97800 F20101205_AAAABQ stansberry_a_Page_260.jpg
7aa2ec818b2f3b751a32da4d557a795f
e379ba476232f5d895d1c039df928033c59e2596
41431 F20101205_AAADFI stansberry_a_Page_251.QC.jpg
a111d8d5f2d66bfcb18e4ab38ec1eca1
462a0ca39ab54b482aabaf93f679a3fd236b402b
F20101205_AAABLV stansberry_a_Page_187.tif
e445c6df09e6c01305f2af0af818137e
e4278fdb4ecb37a745e7ffc171a60406c6522efd
2340 F20101205_AAACIP stansberry_a_Page_179.txt
aa3e13b1415f8471c07722ed82824269
57d13370a036a4203935b40f7bacd32ecdc69d3e
391 F20101205_AAAABR stansberry_a_Page_254.txt
d4805447a8695d2e0d95689779811e35
4dfeccccf750c65aba6f9d0246a746e31391e79a
9453 F20101205_AAADFJ stansberry_a_Page_251thm.jpg
c5302d9e77ed57f504bb0b4db254496d
b103d0ad2b40df8c0bff0c5136cdfab83411fd7e
F20101205_AAABLW stansberry_a_Page_189.tif
cca1296dc2271a7c0f768e3e774bf372
b90bec96c999793c4a52214c718b1a073ff8d8c9
F20101205_AAAABS stansberry_a_Page_302.tif
f7962da71a527e6014976eb31c0f0a17
8889e392947d53cdab02e455c10976b7e255871f
19072 F20101205_AAADFK stansberry_a_Page_252.QC.jpg
16b37656b0ca81d12c11dcc91d988cae
b05bf9d59c13367ffc7bbd2b63230e01253c0d24
F20101205_AAABLX stansberry_a_Page_190.tif
d0a850a838b64ecf54d7ed9f110ed750
f6f496fba19ac1d3e856bd3a8a52e94256ab82af
2176 F20101205_AAACIQ stansberry_a_Page_181.txt
2f9b2c6520741659320c3ca50814f283
ec1def7f2b757224e86fc5f42b03cc924dd7e18a
F20101205_AAAABT stansberry_a_Page_074.tif
377c7a80fd486ee8f7961c8ac18b59ff
8c96e3d2c45a423424f5ccad1faf1f0480d56968
4621 F20101205_AAADFL stansberry_a_Page_252thm.jpg
85f14e910ffdd43ee54f8013e6421a68
2d60e04a8183835d85876f146a796b8d0186bfbf
F20101205_AAABLY stansberry_a_Page_191.tif
5d47aca195fc2675dd06fabdf4777743
38e22d0fcc6ad16bdf90c7124809a057496e9cbf
2185 F20101205_AAACIR stansberry_a_Page_182.txt
c1c547e594ad5a085ec190e1845e4451
9a0601911d0e084d3d1945c2d1f747fe26bfafbf
37554 F20101205_AAAABU stansberry_a_Page_017.QC.jpg
f66cd39caec7a03eb8266219c3344943
027f637cecb2741981dc21cdce4840a4ae66a3fc
F20101205_AAABLZ stansberry_a_Page_192.tif
eca15819c46a1f048da978679954cf5f
f62ec329639fc48830234e2bcf64e6aab8000e6a
2083 F20101205_AAACIS stansberry_a_Page_183.txt
130f13357d367190a77b78247b766f24
4a68011e3e5714abae3d0b0df2134dbf7f52580e
33894 F20101205_AAAABV stansberry_a_Page_056.QC.jpg
9e087aab14bf6b734ccd2007ba8e7351
aa53f1710a27ff71adbe2ed905bb0ec4044859f5
23283 F20101205_AAADFM stansberry_a_Page_253.QC.jpg
6735ea09add8bec06183c55f8c97fa81
2ec2ff52e38d8dafafb9bdffda099e01f0ee1506
2027 F20101205_AAACIT stansberry_a_Page_184.txt
59a6d6267bc26f4de137bd00e5204e24
4e42f6d84e4abbd34dbf83745c095b58502902bf
8058 F20101205_AAAABW stansberry_a_Page_230thm.jpg
5492cec51262f8de04febffa4c88b536
b4c4883758cbfd87fe15d6363225908c5a6b6fe2
5245 F20101205_AAADFN stansberry_a_Page_253thm.jpg
5722d669140b2356fc316f0b4696a76e
5a35e21fc1e28883f570430aa805ca6b1fd0d5bd
1970 F20101205_AAACIU stansberry_a_Page_185.txt
8b4976f93891bd42c3fbf720290d2e3e
9bdb71504c9101daf01168892a587ab013f4ece8
75444 F20101205_AAAABX stansberry_a_Page_111.jp2
206ecc722bba9b7fa8993254b2a6b864
07b3e829077f5fd1300262ab353772823987e6f6
116020 F20101205_AAAAUA stansberry_a_Page_015.jp2
5f75dbba523ebb0880bcfe1ef675a0ea
22e51c6d2c59946c8acfd5c2897814cf5125f098
6155 F20101205_AAADFO stansberry_a_Page_254thm.jpg
5e02f9600da465b3bb89765aeb9bad8f
625e33f47400e438c8933ad22ef7834221570a46
2162 F20101205_AAACIV stansberry_a_Page_186.txt
bd7444f96c537b25a4ac481930da8441
560d753e9708b11e88a2d5e04f74a423590a2883
8844 F20101205_AAAABY stansberry_a_Page_101thm.jpg
19c77bf407cd3c80f0c4e5add8d9986d
fd106a7c783f3b927ca10b87dfaaa751ce5c65a3
118202 F20101205_AAAAUB stansberry_a_Page_016.jp2
83343bbfc4b0be0a4fcb6b7bd66da8cf
49bc3d969c0f9b712298bec4fdbdcd3d552b3754
20899 F20101205_AAADFP stansberry_a_Page_255.QC.jpg
ea2686f70e81a3fb9db963b0570786c5
3583d5c4fa446d3809604437afb980ce47b5cb40
2598 F20101205_AAACIW stansberry_a_Page_187.txt
38efe93f8df4c21e9063b59930bbeefd
ced30cb8a727c3ee0c6c2db2f708bcd8fb66b9a8
915440 F20101205_AAAABZ stansberry_a_Page_307.jp2
3daae43de1dffee896865fbb226dc5c2
d2fc833b1a1548d3528980487ad4b0b5174e7c7c
120504 F20101205_AAAAUC stansberry_a_Page_017.jp2
bc300d18a88fbec4773e8bc507fac723
685e0c131c3f81a2e1be3d9df6e3c53f1a830754
5695 F20101205_AAADFQ stansberry_a_Page_255thm.jpg
682a39c30d31f412204cdb9bd3275252
6bf9abb0e652c5ebf2f3603177217ff715fb0c14
2189 F20101205_AAACIX stansberry_a_Page_188.txt
4ff7a761524e9901c898b7284aa8d4be
82b6f02e952070d94683427ce22762e2171b4dda
32725 F20101205_AAAAUD stansberry_a_Page_018.jp2
85f2b8a79cc094a8c5bd453b44087e6d
bb511e1491a1a45c0a6e93d46692ffd1aab620da
12104 F20101205_AAADFR stansberry_a_Page_256.QC.jpg
9aa5da07ae0a49d84f17d20e4b696717
17643d18119b129621b04a874f4026d7d76465ae
2127 F20101205_AAACIY stansberry_a_Page_190.txt
344bc72df5e2ee87c7072e7316d3debc
ac9cae2aac30be49ab728d02de21860af0ff6a44
109776 F20101205_AAAAUE stansberry_a_Page_019.jp2
d8a7dad0f7410a0b9101dc3baa05df4d
735c134d1fce71b1c9dc3261c883aa3ac406db6e
3739 F20101205_AAADFS stansberry_a_Page_256thm.jpg
93262efe75d16bff681212e3e66460da
49c8da58a89dfe8e7650c15a706337d9ac449292
1816 F20101205_AAACIZ stansberry_a_Page_191.txt
f94642a35b225115a9d80e8f9b54535d
b97bf352e77acec21092e0c377f50b600d31c653
119059 F20101205_AAAAUF stansberry_a_Page_020.jp2
af1d452ac1a6c01d45efa466729345ed
eeebc3a4bb3392283867786a92b9501d28e9cf0f
3793 F20101205_AAADFT stansberry_a_Page_257thm.jpg
029ede89ac2c7c8f1bef9038f7700a5a
d7eaded98476ae310a0d23ee53f47214f96f76ee
113860 F20101205_AAAAUG stansberry_a_Page_021.jp2
1dfeb7082274fbdd72de73bc9baef913
c7e98ead4c99cc8d5ea246760156bd753ade0bbb
12414 F20101205_AAADFU stansberry_a_Page_258.QC.jpg
43302cab003b875d3131e97ffe901d79
154ddbb576859d4f5e492bdac9539065d78d0caf
1051973 F20101205_AAAAUH stansberry_a_Page_022.jp2
266b6604f8cffcfa86a9c2e0310667e8
356966db5c8efcc828111346ebb26d85aba0651e
77397 F20101205_AAABRA stansberry_a_Page_005.pro
8adf13a27551d6becda7f140edaa0ab2
80485e36809c619c06f1be2d6d9465f46e5b4b62
3867 F20101205_AAADFV stansberry_a_Page_258thm.jpg
02cd5c5e208bf50d455d4442ac8776cc
0b6939cf0270de422a3d51334cba72f079ffa456
118107 F20101205_AAAAUI stansberry_a_Page_023.jp2
f65d72b4edc7a88da1878f52092929d5
c322f5ac5e970938011d2d35b0e0808a71d56cfc
94107 F20101205_AAABRB stansberry_a_Page_006.pro
ecc1630e128fb2c0b32f626ed743866a
5690ce8d793698eb4fd60315f01f866e954adb2d
27637 F20101205_AAADFW stansberry_a_Page_259.QC.jpg
a14939800c81da74c1318d4c245c654f
d47636e24d56b15e970cdaf672f4d9dfbedf7930
127759 F20101205_AAAAUJ stansberry_a_Page_024.jp2
b7da7e34e3523158d97448a2d754b821
01d808b1a03f6b31191cad145d4a2f67c81d8e2c
64534 F20101205_AAABRC stansberry_a_Page_007.pro
dcdc3ee55aece036a7a3f1f0047a4539
aa4292097d2d1ba305d10ce37af5bb98c98dece8
7504 F20101205_AAADFX stansberry_a_Page_259thm.jpg
b0be3fc1f1a08e264371ddc0a62a75a5
7314db4a2b1006126dd99c84f586d587ebe26bb0
149348 F20101205_AAAAUK stansberry_a_Page_025.jp2
1ffd2bb3843daa6a95b07e00a501c73c
f0259d1f4c052a2e5d1410c9d33205c938b4205d
62543 F20101205_AAABRD stansberry_a_Page_008.pro
50c905259031112ac52f3e51080c3a3e
0d4fe811722a00b0d64343580482d0750ba9ddf6
25807 F20101205_AAADFY stansberry_a_Page_260.QC.jpg
06a33c6836104e7d50f27ba168b3c7a5
09f82b791e5193171f7a15a44553f92645b3c968
35608 F20101205_AAAAHA stansberry_a_Page_066.QC.jpg
003da690a270d09ef41106e992f06b15
3511ac295696b5fbb6f916725185cb039a2ec561
1051969 F20101205_AAAAUL stansberry_a_Page_026.jp2
5028e73fb784495254eeab4701c9208c
6c4a2050b4a5a60ffc805e944a4e5360ad288447
69036 F20101205_AAABRE stansberry_a_Page_009.pro
ae9197ce194cd4c282cf45806d5beb8d
8a89b754820ac0bb28a2c90b9db937dc26219121
6571 F20101205_AAADFZ stansberry_a_Page_260thm.jpg
fcec3436749773209e034e898cabef22
7973d0b61605852f1d694e41474696637205090f
2938 F20101205_AAAAHB stansberry_a_Page_249.txt
b29628a5b3537673f54bc2b34518406b
5cbcf185b5f0b9a499f8f280c23b66cab689bc99
118591 F20101205_AAAAUM stansberry_a_Page_028.jp2
9110a489b0ffc81aff81e34dbc93d8f8
3d218f529dad1c8267dc7492ceaf9e6b53de59e0
68324 F20101205_AAABRF stansberry_a_Page_010.pro
cd7a8b7a1c86a5312dd2d1e46a0acd7b
6ed62241ab7b906445e3e3b21c7d92423a26b34a
52918 F20101205_AAAAHC stansberry_a_Page_055.pro
56f41daed665026703dea26eefb81167
290348189cdaa0e0ef5f50c847742408e249dc00
119742 F20101205_AAAAUN stansberry_a_Page_029.jp2
97074021a717ef637787cac89e3a33f6
1c6c3a17151eabf6bfbe18ff5eae43a9fa9e022f
28223 F20101205_AAABRG stansberry_a_Page_011.pro
c8d2289b6ff213f9f5e1aff327f67a23
a40eaa6aa2f462528a9e358afe4292dcd160d392
335 F20101205_AAACOA stansberry_a_Page_330.txt
069403001ddb74df74871ba924492b4c
85aaa4c10eb6a388281a26011ef32c66862cba15
76965 F20101205_AAAAHD stansberry_a_Page_248.pro
f4d64ea8474e3bd9dfdde4ea08fb3bb2
0496c7adbd5aeaf73a34f582ee93ef91c9ef8fae
121866 F20101205_AAAAUO stansberry_a_Page_030.jp2
f2fbf18ddd73fd27838b627d08772e37
2f2c3b53c57fa2807bdd59de5eec6f5bad26dd33
50566 F20101205_AAABRH stansberry_a_Page_012.pro
18c12368189ccedb89fa25cdb5f999e6
8032878b2ecb3a5c4f8448a9cc49d2d733dd282f
11306180 F20101205_AAACOB stansberry_a.pdf
12b867c819846c160bbd17f7837db20b
6bf216dd77de691736ce4f669018fe7e2cd2ab30
F20101205_AAAAHE stansberry_a_Page_141.tif
a5139972c71e62ec164daa9cfc0321e6
16f71865c615e755b7f9dc8c104d596b6378e5f3
130478 F20101205_AAAAUP stansberry_a_Page_031.jp2
e7b013dda61fc9336c86f0553078891d
ff2db670c3d051c40d2fcdf09e277d6fe515e153
52673 F20101205_AAABRI stansberry_a_Page_013.pro
1cfb11b20f3237d9b7dd295442fa41cb
b9a2751decd6fbae7059eaeedb5237d33da16b0a
7552 F20101205_AAACOC stansberry_a_Page_001.QC.jpg
505eb76d7b8a076d43ad48e9cad2bf08
a4a305d74c0ab19ba783bbca7d1edd666cf6ae02
F20101205_AAAAHF stansberry_a_Page_108.tif
c94fd6801af757a16234f6c71ee24480
845a7428217ed50d93290707fe6a03f1052a1556
119076 F20101205_AAAAUQ stansberry_a_Page_032.jp2
2171ab743ab2d6c133c9a99f29780691
8779cb7c0036ca9e0d965995726c5df1587e570a
52069 F20101205_AAABRJ stansberry_a_Page_014.pro
cc0c495498c86ed2946bf1be9c236160
9c336e88e4a95d8a89556b06e6cfad1804f7f47e
1664 F20101205_AAACOD stansberry_a_Page_002.QC.jpg
230aea8ded3d6c6ef206b67c318d78bb
3afed09e9355607d112308379a74c0d3e6b8ad5f
73539 F20101205_AAAAHG stansberry_a_Page_307.jpg
5cc3da3562f9e1e1c6d94f3c3de6b3db
faf8326c75221e6f6f22471e8627f3d0d376b31f
115803 F20101205_AAAAUR stansberry_a_Page_034.jp2
9cced6404f13bfff497387e020874b1a
8bd09e88755e4ccf50aad19ba69c444ea6e42f12
54777 F20101205_AAABRK stansberry_a_Page_015.pro
86c2788ffa7acbbe2ce3b4fb07f69002
c7900fd28c06e31500e98327176ba9f005c0c9f7
615 F20101205_AAACOE stansberry_a_Page_002thm.jpg
e91651b53c6ef14ef43de88725412771
bec5a51bd7ecb94eacf8635bc66aa675f311fde3
8940 F20101205_AAAAHH stansberry_a_Page_171thm.jpg
0e2e34990f0dc2797e12203693e19535
be571167a81e7c69d2cfac63cf53b520152681ae
1051876 F20101205_AAABEA stansberry_a_Page_293.jp2
8f8577815f2efdca468f98372b5b3b53
cc9a0977f332866a233ec4ba381a54f9071e19d1
109506 F20101205_AAAAUS stansberry_a_Page_035.jp2
8bfbbb6c3fe2334dbf19713b9e3b7b23
54a019d4b347580acc5583b6217e1194d09883d7
55665 F20101205_AAABRL stansberry_a_Page_016.pro
66b0c43b424f14c2db73eaefa91fa087
6eee06a16c7dddaaaa881dabcdcd68b2808503e4
1675 F20101205_AAACOF stansberry_a_Page_003.QC.jpg
0cb5008c9e9eccec9cab9dc42ebe28b4
893a94a42bd5f188cae736ca86524332b6474922
106739 F20101205_AAAAHI stansberry_a_Page_012.jp2
3a87d6676ae7ee4748997081cef446a8
41555a58bfcd7586ef29c7dc22652d512fdd5bb4
1011234 F20101205_AAABEB stansberry_a_Page_294.jp2
dba62a40a7d4ead7235983fa639ef526
3e760dac0d13774c5e2501ebb89321bc17122ef5
113309 F20101205_AAAAUT stansberry_a_Page_036.jp2
1240c34561b69462f93627256e858231
b97de06fdd92732b94876fdd60c6fc8e6b55c853
57020 F20101205_AAABRM stansberry_a_Page_017.pro
1de8cff797945b7c3ef03a5cbac8ded9
8984e7787a5fab4c79ba6f7ffd09c5fa2fd23129
703 F20101205_AAACOG stansberry_a_Page_003thm.jpg
9ee6631b9c82b1c4c7db3d1d44812478
3013570fa999c669acf13d08441c03d586c128b1
8801 F20101205_AAAAHJ stansberry_a_Page_147thm.jpg
737059c56ea2300ac3c316387572e51b
fa896ae012d36e8dbb29a12c87da587b6199c21c
1051981 F20101205_AAABEC stansberry_a_Page_296.jp2
ca9505d83d8089ad6eed7583b90d3ce3
d569ffd091b3815f31dc5f7abeeef9b1165ecf62
105469 F20101205_AAAAUU stansberry_a_Page_037.jp2
5cc935eda60c8107eb671e3d0f7a1e28
5f42c2cddfb1022750937b1378abc4e563d2c31b
13726 F20101205_AAABRN stansberry_a_Page_018.pro
bf0ca2a31541de3a29fd667c39b6bd37
b4462674b642602c50d6ae7ee4310edab4718858
383810 F20101205_AAADLA UFE0017820_00001.mets
050dec5d9ff43c4ac5a76df085de2117
eaa1220f8854ea413d82859066989fe978b19234
11044 F20101205_AAACOH stansberry_a_Page_004.QC.jpg
2430bb2db6608db10cb11b4afa8ccff0
9c756b97f4e6ae7ea94f46896d231c066b896607
F20101205_AAAAHK stansberry_a_Page_202.tif
3e9a21de5c715c8238879375a9bc14dd
517829705c410c654325152cc8bff31d9a7f14ad
1051974 F20101205_AAABED stansberry_a_Page_297.jp2
192fa54b347b03ad75ed07ba505691ed
404c975d522186e39dbc4a4db135dcf63fe381be
116701 F20101205_AAAAUV stansberry_a_Page_038.jp2
9e1f3a59f1c05e8ed43d1565ac4e7ffc
c99e055ea8c70d06cfc7bf4369d86a190ec5fc8c
51089 F20101205_AAABRO stansberry_a_Page_019.pro
0760b54acfd09d65425148416184c72d
6a29bf5399f19f899efabdc58e6c62661f33ac2e
2723 F20101205_AAACOI stansberry_a_Page_004thm.jpg
aedfba4231b9179f97dd061ae1628c28
264b0b993a65faca73933c75af357dd4d8a19921
111356 F20101205_AAAAHL stansberry_a_Page_182.jpg
02608f9586899f5ec1bcc5cfcf1ac75c
3d80025dcf2d41c8796ab86b43a7f27597f80b7d
1051947 F20101205_AAABEE stansberry_a_Page_298.jp2
bc15e39b23b99cc098113bd248b66e55
420e74c1b17caa26f35cd6d43a50dc732d14abde
112655 F20101205_AAAAUW stansberry_a_Page_039.jp2
4519e30ed8c200ffee6e1581391bfd49
a7a5a3394a5b170ca54e373a8f8f118b570359e7
55924 F20101205_AAABRP stansberry_a_Page_020.pro
e703ec10464c8ddc9c4fdb3a018fca2e
4c482718a9938d09d316a7dfa05f384b341ccbb6
28929 F20101205_AAACOJ stansberry_a_Page_005.QC.jpg
84d73097224dad407855b02d3be52306
185dcfd9826c688c1a5955ddf0f63113d4f6a4f7
56203 F20101205_AAAAHM stansberry_a_Page_105.pro
e63e7abb812632f068ae9ebad50a7825
00c6a3b5f545c01f689b8882195d4acf510e2cef
1051964 F20101205_AAABEF stansberry_a_Page_299.jp2
c69eba303c2f53da7ba8fb40cf0aa829
e8bd7f35def1fbd6c34080fd2b8d18e9fe9c57c4
133203 F20101205_AAAAUX stansberry_a_Page_040.jp2
fe5fba40f0d0ca1dfc3585044320f1bc
14f93efc740f239f1f689b4934efdc54fa870520
53110 F20101205_AAABRQ stansberry_a_Page_021.pro
962d9e176acccda19b61e9d708c588e7
8a623cff0360c8cf61dbb636d8cbe4e272d6b8be
6915 F20101205_AAACOK stansberry_a_Page_005thm.jpg
bea9374d787570e2d2811b7a0470c1fa
a70e94138be181f01c57738f9c0959faf2febd78
35414 F20101205_AAAAHN stansberry_a_Page_006.QC.jpg
63f034f5c7533a608dce4274778c3e14
e68135d02962523104beca346e7af64f864b3955
1051971 F20101205_AAABEG stansberry_a_Page_300.jp2
78fa8f525b7bde12f70a2cbc110e5a75
57d04c121f3b54edeb4be7a11724eef008424dc8
119221 F20101205_AAAAUY stansberry_a_Page_041.jp2
fa5b5f5d7c0094b82df01428bd48f552
d1beba860d20f5970997cc87428e49e069d1766d
72333 F20101205_AAABRR stansberry_a_Page_022.pro
718e804e5e4d522cf3de304ef2f828b9
b0b264fc57ba16b6aec0ff503e1cd691a15860c7
8051 F20101205_AAACOL stansberry_a_Page_006thm.jpg
2874a59c86cd4d4fab139b75b843a07e
4a4df689fc18d9f15007fbb68c92bd765c3e12cd
9140 F20101205_AAAAHO stansberry_a_Page_070thm.jpg
60fb7594a2632edc80a9450eef0255c1
6f8a93b38679536105f1035d9665647388e351b5
1051898 F20101205_AAABEH stansberry_a_Page_301.jp2
5db454919ea77b94e17e251de6de0159
916dbb754e73e35d600701df8835d9aafa378797
108297 F20101205_AAAAUZ stansberry_a_Page_042.jp2
8af56eb533b27454b69ea8722ac9f3bb
3f69f864472d1741651ad304ca72be950fdb7dc3
68457 F20101205_AAACBA stansberry_a_Page_289.pro
54e44af7748696805852104c0e8905e3
41698823f7845700e714741e4c4cf0a49090ba51
56421 F20101205_AAABRS stansberry_a_Page_023.pro
9d6ba1bc92f2909d1444adb8db8f3b0b
b6d4d5d380e53546d13fa369e251989e4915c583
29764 F20101205_AAACOM stansberry_a_Page_007.QC.jpg
4692a672a4d68ef8ebfdb9369d5bf50b
cb87e3c9cb3f4b34035daba233ba661bbea966f7
109593 F20101205_AAAAHP stansberry_a_Page_224.jpg
4b490df8f82798ab7d61ab377cbe77ff
240208f67ff19ff2397686d67ec81b6f109c0ec8
1051932 F20101205_AAABEI stansberry_a_Page_302.jp2
0ddd53278fbf1a43583fba4d3554c0b9
9d674366ea7b704db152223984077ee789a202fa
85573 F20101205_AAACBB stansberry_a_Page_290.pro
894727cab6da9ea7f30dfd32cbe40a03
e9ede9b6da0dfc6b7a7564eb9fbe74c516dc72f1
74884 F20101205_AAABRT stansberry_a_Page_025.pro
026f4ad446160ab2db922956954cc5c6
f38279cac1ac5cd21d94e5971e30f62e7e09d7d6
34934 F20101205_AAACON stansberry_a_Page_008.QC.jpg
366279f764534bd8f5da67a984feaa22
e0baaeb957329b2494b33723e792b609986b64da
11707 F20101205_AAAAHQ stansberry_a_Page_257.QC.jpg
f8fdf8910338fcc22751b114aac7883d
eea9d5028963852d4f09115200c7783f70fffc7e
1051985 F20101205_AAABEJ stansberry_a_Page_303.jp2
c2cc907c6310f7d1bcb6faafaf032c4e
423861193092234a2fcbbf69f1cb322d2815e9ac
76828 F20101205_AAACBC stansberry_a_Page_291.pro
ae19957d82e4537ba88a8f35e323340a
8be37fb09034fa05187c36ac1224ab192f60bc51
56323 F20101205_AAABRU stansberry_a_Page_026.pro
29d913b25156fe1711600ee0c05d4e93
860bb371fe637c8696e83f59589ef6d631eef3b9
8703 F20101205_AAACOO stansberry_a_Page_008thm.jpg
30e05721a7d39fea4ffae3259b3a0686
5898174fc138f87b31eab3b2917c9db7674fdc97
1051954 F20101205_AAABEK stansberry_a_Page_305.jp2
7f45b7c0343abb3bf52e838e49bb81f4
f53addec990957067c3b3430db7b1b44cbbe36f0
43479 F20101205_AAACBD stansberry_a_Page_292.pro
a784628d7721e29e9a2b16a0de83f8d6
53b92b135422c955d6ce4a077db3b2ec1e1ba94c
56795 F20101205_AAABRV stansberry_a_Page_027.pro
771be1ceb9e9b8772b10d3dfa514ed52
4bc925219f9c7a1c979eaf325cceb1c820ed072d
39331 F20101205_AAACOP stansberry_a_Page_009.QC.jpg
f0e8f54960ed71718eef46bec3bc97c4
c2d2f87147cbbe9bda32e8162affdd9ca2e69fcc
F20101205_AAAAHR stansberry_a_Page_071.tif
909ae73089e40fc5e4ed07b93c8f8e0e
602cb14a35da5738bb98e6f0b9ac980ba719fbba
1051984 F20101205_AAABEL stansberry_a_Page_306.jp2
87f4c66cdbdc68a9c99873eef1ed9968
ab621027fff7018799f7b22ab34a7f1c11069e2e
3955 F20101205_AAACBE stansberry_a_Page_293.pro
53ffbfa86b4b557e17cd1127d92b0ffb
14897824252e1ccc3bba9066a0d1116fb0a027a9
56225 F20101205_AAABRW stansberry_a_Page_028.pro
ab66e55c84be4c08115527f86e479820
7ecf3079b6636d8c3745b71ce8a93d154bf4430c
9487 F20101205_AAACOQ stansberry_a_Page_009thm.jpg
f6e1be8a4ac83385e6b22241f0f6dd94
d879a3d64e27ea9f82906185ca4efb30e5d32606
111956 F20101205_AAAAHS stansberry_a_Page_183.jp2
62c7506db7041907a08560308df921c6
53193b3a972beed012ae192769926d3525028349
1051877 F20101205_AAABEM stansberry_a_Page_308.jp2
8946ce49517e8e1c631bec5952a5422f
d1505a397deafc358128fec71325b88ddeee491f
41642 F20101205_AAACBF stansberry_a_Page_294.pro
256c8e9f88fd02aefd9d8a1df30574b2
469b6904c54395aef93de42eaa859678c6e99375
57606 F20101205_AAABRX stansberry_a_Page_029.pro
43a158c1728d397243a563cffd248978
fc6eb2c66e46c6081d5dbdab66cd0ab9f49e1a2d
42172 F20101205_AAACOR stansberry_a_Page_010.QC.jpg
6f94566dde325fbc552a93c95a0087c9
63d04eaef1f03680701e0dd8fa200334d5fcc34a
6805 F20101205_AAAAHT stansberry_a_Page_007thm.jpg
5b8eef595fffccaf2baa67a233f544e8
051b50939b7b9b27ffd4bd165959e60eb0eba457
67736 F20101205_AAACBG stansberry_a_Page_295.pro
f890c0eb3f09f3231f3ece57c7beb3be
f96b0e8ce4a610efb00a222cd95da09eb598b621
57579 F20101205_AAABRY stansberry_a_Page_030.pro
aa765b089a97ddae259aef1411f200dc
3e568485ffe7a275fa9964b40b980ac7cf58bf74
9912 F20101205_AAACOS stansberry_a_Page_010thm.jpg
8904892f05e9053d06f1b751b0204765
320258e34f7defa18503c255820e939cd6df7e99
1822 F20101205_AAAAHU stansberry_a_Page_003.pro
610a80d6ada0f77ab675cde35998ed9b
23d74cbf340854b40ca4fd12e4f30cdc5ba29619
803740 F20101205_AAABEN stansberry_a_Page_309.jp2
dc0971da7350acfe76c1b103faccc85d
d4fc99c5970ba4721ca59ad10493ae0c83753ed9
76467 F20101205_AAACBH stansberry_a_Page_296.pro
c475af096b8e85345482d5971d663395
c712ce022fa13f577705572d31f5ddbef6e5e564
55778 F20101205_AAABRZ stansberry_a_Page_032.pro
a2a0dc8c85635d822d49a94009f24be0
85ea4281b43b5dda39aa1a62ac9e436bc4393a09
18742 F20101205_AAACOT stansberry_a_Page_011.QC.jpg
397f2d31944a45fcd198032e5817f97c
3010cf3ee4476c48b6933bce0027e6ad3b120049
8788 F20101205_AAAAHV stansberry_a_Page_096thm.jpg
8910892aa31e882cda8b4de12bbc044e
e02e86ae9be197711fc8bd9c0efe3d381e6952fb
634785 F20101205_AAABEO stansberry_a_Page_310.jp2
8b80f7f7c4d2fbdbe9e06b830d8ac67c
eb15bcd8e3bb02cba45bbb07a09c1583667cc171
82009 F20101205_AAACBI stansberry_a_Page_298.pro
b27ab1fdf518c8195ac4bace4283f502
a94cda43b6ee67bc2e8eaeeae7aae0eab790ae14
4443 F20101205_AAACOU stansberry_a_Page_011thm.jpg
e732df06ac135678182ac79fa09193cd
860301a4e033b7812bc1ae2d69ff091bb2b84d7b
1984 F20101205_AAAAHW stansberry_a_Page_049.txt
34c69faab4a7b7dc8cbf39fb458cbb9e
a914f60e9855161a7e68e9c2aebf9536ddff23b3
689921 F20101205_AAABEP stansberry_a_Page_311.jp2
4e0cc9cd9473d624afacfb9f01a90ca0
55e8e32fa51eb5fc1d18ed680e3b2632cce6e7fe
32158 F20101205_AAACOV stansberry_a_Page_012.QC.jpg
8cfd12a164ea9391ecebf05c91365558
1999555b59c5ff5d676cfa7bb4c334a15693a2ec
477341 F20101205_AAAAHX stansberry_a_Page_256.jp2
1a8b1489206163faa5e7228d8a91dbad
a32c9350e3a372df8da4230d48874df4650ec5b2
778164 F20101205_AAABEQ stansberry_a_Page_312.jp2
5d854bd9f7950d407a33e6b3116a205d
cbb28c85f20934797f529a3151eb94ab07e3eb48
74326 F20101205_AAACBJ stansberry_a_Page_299.pro
6034028c24a8328b0787f7ba0aad262a
5d4b9f2340a121e08016aad5d9bda96fbdaab071
F20101205_AAAAHY stansberry_a_Page_199.tif
102bbf833373d1d7ca2c62c406d2947b
940748b0295e9cf775e88c0d13d711fae883cf3f
747667 F20101205_AAABER stansberry_a_Page_313.jp2
6338cb60b4de4187f86813a97de47843
b5223237822fcc7c22742ec5b8093b20011b3872
67677 F20101205_AAACBK stansberry_a_Page_300.pro
90bfccbb84dd6223ead1d58e48ae7c95
8b1fb1f59658680ec7592dc6121d1221ddbe9682
8046 F20101205_AAACOW stansberry_a_Page_012thm.jpg
f59d31bdcd22153e7638fd3f8c2d15cf
b7780794e29496953b2bc5eafbf81a4e129e4c6f
9026 F20101205_AAAAHZ stansberry_a_Page_085thm.jpg
46b3be7bf59c343c9f8feff9fc3fa9e1
6a0186f3ce6bb813fe68501921cc6a7c4d91b454
683041 F20101205_AAABES stansberry_a_Page_314.jp2
0f30bcdea67941a6c2388844d877725b
5a47526739c6923679a74da5f8e630bc20b62c9c
69463 F20101205_AAACBL stansberry_a_Page_301.pro
3a5190392d3ba9dbc20ff1155ade349a
19fc50e28d1ef5499dcf05845489dc4c466a29eb
34471 F20101205_AAACOX stansberry_a_Page_013.QC.jpg
1263376b6c24aaafce177d24d3bbc582
99f3fc88d5034968f8dabf28601bae56f20bad73
610069 F20101205_AAABET stansberry_a_Page_315.jp2
7b5cb2d0bce20fc1de6c4adb503d6334
4b19de4466f1111882bb1272f84ece11421ab475
79766 F20101205_AAACBM stansberry_a_Page_302.pro
12935706bce8002904a405bda3aa72b3
5aad279db8147a61f8a128f8405d2c8d11d83626
8405 F20101205_AAACOY stansberry_a_Page_013thm.jpg
0f162676dfd9577ee56825632e98ee58
dc07a97aa191a5538a5151d81939612f56a27e04
583240 F20101205_AAABEU stansberry_a_Page_316.jp2
539c54a1c13f534c6402c5883c8b1233
2bf304ee011b0e85a3c88e9d50468cc74dcb9753
67831 F20101205_AAACBN stansberry_a_Page_303.pro
75a7b972dddf97562696ccb99fccfb39
75b571f3066446a8b0b2905e1957b80dc938a469
34123 F20101205_AAACOZ stansberry_a_Page_014.QC.jpg
d9ee68722ad6f62887e19e9d60fe91a5
fa164135910b6dd432da17892965837b51b84d50
324621 F20101205_AAABEV stansberry_a_Page_317.jp2
be8aae72effd19a062edd34095f8637f
08e88b9c929b9cd631dbceed88fbd24e139d303d
16182 F20101205_AAACBO stansberry_a_Page_304.pro
fce2bdb8f8212633ed7cbb4e35716ee9
1f536047849c079c7715e49491168f0af579f930
145118 F20101205_AAABEW stansberry_a_Page_318.jp2
98b19dad128b8be0128a68c698332985
8092cd943efcf04bf4dae0a80d5bc585ba8e1afa
86111 F20101205_AAACBP stansberry_a_Page_305.pro
1eb20565d7178643de98c7b5881f3f7e
70264a138bc9c72a8f290a10d14d228476924fba
168260 F20101205_AAABEX stansberry_a_Page_319.jp2
40d105fc8ed7baa65bb0514604fccd15
4f79e43780c741b78a6094f7c51ef03ed742ff19
56542 F20101205_AAABXA stansberry_a_Page_174.pro
af0265bdcfb43ab737874f49aaab053e
7748b53a6ab3593e7c753286312f06f330de5d87
53216 F20101205_AAACBQ stansberry_a_Page_306.pro
96e1894e2d788df344c8aca2061e32e4
17cf9baa8114a8397dd2b398a95241428e2eaec8
181583 F20101205_AAABEY stansberry_a_Page_320.jp2
12a6aaf5d4e6a6102f57f1a51fa359be
01cc661093ee568cd6d0f3a56962d6de58ce2090
54635 F20101205_AAABXB stansberry_a_Page_175.pro
ace99ae6119e14d6def05d75ce6dc879
4aace299281adc31cffba97258604ceae87e7fb9
31275 F20101205_AAACBR stansberry_a_Page_307.pro
77167e71c94f591793185bd33f1d99ea
1242e159f124ba1b503da154651c564c7e57b33b
1051979 F20101205_AAABEZ stansberry_a_Page_321.jp2
82daccdc60b437f4d27d37dd99062e8f
c6c194b6972b7f734685fb76b6c2c04d9261a95b
53566 F20101205_AAABXC stansberry_a_Page_176.pro
295d274cbb4f14a4a10127e7974edac8
5d99b66d3bc8f05f65ef81e5302581c61e54ce85
83294 F20101205_AAACBS stansberry_a_Page_308.pro
089fb5a66b4dce4c5bd20dc4c96cf73e
13ffd50346f0726da2dcefcc51ac6fc257743e73
60210 F20101205_AAABXD stansberry_a_Page_177.pro
66c14f2cb9af49c9958e67fa81e08591
f2692e2491b69db6fb0b2c5de3e6ab59e126fc1e
30884 F20101205_AAACBT stansberry_a_Page_309.pro
a3c1d79eaea56e0033fdf1aaaab57693
b124e6997a1aa35d41ea6e0448e8c6640d8fd031
59389 F20101205_AAABXE stansberry_a_Page_179.pro
cb375011ba086f592564126eeb3e0e5d
1f36a22a53800576d21ec2abbb1a42548c54c959
39387 F20101205_AAACBU stansberry_a_Page_310.pro
7fdaa7fa334664ccf960af69f6bfdccf
a5a40bbfb031afb9b309dfd8e285caff1c7ea99c
46247 F20101205_AAAANA stansberry_a_Page_139.jpg
fbfe0fdeae1be82df393c085a38cdec5
c0f25bb0c3d10bd95ad3861652dfa6cd3b833626
57283 F20101205_AAABXF stansberry_a_Page_180.pro
d760059d203346ca33de5186619eccfd
3b1a20a58d05a80d36a18f98b9f069a35d5d109a
44851 F20101205_AAACBV stansberry_a_Page_311.pro
717776b00985646348a11a23093483b4
a903c00a151857f3f82b7420336a625adb1fb0c6
81468 F20101205_AAAANB stansberry_a_Page_140.jpg
565e496772d2e00e8c0e6b2bff5feafa
603f61f26979cd7905c61218dbdd28ae3ffed43d
54971 F20101205_AAABXG stansberry_a_Page_181.pro
a6d178f1ca6650eb7b0e890fbbc95ca9
0305064ed37adbdd397cf28bdfaf89625fa84f19
54276 F20101205_AAACBW stansberry_a_Page_312.pro
f66dedf6f67e03ae891e26c2d142627f
6b9701d78bcdc1453dda0b7177b94bd8f7679270
90128 F20101205_AAAANC stansberry_a_Page_142.jpg
a3da3ffdaf4a68f217a5226a174c32e3
fb78e426cfba5e2248fb029ea3e5556b2284db95
8505 F20101205_AAACUA stansberry_a_Page_086thm.jpg
91907145fd0570860e9fdb1cd72923bb
3357f53c3e7fbc587dfc9320ed4a79d51cf64054
55835 F20101205_AAABXH stansberry_a_Page_182.pro
ca4388a4333799293b0694d6a853fe4d
252e85edc4815e81a8e04dae07670364d15ccdcc
50873 F20101205_AAACBX stansberry_a_Page_313.pro
a7430c0e2b078ede43745a718a3075d3
bee60debbbaea2e9d29f70a26e33a7e2f1030c4e
84607 F20101205_AAAAND stansberry_a_Page_143.jpg
f999fa74b0d1b60025ce3617f9ef82b3
374f2980726541179db3762f4a68dbc88d292cd6
35553 F20101205_AAACUB stansberry_a_Page_087.QC.jpg
381f88336365de9c2df56dbef53e44c7
8b68e4887d67958e2ecc3c42ccfb8b7d4c288a77
53066 F20101205_AAABXI stansberry_a_Page_183.pro
30bc5500d65911fb953a90534d12aa68
b1ad472fb7631d4ca7d299026e68629e662c580b
44882 F20101205_AAACBY stansberry_a_Page_314.pro
f4d41093be9e466c18bd01fb2484ff09
fa4e2d2b57669becc8877f6bcb60b375fb7a22af
47552 F20101205_AAAANE stansberry_a_Page_144.jpg
f7b70ab2a098cdb4fa6006451c40f53c
8c1f377e7200969d84c1d7e80e6552209abe652a
8845 F20101205_AAACUC stansberry_a_Page_087thm.jpg
ecfdb4627d724a9036c2ea410f0b5689
a1361c53a4dbff8b36fb2b6198f2a260a279a1de
51095 F20101205_AAABXJ stansberry_a_Page_184.pro
ea7d710eef48a4ace7cd0755e1019510
773bb8df25f68fd2cd517a6d50ecd29c43d69d35
40971 F20101205_AAACBZ stansberry_a_Page_315.pro
0168371ec5e80bf53a845a306f9ed2d5
3f26f05788b41dec9aa338d6ace6db30e0a1b02f
52491 F20101205_AAAANF stansberry_a_Page_145.jpg
6abd41a35405c212dc8ce6886298902c
5551c244efc2aaa37cfb6a74c2d97950b5fc2ac4
36685 F20101205_AAACUD stansberry_a_Page_088.QC.jpg
7edcc0b4fac4a46aa929710edec1ef00
70eeb7ab66a78a7cc9c16e63776e60d5a630c432
49814 F20101205_AAABXK stansberry_a_Page_185.pro
99ee97b223d10d4ecb8af6b2a9a56451
00a15458b9118f71c90f7494437440d2daa6e32c
53744 F20101205_AAAANG stansberry_a_Page_146.jpg
c0e298cb8416fd3b9ac7a79efba6aaf2
2e567401e9c6c555383a0671306b842c03a8d04c
8741 F20101205_AAACUE stansberry_a_Page_088thm.jpg
15e8df5ba6c538b8513bafb82cc9f3aa
781f6c486ccda9f60e56f1504e8d535fb6280df7
F20101205_AAABKA stansberry_a_Page_136.tif
8cb2a1921b2fc44ce880f29174e259d2
3d973eb173eeaff9d6965780bfc581ae74fd51b1
54822 F20101205_AAABXL stansberry_a_Page_186.pro
87441e63fa7291ee25a2c3fe87561de4
2c814003661efe18749ff5d2adadac5a59260b4d
112845 F20101205_AAAANH stansberry_a_Page_147.jpg
7b08f066ef55bd937c63f42bb663898c
77c2937a5e69ba215ca3081240a125402a169af0
38172 F20101205_AAACUF stansberry_a_Page_089.QC.jpg
d209b3ca8c500710f5c6c327fe74bd51
6d3bc5ebfa5da15661598e9965daf0cb0655dbf1
F20101205_AAABKB stansberry_a_Page_137.tif
16cbf04cca911a6a40a809e9f29951d7
ec8ef6be145e256b6b2ac639e20b25b0174a1d0a
64771 F20101205_AAABXM stansberry_a_Page_187.pro
6443ba267b8d0334fdc70c80c5f0a984
b5a54304733f465dab33a7c5fc68b65b0363bc33
50309 F20101205_AAAANI stansberry_a_Page_148.jpg
91dbd299fd739ecc8bcb8996427233cb
8e470433424434cc2e2aec045a65dc4910086908
35827 F20101205_AAACUG stansberry_a_Page_090.QC.jpg
7e06a54e1758720dea5bec73fc2e1a17
f93d5687bfd77ed6f225288fefbe833572f61b9f
8425398 F20101205_AAABKC stansberry_a_Page_138.tif
393e243fbcb0c5efdae0bd74b7793363
0424f7c6dd05f035386a23ae21b7e7041678c520
55875 F20101205_AAABXN stansberry_a_Page_188.pro
45f84d6ee3df95a29f15d6bda66e8c61
ad3ff0bd84a04fe4b43ecbcacdfa9075deb74783
94603 F20101205_AAAANJ stansberry_a_Page_149.jpg
2d6a92d542546a6f75e146245674aa63
6319841ca837bd51f65727d6a5564c12b01b4549
8592 F20101205_AAACUH stansberry_a_Page_090thm.jpg
87c9953ec33f33e56ffe8ec5137c8eb9
91e647ca8e93f031a5d23cc61501a977925d9a57
F20101205_AAABKD stansberry_a_Page_139.tif
dd49a91e7dd37feba79b3e07fbbc6879
e829bc158d219b512b9b454c02303cf5284f9620
58197 F20101205_AAABXO stansberry_a_Page_189.pro
4b8faca3199d6bea2386e044697fe1b2
25ab9f8f12df6181f33c8ec809355fef142a73ee
49351 F20101205_AAAANK stansberry_a_Page_150.jpg
c3adc40ed77731430b6092cd9e209217
022fb79805c8e3ee39992db6b95ef75f3f964568
33977 F20101205_AAACUI stansberry_a_Page_091.QC.jpg
121360de201b526a2b079ce69f827a02
e7e8823d4cb9a6d92ed9da2cfb3badb21d43296e
F20101205_AAABKE stansberry_a_Page_140.tif
5a3dd4e80f1c8305c61a5453089e907f
0444783c3eeb6b94eb2839e623f4722cb6575427
52513 F20101205_AAAAAA stansberry_a_Page_153.pro
d87c4ce9e68560008024d2a4656c4103
cb2a5c651cb880bbc62e7474fb5ebabdd55ff190
53262 F20101205_AAABXP stansberry_a_Page_190.pro
e45dcad3b7a579810d3067b210333c92
844efff93298d9ab44858c04e0aacd04b827f680
78768 F20101205_AAAANL stansberry_a_Page_151.jpg
6edd4c3d4e5c38b66a0425bb5082880a
09484df8603326cc91ae58b38957a1ba9876f39d
8500 F20101205_AAACUJ stansberry_a_Page_091thm.jpg
e6f64acd3f485f2ad92b596a743653b3
3d332d856703cf03cb1dedcd0bf84aeff218dc12
F20101205_AAABKF stansberry_a_Page_142.tif
fa5fea96e0f1d5028ab4d0d11dd1cae9
7195572d815adccdb18228b655ee2ef4fc7164e3
1051933 F20101205_AAAAAB stansberry_a_Page_327.jp2
e41c295e8cc96a61442fe0e6d5897dfc
17a2a4a974ce2b421d0df2017633acd307ba4b15
54048 F20101205_AAABXQ stansberry_a_Page_192.pro
5b7710f484bd9c2d1652201d1eaadbcc
6bf98dee65e1bf5a79d394c089d4c24f57257a41
102385 F20101205_AAAANM stansberry_a_Page_152.jpg
5d55dde9918537090cf686f5946d0844
735386fbc22d5c1e6e64fbc176247bded25119f4
39818 F20101205_AAACUK stansberry_a_Page_092.QC.jpg
8f6a3356c6957f7fff094ef8881821ee
1cf524635c21cdbe224d87d78a2a8655446ff3a6
F20101205_AAABKG stansberry_a_Page_143.tif
940faad934fc4eecda8c024375a5d1c1
33fc7129ed583cf447a2d44b512b0f5d41e5f3e1
9255 F20101205_AAAAAC stansberry_a_Page_045thm.jpg
5c3227afdd033647404ab93ff825c542
bc75f7b5535cb52b69485951de6ee3406c5904e9
57975 F20101205_AAABXR stansberry_a_Page_193.pro
cd6f28e88e78df85d5e2a93154fe59e3
b98271a53a56895815cfa1516fffd7121473406b
105802 F20101205_AAAANN stansberry_a_Page_153.jpg
1d04af0cf022718809f34914f6031094
585261a3010bafd53afdf36952e478d8b878134b
9243 F20101205_AAACUL stansberry_a_Page_092thm.jpg
6a1fe72a3485001869478b2aa94d7045
90e5e8348d749c6a2b7540402c1b8720d8682d4f
F20101205_AAABKH stansberry_a_Page_144.tif
533a8293a8903e7454773b81029f2f27
b4ddbf72dd9ad559b1b3a76131ae7fb178752337
127 F20101205_AAACHA stansberry_a_Page_133.txt
3ecd1763687c971597f1a0de6a907bab
581d08157e757fb3747fe9ebf24e8e7fdec0bad9
347746 F20101205_AAAAAD stansberry_a_Page_304.jp2
915fbd5fbe6cdde315dc2fd9560004af
83903a843347ef658e60c4907dc985a925cf4187
50757 F20101205_AAABXS stansberry_a_Page_195.pro
cfa510baf31ce8c17d1de05a3613002c
5d20fc1c663d9f80ee98511dbbdfed9078377999
113558 F20101205_AAAANO stansberry_a_Page_154.jpg
9153cff67425bb4f43fa3b40a778b987
c08411cc6f1e41eaf48596695738e34d3a4ab53b
37746 F20101205_AAACUM stansberry_a_Page_093.QC.jpg
e139afa4967e40ed8d15b55eb4bd15c3
42abbd1485af6d2ceaa37c891e843ad860c53446
F20101205_AAABKI stansberry_a_Page_145.tif
6f1e9c80bc35df9bdf3bddde3e274729
977b67c0245bb5025e6ff5054178f1cd9456584a
239 F20101205_AAACHB stansberry_a_Page_134.txt
bc7f8efeb81fe5627689af80e5f248db
2f2c90e74dffb8240716d96e9eaf8e03629c3fd8
F20101205_AAAAAE stansberry_a_Page_241.txt
ea8a1834e9cbd377a087de4920be51d5
9f2bc737fdb5324add2f7966d939fc797b40b68c
54117 F20101205_AAABXT stansberry_a_Page_196.pro
e90d7b16561ef2e689e6e770fa4a8b35
8504f1408b9778bbe6dad252cb2b5c2ccad528e0
116115 F20101205_AAAANP stansberry_a_Page_155.jpg
68e14367a10b8e05c6f3b211a551719e
39b918bfbe8c33170fa29c0591fac12702c53e0b
9357 F20101205_AAACUN stansberry_a_Page_093thm.jpg
b56880ca3e5f7d43ff04a1365f1ffb4d
2f2216c5643caa0c9825d873b9ca1360c895485a
F20101205_AAABKJ stansberry_a_Page_146.tif
d40ed6a7ef4a9abb553a087ddc1ef994
917453ea4a377b58f98e626e1b357dbc96286587
287 F20101205_AAACHC stansberry_a_Page_135.txt
4101495cd9f03203fbf3d4e3dbd12c34
64fdfdc114ad639d8adbf35c1eef577057f49297
103394 F20101205_AAAAAF stansberry_a_Page_159.jpg
3c74a91411f4d47f801b03bb72d315f1
2cb46ac16e66a8290d3279df695d29216a3bf09c
51744 F20101205_AAABXU stansberry_a_Page_197.pro
66df87ea39ff4042eb7e53cf617c13a0
cfb40e1849a0e3130917b8451dcda0d902fb2544
111529 F20101205_AAAANQ stansberry_a_Page_156.jpg
f446be510dd988f07d94ab8dcf8318fe
e29aeec2d487e13e64f229d05161d16c1ba5e5e0
37318 F20101205_AAACUO stansberry_a_Page_094.QC.jpg
7d1208245fbbfe5c2d67d4b1eb878ecf
6cde28a818708fae022986550b4e576f992af281
F20101205_AAABKK stansberry_a_Page_147.tif
b0c1c479390730ecca7043224fb08fb3
bec9760546b11d9244db9da9ec6b5efcd27aa06b
176 F20101205_AAACHD stansberry_a_Page_136.txt
91271b54ab478d58e96084443f5f554b
3bfcc7b5d2df92d1e041a4642600c11b5ce0c1d7
2017 F20101205_AAAAAG stansberry_a_Page_216.txt
8af388e409463d4ece7e4ea3823d3f1a
336b138a8cdaed358ee05b5b4eb60c0bf38c4821
56015 F20101205_AAABXV stansberry_a_Page_198.pro
2350cc11e6acbd4c69af8af9c63edba6
ede02abde8206378c97b0a7fca89742aa6afc92f
109662 F20101205_AAAANR stansberry_a_Page_157.jpg
d49c118d6cc244fa8e4980560aa10023
79d95c34c2bbfacdb58f5a3ba7eeb70d8354db69
F20101205_AAACUP stansberry_a_Page_094thm.jpg
a774b4d7ef8bb2952f5eadc7a210d654
592b8b770ade94352d7260f7fc31ac4eb4af679d
F20101205_AAABKL stansberry_a_Page_148.tif
05a72f668b94fd6a3ba5f738c09a7dc3
ad637e81173a611236d4aaddff93b79034212518
216 F20101205_AAACHE stansberry_a_Page_137.txt
a2ca92fca859f10b722af6de4d96d27f
468f0f48bafda82981ffeb74b475ef929aaf2257
122799 F20101205_AAAAAH stansberry_a_Page_329.jp2
17c1721475b03ad38cc7a542d13f35fa
44081a8a9f2c2e2d848026cf43257b1567a7fffc
21231 F20101205_AAABXW stansberry_a_Page_199.pro
95dfbbff4d15e8794224cd06fcaf106a
75b6bb697962d2725e9bda7762233a3c0dface45
110158 F20101205_AAAANS stansberry_a_Page_158.jpg
65443f2493861b8f0ca7cc604dc9ef2b
05704aea09adff898a85add667d56afa6cd5ddcb
8892 F20101205_AAACUQ stansberry_a_Page_095thm.jpg
f478125e0366a556edebd6097756ddc5
bbb85c2ef279ed2a7c2d1b73829eda27f9240f2b
F20101205_AAABKM stansberry_a_Page_149.tif
5e951feaaf9009e208ca4875a3c31fce
ac18e9dd02321f840dfd2e4362ab1b21ff7ca69a
471 F20101205_AAACHF stansberry_a_Page_138.txt
7f5ba7b5c68fa5a1bbed16e6f40a283a
b832f6516d7adfdd07c0c1dd087c5a5c30899045
F20101205_AAAAAI stansberry_a_Page_299.tif
c7dd5166d8f959593be68ea7ea288bf3
656513a8b3c4b87a97ae90fbc5440a92081cf0d9
19300 F20101205_AAABXX stansberry_a_Page_200.pro
2fd7e1c1678d7214e0c2c4e57360c35f
3637e53784dfbaaa65940720cc72069a09246140
114242 F20101205_AAAANT stansberry_a_Page_160.jpg
c01fb606feda1c73ac4df268c5e4e6c0
ce8aaf92411a8f53472aa231b0c90e3d7b00cf4a
35502 F20101205_AAACUR stansberry_a_Page_096.QC.jpg
ad3c28c64e9dc53edc26d166023a0adc
996119bdbca7956d039f8dba0e83f87378f1105b
F20101205_AAABKN stansberry_a_Page_150.tif
7ee7493441053bc48ec935b5fe7f605d
482bf5d011b988c528fc7535d4828d0ab8c95da4
172 F20101205_AAACHG stansberry_a_Page_139.txt
331e4e3e8716268069d5a9f60e706871
b98b02dc11a9c2705f27ffae3db00964fa8a1c82
2240 F20101205_AAAAAJ stansberry_a_Page_180.txt
cbea19eb2317c5ee47e70f8c9a5b1b76
b4123073051e8b694e7d55359076c4d2546b0b05
3923 F20101205_AAABXY stansberry_a_Page_201.pro
018c87c5817b1ff6e26f273c5e08ddf0
8e03398c6ba1295ec5ed239ac363328767a8da55
102899 F20101205_AAAANU stansberry_a_Page_161.jpg
30d440bf07daab0b28150a90a6817500
06692d26aed27a7dccbef5ed278075560d6d6f10
33234 F20101205_AAADEA stansberry_a_Page_232.QC.jpg
ad56501f356b1b96048f4d1a7ced2fea
b0d19ef0086ac422cf6cf79d20be251be2fb2935
9029 F20101205_AAACUS stansberry_a_Page_097thm.jpg
9a2b4cdac20f3ffa13ab5412aea998dc
f06b52580f7e962a28903104b1d44139b637dc06
F20101205_AAABKO stansberry_a_Page_152.tif
45079d47e310bfd043eca9ba0909e29e
f6c5e40c88c8e707a9d508240ee932f03815de93
177 F20101205_AAACHH stansberry_a_Page_140.txt
f7ab1258401cb31476a849acf652276c
c3ca2405b4ccff06abd7358808646f9edf001aed
54951 F20101205_AAABXZ stansberry_a_Page_202.pro
256eb5bd939559f8b7b946aa4af768a8
8826c115e9c55833422460b201998809dd2e6a1a
111045 F20101205_AAAANV stansberry_a_Page_162.jpg
02688086e6ea99b7335fcf592f5d0902
078b0e9914e914ef09b2f9cc5d2eb5c6aa79da7a
8138 F20101205_AAADEB stansberry_a_Page_232thm.jpg
91069aa1b59edaeffac52f972ff81ec3
1ebec85c8182a332b5ee0823e573d70b7ec05b80
36362 F20101205_AAACUT stansberry_a_Page_098.QC.jpg
5595b3a0689e4d0d1e68e66ce4ca1acb
ce34c4da7de641032fb8e07661686c50ae105508
F20101205_AAABKP stansberry_a_Page_153.tif
bdfa59f7a55c347780102d4380ee75bf
b8368f792e9d7d656a449cb7c8c8f75935b8e097
257 F20101205_AAACHI stansberry_a_Page_141.txt
c0e2c990950ffe18c71ed07693ed7ae4
29dbb77fca55a5d0a058447f3ed8ded00d02666f
F20101205_AAAAAK stansberry_a_Page_173.tif
4fb02bb4c32213556ae8e50a14eb6d9c
60c5592fb0dcdb32732e4744f22d021513c2d442
109820 F20101205_AAAANW stansberry_a_Page_163.jpg
2d07aaed81f976b3d897e320399ae5e2
41ed20ab7c629b220accc8df89000720fc0f561d
17600 F20101205_AAADEC stansberry_a_Page_233.QC.jpg
b33e78c958ae9c9897591c0136b06030
328ffb1b11cf4e38393849b9279739f08e5138d5
8880 F20101205_AAACUU stansberry_a_Page_098thm.jpg
8a8a97013948f98e515e45a13b5e1e45
8672e1cd621b9316567d7eb62cca922d43e185c4
F20101205_AAABKQ stansberry_a_Page_154.tif
fea0e56ff5f4a6e5448719cbb4ad31ff
dd158dab1fd9b9ffcc8c6367404af2a6d8ee564d
410 F20101205_AAACHJ stansberry_a_Page_142.txt
5f833e098b75d90164ec2e3acc5e7491
3382cf154819449a0acd5a390b4508d6c8709407
27045 F20101205_AAAAAL stansberry_a_Page_201.QC.jpg
3df6611742f2541259163b4625c7fbdd
396fc8199f25dd7f83242401274e87822c9e15df
4349 F20101205_AAADED stansberry_a_Page_233thm.jpg
2e241b9a91c225731c4afcdeeaecf6e2
1754b906454bb122d22099564234fb7cb022eee4
37232 F20101205_AAACUV stansberry_a_Page_099.QC.jpg
0b21b98d927f0610df70f89f36ec6462
07ec5c9be06e6fcad8686d1ba88dd4efb5d2cefd
F20101205_AAABKR stansberry_a_Page_155.tif
59052edc9ddbb63fd1240eab89c4f5d3
847f2609783cb514d4c6297ee5d79ecee72f6fac
373 F20101205_AAACHK stansberry_a_Page_144.txt
49fe95b843a9651807a3f9fbbe04d76f
4cc0cf1196d854c36fcd2c79455ab1fd01997c9f
35783 F20101205_AAAAAM stansberry_a_Page_204.QC.jpg
49a00d764752721c1518fc12e3d9322d
1d91ffe96517fcc4e8a5c2a0965fe2db36421a46
102893 F20101205_AAAANX stansberry_a_Page_164.jpg
ab45b7c836d965c04d80f42cf3c61487
2e6d25afb961e8215c964355d6c14db40c522cf9
8612 F20101205_AAADEE stansberry_a_Page_234thm.jpg
af785735186d4ec330e958641b4cb21a
8d516239346ef8fff9bb4ae5c24fd94a952fa677
8888 F20101205_AAACUW stansberry_a_Page_099thm.jpg
8ac66b3ab362e2fcc58530d74d8759e0
a0eabdb24a403db0bc151ec1b146f5607665e7d2
F20101205_AAABKS stansberry_a_Page_156.tif
f6ac90ad2bdc2a94307a1fb4323c5e9d
07c0937e357dea7a107676865f752ad331c89c54
90 F20101205_AAACHL stansberry_a_Page_145.txt
11ff5113e8fe3ac930c57d9445f5ae3a
217b5f58ea212feb64fe40dab8a1968a2274979f
1992 F20101205_AAAAAN stansberry_a_Page_161.txt
d7a7ae74123c38e97192019487d3dd7f
8c4748317bb51dd5fa98b682315a4c6a52af12f7
108988 F20101205_AAAANY stansberry_a_Page_165.jpg
177e7e3b4b1a70223e6c58ce948158e4
cbd62d7bea48d6475772bd274089922a397ea354
22542 F20101205_AAADEF stansberry_a_Page_235.QC.jpg
376c4760570fddb27cbaffe096ac6191
4a5076f234178410c338d244644743ab48ed7de0
35558 F20101205_AAACUX stansberry_a_Page_100.QC.jpg
86120af0a1ba373a71bf3a118f105548
5aee80c3cd3515047b686f42c169e5073ac67e1e
283 F20101205_AAACHM stansberry_a_Page_146.txt
2a604c386eeac63f7b3fd491830b2623
53a9e9acee1b6acbd0f60a06c1a97af9a171b445
70834 F20101205_AAAAAO stansberry_a_Page_318.pro
cd1183d2fb7cbab2c974c95713fdde3f
937873b2b896d4843f402a5a8c6f250fc0ccb983
124535 F20101205_AAAANZ stansberry_a_Page_167.jpg
9761ee9675a58c86ef17fda4d4e8fcaf
ead7f10668e5e8d4a16a637e1b8e2ece02677dc3
5936 F20101205_AAADEG stansberry_a_Page_235thm.jpg
21060c87da6cf0424da709c32a6562ef
660961865b93848c5bb728be3b474056881e6a5d
8865 F20101205_AAACUY stansberry_a_Page_100thm.jpg
6e51329541ec36918886c4a7cfe32e84
03691966959c516aebb7c941e3482665affb802a
F20101205_AAABKT stansberry_a_Page_157.tif
f09be14af27b8196ecdee63051d1e394
d28b01c3a8d3b5ad01e662c742453d41adee3cad
270 F20101205_AAACHN stansberry_a_Page_147.txt
aba383af7e23c33c4c952f3b12374cc9
4ad8698eb7249d7d453049f9dc783088a6c0b3df
F20101205_AAAAAP stansberry_a_Page_112.tif
f55a3d0436eb2cc3abaac70c828f8f1f
a7c4fd1c604a3c748cfe75cdf1906ead7bd74735
8473 F20101205_AAADEH stansberry_a_Page_236thm.jpg
ee7263aa42bc7b26007e90667494b420
673388a20142a2eb0b8d2f4133940237cfea3e2e
34940 F20101205_AAACUZ stansberry_a_Page_101.QC.jpg
db593b4137a443f207b6d123d3b654d1
e4b09c64b38c8e4f87c27f3e0af2b12cca571e20
F20101205_AAABKU stansberry_a_Page_158.tif
517d5e4c0df3d925c2ce0799d1e4508f
bed4453ccc94699d034fa26b30d480af26a6b97e
1463 F20101205_AAACHO stansberry_a_Page_148.txt
b63e2e6bf81c480632b1f14881c4be16
60e6b4f1c037a1d862066cf68e92dcd57aecc640
4631 F20101205_AAAAAQ stansberry_a_Page_137thm.jpg
37127a02fd84ef74de72096fb66df3d4
fa19e890385fe1cb52d4fefc12c500fbf7bc8c3c
31931 F20101205_AAADEI stansberry_a_Page_237.QC.jpg
6e28ae142687a738a0a6b126cb912a1b
bca046a977098aa7492e3a81e8a26d668f8fb358
F20101205_AAABKV stansberry_a_Page_159.tif
011526d5aeccd5453e44205ebc1947eb
f067e6b26047ae0962751a807f0f509ba7cf8cfb
15828 F20101205_AAAAAR stansberry_a_Page_145.QC.jpg
9e6ae4eb2fdf0d0fcfd59f61c707d573
2881eefc3680188da9be72156f5e8f77cccb9037
8118 F20101205_AAADEJ stansberry_a_Page_237thm.jpg
73288d8795984e324df9f4e4db2081ad
f4d49786dcd162f1ca1e273dab03965414908100
F20101205_AAABKW stansberry_a_Page_160.tif
8602e980146f0e7044a87bd903a6ebbc
e4fccefcfff07a018be609ff929c65882f198882
170 F20101205_AAACHP stansberry_a_Page_151.txt
013b872ea0705d87f4f4c8ebb4e74574
43075cbf61052394dc777a1a506d04afc16cf91f
36260 F20101205_AAAAAS stansberry_a_Page_156.QC.jpg
d524aabcc681f513100284af9d16cc63
7fccea08511f475e699926b992758bd2bb70a93d
34389 F20101205_AAADEK stansberry_a_Page_238.QC.jpg
caa66e94e8d4fa1d33b15904ed761251
444ec3a49ea66e732a4aff4cbf0310399f38eb0b
F20101205_AAABKX stansberry_a_Page_161.tif
8e7855bdee40592b17842cc2cdee616c
ae45f86c4dcb36c6d3d7c087ef6bc574697b77b6
F20101205_AAACHQ stansberry_a_Page_152.txt
e25776c3c17b5742cff3f06dffa23cc3
90c7ca3666459f7959067913232c178c7ac8bceb
9251 F20101205_AAAAAT stansberry_a_Page_172thm.jpg
5aecc6ff60b70cde95318de4f61671bb
ebf4e89113b0d410e8abfbdcdada0a9341d7aa54
F20101205_AAABKY stansberry_a_Page_162.tif
bdca9a8c7b706b1ecb6eb29e026bb1f0
36250605a7a972bc52dde1e34e12f94a6c62026b
2074 F20101205_AAACHR stansberry_a_Page_153.txt
9ae6d167fa76088dc46d588fa270f44d
901cfa0165614f2f3fd83a1ccf6a8a088186ba79
8808 F20101205_AAAAAU stansberry_a_Page_075thm.jpg
1cd54fef9f34064678613441d45cb92f
d3eb05c0a5cb8d97021016d0780f136c3e4c08a1
8106 F20101205_AAADEL stansberry_a_Page_238thm.jpg
019f333bd4141e6847890ca2dca502e1
076fb93c50e598edbfb397f6d951958ea76ac60b
F20101205_AAABKZ stansberry_a_Page_163.tif
b93afecb80f7936693d187ecd5be637d
0afb966e59626eb42739be82482faa427cde1fb2
2197 F20101205_AAACHS stansberry_a_Page_154.txt
8f5be4641f0866a4c3cb8cdfc70921dc
6c97239f28e90999e4bd9ad9b344e493de29903c
8640 F20101205_AAAAAV stansberry_a_Page_225thm.jpg
3c19ba2b09450b3581bf25e22a6bf44d
be77996a7d38ad0808e0791dbc9192b871497de9
33456 F20101205_AAADEM stansberry_a_Page_239.QC.jpg
abd9d45927130806f40f07f9438be066
620b870de25d23c8449252fbfebae896f24dee5e
2248 F20101205_AAACHT stansberry_a_Page_155.txt
4de90566a1328251c0d8a8c2b598a45c
fd176b33f176766b6eadd20e0ff96555e887a9c3
105265 F20101205_AAAAAW stansberry_a_Page_221.jpg
c223c21cff204d0b71ee16f222bcead5
9a07d10be8a07a8c89fbe63bcab000b4211f35b8
8087 F20101205_AAADEN stansberry_a_Page_239thm.jpg
a51dff3448ac472d7c7ebdff8cf7960b
c029749e3ad0bc69ce1d3ae09a9e41dad4e4b484
F20101205_AAACHU stansberry_a_Page_156.txt
f8261ce79668a9a1be042e39b73d0298
83fed8b64abb2ccd0c5c3f75e4563df5ccaabbc4
F20101205_AAAAAX stansberry_a_Page_157.txt
71632fb34f108a29bf149d16c10ef4d4
bcce46c2186894ef63a1e5db2197b0873a33c5ba
133287 F20101205_AAAATA stansberry_a_Page_318.jpg
91ff644ac74a9a25deedb1188dd98889
2cf5f52c1d13f24064d386080ea1d14bebb50743
33652 F20101205_AAADEO stansberry_a_Page_240.QC.jpg
e43f71669ab4a29e7dcfd17c51d9a3c4
96f5a94742712e20a5a85ba3dd603bd666c75003
2148 F20101205_AAACHV stansberry_a_Page_158.txt
03f082e3882680b09acec88e05053ab1
5969ea97c9c67d011ac6673bed3e68836762876e
5883 F20101205_AAAAAY stansberry_a_Page_256.pro
81dcbd920948d35eaa907de3c7c25eda
ed552ca56cf483dba012abe037c383da4c0a2bb0
156113 F20101205_AAAATB stansberry_a_Page_319.jpg
f1ae961ca60e5d2b2dc625cfa21a25ce
7c417e2c36d9faca2e1af4ae99cf3eb475a54863
8590 F20101205_AAADEP stansberry_a_Page_240thm.jpg
5e0ed45aaec8c7e42cc2a2be91fa07c9
2213a376b43b96e19b0eb08509a09c89609cb0f4
2007 F20101205_AAACHW stansberry_a_Page_159.txt
8caf9219474c4d26c30abe5b1e2443dc
8117732b47d014f30b96227487c027b080672da3
119563 F20101205_AAAAAZ stansberry_a_Page_227.jp2
4c70538d577b37cb8102248f85aa6aea
fd55aa6db018c99dda64a85c95edef971a0924ed
170673 F20101205_AAAATC stansberry_a_Page_320.jpg
1a99adbf484f44401d22e10230a3b8f5
e4b4ea372448e854fd941029b14ad9f3b10c836e
34451 F20101205_AAADEQ stansberry_a_Page_241.QC.jpg
32f3ee62105d131f703c976d79587581
42248507358421e576e3230d7f41048808f8ca00
2225 F20101205_AAACHX stansberry_a_Page_160.txt
f70f81f1eb254774a16bdc4c8b539a4f
b89a2cb29068f94f1848a87b46e306ec227ca337
153680 F20101205_AAAATD stansberry_a_Page_321.jpg
3a355b5659f2d028f325dedc4e26f65a
6d4ab20d8778b28a6e2249089403758b85787ddb
8414 F20101205_AAADER stansberry_a_Page_241thm.jpg
96a0d5c44122bec7f82c7bc3b5c22bc4
6a6f586218673413c44064ec7edff736e50462be
2158 F20101205_AAACHY stansberry_a_Page_162.txt
aff2646f0d3ec603e185be029dc7a79d
ab3bb6179d650a742707eadeeccf10fac9965bb2
51353 F20101205_AAAATE stansberry_a_Page_322.jpg
037a7f303b88e94a1551fb742951fb85
d11e0972d9900fa09dfe3c1dd3d7e1083464ae4a
10005 F20101205_AAADES stansberry_a_Page_242.QC.jpg
a156f4e6a51d7b00e8d1b76f1e7d0e19
52f69ab073d3ed0022a5f0e8f044fe4d86de97d8
2142 F20101205_AAACHZ stansberry_a_Page_163.txt
6d03ea37e4479d37bbdafd8cf7d8b890
aeb48b3072cc5ac501b693df18fb17255f8ed3a1
33994 F20101205_AAAATF stansberry_a_Page_323.jpg
4e04ce2844ac2fb419ea38f2e85a428b
521f820638bc0ff1cd532ef4882a801ce4fcfac2
30270 F20101205_AAADET stansberry_a_Page_243.QC.jpg
70c94a4c179e690256be426fa975a606
d3624d84ebb26263088af2504bdbaac5a5a7d47e
42986 F20101205_AAAATG stansberry_a_Page_324.jpg
43689d231681f9dea11252cd8de5f6ea
113593bea4276bad29379104957073b068c2936b
6983 F20101205_AAADEU stansberry_a_Page_243thm.jpg
d81a214860bd13b0e96385bdf76744a1
7cc56f3596e3d9cbfc117ab2207675597e1a30c0
42754 F20101205_AAAATH stansberry_a_Page_325.jpg
53dfccd5f1d5706e3715dcdc89482eb0
6aad52d4c00ec2c0b9988ba4ec9f9f0e53118911
F20101205_AAABQA stansberry_a_Page_306.tif
fd445c8ca74561c04a8ff7c474af0e2f
0dd3e14aabbe476346ca70e66e980c04ee95444e
36651 F20101205_AAADEV stansberry_a_Page_244.QC.jpg
08057b21d0dc79c2f2bcde90d616f05f
68bb8b1c6b01801ebede9c010afec1d10b399474
62853 F20101205_AAAATI stansberry_a_Page_326.jpg
17df74a03323abd28a070080e97f0b0d
33c34136b756d9e04ca905121b570db2765cb2f1
F20101205_AAABQB stansberry_a_Page_307.tif
beae0cb86165010a6908f53e39e0789f
3592a03245d04af07824bd335e598b7bb0c79ff1
8753 F20101205_AAADEW stansberry_a_Page_244thm.jpg
3518eaee969d666b64c1b123806688ea
8e966e7859cdfde8fb202008400f1cd0ed2d8d29
122595 F20101205_AAAATJ stansberry_a_Page_327.jpg
c23cc6352e7988058c3b4ac656a0a21d
4fddd6489e85f454972fd230b60066815b3f9df5
F20101205_AAABQC stansberry_a_Page_308.tif
c96d86a6159c33f52548288405fb4a82
d65b5c3e8c7bc6033ad1139f17e5fb828412d83b
37646 F20101205_AAADEX stansberry_a_Page_245.QC.jpg
2492819c4f6d2c4f113fc99f1ed0d215
9404873249cf8196ec94c85bd23818c8fa4eb770
36187 F20101205_AAAATK stansberry_a_Page_328.jpg
4d13feb98356e70676cf4e58ba27b9ba
87727084a87168aa09086c17c8a8977a3f30b93d
F20101205_AAABQD stansberry_a_Page_309.tif
e6d2baa178bebb63db47b87c7929cd64
7ff2a43372d666020a42ed19a2eee3b67d33460d
8942 F20101205_AAADEY stansberry_a_Page_245thm.jpg
5a4377207c560c2b9db3f1698f9e4ba6
266d1cfd0bbcb1836f6d9bc0c8b4506362738018
2296 F20101205_AAAAGA stansberry_a_Page_053.txt
ad79b16d6d1865da37a842d06ae8fb22
c860a61081de26509621cdd17038598101db5591
117668 F20101205_AAAATL stansberry_a_Page_329.jpg
acaf7f89cdf0ca2897a7860ca35b6b40
040f57494f209fc648cae1e4e3802f3151364515
F20101205_AAABQE stansberry_a_Page_310.tif
d12dd1009a1b1452638618841ff0b11d
08aa4139ee3d8a83dbb69bc675c2e5fa2bc2c431
9157 F20101205_AAADEZ stansberry_a_Page_246thm.jpg
1338475916f1bb929c38d266aa989c7e
1dbdead4b68f03f6bb6fd92ce84c0dd1a3fcb8ee
8969 F20101205_AAAAGB stansberry_a_Page_198thm.jpg
6bfdc64e403a5cb8ddc25d321b28d1eb
6708f402ce942ad097fa6ceb42fdeb5faaa386bd
19517 F20101205_AAAATM stansberry_a_Page_330.jpg
bf739c838a3be430da546dbea19de981
2d4a7f1779be30031f4a8e1241c27aea9d3dbd1b
F20101205_AAABQF stansberry_a_Page_311.tif
91d9f84ffabdf23bc5114b0ed917601a
7437ef129e3e63fb90517a4d8f5c73966d0d7ad6
32263 F20101205_AAAAGC stansberry_a_Page_297.QC.jpg
5299c3bcb32a715161a98432b33f6fb7
540915395b01b215399fa5ca87eb7937fbf16243
23407 F20101205_AAAATN stansberry_a_Page_001.jp2
79be52cc286ab49329d37f7937dfbeba
23fd016ed3c17559a45291ebc33f76524bc1432a
F20101205_AAABQG stansberry_a_Page_312.tif
79ac535b712a44291669a1fd5409dc91
ebaff789e282b6b47f1a8eda87d8ffcdffc1167f
683 F20101205_AAACNA stansberry_a_Page_304.txt
044abf497a1674842c88ce0a1f5010c7
30d907d15130e78f85416dfdaedf80f9e2ef6c6c
9150 F20101205_AAAAGD stansberry_a_Page_089thm.jpg
b50959343f7b6df70161c3c4fd9fb067
2ed663227e0363644d1d1c993443db421ca3a5a5
5989 F20101205_AAAATO stansberry_a_Page_002.jp2
3b4f6210ad6c8636baa808b350b794bc
34828479fc2d99c5e0a7b529664fda35a37f89f0
F20101205_AAABQH stansberry_a_Page_313.tif
121caa15ee96ae01bbdbd5651d9c8810
ae07a730dfc497284470a78fb8092811d0297edb
4614 F20101205_AAACNB stansberry_a_Page_305.txt
bb39802a472838adc2aa88fd6edd1cfd
c6da636edd00de20c2b06cd0b00c6194b2aa4a82
35688 F20101205_AAAAGE stansberry_a_Page_182.QC.jpg
bdc22baff1237e14b2465c2138c9a6c5
f9b6f4ebc6bcc61e99c7430649e9864ad4aef5e3
7288 F20101205_AAAATP stansberry_a_Page_003.jp2
0d8db8b78a2864bb6c601f8bb1174cd0
483693c42129e51aba1427c71abb76c4bc6fa41b
F20101205_AAABQI stansberry_a_Page_314.tif
9e4d1b0c988e8e362cd5609a342ed7ba
1e6c51dc888a3cf7d20fbde6a5d7841527ac09d4
2454 F20101205_AAACNC stansberry_a_Page_306.txt
2c6dee21872c4a660497825ec0dd8e98
33a4ae8a475c45f1f085334ad822ae8f677841c7
50323 F20101205_AAAAGF stansberry_a_Page_161.pro
3959e4b96e294474936aef82f8b15966
39e6021fcd8833e6a314857911f7768f86f253a2
34415 F20101205_AAAATQ stansberry_a_Page_004.jp2
b28ffde5dab9176df26c822aba64c070
4e960d5955871fbdd0b77ee9530514612cb4d89b
F20101205_AAABQJ stansberry_a_Page_315.tif
cd7dbe7940673a9862f94dedb649b959
ed950a6df920b693085ea359d36f3205c2faecb6
1537 F20101205_AAACND stansberry_a_Page_307.txt
2f361f8d1d02c1e4ddacc4c0cad6962a
10c19a0fb39f0493cc4e9c6e68cb20c5141af49d
102592 F20101205_AAAAGG stansberry_a_Page_012.jpg
5225522ea50dd5122bfb740fd0d21f5e
ee349a5ed1437cd7cb1ba35ed0ac665c71309f61
F20101205_AAAATR stansberry_a_Page_005.jp2
86822c9d39b445e41ea5c36a5ab566c6
8445d652695743b9974f2c184e72baef147f0e4a
F20101205_AAABQK stansberry_a_Page_316.tif
f2e3edd4c8764710bbd2581fcaf0d4b4
9d659bf0087ff26f182e9375a02cb2007645ff11
3822 F20101205_AAACNE stansberry_a_Page_308.txt
467f635adada7355275ed6d6493a81be
35111bb62095e88e57b560b29ed6d805388f4f93
9215 F20101205_AAAAGH stansberry_a_Page_081thm.jpg
de792391fc2e3e4edae2179f66aa82ae
8a3100e6a56bdbd76ef54d7b2eefab5c0d308225
737771 F20101205_AAABDA stansberry_a_Page_266.jp2
6064ec5b676f38e7af8adeb54890e0c1
5f270160f4975a0138dcd859a406e3f7eac21bff
1051967 F20101205_AAAATS stansberry_a_Page_006.jp2
82996a0989d4299e41585a965432d20f
f7aeb62555c50a6696bbc15cd18a92551bd0064c
F20101205_AAABQL stansberry_a_Page_317.tif
7a79733ae9873bef2b17c64487c46e87
9e573d9a6d0a059560b27e2daae67ee2b1928373
1520 F20101205_AAACNF stansberry_a_Page_309.txt
826215cd87efb0d990e082bdbd4d022a
ce8bceef7bfa7077e621de86c62c4a65f2dcb523
6818 F20101205_AAAAGI stansberry_a_Page_326.pro
7419830b821146f8345e739251c38feb
1de0efe01fb9fe11b3d3da6cb7e8fc2a5575ead2
788712 F20101205_AAABDB stansberry_a_Page_267.jp2
287d06b50daac589e150a4363a2f6f04
09c18470c490af261c5e11cea37850a9f61dc323
1051977 F20101205_AAAATT stansberry_a_Page_007.jp2
f15906240701f9181dce4228a6821a7e
88c9cd826a8ebfb6bb272f1e5e9f4e7ce61af8d4
F20101205_AAABQM stansberry_a_Page_318.tif
7b7eeef7f0753ef4b5da7216a00a7403
0b552e1078bfde437d49a8197234b8416fd64113
1828 F20101205_AAACNG stansberry_a_Page_310.txt
65db15ba3a3bf6e869a0ca153e5b07c0
78d399e6a683cb3f995e0974671615da8e3e24e0
54372 F20101205_AAAAGJ stansberry_a_Page_071.pro
6d715234138ac19d9494a7151428b30e
b9b9dfa2ba29de2f7ed8b7bc1de6a0ec615c922f
713022 F20101205_AAABDC stansberry_a_Page_268.jp2
5d54ddff7980062be091d78f23437f52
089646d044b7be24e1e29ffbab039904daabf78a
1051930 F20101205_AAAATU stansberry_a_Page_008.jp2
23411df97eb18ae2a7e99fa4bd8d5a83
39e78491bbefdf3742553a647cc3dee7693c47f9
F20101205_AAABQN stansberry_a_Page_319.tif
c4dcc21f2a0e8f817a92249287f1ced0
1d6eae6d0a47edd9f131ad0d1ae619dbfadccf45
2704 F20101205_AAADKA stansberry_a_Page_317thm.jpg
90a62d4be390521b5bd3fdf91016e8e1
4aa8c1f41ba4f3ba4fbee484d9740d1839fb2e97
1993 F20101205_AAACNH stansberry_a_Page_311.txt
478c507f52e74232407f4832a3f80831
ef0494b26119e6e1c29bbbe92ffea63715c6dbb9
119485 F20101205_AAAAGK stansberry_a_Page_290.jpg
4c0d29f3bd118f02e1b8c624e2fe57e6
b5be97ce5b0a03ab7348d7f44eee543802b8ecf5
693117 F20101205_AAABDD stansberry_a_Page_269.jp2
0b52598dbfbb69f2d930d53dd88d2cb2
682815dd7434bc46894ec8d061cf232c0f83be1d
F20101205_AAAATV stansberry_a_Page_009.jp2
9c8dcb78327edd239e1d26a9708452d5
8c7275a0e8a9270f02240219dabd9e0c6a4c6275
F20101205_AAABQO stansberry_a_Page_320.tif
976708a2787eb6356a92d6a49e48d60f
cee7396cd0c76e84f85e365f6bdd3411b71c683c
35152 F20101205_AAADKB stansberry_a_Page_318.QC.jpg
f06205c9c8ceb2a7f3453b5c0d8cf13c
b8b282ba6a7496a7b948ad456561af999f506101
2735 F20101205_AAACNI stansberry_a_Page_312.txt
0178a7f8c232dadb6b12baf7c9596948
797bccc8c494890aa5cb0bec6aa3ddb8e29ce640
103282 F20101205_AAAAGL stansberry_a_Page_056.jpg
1960935232cdd0dfc29fa6f0c49176a3
e80f93ce1da62a0e56a9e279ec8ada0248dac48b
719219 F20101205_AAABDE stansberry_a_Page_270.jp2
dfc29e79e591fb70076f86e29d7d5891
0c8338706da88e5af8414b2d83b72386850d6efa
F20101205_AAAATW stansberry_a_Page_010.jp2
6047a0ca9b0f2c926779bc4818744849
3d32ff05979ba11304cd2b92eb2fb36cee145d75
F20101205_AAABQP stansberry_a_Page_321.tif
cb66014c7d956f8a8355f808307a81d6
0aed5874207777938c9021d5289399fd2d8a43f4
8422 F20101205_AAADKC stansberry_a_Page_318thm.jpg
4b9f98f9c3b1e3eca3f454144af1bea8
8befad1857eb09ed58121c0e4c4b98cfac615491
2297 F20101205_AAACNJ stansberry_a_Page_313.txt
91c62c382c9b58916e0b6900275e19cc
5af9cf4a46a2be5f6d5038731e8faf436faa7ba9
2267 F20101205_AAAAGM stansberry_a_Page_106.txt
90b9511ee7ae78bd66b20fe249bcf03d
7b7b00e6a57d65f47049a7c0955414dc95ddec11
870135 F20101205_AAABDF stansberry_a_Page_271.jp2
f2b9c45c1d0c4cc2841aa2846f0071bc
2124f7f7e8316beb664e6c4da418e2004fe02453
1051970 F20101205_AAAATX stansberry_a_Page_011.jp2
a2fe59c7ec8b4aa53d2164c384c6c812
9b279d5746b933817066c9fcca0130ed52755505
F20101205_AAABQQ stansberry_a_Page_322.tif
5d0813f0dc29f436d4f4bf671e433674
379a60a2a744d1e4d492ccc1ed394551ace6bc0b
40765 F20101205_AAADKD stansberry_a_Page_319.QC.jpg
01350b4a3d73e98d3c24089da974564e
71618e5ce806e401cba39f36c57700add23712cd
2042 F20101205_AAACNK stansberry_a_Page_314.txt
f702c59e28881b15a1839a8bb5d81f39
1cfa4ce92e713761ef55a3c99aa6a4042ae2b448
F20101205_AAAAGN stansberry_a_Page_019.tif
8793dfa8a64b39d970d27dabb065c62d
a69c13540807390079dcc100fc9c7a224f766536
998841 F20101205_AAABDG stansberry_a_Page_272.jp2
4955fd407f3bf6a509ec8f99067a35e8
12e04606ed79c0a11f5e3145cde3d01b61d33584
110862 F20101205_AAAATY stansberry_a_Page_013.jp2
7637bb31ec12182a636593072f127db4
90d6d3444b313841ede3efb8281aa6cf624b5847
F20101205_AAABQR stansberry_a_Page_324.tif
cc63e27658d66df33485e754e6d8b4ec
7e3c40bfcc06ca53ffbd35df5bdc06440a7b140e
9344 F20101205_AAADKE stansberry_a_Page_319thm.jpg
cecd115db41c74c693215faa42f3ec73
1bc46cbd101419a18202cbdaf8f23b432fa991cc
1934 F20101205_AAACNL stansberry_a_Page_315.txt
9fc2b88b4e4e01828d3e89241732ed3b
0e8ce69a5c5e256f35f6b24fa6b7030994d1d1b2
139908 F20101205_AAAAGO stansberry_a_Page_249.jpg
6b465b8f6b9fa78bf94d4fe6a9b34a55
76a053555aa4df83a5b858b324d35e1325b4346d
F20101205_AAABDH stansberry_a_Page_273.jp2
4b183ce98ea301fe0f4e447127543f00
ab46f003fec2cf2aa1cc35b46a3f2248b498eea0
109802 F20101205_AAAATZ stansberry_a_Page_014.jp2
725a62514276281d5acb78ece725c64c
62fb4a10cf03177b0a4693536c0ea035373b8228
37136 F20101205_AAACAA stansberry_a_Page_263.pro
ad3a508153195c9cc1ebd2864a3da1ec
0ad75f3a4135ea9988bba524f07d6086ed7f982a
F20101205_AAABQS stansberry_a_Page_325.tif
0d7d0c812c4a3e5d742bca728dece77d
e711d2091ecfeef767d59756a05383ff196b7355
43245 F20101205_AAADKF stansberry_a_Page_320.QC.jpg
4c23bf0bd8f1fa369bc5a12aebd90855
19e17d051c832eabe28203d4b91da9c408f9cdbf
1925 F20101205_AAACNM stansberry_a_Page_316.txt
96710d4880f8eac6507bd8bc55a4afe8
72141f2535803fc3af8f1f0dfe2e647e0d5c0b89
2576 F20101205_AAAAGP stansberry_a_Page_242thm.jpg
3ac85917aee80f7dfb034067696ee6f5
673a13f035273c77d34e07eed74405f96e59c2c9
1051983 F20101205_AAABDI stansberry_a_Page_274.jp2
a6736f0ae88f32e2ce251fb2854d12e1
0e9eba3fa2e4c65df85c9dfdd34bd26736b5e5f8
35567 F20101205_AAACAB stansberry_a_Page_264.pro
e4efc39edd914dbb1d9c6d285602f785
3ddf3fc40923d0c11d8ab7372ff924d51a11323d
F20101205_AAABQT stansberry_a_Page_326.tif
8f0563b8d613983d190badfb10f1c812
1c5054462a11e85b57d196f7b82da4d8d696eb23
9785 F20101205_AAADKG stansberry_a_Page_320thm.jpg
f2a30a3abefb80fe1c045fd5ad39449a
ef8952a323a7c8e5917757ea17f093996032ae0e
706 F20101205_AAACNN stansberry_a_Page_317.txt
2b9904cbad52af3d7631ee0601954dc5
98160e20ed5548729641e1bf0b20be0fe4512e8e
1051937 F20101205_AAABDJ stansberry_a_Page_275.jp2
6f07f290d257de8d705ed56ee58cef93
f929b1049b1dc6f6ce86f9c213198982a986f387
28230 F20101205_AAACAC stansberry_a_Page_265.pro
d584845a5e0c967226e770d957a05342
d2247058be69477210dcfab1779347c883d3f4c7
F20101205_AAABQU stansberry_a_Page_327.tif
c9a9ff340745e4e1f84fbf6d6637f648
651fc7be57601545f5f1bfb5161eb560b3d485ea
40500 F20101205_AAADKH stansberry_a_Page_321.QC.jpg
c022ff3ea378df82eabc74c8201dc7a8
f9e66ce00707abf2fa74e3ecd4f1828270d69736
F20101205_AAACNO stansberry_a_Page_318.txt
3140bc41c04ada860f39a3f976ce0d90
1085bd9b23b15a2f2cb21b721af398492659b9a3
F20101205_AAAAGQ stansberry_a_Page_097.tif
6136508f4b9c3276f2251730c9e0ea6e
7b97af1b395fcc1fad24cef9cc16c638c7ac05c2
F20101205_AAABDK stansberry_a_Page_276.jp2
1c49e01fd07afa5f7d37987deba49578
5f8b1389be0a4db502740a0b34c42a87626b1891
33462 F20101205_AAACAD stansberry_a_Page_266.pro
926058b2e6c35a9af1c154e3d5c95330
a8525a2d5002b72567948d147f24899d90bc3a5c
F20101205_AAABQV stansberry_a_Page_328.tif
f59b4b884b3206dfa0e446bc8b615f3e
4cbe77f9b0901be06dedf337b71a4efe81110b9a
9576 F20101205_AAADKI stansberry_a_Page_321thm.jpg
08529a37becfc7c6cd8bd4b4247d18ec
a0f5472dea57cdc65bd47e7a01752eb090c8d9eb
3249 F20101205_AAACNP stansberry_a_Page_319.txt
2c877f51c22fcc9a2c61796a4d128aa0
309a76dfc47534ab930027c1b706b9d1e589bf52
62715 F20101205_AAAAGR stansberry_a_Page_031.pro
87b48881b9cbe959cca48d59fb09a70a
169f1bfca731a83708d853091c56576a464b3981
1051968 F20101205_AAABDL stansberry_a_Page_277.jp2
ac76f497dd1ac25fd6a3431c3581a833
620c99abc510f7310bf2c436697a0763518fe0b5
36778 F20101205_AAACAE stansberry_a_Page_267.pro
e29e2fdc96d0ba765227d9ff79e3761b
e4036e1dde3a6ef79f74134a0d5efe8243430abc
F20101205_AAABQW stansberry_a_Page_329.tif
da25a091f5443902df17fd79b61cbde1
228c8971b334a62464f2f1fa0e654433a80d0987
14187 F20101205_AAADKJ stansberry_a_Page_322.QC.jpg
e259c9830ab5fb913d18a5176ee58804
a9de8bcda594f9a95a0f913195f8dc6549ff507c
3490 F20101205_AAACNQ stansberry_a_Page_320.txt
0923eed391dbbbab3739c7489e3cc89c
803725ad0979280221bb183f328a9ea1e97a13bd
155091 F20101205_AAAAGS stansberry_a_Page_248.jp2
630827683e52157a2f9d2b2097194eaa
cab271d351cc231d80c0091d7f203968bf768128
32241 F20101205_AAACAF stansberry_a_Page_268.pro
acdf46f92a7dc115e13793b849835f04
3323f5416573176a8c8aa8689a10782947db5758
F20101205_AAABQX stansberry_a_Page_330.tif
cd7a8d8786e579dc982d143e3ebf20be
60b40070eed20813af4627d4322c30c866beccb8
3339 F20101205_AAADKK stansberry_a_Page_322thm.jpg
5ce5dd18aff013ab0fcb57c1c166d622
ac7a5489b7f1e5756721ebd712dd68c56539741a
3046 F20101205_AAACNR stansberry_a_Page_321.txt
b95b5e7afb2f6d169fb65eb0a3b67200
3cb8f512dfefb01d5d5a4e65cfa9c0e9a909ddca
54438 F20101205_AAAAGT stansberry_a_Page_208.pro
d1c8544adba85d63815a8ea29cf38792
20988be02c648ae92d4c173b660b6edaf122de3e
F20101205_AAABDM stansberry_a_Page_278.jp2
e8d180f4a468ccee09accc0b1d318591
3e4e76927c4516b36c3d5e531711b822660bf445
31019 F20101205_AAACAG stansberry_a_Page_269.pro
037e94c0da393b21d20501753ccd7829
24bab5f5d149b85597e5d29cebd8c7c103178be8
1228 F20101205_AAABQY stansberry_a_Page_002.pro
e3faa2d8a7b1a1ea6b3518d83f2cd46e
8d8a09e512a7882d8ed0ba35ce69e09d9576bbdc
10580 F20101205_AAADKL stansberry_a_Page_323.QC.jpg
8b8c74d68d5df519cf8b8d9d9d4ffe9e
57a77b960d3107311e4c0333d1d6a858f0d0ffed
945 F20101205_AAACNS stansberry_a_Page_322.txt
648281130f28f28c39a5365ae232a1e1
f195117e2bd9792b874466649508626aac638c11
9077 F20101205_AAAAGU stansberry_a_Page_157thm.jpg
0184d42434b6adc2b90fc8eb99f95de4
5cdf75ae1cc30896a9ba6ff8dc8484d2fb081d89
F20101205_AAABDN stansberry_a_Page_279.jp2
135a579a8319040175f2c7cfd4f37c82
d095e767b539aaadaf786c4a2b541be6638319dd
32212 F20101205_AAACAH stansberry_a_Page_270.pro
878016c361ca04cec0b76a954a9e1a02
a48628c492d5d467dcfe8ba0dca5c3172661b6ba
3445 F20101205_AAADKM stansberry_a_Page_323thm.jpg
b52cd4844c382419ae334ae4aa4919fc
a537e95936eb77de702fe26e30960b0f25292c92
504 F20101205_AAACNT stansberry_a_Page_323.txt
a60e1ba7e75a3d8a8b64cf1877598c1b
5d3f736d86df25a98952057f9c9bcf30529684d8
803589 F20101205_AAAAGV stansberry_a_Page_133.jp2
5afdab7d91e441d9f40621e8eabe3a8e
f8782075fc373eb3bcf28602f326b41a4d7d2743
F20101205_AAABDO stansberry_a_Page_280.jp2
5b915efed246b93fe77c5871111eb3e1
02fc42f8112343d293f8ed6332f9d43808aacf82
14236 F20101205_AAABQZ stansberry_a_Page_004.pro
e04b7ea050a809e9aa3cd5dc02e76cdd
72360555fe4abac4b301954b5c104e5f5de72663
13379 F20101205_AAADKN stansberry_a_Page_324.QC.jpg
fd4370b611cdd0ddfc0b40fa6cd5bf1e
ac9d6938990a0cd6b1021d7762e3334a0e331960
724 F20101205_AAACNU stansberry_a_Page_324.txt
387753b1a280a975c9d39384caa53270
99702454a2705acf75844672522d0772784618de
36453 F20101205_AAAAGW stansberry_a_Page_095.QC.jpg
b8edc0021678b7a4ba985810108add30
2bbc9ee2469db85a69e44dac6445da1745fb292b
110926 F20101205_AAAAZA stansberry_a_Page_153.jp2
b61d4d980b9af1f1cb8c80d41f99aaa7
5a0ac9f5d74934f548bf4caad38624307c7f3b1b
F20101205_AAABDP stansberry_a_Page_281.jp2
a07ca19bbf705e6400c67c385985d7c0
a582968f24487bb013388b4555c1a4799e4a72c2
31151 F20101205_AAACAI stansberry_a_Page_271.pro
71a89f9fa4a08b1346d3289d382e7fee
af54e8bc5a6e44830d26bd407c76a53ef67aa838
4155 F20101205_AAADKO stansberry_a_Page_324thm.jpg
3a6cc998c49cc4a128e711ec13dba883
6ca2bb7378c32b825c6d4eb760612f1cef35e355
108721 F20101205_AAAAGX stansberry_a_Page_217.jpg
af9d99418f316a5253aa76e8e35ade03
1577ac36e89235cb0edb76480085a782234d2463
117357 F20101205_AAAAZB stansberry_a_Page_154.jp2
d1a56c00cdcef3a60105b713308719fa
37b1e4f4f2658a493cd5eab490ca847a5d557cc8
1051966 F20101205_AAABDQ stansberry_a_Page_282.jp2
34f8864c2310417472b6439491072357
4c6304070daa82dba92f65492f7f571ce731e7f9
43394 F20101205_AAACAJ stansberry_a_Page_272.pro
9d85dda69ea6fa6aa15fbd0f9f7351b5
f3af4029d71ba18a57504f45f753b0e612165a8e
13563 F20101205_AAADKP stansberry_a_Page_325.QC.jpg
8fd031fdc15cc0af5efb67c382809aae
1398f628413b650d70e5c3f3e0519c44e31971de
669 F20101205_AAACNV stansberry_a_Page_325.txt
17c6a15373be92efe60ae34a0e9d2c6d
9826aa0c38dd20d8867a63653509663ec659f244
2191 F20101205_AAAAGY stansberry_a_Page_079.txt
498120cb45a7a84eabdb5abc078516c9
e0b62c1d431b8eba40c4934cde950b5822499136
121355 F20101205_AAAAZC stansberry_a_Page_155.jp2
f78bec0dbdfa59f2ebe776acb6edec23
5ba47661eced9dc4b331eb875c86941506a9e68b
849221 F20101205_AAABDR stansberry_a_Page_283.jp2
5585869d2d51cfd3386e32068d55dd18
b54b5c9586b8563279428b78af828c901e1e7bdb
80383 F20101205_AAACAK stansberry_a_Page_273.pro
6733a9d1adc9eb2cc9beffa2a8c97958
43fee749c5577ff11bc13cd19a0230df4abeccc3
4095 F20101205_AAADKQ stansberry_a_Page_325thm.jpg
74c48beb0653cc09583f32bdf541a325
d2ba5b4a377e67ccbb9546d1618d0badf4857b35
333 F20101205_AAACNW stansberry_a_Page_326.txt
a75ba4c1ba6d30b17dd6984d21f6a9a1
f7b8be9077a57c91467d78922b0fb4c76b93dd20
51788 F20101205_AAAAGZ stansberry_a_Page_131.jpg
1804c2ec79362a83065efe195e9d4225
4bbe98455bdbe1be67adf2abc5c4c185b4b8271e
806312 F20101205_AAABDS stansberry_a_Page_284.jp2
38209096a162f729ec60ac0e89311768
66f4628aa654dfe0711728e605f0d2bb6dce48d9
76527 F20101205_AAACAL stansberry_a_Page_274.pro
81d398ab1c30490340eb8efec207acbc
2655a35d65054c6f465b582bcc785dd16e7bb18f
2417 F20101205_AAACNX stansberry_a_Page_327.txt
419393d316f7afda97ae8988764b4308
7254b9877440256f40244bd86a6ef904fd866cf3
115365 F20101205_AAAAZD stansberry_a_Page_156.jp2
607785966523897418c2ed82dbd3ed34
e68ed372357850ea52cd0ebfcba7a5db5ac0d385
993235 F20101205_AAABDT stansberry_a_Page_285.jp2
82cf0a27c9f323723413dd22c92334d8
fe9e22eceb69862c47f8974c6d0a09dffa697374
79878 F20101205_AAACAM stansberry_a_Page_275.pro
4b49f12e91415bdb1cd1ffdd54bdcd5f
3ff547feb07ce8b1077d895e25189810b4c02fe6
19681 F20101205_AAADKR stansberry_a_Page_326.QC.jpg
2297b9922f363f6c9e616ab62ca408f1
81a109861e142f80656e08067a8cc357d1573558
611 F20101205_AAACNY stansberry_a_Page_328.txt
9eea7e0cb4b4d4735570938f5d15e584
793f1a620e165b59c169daf6db2ac0e2c4b6f9e3
115408 F20101205_AAAAZE stansberry_a_Page_157.jp2
400932bf0c85c3d709d62bf993161e52
8fd949cd1c79125acbbb324f9d282b6b089ee842
F20101205_AAABDU stansberry_a_Page_286.jp2
0d8a79f6d9a12801485eb9a146f58ca7
bdc7648fe77c864d21604ce6002ff3c95c5c9424
84209 F20101205_AAACAN stansberry_a_Page_276.pro
35ee7ec6445a496a861402a1de6e1173
88292ee1dfaef458bbe0ab3ead2798429fb7f949
5256 F20101205_AAADKS stansberry_a_Page_326thm.jpg
e79c6891cd09aab2beb3302cee241ce1
77d4c5a13292102e3662445621c2e50eb89f9b3b
2287 F20101205_AAACNZ stansberry_a_Page_329.txt
ef0e67042f30719f13b2251db999126a
d992293c04e8ac0878ef35a5e08c3e19cbf7de32
116774 F20101205_AAAAZF stansberry_a_Page_158.jp2
d82048defbee55d90ad82ad1b7ae79f7
b2948a69b723d3bd363fd35dd564f4a69a2305af
1051874 F20101205_AAABDV stansberry_a_Page_287.jp2
f3de8258067bf0c36e715846e1be04f1
63b4e820d2726d9f2999b3f3084c83cc3a738725
95083 F20101205_AAACAO stansberry_a_Page_277.pro
e48ec84bc6570726a57cdc0c13a86354
1c427a00abb7162e397e6d18b28acdf3c993f860
36396 F20101205_AAADKT stansberry_a_Page_327.QC.jpg
2ae3f29c0c0918a84300b8d2dbd2a401
8a33aeea74041a58bbedcb55415bb02a6da492d6
109207 F20101205_AAAAZG stansberry_a_Page_159.jp2
aeee05b7f23587ee70e21140df6bf963
5ca587791114a4202e167d872dd89936b86b7cdd
994843 F20101205_AAABDW stansberry_a_Page_288.jp2
12b182ec41092eeb0255554069b3488f
0881c41c6865e609141740740981cb923933edec
81957 F20101205_AAACAP stansberry_a_Page_278.pro
db47f593e5f7f6daec4c7192fb35cee2
9b2c8231abdaf4080fac6c86e5b799379d5193b4
9028 F20101205_AAADKU stansberry_a_Page_327thm.jpg
23a0cbfaa216ea9f2b81e1d960b63cc1
55a558ac70489f17567e6723444b3e07dc4575cb
121516 F20101205_AAAAZH stansberry_a_Page_160.jp2
83f5cc7e55f610b13c1f19d5a937de57
5e6a4635538324019016a695da6d1c5c0f5ec5f8
F20101205_AAABDX stansberry_a_Page_289.jp2
4e611c6fcc6873d00c4f6ed1964e53eb
30d33b1f1dab49082c03ca51cd2abd7f5ece9f41
5632 F20101205_AAABWA stansberry_a_Page_144.pro
ea4d3f66b0f247f153c03812cab6cdcc
0249688aba9a316b442324dabbc253a0f1a082a7
93349 F20101205_AAACAQ stansberry_a_Page_279.pro
7830c5e04d2acf5d27ddb04924e63646
572cd4b32d17f41171d0666dfd96b02b3696b9f8
11227 F20101205_AAADKV stansberry_a_Page_328.QC.jpg
4cff5fccd7ba26aae6eb5b15f48caec1
10435ff6d6153250e38abb5ac1a99aa9c9f3a545
107865 F20101205_AAAAZI stansberry_a_Page_161.jp2
9ad95eb323ac3de76e14bdb971f4860b
07ce49877f77758f69bc07347c28b04b26860c6f
1051936 F20101205_AAABDY stansberry_a_Page_290.jp2
4a8721569a17ec771260bbac70904bf6
6e8c2dea7d3f18dfae24cc692469b043b001318d
2278 F20101205_AAABWB stansberry_a_Page_145.pro
64b4709caee117d0d199a317358aeea4
c5e80c5473a98ed0efb0ce169aa0bdca92974ef0
F20101205_AAACAR stansberry_a_Page_280.pro
3999e5fb796cb63310d389c1a77437a9
4c236354ca416d6eb27f6fbc446076f652294e94
2983 F20101205_AAADKW stansberry_a_Page_328thm.jpg
ad2c4808a4549b85dc2fcf4d22227506
5ae7d19b8b59092a655706c5ab76fc34c27f9a4f
116280 F20101205_AAAAZJ stansberry_a_Page_162.jp2
cb15668d474597ff3f58f48c1f475215
ac4568a9f9bdd0e78c023e40063a5ab24f03c5a4
725730 F20101205_AAABDZ stansberry_a_Page_292.jp2
eb21bed0d0b12f2c60fde93b2812c68d
40784eeb4dc505ca4e6ffb5649cc3ada8fc68897
4656 F20101205_AAABWC stansberry_a_Page_146.pro
73358268b9578cc5b1bbe5c18520cca8
2a628b429857fda4aa8c47c3b81d9325ec8d8402
73327 F20101205_AAACAS stansberry_a_Page_281.pro
1b7f3aad5f965615121802a2cccf1b05
5ae44ded08b1e00f59b50f4145dc1f1ca0f8464d
38227 F20101205_AAADKX stansberry_a_Page_329.QC.jpg
eeb7215a63c787b83d9c04524e18897a
51d99fe9cf983d922932fa4dccf50cb35369bd1c
113881 F20101205_AAAAZK stansberry_a_Page_163.jp2
4425970e4a63e189405bca37e269db1d
9a508bbd420a4e4e0b67ae3996da719e40025bef
5463 F20101205_AAABWD stansberry_a_Page_147.pro
7ebcfccb71663c6d42df18664c7a0c15
ad40caacdecf7f0e0e0c19576bc8ef95033ed056
67298 F20101205_AAACAT stansberry_a_Page_282.pro
b33e9e8683ebf6a37abe199005a2c307
1be12a54f282c6ab6f90f555490f1dfcd30f282d
9092 F20101205_AAADKY stansberry_a_Page_329thm.jpg
9f4f0a8d66352d1ee918eb5a6b0bbf00
6e5605695a286956676d47e04e470b69d52f3ebb
108787 F20101205_AAAAZL stansberry_a_Page_164.jp2
0a0b0734934ef88001924825ae1c2ed2
cb2f440485cd42400230cf5539af3086ac0069ec
4616 F20101205_AAABWE stansberry_a_Page_149.pro
7be60acbeef3cfc24a0a7d80fafc2431
5bbf4541d842c896cdc438e6708249fe284227ba
44861 F20101205_AAACAU stansberry_a_Page_283.pro
5dd2812aa93c3bd4a11fad06ba45707c
80b66bcb0e1b0f28d1db7c12a2ab7b354272211f
70944 F20101205_AAAAMA stansberry_a_Page_111.jpg
de7026114f4a115bd4a6a55b5aac114e
f19a97dd0f1fefd6bcc6e210274ada7b56c5c5af
6946 F20101205_AAADKZ stansberry_a_Page_330.QC.jpg
de558e67f7750bde4462107556a26958
23da4490234dded5ce2103fefeeda624d884f21b
114336 F20101205_AAAAZM stansberry_a_Page_165.jp2
491e76b19b8940517c7e132f18e10f92
91f8de9aaa9aaf8084e92af6033d939605ddbbee
3042 F20101205_AAABWF stansberry_a_Page_150.pro
a16a4e11d1e61417bb6bf62aa19cbcc8
ec0a6c73ba5e6721d8990b9c0394d9240d6f0d8f
3821 F20101205_AAACAV stansberry_a_Page_284.pro
be74d731c92290bd0958e63865697b28
b8e403629221ac7f0244b1fb3a9fd8b81d3f71f5
88378 F20101205_AAAAMB stansberry_a_Page_112.jpg
ca9d65505b9e97e95778a8618ce1be2b
b71bc70d8f32ed9c507a35935b077afd39ba1ff4
114738 F20101205_AAAAZN stansberry_a_Page_166.jp2
18f201d08df8669f6cea6c759978cc72
473f5d7f0c50b5f25353606cf5074bd3c4efc60a
2862 F20101205_AAABWG stansberry_a_Page_151.pro
5bb99214c0b7dac67c312fcc3639a46c
f7d46c9b8b6f28f7a91aa8cd4773c66404586da7
60743 F20101205_AAACAW stansberry_a_Page_285.pro
5a4535ff810613c91d3d90262ebaccf6
f838026b7f1637841a398798ba709b41adf37c78
30224 F20101205_AAAAMC stansberry_a_Page_113.jpg
0fe5e127d7f496e28459e76dc17424da
15912e03e1c28d96fdbfbfb78960661a74b58ded
8895 F20101205_AAACTA stansberry_a_Page_071thm.jpg
7e8d164f78c6bc646129effe9a57162a
572c42c303d146bc0c81b29d17f5a07b57084709
130385 F20101205_AAAAZO stansberry_a_Page_167.jp2
c51c8db778f43f159dae7cd44fe168f2
3d6cbdfb3d6117d3f810930e8d1230a09411c135
49178 F20101205_AAABWH stansberry_a_Page_152.pro
8fb391ef9d2832e0fb74d8a2622e3113
3a3566c62d65d4aa0101882af07d60f77791c1e6
62244 F20101205_AAACAX stansberry_a_Page_286.pro
1285aebc0a93b186f0fa82d332b78dc9
db0ed7ed202e5ec1b8110c5f0bd5f89ff9e9232a
59440 F20101205_AAAAMD stansberry_a_Page_114.jpg
dc1024c5f9c1c86f3688e1a7fe34faef
444925d28a822c2dd7ce300de7523812b2dd2dd0
38364 F20101205_AAACTB stansberry_a_Page_072.QC.jpg
4c7936ac7086da2e416eabeb1d105761
120430aeddf8e63d82b4b98f0b75a73d200beb2d
112166 F20101205_AAAAZP stansberry_a_Page_168.jp2
489dd979d9042608a4239fb5c27d42de
74d3e9886915ac41336aafe5633046c5e6a7222d
55834 F20101205_AAABWI stansberry_a_Page_154.pro
ba2b1ee62e3220185a31cfd669e1403f
5272d3691b7cf3fb21a086e81bd732ab9dbeaecb
76486 F20101205_AAACAY stansberry_a_Page_287.pro
37845319da49c0c2fbd61d4dfe71570f
4f66dc8877a60f653d478bb2c0656e0105d18e78
28007 F20101205_AAAAME stansberry_a_Page_115.jpg
dc4a5b7954d734638b972903a0858c95
d07a2c530a4e2eb4a1b49424260fcfdfd291979d
8999 F20101205_AAACTC stansberry_a_Page_072thm.jpg
149bd37279ccfe665cfe63fb5ef9eb29
a8313f47edb71d5556eb14d1e0260495569af23d
120653 F20101205_AAAAZQ stansberry_a_Page_169.jp2
0764240acb3822b8dc1e16afc67d05bd
0bc5a2cee25eb7c42824b28f9e04e12980ad5cda
57459 F20101205_AAABWJ stansberry_a_Page_155.pro
f1a0226a065b4a89de99d3ea5f82ef24
6d23b0900bdb5c1a4ad195852e1cefe95e2ce4ec
59612 F20101205_AAACAZ stansberry_a_Page_288.pro
fa36d221f3ebbff053d993f596c03217
6c767cc02fd3883a10dc3ef61b22ebaef120d2ec
60955 F20101205_AAAAMF stansberry_a_Page_116.jpg
85604d84fe70fa7d6b7b1ac048bbb7a1
aa7a367af2bc24779ebc01cd8d5663d89c7a30f2
36336 F20101205_AAACTD stansberry_a_Page_073.QC.jpg
73c51a60ec0cfbdce69e1315521d85da
7804268525a4967322d51c9d0dac167b2413a561
117329 F20101205_AAAAZR stansberry_a_Page_170.jp2
a8b94a257c4fc6253ff397648cf98e4a
8173879c1409457986a8a2561a864dde1fa649f5
55069 F20101205_AAABWK stansberry_a_Page_156.pro
4accea47fd9d6509b708e15afe4a032d
601cd104e2dc1f3e00975b7514206bd4cd26e2b2
67101 F20101205_AAAAMG stansberry_a_Page_117.jpg
031fd87815459de94fe6e4f1385588ed
e67c2e1c4d875710f108813e7edbdbefea663bbd
9133 F20101205_AAACTE stansberry_a_Page_073thm.jpg
1965deccf863b33e373b8adcdcd806e0
3f3dabd1e56e95010f7b4f4c7db9269cffaa3d28
F20101205_AAABJA stansberry_a_Page_107.tif
b2ec0502357a2eb1cb1e92dff0a8536b
1ef55e81c63c232101797b6affaaf07ca4e54073
117142 F20101205_AAAAZS stansberry_a_Page_171.jp2
fc5acfc962338efb4ec84b5e14bcfadb
9f95fee658bed25c1d823f1fbb23f1d87b64cca2
54360 F20101205_AAABWL stansberry_a_Page_157.pro
3cc57dfb65a8e0858115d11301a71e00
87f835430a33468262008a7392cdd5ae63c3ca46
91053 F20101205_AAAAMH stansberry_a_Page_118.jpg
25ebf8daf83dcfc1dfc6adc94414f9e8
1c28a5b4275a43f57cd368ccec6dcc7115fa60bf
40391 F20101205_AAACTF stansberry_a_Page_074.QC.jpg
9c8b626b573dcad485df8dd76d589f8a
c2a52923599452354574af15363a3fb01b98dd33
F20101205_AAABJB stansberry_a_Page_109.tif
5c03297fa42df6e5b0aa80f28bb86c75
100a39a6c397f6fac7c669f9139f4dda970bca42
140558 F20101205_AAAAZT stansberry_a_Page_172.jp2
059ed24cb493cf999a6c64ef759a767f
af86226e4839b75eb5541a7655deabdfbd68502e
54573 F20101205_AAABWM stansberry_a_Page_158.pro
46b837fbe78e93974e71d303fb70105a
2a34cfa1854acd6b0f97daf2859448e052d40ddd
121617 F20101205_AAAAMI stansberry_a_Page_119.jpg
8648a6c886c5ead402c5109dddd39ac7
bf36b1a5c4e400236a7043025d2e3840b6bafe0a
9434 F20101205_AAACTG stansberry_a_Page_074thm.jpg
0eaaacd790b611b7eafe502dab5f5a05
978ab4444f7049f3a1d594449ce1045eb155065e
F20101205_AAABJC stansberry_a_Page_110.tif
878868619e0a468007f02ec9d7aa4373
da232dab6a8fbcee375d964a2c7811ffb14e6640
106208 F20101205_AAAAZU stansberry_a_Page_173.jp2
ba342802301b3c929aaca5d4bd3f304f
19e66215b381703fde64e0836d52b817924dfb31
50662 F20101205_AAABWN stansberry_a_Page_159.pro
774a29b8c7acc43254b8e6585ffe8005
5383356f50b01ad815e4d7ecf87078f6b54c7def
62710 F20101205_AAAAMJ stansberry_a_Page_120.jpg
193a7d3f0637b1296667c305767764a9
1e385ae79ebd8c96a330cfddd2d469c8679392ed
35303 F20101205_AAACTH stansberry_a_Page_075.QC.jpg
484d34ab7b4c779d186f2a488ed99300
5c8d672368bd1bb23aaf3c61a5fb8df149ffe52b
F20101205_AAABJD stansberry_a_Page_111.tif
73a8649e6b33e1476606719f6dc1144f
03ff21a88d2f19fa144a7263fe9baee44483dd7e
117965 F20101205_AAAAZV stansberry_a_Page_174.jp2
f5e9ba24446f47b566af004670cfe8e5
faa06361518650ad386d2a7df7ac7d2b135e1410
56727 F20101205_AAABWO stansberry_a_Page_160.pro
63df92221c0715ba8f835dfed311ec40
659d1d6d2003e7eddc50bcb0daa3592fddfc219f
56535 F20101205_AAAAMK stansberry_a_Page_121.jpg
2823634e964c5796b3891868c0b6ff6f
54aa24c93c686503b5b8826819cc3d654b1e445e
35770 F20101205_AAACTI stansberry_a_Page_076.QC.jpg
62874207458e7b03f2d092e1f257119a
895e3438b7fcdb27fb37605e6c7849339596ae1e
25265604 F20101205_AAABJE stansberry_a_Page_113.tif
2ed6c2f53f4bb6cae4e9c2822754fea9
437fa01268e693456069e67b9fe23beabc59f8bb
115482 F20101205_AAAAZW stansberry_a_Page_175.jp2
e1299c423aafeea7bec1ac3deb795889
c53ea4318961bf7a2feece776f718ddc05ccc048
54599 F20101205_AAABWP stansberry_a_Page_163.pro
f04a66b71a40b81591ca241180873b75
a45eb7e36e05e0c115bd4be8c60aafeb983c0e25
43231 F20101205_AAAAML stansberry_a_Page_122.jpg
67dd723f9de5ccc0cc4167b4a1142f54
1ed2d7981b4f3d96244349f51b81d4778a7cc157
36469 F20101205_AAACTJ stansberry_a_Page_077.QC.jpg
dc213ae1b4577a96ca30553240bb40be
aaba523982523bd572f493bd7358ce8e66d44712
F20101205_AAABJF stansberry_a_Page_114.tif
756b2bc306bace9be00021e6a8c4c7ec
191fa1b193c2e610952751b1983c586d63f7f6a2
113874 F20101205_AAAAZX stansberry_a_Page_176.jp2
3d067271f624098bda78ceb5b7ab866f
b0ed04c942dd320d9450fbe78d3f7b43640d4c70
49723 F20101205_AAABWQ stansberry_a_Page_164.pro
8c368b364413a0a0c3eec0ae315b817b
57eae27550f030cb9c4334ad1c1ce58d0c041a77
57159 F20101205_AAAAMM stansberry_a_Page_123.jpg
416f92310abb3808d3879449eb204bc7
e596b2ed289ad9dcddf366812d83b8adada8b5b3
8904 F20101205_AAACTK stansberry_a_Page_077thm.jpg
484a9c57f7370e87483314fc3c616390
8fad0a577a2d9c11e1b6ebf54e3db52e94056dd2
F20101205_AAABJG stansberry_a_Page_115.tif
6ca555908d0d855d4ff687019c581c8e
398da441e985a9f3b3695499954b4a2f7efa5ad0
121086 F20101205_AAAAZY stansberry_a_Page_178.jp2
33e4079ee334a2e3db7efe9f681c6426
5d3bc87ce2ebf48a0a4bdf34d24705f0487d2078
52749 F20101205_AAABWR stansberry_a_Page_165.pro
6d75df482a090fa1d21ec03435ebe88d
65a9f861782c733485c8afbc678ce01acb454be2
76953 F20101205_AAAAMN stansberry_a_Page_124.jpg
4ba29e9b79b5fbf2193b6a50ad32b853
2e0e015dcfec17c43c20ac2538b057ff65b12152
36518 F20101205_AAACTL stansberry_a_Page_078.QC.jpg
f0cc01708c162393308eabfa5864912a
ef8431906e98784e630025559a533d0aee44d7cf
F20101205_AAABJH stansberry_a_Page_116.tif
e8a694f54a59c4b572aa6bd8acf2883a
c2e8bc17e2ebde9832bd5ef908458921cc3dafc0
125705 F20101205_AAAAZZ stansberry_a_Page_179.jp2
ab6dbdc2b74571ce4f71c8cf572758cf
6b8dbaf0a78a5c02b0ed1daa2413d70bd952f7c6
F20101205_AAACGA stansberry_a_Page_105.txt
64fb61dd87fed0cd931652b1df5f8fac
27e82b39a2bd3666332b7344702d65a4047c0fac
54246 F20101205_AAABWS stansberry_a_Page_166.pro
1461b98e511d12adea8bbe7068879b92
71cd4316f4e6cd3a5aa229c10593452bf5f31db1
30545 F20101205_AAAAMO stansberry_a_Page_126.jpg
7e4d695bbcbf9078eba92bb4f24e6b8c
09f1a3f9a83574af1e4d4ee48e399f358972a5ab
8997 F20101205_AAACTM stansberry_a_Page_078thm.jpg
d7ac113a4130211a2de3706311f97519
767a03f6279817001d9b3ddbb9845a12a13236d9
F20101205_AAABJI stansberry_a_Page_117.tif
f0a5f653a67cb41f478bd3123ade66a6
2a8f6a8a30e35caba21c473720979c123ee09c49
2207 F20101205_AAACGB stansberry_a_Page_107.txt
234aaa60f9abbaa683e690a1b2ae7d7c
b6bb4393356df2cfa653544c047edebc4db4e15e
62834 F20101205_AAABWT stansberry_a_Page_167.pro
e194bafb648cf2292dc84c4145378298
5e641db1f2872bd29691c4376755d8e768caba5e
93812 F20101205_AAAAMP stansberry_a_Page_127.jpg
1440ad50401121c46f45afadf733719e
d1c7a40def6499495c6cb940c46d4656907c5c50
36552 F20101205_AAACTN stansberry_a_Page_079.QC.jpg
f86f0102013554f0c1686efd0654da10
fc58bbf45dde5d5dabdd0aec36f8d8af2196b2f8
F20101205_AAABJJ stansberry_a_Page_118.tif
b38dbb07656a43446e2f9036f0cdfb59
6894eda8b53cf1653ba9b993b745dc686d4a7df2
2237 F20101205_AAACGC stansberry_a_Page_108.txt
74433b4ec94e747be218fb468ecabf1e
0c7ea6ca33de6ef35b8d7efeb1e57b76f0666561
52707 F20101205_AAABWU stansberry_a_Page_168.pro
06df57390f6f65d4feee83e12f8ca38c
5c600df9905b948bd38647b333c14fe8bfabb3b8
54809 F20101205_AAAAMQ stansberry_a_Page_128.jpg
d57e756f70249649d78f3ace8f61be16
0e94cc6a0348d459c3799ac6d9be9659b8b9bb9f
9131 F20101205_AAACTO stansberry_a_Page_079thm.jpg
c11c41e82a0a109d70c4fdd25c1ab2b6
c70682144f2ce6cb10432cd973b72a3036e76838
F20101205_AAABJK stansberry_a_Page_119.tif
15fc6785fa176678bf687f283945e345
0a3cb9890b6a33246c382837e2f27dc70842482e
2161 F20101205_AAACGD stansberry_a_Page_109.txt
21419b3edb695abc078e6fc5cbfc14b5
e5ce6e356ec6012b399b27eab2500e686e7c1ac6
56942 F20101205_AAABWV stansberry_a_Page_169.pro
a52e91c0a714af66e266cd38b1c814d7
bfa9e95d1b52457e43b76f57c3824923bcb50204
42728 F20101205_AAAAMR stansberry_a_Page_129.jpg
591d7e3dd1a567d421bad6a5b63d9894
fa14824404759340fda73fb83c303abe5a96f1d4
38972 F20101205_AAACTP stansberry_a_Page_080.QC.jpg
ff846af8d8aef61bde750af93d6e7d24
be8a001f70f016b9d5563d2385e0784f3d92a758
F20101205_AAABJL stansberry_a_Page_120.tif
89ca134429b0aa7f4e1371d4293d8a5b
637e64520e68c902437ef2c8f463ff52e68c5f89
F20101205_AAACGE stansberry_a_Page_110.txt
21df7559ae4093569c573fda0b6b4d93
184870ebe904f936f049e4c5a556b2bfd39273c6
54577 F20101205_AAABWW stansberry_a_Page_170.pro
85e80b93c00e50aed04b4e40031c51a0
379b8ef523cb3c74ca2b56abded0bdcc7dfb14ec
40129 F20101205_AAAAMS stansberry_a_Page_130.jpg
6dfbc7513b98f07d88203d80d06f6c42
88b5242a9431723402cfd051990b11bfc2f66f2e
8978 F20101205_AAACTQ stansberry_a_Page_080thm.jpg
e86035b75ad69f18cb37cdbf1a5a3fa6
5b7da266af9c7e57d646e03518ba69075812b089
F20101205_AAABJM stansberry_a_Page_121.tif
4726c1d373f8541a2cd5e2151c24a892
4d016639a353734ba14092e5d95824debc778abb
1358 F20101205_AAACGF stansberry_a_Page_111.txt
e7952930dd579d244c4a3290aedb70c0
2711bfc94e27dfb80911649c3e6f55b5eee2c364
54592 F20101205_AAABWX stansberry_a_Page_171.pro
7a1526bb44579ec17c5057eb6d1e8b91
ff77fb40e752c8b76c2db6b3806b6dc77f16aec6
60149 F20101205_AAAAMT stansberry_a_Page_132.jpg
116b8a90f0fe498616b126b473922245
ba446e2e7a05a1322c1418ec4a9f16bef0061e00
37114 F20101205_AAACTR stansberry_a_Page_081.QC.jpg
4d5d733fc5f5f74d82e6309aeff203cb
d3350f5e54cf503b0648a1792013ffe513f78172
F20101205_AAABJN stansberry_a_Page_122.tif
f50512d99b6fe1ac0e3784b298a5cb52
37d1374a7ac2dae0b9c8c594394c5f060eab2172
213 F20101205_AAACGG stansberry_a_Page_112.txt
0a2a2f887e0c4afe7b78ba478426af0c
d6d3dbc58188d77efadd9ac8bd9f66e6373604af
69252 F20101205_AAABWY stansberry_a_Page_172.pro
d03dec53e0638c9f6da1831e2415266e
4683d22d93e1c7d4712dc4e208a0c650999e485e
57360 F20101205_AAAAMU stansberry_a_Page_133.jpg
a2efb856873b9ac193baca1d94ace631
f04fbeb0f19de095373af1eb28e656da72842be0
35441 F20101205_AAADDA stansberry_a_Page_217.QC.jpg
d5ce5f3a01350ff904147ce28fc6dc14
e208ec5f8fcde9baee45386717edf9ebf5d82be8
35237 F20101205_AAACTS stansberry_a_Page_082.QC.jpg
c3d9278213eef63f854be5141016db06
cd5b7471c47a7c0a89c2000ee2864e864234a569
F20101205_AAABJO stansberry_a_Page_123.tif
7af40ee586bf57491c8699ee134a962f
43fb5c3287064ac4c339eff726fd75ce65ad76cf
313 F20101205_AAACGH stansberry_a_Page_113.txt
84648b11a1774ef76bc981af946455b7
ca4edad41ac24b6378298f5d72717b9b1b353b48
50872 F20101205_AAABWZ stansberry_a_Page_173.pro
5a8ad58c681e95e02d4ed35109b9250e
c78537dc43e29796eb02cb0374e75ee10da0934f
84833 F20101205_AAAAMV stansberry_a_Page_134.jpg
c386015772fdf63d1e56c29193129dbd
856bd9c79f3fa25333d3c7e44fc146bf2b806b02
8894 F20101205_AAADDB stansberry_a_Page_217thm.jpg
c8313624d3634e1b1bc52426664cdb62
6a7fb707e6437ac4c41405106b3863fbc11cd946
8613 F20101205_AAACTT stansberry_a_Page_082thm.jpg
5e189558c4ceb8bd0c2be98d0193ee39
dd633938d265823424a70ab8f070aa15b8e76c2c
F20101205_AAABJP stansberry_a_Page_124.tif
6133bef5db7e46e077210d37dac9c470
83105f923f19578adbaf3e75e87736ca88141b89
235 F20101205_AAACGI stansberry_a_Page_114.txt
2c00dd9e5872942a0573225c96939d08
07e3ad10c606aedc5aab09cd3cd1350676893155
37274 F20101205_AAADDC stansberry_a_Page_218.QC.jpg
c1de480fc4866eda0b70bb5d09c05051
5f3b96dc5275616d30b25283ae5a00c76170372d
36592 F20101205_AAACTU stansberry_a_Page_083.QC.jpg
d8ae60912291fb8724da1f1260ce4d7b
7b100f26ea548fc61ce8068adf888d0d28b87c9a
F20101205_AAABJQ stansberry_a_Page_125.tif
b78bc166aa25f24143befd7faaee1fd7
2b771a1d827acfa99f859add2ac8a83d921325f5
439 F20101205_AAACGJ stansberry_a_Page_115.txt
cefebe930cd60df6cbae1b8e1b94b49c
8e9268820468915c6db8658c8100302daa4f6491
89154 F20101205_AAAAMW stansberry_a_Page_135.jpg
210e38d6fd66a9bb915a01cd18e8edfe
45ab88f657d5e780b6f0b732236770d78ebaae35
F20101205_AAADDD stansberry_a_Page_218thm.jpg
91ff82e9a051c9ac0bf7da18e2334b00
06ff673edaa50e2ac7f92f7560d58d89b46ca2fc
8659 F20101205_AAACTV stansberry_a_Page_083thm.jpg
fa3b4030614714f721475ad0c7756a46
f5b67db8f2afd94555bc3ac9a0efb8deb4cefb24
F20101205_AAABJR stansberry_a_Page_126.tif
7917ea1a9f01f1530c74fe3cfcc9385d
316d6b5849e91c4d009895866dc6b3cd30116a72
1555 F20101205_AAACGK stansberry_a_Page_116.txt
5596c013e98d7e1d586a5d6b58196d1d
d884338b165ea43444def3d34deb709fd80c91e7
56365 F20101205_AAAAMX stansberry_a_Page_136.jpg
78313c4ffcea386be9ec2d816f6b8c07
827d2eb56eb4a65d38cfa68c64214b149f514f63
33078 F20101205_AAADDE stansberry_a_Page_219.QC.jpg
e1a0b6c940ddf212b14421e6515521b0
5f5c4f9c163d76777c488a18965c90fa45ccedc8
38457 F20101205_AAACTW stansberry_a_Page_084.QC.jpg
91bd0b4cbf7c66abf75249edec362cba
f1714f9e74e46221f950c67faa7b10300850b514
710 F20101205_AAACGL stansberry_a_Page_117.txt
1159aba4c95fcc65194c97a00306aa5c
0bcc47b4bf0a7c9c0cc23709140ddaf50787731a
57216 F20101205_AAAAMY stansberry_a_Page_137.jpg
cf4118a2819e0a02d032d75949a5033c
c9baf376d40666defbb88ad53b72e5bfc6576226
8646 F20101205_AAADDF stansberry_a_Page_219thm.jpg
dff11e7259a80c288c8847fca64a0c03
d2e64ede9cea730cd0ee5da5fd4d06f7a1a4271f
8963 F20101205_AAACTX stansberry_a_Page_084thm.jpg
f3d6bf24c38c46d5ed1d66df687dc3e9
bccfeaff8b7f2a252297af746f7f14430d9e5260
F20101205_AAABJS stansberry_a_Page_127.tif
fe8d5b3698eee40d11c845b73c3eba13
0ee088adef078e98b952704d039638c5224a1bf8
443 F20101205_AAACGM stansberry_a_Page_118.txt
3c5ebe2cbde2d8cfaff2180f5d0b2811
7901827d26cba70d81b7c8e1c9bf05f6ff63c06a
62108 F20101205_AAAAMZ stansberry_a_Page_138.jpg
4e79309dd813261b3c7c8f8fee74de9a
807e0d5b6d87980d9c7c73a7313a8f906c5b5fe6
37419 F20101205_AAADDG stansberry_a_Page_220.QC.jpg
fcbea4888a0e38c77a2d35ebb408bfbf
a5739e37a2e59b056de225cab0583430f1aa0420
38638 F20101205_AAACTY stansberry_a_Page_085.QC.jpg
2094da65485879eca2a8b5dcdc986e25
ccc5e0663916bdf6fe8621561d0f2b09cd19be8c
F20101205_AAABJT stansberry_a_Page_129.tif
951a7daf6a06928ee0d354a1b1216e81
f790e201540b2fb833123852362edc3b11b2cf4e
138 F20101205_AAACGN stansberry_a_Page_120.txt
c0c36ddb30066e715747c0dc47c9df1b
26aba2464ce8ea03a8ce54982ba73602da2eceb0
8903 F20101205_AAADDH stansberry_a_Page_220thm.jpg
9ae1ae09a6a6b8eeb6977fcaf1530b35
28c768bd68dff283cbdc0efaf7d802bccf8a3bd9
36827 F20101205_AAACTZ stansberry_a_Page_086.QC.jpg
c8c8256f41d3ffc8cc6019c5c13a4c59
41187b182099e148046449e950a78576c0260be4
F20101205_AAABJU stansberry_a_Page_130.tif
83ff79b335d69ea30a42bcc76419db3b
660a441c94f9dc2e9e873fec56df31a4fe4f9e16
34464 F20101205_AAADDI stansberry_a_Page_221.QC.jpg
feb9506e91ff5898f09bf16181fe1e34
6e50a125149f012f0e3afbad4b243b87916a568f
F20101205_AAABJV stansberry_a_Page_131.tif
ce5b0fadd45be302f87e30ee198c1adf
c83f9ce1bae1e8270de4df2a05cf77bd201cb9f6
264 F20101205_AAACGO stansberry_a_Page_121.txt
6f0936cbc1d0131df98eaca5bdf47e7f
4c0de397fe22a4d612161a8f13cbe504ae1df840
8593 F20101205_AAADDJ stansberry_a_Page_221thm.jpg
ac20b8469f7a8477b69b208bd9bb28c1
0fe3a042df193e7a1340169b9fc9e5efab6231de
F20101205_AAABJW stansberry_a_Page_132.tif
259adc15f36b33896abfdeeeccba4843
052a78c9a9c176a38e54f163c185db17bfe7f5ae
F20101205_AAACGP stansberry_a_Page_122.txt
1c9c941f0e0b605e36bbfe0bb2e4d8ea
308c14c7b9a9feb907c21bfc0d7b7d6920d45d63
F20101205_AAABJX stansberry_a_Page_133.tif
45ab5d4a121c1d2c176f67584c852ee8
4c537292b18eb83304600fb6c788392292246f6c
858 F20101205_AAACGQ stansberry_a_Page_123.txt
68a09fea7f06cd0437dc3ef16f8fc1f6
aa62b49fd47f88c5b761a0c64de9a3bacda4b8f5
35122 F20101205_AAADDK stansberry_a_Page_222.QC.jpg
c9e04c355aaa3e6e984f81863e527c41
a228fa2cdd07136811e1fa161bb28dfa83c67700
F20101205_AAABJY stansberry_a_Page_134.tif
018860c071741476ce175213f60bab60
6d9fb8c711c509ff517258ba0832538ce050a3c4
205 F20101205_AAACGR stansberry_a_Page_124.txt
d482550a7fdb5a97fe7061c17f2a8a42
3c88c137309dd09e4c403b34f3e831e04185d289
F20101205_AAADDL stansberry_a_Page_222thm.jpg
cdc3995227b002145cea1d861cb3320d
cf5841c3b70e1f21201d6187eefe0cf9a290e647
F20101205_AAABJZ stansberry_a_Page_135.tif
45139b3a071a362f4dbbf43518cf9d88
52778455fe1adc12ff143fc12c2c80cf3e371508
97 F20101205_AAACGS stansberry_a_Page_125.txt
6a55637ea99b4aef973c26239042d4a9
174fb7acbff238da1ee6cd065c7fc5dcba994d6a
36231 F20101205_AAADDM stansberry_a_Page_223.QC.jpg
a06e1fb6e2fdf7884e5d0ce4a0e7af4b
94d4dd2c2353192564ba2d1bc10ddbef3dd6f201
130 F20101205_AAACGT stansberry_a_Page_126.txt
3ce59dcaf7f42a66b5c866e695db4e28
79ae499b67a044ad14d50c38c298c65230335693
9070 F20101205_AAADDN stansberry_a_Page_223thm.jpg
8083bb2b5e06a05198ccceb5abf8c532
2a8c9976e451b895cc878bdc59de87251b8c4751
F20101205_AAACGU stansberry_a_Page_127.txt
7cb55c17b22e351dba422bec566c6745
ff29e87c2289205a422f515a12cfdbb96e04c274
97221 F20101205_AAAASA stansberry_a_Page_289.jpg
9ac8cff14ee6a24e5bce50291db47217
32c00ca9983d1db26ded6af1b49790e0c775fd67
36398 F20101205_AAADDO stansberry_a_Page_224.QC.jpg
b2a1e431b0264edc1fea749295f62ca1
4851c9da4f978d50c939dea78b70143ba01665e6
189 F20101205_AAACGV stansberry_a_Page_128.txt
51df016ec4d392688c3c523d1d7b9f7c
5172d6b2c2788abf04064d8aeddf6a1a99946640
106487 F20101205_AAAASB stansberry_a_Page_291.jpg
c9b87b8ecf09a8068d21a154cdc973f9
4a5d6852db693de8005169d02f7556a4960ee416
F20101205_AAADDP stansberry_a_Page_224thm.jpg
c97a70b31541345a84aaaa3282ff34cd
a5c16295d9a4e4ca913055e102fc97908a55d19c
35667 F20101205_AAACZA stansberry_a_Page_157.QC.jpg
5652e21e37264fe8d829cff3fb2ea404
9cc0063cd013a535d3b70301837febf985f9d15e
F20101205_AAACGW stansberry_a_Page_129.txt
631b45fe22f0d5f7d8de4b3e2216ee63
c23907c3dfa687144bbf220c3eba039591f8b0ef
67886 F20101205_AAAASC stansberry_a_Page_292.jpg
77ba8ed97cde3b8ef672600114ee7eb0
900451dbb1dc703274c78414135795d8e4a51768
36219 F20101205_AAADDQ stansberry_a_Page_226.QC.jpg
38ffd7703fbec5dcec4f4b3fcc2c0d07
5a0337851926005daf348e73b55fec07f24cc9e0
128 F20101205_AAACGX stansberry_a_Page_130.txt
b95ed4f498adde8c19f9b43e1def8fc4
c1ce98246b2392b0e9576d3b9c0474e62f85de6f
74560 F20101205_AAAASD stansberry_a_Page_293.jpg
9802f3a143888fb23715a98984cb9851
076b8ed5af5e01243ec4d8675c3c6952ea91b3d1
8882 F20101205_AAADDR stansberry_a_Page_226thm.jpg
d58dc1eacf3f11a00c5049e2ece02b9b
189d284078e36c40cd8584addc0bca8e707bd34e
35618 F20101205_AAACZB stansberry_a_Page_158.QC.jpg
3518dff2726a66eac9d204eaee05d9d2
98d2a0f37b31655404bcb5079b6d5f967c8373fb
F20101205_AAACGY stansberry_a_Page_131.txt
fdb0c519cf32102aacb59913c33e7f5f
4846f68e52ba5f2943be2e0161f4a67eda148cda
76941 F20101205_AAAASE stansberry_a_Page_294.jpg
15657418cf20ed0dadeb2d972a1b83e6
56715ca67666952657096d4af3abfd0366d7f6b3
9261 F20101205_AAADDS stansberry_a_Page_227thm.jpg
e3ef3807fbafe1896860096271f39715
d5d45044981acc79a37eb086ebf6f2a614e65317
8817 F20101205_AAACZC stansberry_a_Page_158thm.jpg
13475f9fd26a8b7d9167a57850e6d481
c166f51525c3796e403e12cb1ee6a710ce45af28
148 F20101205_AAACGZ stansberry_a_Page_132.txt
02a6a20824da4c6660d37449736e202f
574dda8154366d68ea8601b332b0daec429130d9
98655 F20101205_AAAASF stansberry_a_Page_295.jpg
8e00079b4de17175252fb657d2820b81
96536a09549526d3f6adfc1ef9fa258faeb74af6
32468 F20101205_AAADDT stansberry_a_Page_228.QC.jpg
a23d19ec4720a0e4750bada428e35691
fbc23b93a2f5ceab93f3362e8b82e8e33da3ce7c
33388 F20101205_AAACZD stansberry_a_Page_159.QC.jpg
ab606333ff36da487e3fef290f2af677
31364562d9cd45befa16a326718f746c7fc72ab2
108849 F20101205_AAAASG stansberry_a_Page_296.jpg
47cf73eacc23ab3edeeb159da93c1c9d
36054a2696b585e6576f15d8fcd746cc9cc908b7
8394 F20101205_AAADDU stansberry_a_Page_228thm.jpg
06ff1d7447424ce977eaf7c522fa4ace
070d538134aef0b7182ad5434bdad6d95034bd5a
8279 F20101205_AAACZE stansberry_a_Page_159thm.jpg
312b8f0b7e7812abd29892ca76e10356
a9a1b498dce9aa8fddd85b79239d1d4cc66ad299
116688 F20101205_AAAASH stansberry_a_Page_297.jpg
abbcf7c64fcc44a2d7ee7c4d7b8e840a
11df40d341f7ae53f92211f6dc2b7a5b600f3c2d
F20101205_AAABPA stansberry_a_Page_278.tif
98a6c17e26656e73f06b50f62b8fc9ff
b9384e0f6c5be70e796ac4740ae5a8ff5d596892
35225 F20101205_AAADDV stansberry_a_Page_229.QC.jpg
7010ef12bb48e62601ad8ba00587a102
53004df05a2aae08492967bf498c99f92712b1f7
37616 F20101205_AAACZF stansberry_a_Page_160.QC.jpg
4536d39f36c8f7bcebd7d1ab4a6eb569
bec1f44fadacd8d340671d8c214d85d51e7c85ed
109613 F20101205_AAAASI stansberry_a_Page_298.jpg
fdaebb661860dab5b77692010d0b3669
df3b9c04da05704d33d383bb6aca645a2ec2ecde
F20101205_AAABPB stansberry_a_Page_279.tif
bf7912a0701c3de4d53fe9f60f6998a2
a62b670b8ee08b4dbeee5721e4170a812878adbc
F20101205_AAADDW stansberry_a_Page_229thm.jpg
e548fcc216e5ea166989ab7f20da3701
9145a3fc9b4a9516d4435b8a4ae732d33a2a9d3f
9293 F20101205_AAACZG stansberry_a_Page_160thm.jpg
79aa967a1e7ff47089a2e1a407768abd
a9bd9d47a885e354432b08a7165d5ef8f17a35c9
104726 F20101205_AAAASJ stansberry_a_Page_299.jpg
b443529056a1f250e4780478b2cd00ce
a5ab7465ebdfc284bb91531e9293fa27fbfa27df
F20101205_AAABPC stansberry_a_Page_280.tif
727504cdaebe81dfffa8d34c8e98c42f
f671b817bcb54e873acf71e6f7d664ed125f1e38
33118 F20101205_AAADDX stansberry_a_Page_230.QC.jpg
2f4e6c445ffb37f28b658c444ba005f2
5e9f1e822268a7f73d3a0c9d5ff66f4813d5f76c
8286 F20101205_AAACZH stansberry_a_Page_161thm.jpg
1b9f276c0666232359b7563d479f8c05
4bac15e0df5f0369d5ce980c8c53380b6b9fb083
93852 F20101205_AAAASK stansberry_a_Page_300.jpg
3dab80e6341050c35002897b7922d7f1
fb6424aebb1261f43606036fbf43b322520f990d
F20101205_AAABPD stansberry_a_Page_281.tif
820a6fbdc269f611dd41b2c40dd7afe5
1360ccb9046e0505a925f1e7d7062c83e45fd196
32047 F20101205_AAADDY stansberry_a_Page_231.QC.jpg
3799c26ec0ad762c02ef6c6dc05128ca
b20c6f05875d0c114845259c4048e023a7b35788
35455 F20101205_AAACZI stansberry_a_Page_162.QC.jpg
d4ea85bdb91117bf9c6eecd1325955b1
e9e4f5105e8bcc4cee6f4045bd7e3f099ca2f258
F20101205_AAAAFA stansberry_a_Page_128.tif
69abb9ccb6674a8cfaac8632862462d5
5085c9e783e66227e7521cd78706b5b75f88bbe2
100315 F20101205_AAAASL stansberry_a_Page_301.jpg
d28bbcc0a3e2b4cb0dcb221f6de8db90
ea33147ce18a3ee18327648904e54f66078a186b
F20101205_AAABPE stansberry_a_Page_282.tif
21cf9d6ec7192957d94228a60c779017
2f8eca0ee8886977c5392295bf3ee1899a7d23b7
8099 F20101205_AAADDZ stansberry_a_Page_231thm.jpg
7ade06c05aa6d91d05cbb22cc60732fd
b5a3213aada450790e5ed88838227e03ecbeffc0
9012 F20101205_AAACZJ stansberry_a_Page_162thm.jpg
981c2def1995d19a7b49a6126fbbe7c7
d5ebba4352be7fd82c5d6b581a3e19e67d94f3c1
45750 F20101205_AAAAFB stansberry_a_Page_191.pro
34c6ea93fe0ff0a2bb7a98cfc6fef43d
1b3553694a007b1c0d132c459ee3dfce4278ff43
99545 F20101205_AAAASM stansberry_a_Page_303.jpg
8c5df5f17f0dbaa56a7f3e8f2456be23
a4b8383a5943ae11d9c78d50fc76ea85cc5a74d2
F20101205_AAABPF stansberry_a_Page_283.tif
1d48b3a058e1d479af5fed772f3f18e2
1bf56e9f754d8a1e2f9117f7829b3d22c68a925a
35746 F20101205_AAACZK stansberry_a_Page_163.QC.jpg
0cd647e75170fee23704b3d73606e183
499afc441d4fc941a7490002de60ea0c94a1a703
104939 F20101205_AAAAFC stansberry_a_Page_035.jpg
384627b81565346c7b0aad30d14e8c27
53e2fc50df10507a8c6441b46807de0cd2350a0f
32496 F20101205_AAAASN stansberry_a_Page_304.jpg
c75ff6629903ce17f244b1db74fdda6d
e43a1ed5b2ec459cf009bc097edcaeee3d3b2f4f
F20101205_AAABPG stansberry_a_Page_284.tif
c21e06cb38fd22c1aec0cea8f5f4202a
a7f2520526635e65471d1d41a3e53f583748486c
8818 F20101205_AAACZL stansberry_a_Page_163thm.jpg
b2b56bae30d64d1736ed2130e031e145
f378395a8bafbe7072e36cde380a04f9c35624d9
3343 F20101205_AAACMA stansberry_a_Page_278.txt
990c2be034f51383f6cdd029f5cc70ff
0491c8cf8ea4eac2df0e33fe08eb7b0d5e24e5dd
156567 F20101205_AAAAFD stansberry_a_Page_006.jpg
db77bacb973d1e880162be51f91bd364
be01f2767701343d3573b1b4da4b112e7fe73fc2
97967 F20101205_AAAASO stansberry_a_Page_305.jpg
c42592c6d597d516817267ad9ddf8009
1901cc5dc99f561592638723a0500404c5afe1f8
F20101205_AAABPH stansberry_a_Page_285.tif
860bfa02bb6f3a398f63c9460c5fe079
f3a455835fcac9fc4a74b8af6814e9aa797c309e
33278 F20101205_AAACZM stansberry_a_Page_164.QC.jpg
c64c3d5be26ad98934579c4dca407071
d027708cea173a19f7a51c5cf4b81c06a6cba64b
3735 F20101205_AAACMB stansberry_a_Page_279.txt
b6a9bb675abffdbe95c1dcf59e9628a2
67f59f4f8710ab3daf22a326d887d18cbd6a8ac5
54524 F20101205_AAAAFE stansberry_a_Page_194.pro
b60d404e84b4cb802044e30dd9a8ead6
7860201a4700afe6653632634e7c1ab3ec5fa8f3
80292 F20101205_AAAASP stansberry_a_Page_306.jpg
a0d821ef05091c8a6da9969d274a0f1d
1c3b387c3d82a849b999cc8c34cd4eb6467806fa
F20101205_AAABPI stansberry_a_Page_286.tif
f7740b0f3b517753f44fd76151ad35f7
ce2043685ce66194b18695e377f3aea3cc533ff3
8365 F20101205_AAACZN stansberry_a_Page_164thm.jpg
1ad98a8e4cef3c5ca490e25372b9a273
e1e45d9fdfe20cf49a1bc452b553cc564a34d71f
2721 F20101205_AAACMC stansberry_a_Page_280.txt
2ab7fdf26d24e81e51ec297bd7b6e5d1
b0f2e88c0d04b67355ef41432fa3f7e34caf0cbe
7907 F20101205_AAAAFF stansberry_a_Page_001.pro
95c7a6843b88a1c0114e416291cbe6f1
24eca9bbb6d0c3557e745f7d8920b909425575a2
105451 F20101205_AAAASQ stansberry_a_Page_308.jpg
a06905c234f835613bdcd1f6f56e3222
32e3b32363f1451c0f5088837a353601c6a8122d
F20101205_AAABPJ stansberry_a_Page_287.tif
4dae480e8beee1fca03bf287e7862bbb
7f90f1ea8b25648bc29b52f2d4188c2682347fe8
35692 F20101205_AAACZO stansberry_a_Page_165.QC.jpg
1997f55446994cbf2b39286547d4a183
dd5642af72fae522f4350b619283075c477753db
2968 F20101205_AAACMD stansberry_a_Page_281.txt
384f7bd698704c0682b24b891f3c31f7
cab89a5a0df26c91cc363569ae684e62ca63e88e
139031 F20101205_AAAAFG stansberry_a_Page_025.jpg
9f50c8412316c877adc4af96d72df8bc
813bfb6ddfd180b647a6045a8535e4762e6eabab
67768 F20101205_AAAASR stansberry_a_Page_309.jpg
542acff00f20d4b40834c7050552928f
2ec2f8592ab8bc96f6f5757776fe106bbdad66b5
F20101205_AAABPK stansberry_a_Page_288.tif
edde1115ade3bb417207ebb5ebaf7662
cf34503f9ace10014a296e14fd0cc793d07f4b95
8691 F20101205_AAACZP stansberry_a_Page_165thm.jpg
25fbdbfe85a31cd167cf96129822c815
f5ec59ee77db0743ab8e0b9832cdd58cae0e76ed
2646 F20101205_AAACME stansberry_a_Page_282.txt
13b5a645df40029ea3b160a7735cc2f9
5e2dece928d2b9fcbe10956212425b6661ac0775
F20101205_AAAAFH stansberry_a_Page_166.tif
cc0eaf06d55226becf09fe7f51896898
5249a1d4b98699930ee6f04504d2aeb1e667a307
103636 F20101205_AAABCA stansberry_a_Page_237.jp2
28930582b55ac9bb2aabbc4a2af5b608
ca4d5d9d9c3cd09125613fa63e03fd1840502dde
62925 F20101205_AAAASS stansberry_a_Page_310.jpg
4b01735d3931c93086a1d14ae74ee19a
d32638f7e8ee437ce6bdbf27c1382feead9d51f7
F20101205_AAABPL stansberry_a_Page_289.tif
34e33147a61fd2750f0ceb2faff0c9f7
f9a78b8be8e9cd063a9f29516aab208728e396bc
35723 F20101205_AAACZQ stansberry_a_Page_166.QC.jpg
6dc68dc4622fbe7d1290cae7023458e1
99fff0a724533376be1b87587e9f1a5d56889d7a
1843 F20101205_AAACMF stansberry_a_Page_283.txt
d3b9b9a54b16ea5b19d22ba7a298b151
ed02df523e73b2e0c6f5fc21421a794ac7bbd896
24250 F20101205_AAAAFI stansberry_a_Page_307.QC.jpg
44c66cce3b46f0320f91f611cca8f2d7
9fbfcde1f4488f7a2b63279f90432ab1e6076654
110391 F20101205_AAABCB stansberry_a_Page_238.jp2
d5f7420e91d419afd1971a03a514f08f
56448ba56f5b32fe6b0dae22975081ef52cf7a4f
64350 F20101205_AAAAST stansberry_a_Page_311.jpg
4dfae4ff29fd7fc7bee0ede6b60cdb24
dfa5bca56d97dc7f01ed06b9a155795593635c69
F20101205_AAABPM stansberry_a_Page_290.tif
903308727ca551499483a8ed16461ad8
1b90e09381354bc5ff41b9997309394f6b386443
8987 F20101205_AAACZR stansberry_a_Page_166thm.jpg
485edfdc953b7d1471c2bef3a3aa892d
be351133c2de4e96d336cd52b8571442b47c6779
304 F20101205_AAACMG stansberry_a_Page_284.txt
63a88bf39cf6bbbdfe287080f58b9127
4e87c45bd33463f05e5e73417dbadd82303c0360
6437 F20101205_AAAAFJ stansberry_a_Page_285thm.jpg
753b50a2032c73a508ceb72347180aed
38dc5a815fa6f7360ad64d541d1ded685b4ae70e
112397 F20101205_AAABCC stansberry_a_Page_239.jp2
de989699191994cfee17a73346fbd8db
7294ede05b4eb52694bd8645e583c5f473de71e9
68260 F20101205_AAAASU stansberry_a_Page_312.jpg
2c9a711d5da3c27a90ed18957d9104f4
187c2239f875353378687a9a8df9caff585b0c3c
F20101205_AAABPN stansberry_a_Page_291.tif
aa146e1153e330ad5f7316aac84d0536
ea145b24d45293691c04361cea3f91264a9e0213
7464 F20101205_AAADJA stansberry_a_Page_302thm.jpg
f71569b469d0631750fbd4045762949e
572d4e3ce448400ceab5d6d9d2d171f19d63b463
38804 F20101205_AAACZS stansberry_a_Page_167.QC.jpg
78216f7a10b0904516c590ddcd68c07c
43b6425fcca576fcb20f2c035392a507e01ced2e
3228 F20101205_AAACMH stansberry_a_Page_285.txt
740dcbb129158527b368578f9994602a
4f4ce4ca85f3b87ce19116879069198b13fd04f0
979113 F20101205_AAAAFK stansberry_a_Page_255.jp2
24a146d7cebb12a4f630147113603984
7a3ef835e4a2d9d5bbe602709e673c520e834e50
113745 F20101205_AAABCD stansberry_a_Page_240.jp2
05c59b776bb5ce1ff2331c1db628fe0a
b148b1ee154053598f19baa8987cce7a38cf5d20
67844 F20101205_AAAASV stansberry_a_Page_313.jpg
102d08f1b71309bb77f8799f254b3d2b
0a2e2b11d0f377bd55f49dddbf03243e4d042053
F20101205_AAABPO stansberry_a_Page_292.tif
562b3b0538f50d361b16bcacdac01f11
72598f6a01f6281d7f8064c581eaf7a11a918dc0
27849 F20101205_AAADJB stansberry_a_Page_303.QC.jpg
74816c569b12f5ca5bdff541704d2f07
c3ad1a59a05da4a10246e976a38d9b3184df55e2
9381 F20101205_AAACZT stansberry_a_Page_167thm.jpg
e2f2bde4eaa9cd0176eb212c1d3cb595
9c0a165648bfb9c2c3aaf1eb835ef45a4ad2a096
2766 F20101205_AAACMI stansberry_a_Page_286.txt
26af7a8e2d4cb984681030477b07bf1f
7f00a0f39923035ae449e6483bc25fea39ad88dc
19357 F20101205_AAAAFL stansberry_a_Page_310.QC.jpg
a407c52c9ad4c72f7aecbf13a48d70cb
5eee97c9192b93f8c42156c8d68f50896ad43a86
110651 F20101205_AAABCE stansberry_a_Page_241.jp2
f22a00f85aee5ebdebb9bac255542de4
61ec85a6398dccfd5a5b9f95176d727600f56dc8
62250 F20101205_AAAASW stansberry_a_Page_314.jpg
132d174efb3fcce3a58820bd142a9bfa
4ed91324f09b534c114abd8fecf1396ea794fb69
F20101205_AAABPP stansberry_a_Page_293.tif
95b5c1a5662c6436c4c8e13693406c9f
78bddadf176b673debb430280df7dc8368a53739
7230 F20101205_AAADJC stansberry_a_Page_303thm.jpg
ba734043aefc011859906d68af5cc3b6
6b3aa0acd45dcba2328dadf31b0c4eae056675c7
34218 F20101205_AAACZU stansberry_a_Page_168.QC.jpg
c7cbaffb8d961475fe147717e5ce81c9
fcd43ea439081b179b940ddf9e02cbcafd7385f8
2974 F20101205_AAACMJ stansberry_a_Page_287.txt
73cd12c686c976d16cb5baa3dcd0fefd
df6a61e363ffac036aa4c4d15aa421a91db6e80b
F20101205_AAAAFM stansberry_a_Page_056.tif
fa3563cdd4d2b8b11e10664c82ba2541
943a068a09377b07b52b21fb3a363d791db965ac
30784 F20101205_AAABCF stansberry_a_Page_242.jp2
fe7f8a0c7662654b7ff065c3bf872b01
a4fe52a6adee629355318caf6ac6ca32d2943cd2
55781 F20101205_AAAASX stansberry_a_Page_315.jpg
82324d72ec609f66cde663af57b937d2
50aa805911f255f0488a620b1d5a2bef1b015e79
F20101205_AAABPQ stansberry_a_Page_294.tif
c8eae6c794490e4f0f5c8cb9f8b8bd66
4540d9068c4d8ff13dc40ada4e035ef1e3ae61cc
10099 F20101205_AAADJD stansberry_a_Page_304.QC.jpg
868c369bfcb32ea7d0b667a8f69330a5
1bbd1668ef74dba0cc3c9c7da0d60e9b700387bd
8477 F20101205_AAACZV stansberry_a_Page_168thm.jpg
b254a7ba238793e9c08617a7c0ae7876
2034a55bae2d2070a8461c6ad7d26fa090a6c0fc
2437 F20101205_AAACMK stansberry_a_Page_288.txt
b7aa99a0f0a1c48d441263cc3d7830c8
3d8f5efe11da51237c23f03cf742e8e0bc14fbfc
113878 F20101205_AAAAFN stansberry_a_Page_096.jp2
cc1cf5523b0ba5b0d5ffdbc9840f3a23
f5f803c0f01b95c73a986906c847dd2d6aab9d5a
1051860 F20101205_AAABCG stansberry_a_Page_243.jp2
c84dc61c041a89c9dddbb0cf24d5b71a
1397b8e98d4d1c65be988f269188f3f43e8ecc5d
54526 F20101205_AAAASY stansberry_a_Page_316.jpg
9caa922a02e83f1ebde9226dfc7d1def
4b3a3f53345cfd6a2ec67a4c4791e690aaab7d9a
F20101205_AAABPR stansberry_a_Page_295.tif
0edbb02d8974cec35eb4d21d9a8c1b49
8bdcd4d6d0fe5d24b56ac648d5ad0cb7c7895037
F20101205_AAADJE stansberry_a_Page_304thm.jpg
daa9dab4036f0b1248dbceae399b7ff7
5eb6689ca4e4dd8b5bf545628a3b0da20a436c90
37623 F20101205_AAACZW stansberry_a_Page_169.QC.jpg
1807bfb512d6d1bca252b9ab4995d398
7435fc2ff742db0f8f07b0b4f0c50b392370c0de
2876 F20101205_AAACML stansberry_a_Page_289.txt
fc8bb7d8048afc08b3a3fd34a93c703d
b4a58bab7a9dd503629bafd2310af1de697e7904
35897 F20101205_AAAAFO stansberry_a_Page_071.QC.jpg
36c3aaff388d847bbba03cbaaceccfc3
1802d0f12dc718b87b2b498e6119e6c2addfb20f
146951 F20101205_AAABCH stansberry_a_Page_244.jp2
217b889a1cbf9327d842c9a1851f2bfd
a191dcdb930eae311d686302690f880ec78fa79c
29232 F20101205_AAAASZ stansberry_a_Page_317.jpg
1e04010edb48788f344a239e93adbf89
6ebf64d825c32436dd142a6e2f94e69c71a1be95
F20101205_AAABPS stansberry_a_Page_296.tif
89ff333e7465bca586f1f697584a3fbf
a67b85848eb4393f5377de7e0d3ccb81667832c8
28038 F20101205_AAADJF stansberry_a_Page_305.QC.jpg
24f9c27ab9614b01b594c71d3feb3845
9287027390d9c7edde321b29c14d72ac201c2fd3
9320 F20101205_AAACZX stansberry_a_Page_169thm.jpg
1f9811cb1f23ccff5a26d338c21a8762
1c79df5a738006f1a70b615bca00f378c37a0641
3460 F20101205_AAACMM stansberry_a_Page_290.txt
dffbaea47177a66126cc4d9ce849d1d5
b81da2516b16896e43c901d8ed65e499dcf2435c
154936 F20101205_AAABCI stansberry_a_Page_245.jp2
f71a43f94d3d742156d0ca5f47d19fdd
ce23db704be1c4a09db0e1e9e8bd66dcdd14f536
F20101205_AAABPT stansberry_a_Page_297.tif
88e1234b600f8d5526646716eafe262a
41efdda5b0413467d23f117208088be501f98fbd
7052 F20101205_AAADJG stansberry_a_Page_305thm.jpg
7d5b93fe56a6ba3a9a274482d0d8de2f
89743af6b92853697aca60bc058a74193b81e418
35254 F20101205_AAACZY stansberry_a_Page_170.QC.jpg
11950c4614a8b5facee1ab91680c893d
e14918f01d22b13e3674b02f9a01a1255f1b7ceb
3116 F20101205_AAACMN stansberry_a_Page_291.txt
085dddff2d285a0aba40840c579bd0cb
f02f17ba7d61e51360bdf331f0ebd4046111e8dd
8320 F20101205_AAAAFP stansberry_a_Page_213thm.jpg
2c42442c45900519a2c2c298e4e732d1
a73903ef684465b170665e644648328413b39143
153297 F20101205_AAABCJ stansberry_a_Page_246.jp2
3858955f8c9cc8068718754e6ec8f620
a3ed4e03878f2f9f5ca8d800ae9ae588725f6b03
F20101205_AAABPU stansberry_a_Page_298.tif
facb9311c9372a7639c8de5a0eb42b01
cbe38ed8d40021fd25a7442e0b407f221d7613e9
22647 F20101205_AAADJH stansberry_a_Page_306.QC.jpg
963595532e6e4febd729c15b9319499a
ee477c58f025732bcc462c1b470374084a452ae3
9003 F20101205_AAACZZ stansberry_a_Page_170thm.jpg
d188e66cc8239d8e182462bf9aa12ba4
3b85b6f97e4255420aeaa52e62d55def4b04a3c5
1756 F20101205_AAACMO stansberry_a_Page_292.txt
1a7dc455db3bbb2660b8704954f0f681
ed288fdf3c5d407ab91a38a7238ff1fa1c987148
104636 F20101205_AAAAFQ stansberry_a_Page_197.jpg
f781bed1f64619d5049c72c6ed156c17
233e7815d428fbb23ce7fdfebcaffa4e09139f1b
163796 F20101205_AAABCK stansberry_a_Page_247.jp2
5daa5175834c4ce13c9563d11c9d948c
223c889a54a5a4271652f5a7fa179dc754b2c2ad
F20101205_AAABPV stansberry_a_Page_300.tif
d3c792ba6adfe9f9ecf5d74b9ef9b50c
67c7fa61df141882b485f9176e2023669c2b041c
6160 F20101205_AAADJI stansberry_a_Page_306thm.jpg
1619a5c4fb67841d59865829e0687500
ac03bcd944fceae6c721bfc8b76072b855fc890f
289 F20101205_AAACMP stansberry_a_Page_293.txt
8b5d84b2806d14f4d7e2a88dc282509b
0652f7274306eddcc41ae804695766c1f0b9e132
7709 F20101205_AAAAFR stansberry_a_Page_173thm.jpg
3d6242d9ef5fe069f575c9a574948021
c65a05fb2e14e26086fb0f6c02ba7597a22036fc
F20101205_AAABPW stansberry_a_Page_301.tif
4eb176e169856c8da3a00d81b8fa1125
cba01c9e0d58dd7d23bad86295408142ca64f5bc
6250 F20101205_AAADJJ stansberry_a_Page_307thm.jpg
0cee114b363372d1e527d652962e0a2a
433842dd12761b571d83cb18d9537a0de7b996d5
F20101205_AAACMQ stansberry_a_Page_294.txt
8ff002ef8918291cd181f71e2512b711
09cff27410a86fcdf68d3e9143e8564393e456db
1897 F20101205_AAAAFS stansberry_a_Page_228.txt
90a7ed5ddbe20ef3eecd80cd3d8b659a
32456f37ea05df3c3729b86fa477fe38e2beb5f2
155773 F20101205_AAABCL stansberry_a_Page_249.jp2
501a645e42c5e42b0b66ab9cf66efb44
f4f8b2481cabdcecb9f552ff3cc4feb9a2fe9b44
F20101205_AAABPX stansberry_a_Page_303.tif
4593562242745107cf2dce20a054c049
ef737dcf55b2f3dc317f9590633208066836c931
27387 F20101205_AAADJK stansberry_a_Page_308.QC.jpg
65dbce8bf2bf2b395e2398fa86448f07
11b8c8ea8b436f9e2d95c4ce7985c04268d8c3c5
2758 F20101205_AAACMR stansberry_a_Page_295.txt
8c38ab537c62bfbc7bc8e8e9838642d8
4191e0cf297477655d22d2035e831a695ee984e8
2604 F20101205_AAAAFT stansberry_a_Page_092.txt
9c6f2679a1369c95f528222722b23920
56d8552652f4d3e30c17078f300a2b3e9c739d95
86904 F20101205_AAABCM stansberry_a_Page_250.jp2
31195bc4c716a9ab71ea9fcff638b412
50ea751fa49e21126f2103c304cfefd662e7db8e
19582 F20101205_AAADJL stansberry_a_Page_309.QC.jpg
f7cee75c67661accd9275966a82598a0
a7f90f6a94c322a85d28328b48487b20534327ba
3067 F20101205_AAACMS stansberry_a_Page_296.txt
8482e3ae1aae76a3c6270ac141ee9c07
5440a889654d8805ea78b2b6e08d7165128dd0cd
8902 F20101205_AAAAFU stansberry_a_Page_194thm.jpg
f0cf1b7c7ae009051d1a939cafe8e256
447632f5f5bc518b4fd5e3b3569ea7749082dad9
169366 F20101205_AAABCN stansberry_a_Page_251.jp2
dc63f247a8166b599d1e6ccdee5f9331
0dd70b3d9236f483858179899c54458a05b19fc5
F20101205_AAABPY stansberry_a_Page_304.tif
97a6cd1629a640759e043ddc63159110
daaef844fcbd7c2be2ede6c712a10de0f879af63
5250 F20101205_AAADJM stansberry_a_Page_309thm.jpg
7fc2462c2af110a6880534f9bea8ad1a
7ec2c90f5dd94fd8fdc5e5fa0d43cb12e645a447
3433 F20101205_AAACMT stansberry_a_Page_297.txt
2076851a39eca84e09b0e9cc98d38c6a
704aff1de1e68f4a5096ecb2243605db6ba0c107
202 F20101205_AAAAFV stansberry_a_Page_150.txt
1d76263b98ce998bddd2cdf1341f0194
a360e2eed12ad690ceb014d9dd2965d7a805b732
79271 F20101205_AAABCO stansberry_a_Page_252.jp2
d1c4a81a44e3ce5613c35a58d758c227
ad149af61e12d66384c3463249c549c5aa30b291
F20101205_AAABPZ stansberry_a_Page_305.tif
8dba1c3812650f557dbd1437efb19aa8
dc9439eb08aa533f62418203f5f7c5ceb6dde0ed
4761 F20101205_AAADJN stansberry_a_Page_310thm.jpg
6e48ea3ded393b10af195b2bd3b25efe
8ff76a924a268b41af5ffbb3b96a67f3ca293755
F20101205_AAAAFW stansberry_a_Page_055.txt
349e18062850b33ba0e2c9db76bfbbca
fc0797d8c093728531505e890dee82fd636afaf8
632044 F20101205_AAAAYA stansberry_a_Page_125.jp2
92446e022d55d0139c58c9d7e2aca92b
1c979454a52581d1f4a6be4dbe57022caad00bd2
1051897 F20101205_AAABCP stansberry_a_Page_253.jp2
7070de94dfd51e77a86891560a0a03b1
6cdab0514f5313f810083bb3ba996e7b51dee88b
20420 F20101205_AAADJO stansberry_a_Page_311.QC.jpg
4a9c75b5f420f0d823edcb90687daa3c
e466e3ad959ec139dbf241a37ee3c5dce76a4909
3289 F20101205_AAACMU stansberry_a_Page_298.txt
d00f8b0c3af678985a90068fb8ce926c
e0c7e1d37b6d054682367fd3fab2665be55f3b01
9205 F20101205_AAAAFX stansberry_a_Page_155thm.jpg
178e68e0f6caa7bb6ad031811124a2cf
74e843569bdebbd540a5dcc40c4669ee8127d1eb
439714 F20101205_AAAAYB stansberry_a_Page_126.jp2
c84074ba592c40286199320808fc3550
dd66021263f5ca1aca99c7ae5dd0eeb294525524
1051956 F20101205_AAABCQ stansberry_a_Page_254.jp2
feb7114126ff2df6a19717867453c214
9a109843720f47f022bfed44cec4fe27cbe54bb1
5016 F20101205_AAADJP stansberry_a_Page_311thm.jpg
25b05c256a2f80eef5c927df6c02204f
9ec2cb9b0b5cc118220f842a3174190b91366dfe
3002 F20101205_AAACMV stansberry_a_Page_299.txt
eb15101e5e6b2f9d6dc6a511b27850a4
780654a7b89ea5f1ed2bdffda3a34f4cbd78403c
61337 F20101205_AAAAFY stansberry_a_Page_206.pro
d84e843da69b8bc0a462f136f1f9ec2e
d64b98d3007035f307daac83ee7c257a0fe3ff15
475076 F20101205_AAABCR stansberry_a_Page_257.jp2
2e3982bf1d2a00462d578648f45b5cc8
494fdf2c9b08fd7d8871358ece2bfba73e409ec4
2802 F20101205_AAACMW stansberry_a_Page_300.txt
84b6ae6d9d3d326156d3a93415f8adbc
446280f0b7b9d744360847ea843b4d5cd98f1944
117269 F20101205_AAAAFZ stansberry_a_Page_198.jp2
02a4d5432234af367e389b88def140e4
4d6e2e73203d61eb98e016b7daee35a2a113d4ca
1051965 F20101205_AAAAYC stansberry_a_Page_127.jp2
d2605413940233f1e742ccff376cf05a
397b92da60a3f4f01624e54c7e13e73692f7534a
488069 F20101205_AAABCS stansberry_a_Page_258.jp2
83fce2558ff220c6e2b31e6a92a9a6df
f3101d02698baae59045027f5691074523e8b35e
19248 F20101205_AAADJQ stansberry_a_Page_312.QC.jpg
8c0b7cc54c557188b1eacd518c6273a4
b585b53108d8cb90f8e59e3f29845e9e725714eb
2957 F20101205_AAACMX stansberry_a_Page_301.txt
5d24fe65240814309a673faf132736c8
56ef72fa7c38dd52df575f5d1dc8cd12ca683190
829104 F20101205_AAAAYD stansberry_a_Page_128.jp2
30cd7a01b6c51ef156afa9ac00dd8deb
babefba639351bc5b23f36f28894bf005bc0169e
F20101205_AAABCT stansberry_a_Page_259.jp2
959354fc921eb14be9508adb8c29f4b4
6f5cfecff9f29c8bfbdb45fa0e704183e1789b13
4996 F20101205_AAADJR stansberry_a_Page_312thm.jpg
d738cfc6a8e95fd8139d1daae8dde88c
97e1c873f819e9607ecccba84cf6180f474c2ebb
3196 F20101205_AAACMY stansberry_a_Page_302.txt
567f7a142e3464fc401c64561d5ca65a
8220ed4336670091be918ef486a98219ce6aea32
711137 F20101205_AAAAYE stansberry_a_Page_129.jp2
8854d2d947ad00367958d40e8572cd60
05c2b4991e8f66103b11c556ddd8d15a00116de2
F20101205_AAABCU stansberry_a_Page_260.jp2
7730df81b8e65f8c910ed98741617f03
cbdbfc08a50b5be3a033c5e12a343d830719ed30
20776 F20101205_AAADJS stansberry_a_Page_313.QC.jpg
2a2bf5c4aab238c017fcc5c21863244e
9209faef443afe6975128ef7d493be070954884a
2738 F20101205_AAACMZ stansberry_a_Page_303.txt
a68da15f1ad8b2de51d1c0da3a428598
c24c08e6b32ee323a49fe9ce2ec81938edb46351
611526 F20101205_AAAAYF stansberry_a_Page_130.jp2
f4f1a4885ad769a7360bfa6be59b95d1
e26c49eee7fe8e76caf12d7461a11f0e0b7f4126
595345 F20101205_AAABCV stansberry_a_Page_261.jp2
b7b0ac2e8d43d541a108fb8a2bae06ba
1b14e5bc816c4354cbaa49313d66baa45320519a
19625 F20101205_AAADJT stansberry_a_Page_314.QC.jpg
7ee2953638a880801265c3519e377a14
4445ac9c91314d9d490d5644a0a3c4cfa7318040
800750 F20101205_AAAAYG stansberry_a_Page_131.jp2
d4c718b83cab5efb5a4e13f61b5f245b
1224b05c6d7fc723fb2ca0089f75da933fd211b1
993356 F20101205_AAABCW stansberry_a_Page_262.jp2
273bd71c4b34d05f468b407f3d22bd18
095ef2e71ae762b942fc86102ef7567dde9cea16
4979 F20101205_AAADJU stansberry_a_Page_314thm.jpg
0a1abe7a80287ec747467b1fb808e392
124f96b4776da5943cd0ee86dc5a6b647aa3e29c
928346 F20101205_AAAAYH stansberry_a_Page_132.jp2
299cf0590e2f9be4e6b52d05d28fd023
56bc2114947c81ac3476f6246e7dead4df88e69d
939836 F20101205_AAABCX stansberry_a_Page_263.jp2
0413f1127993a2176382382f175bc44d
1a0bfff1247b3936276d1fcc006ecd9853ded130
9229 F20101205_AAABVA stansberry_a_Page_117.pro
c092a83df60789cbd53482c1eecf56e8
132d2816cc55fc3cbfb3cbea794a1a6534eed9f2
17964 F20101205_AAADJV stansberry_a_Page_315.QC.jpg
8b2127dabfbc37e4df9e280ea8d1fe93
d3a033b3efe9b8a81256fad601b1ed656b84106c
1051837 F20101205_AAAAYI stansberry_a_Page_134.jp2
dbe08261057d3b859c06586b308f70f7
58af31778d5343a2818eb72f50931ce2f444fd9b
785321 F20101205_AAABCY stansberry_a_Page_264.jp2
59e07ce3b1de86b13567dea8b3c3e055
d849f8e4416f873f561fb4ce510d888296a4c8d7
9256 F20101205_AAABVB stansberry_a_Page_118.pro
5621e1fe3b57c3d9dc2ad324e498d3a2
17d59a2fbe3bffed17886eed1cb3e5de4028bc78
4522 F20101205_AAADJW stansberry_a_Page_315thm.jpg
de6d1f323e447f1a5dfda7d5d3c48eb7
a91c80f500c2c8d6344f1e619b105e06bbf72900
F20101205_AAAAYJ stansberry_a_Page_135.jp2
d927df8e153068040d9ba7986bb0b3d9
2f0cb8d4bf90ccda362dcfb7e675a8e55e9969d4
655486 F20101205_AAABCZ stansberry_a_Page_265.jp2
91a864e186424998b586c3af53b61bab
a63cbe29aacc356ca1debb280670ebd98d70d9c4
5762 F20101205_AAABVC stansberry_a_Page_119.pro
57f1fb5d9dde037ccd0a65c870c73052
a1144c0bce4a961bb41ec2c4383e0272c3414053
17300 F20101205_AAADJX stansberry_a_Page_316.QC.jpg
bcb8a52d20cadc70f37578a461fa8984
72b4a7b8e22f9a9b9784102f67647c76b1e97bd9
848012 F20101205_AAAAYK stansberry_a_Page_136.jp2
6f3de850cc75658b3b688f2a13e45740
e68765ed35004671ab541833a2f84f8daebff249
F20101205_AAABVD stansberry_a_Page_120.pro
aee4e34260ebe25ed132f1daf158a207
a642f4b7094e14156e9cd22ce331fdf7cf63dbc1
4390 F20101205_AAADJY stansberry_a_Page_316thm.jpg
30964d85b81564e4a59af37b146e64f3
5afc4930403496227d1189543d65fa604a4ad082
823190 F20101205_AAAAYL stansberry_a_Page_137.jp2
49302adeea44f8ce75e0e2d33ac76539
5529c3062d0147823614b74bca9fc9921cb4a1ec
2730 F20101205_AAABVE stansberry_a_Page_121.pro
bfc652f686c421aa420f72842f0a4de5
3130d6ba7461a65bf281fbfa067a33f4435db0f9
125830 F20101205_AAAALA stansberry_a_Page_085.jpg
942d684db9bebea5675667d4e9b58bcf
c4a204ce208b453f885c0f2450aebee900b09685
8511 F20101205_AAADJZ stansberry_a_Page_317.QC.jpg
7cbc9051e9c1ad44a4214d85e457decd
e14ce616f3f690376423809cea3e88ed236381ff
1051881 F20101205_AAAAYM stansberry_a_Page_138.jp2
5e78c2a345b56f46201c0a7980fcb555
059d779c2821b761350a9b2a4de8e71f4c6a3b62
1848 F20101205_AAABVF stansberry_a_Page_122.pro
1aa25cfb639d1fa83dd770a3a26bac81
e1cb6140d74836dae5329ac6194c5b504d8e49dc
110299 F20101205_AAAALB stansberry_a_Page_086.jpg
48ffd6d8e674b1c16dc61b74da53eb98
79fe99204d33188ca0d463779f2916bb04a7869a
716195 F20101205_AAAAYN stansberry_a_Page_139.jp2
692765bc2df01ac75fecff989a9915fa
11a6d90f525b221d3d554164a783434891ba8ca8
11279 F20101205_AAABVG stansberry_a_Page_123.pro
8007ca2497d3dd2ce78a934b54a20183
08565e2895923509463c0e19b459a2a82351bda8
108438 F20101205_AAAALC stansberry_a_Page_087.jpg
b6e6b84252d8f9ae42153744af12fad0
dbfded935b2015a7d6d76ec0cdd0b2447c087b14
34714 F20101205_AAACSA stansberry_a_Page_057.QC.jpg
680bedb12b4fd3468a3bd3045192ce7b
067038422d18a13378584edeb72cf406a00ffbee
1015425 F20101205_AAAAYO stansberry_a_Page_140.jp2
2a2f3c6c16929682701735189cf6ee40
3feecfe79a768a8a1069005418758df6918e816e
4066 F20101205_AAABVH stansberry_a_Page_124.pro
b7d428c4cea37f4e7bbe108ac1c1fe46
44fd71d72f37a5800dcb96e51b55654c7fc218ae
110639 F20101205_AAAALD stansberry_a_Page_088.jpg
770d4dcac7bac97a411b047945855331
beb16e4901225603e8b6d2e0175ba3c5a40a6241
8634 F20101205_AAACSB stansberry_a_Page_057thm.jpg
bbdb62fd2a943a833304145522457c03
545e34c300fde0ae64d54394b3447d4b34793de1
1051777 F20101205_AAAAYP stansberry_a_Page_141.jp2
f10ab0593088983a63e4be49a11dacc5
de73831c2423feb2d5b49341dbf0da2fe5fdddac
2262 F20101205_AAABVI stansberry_a_Page_125.pro
e57d8ccc351c5873e5507a1f8bcffbd2
fe1632aa69015e78b12f6799ef03992dba5555ad
121954 F20101205_AAAALE stansberry_a_Page_089.jpg
58b823944ee2654dd816561566f8405b
89936fcf7cc1832f9e0c23491cd7a3c15ca27d29
33490 F20101205_AAACSC stansberry_a_Page_058.QC.jpg
dada4329159c2e41d0c55498b837f1b9
49a0aa0506f19449a0f15109e0ec79a8b9616e6c
1051972 F20101205_AAAAYQ stansberry_a_Page_142.jp2
c4d99937bc7e242fddab4b49de77c896
6880da7170c226bd24606351fa6d33e3fc3fb237
1302 F20101205_AAABVJ stansberry_a_Page_126.pro
53b43777a9a1e7ea0781cb5f884fd0dc
c8e0b0c2bf5dc84b18658923af823073aecff84d
113376 F20101205_AAAALF stansberry_a_Page_090.jpg
19c5051f5fe7c987f2fc3c9bd949bf06
df78781a692b8d8dc9b19abece0139e29e50863b
8561 F20101205_AAACSD stansberry_a_Page_058thm.jpg
4f35dc5881bb595e6b6d22b6664b3286
7a12e14fa268b14c85374b1d0526c41da76424ef
1051878 F20101205_AAAAYR stansberry_a_Page_143.jp2
53bc2d62bbc42270cb12227c2a6c230a
82a564a37d77f0c62976bbc8a61cb227e77306c0
4008 F20101205_AAABVK stansberry_a_Page_127.pro
998385f7edca4cae8969743a753e6680
8071cdadd66a3c1ec734d7c0c3370ecfbe40f165
106546 F20101205_AAAALG stansberry_a_Page_091.jpg
ee40a8ad23f543ee6139b82a9e541f12
479d66368f679fda22075f22955084bc4b5add12
36083 F20101205_AAACSE stansberry_a_Page_059.QC.jpg
85e88a1ad37b0c4090bdff73ebb3a946
1d4260080ba26c555f1d778e7abff6b956dda07b
F20101205_AAABIA stansberry_a_Page_079.tif
09f9b935ed9c8b936012d65a07ad7b87
01de517a11a3ffe505780475261c15bb1e2512b4
625211 F20101205_AAAAYS stansberry_a_Page_144.jp2
8138e6b3aeb1ede5ccf363edaa6f5786
72e25a44a5160630f5930ec11cff2ce0897b7cb1
3215 F20101205_AAABVL stansberry_a_Page_128.pro
bf949241b7d8006c1d0e364f59f7ca71
c827fbcbad03910534ddcabb1d28bb62298ea752
129056 F20101205_AAAALH stansberry_a_Page_092.jpg
beac7a210fa2d8b669969a6c8984a68c
731d797a3ce71b51487d6d63c13543ca112dd675
9017 F20101205_AAACSF stansberry_a_Page_059thm.jpg
c925206492cff65524ed5c792128961e
e4f55bc7b36e2c7c5259903369f34f98f91962a5
F20101205_AAABIB stansberry_a_Page_080.tif
231eaab3cca7ab546afc9e030185c379
21befd09d7d7b35bf0af8f7ab34ed93a29b890f9
793771 F20101205_AAAAYT stansberry_a_Page_145.jp2
9af3dd42a9979ca98e7c51e5cdb668a8
a8078ec029d1052db17f8e4b7df0ca37ae68c3a6
2928 F20101205_AAABVM stansberry_a_Page_129.pro
722523b224e71a945ed470e072a82fd8
4ac21ba78dfb258ed8df0c6cae76b17b2b3cf371
117014 F20101205_AAAALI stansberry_a_Page_093.jpg
479298c6ccce4dcdbbd25b9b10e98a7f
fc3737163d10943ba40f226663a5ce9458ee549e
38050 F20101205_AAACSG stansberry_a_Page_060.QC.jpg
abc6d180d5fb9097dbc5049d4e243cd9
3a14f58f0a33d7557049b29195f728452399a99d
F20101205_AAABIC stansberry_a_Page_081.tif
3e136fefe1bf9dadbf4ee6d7008d6087
b90435010a23b1440c0996ba9ca7cc2d842009e9
697821 F20101205_AAAAYU stansberry_a_Page_146.jp2
bfec0f1a0499498458fecd2f02d1ff0c
2a0f89c9f0069acef28507fde731aca970ff1211
1562 F20101205_AAABVN stansberry_a_Page_130.pro
b2d8fad3534704e07c6f404459d21632
d15565d26927ec876e58eab85aed965ad304ce32
115100 F20101205_AAAALJ stansberry_a_Page_094.jpg
3c6b8a30a9052e8f1c798005fe61d0de
b14f6cd5fa94a3d3476bb04110218887d94fa318
9074 F20101205_AAACSH stansberry_a_Page_060thm.jpg
39586ab07366d9e2db09b421549f5ed2
e2dd401fcb529b3eb16375f8c02134657a20f467
F20101205_AAABID stansberry_a_Page_082.tif
ccb7109a7f3ffcde52989ccb359348a9
272052f87740a330a07afadc58cd302ca054d146
F20101205_AAAAYV stansberry_a_Page_147.jp2
b1a628325e3cc53fb951a93a565e350c
c2e42288f60488a78286ea5f60d464f9042e2612
1717 F20101205_AAABVO stansberry_a_Page_131.pro
5d4bc8313a3e6573ffb0a9057ac0f808
28a9a972ca8f825fff158b1f2baca63a0c469800
112058 F20101205_AAAALK stansberry_a_Page_095.jpg
da302d872e79f89682fde42a21936676
caaf2bf6c893aab2daa48b71f1cc38d735b39d22
34030 F20101205_AAACSI stansberry_a_Page_061.QC.jpg
ada4881da8343fb6282109b14ede47f5
ede4641eb52c0905a67a4e3be4a920b779b72188
F20101205_AAABIE stansberry_a_Page_083.tif
77d819ee655674b4575b5ca34f9b03dd
a1318358f3c89549deff4e8296ed22a5b50997de
F20101205_AAAAYW stansberry_a_Page_148.jp2
19cde23cc0bbfd05fadafb9ba38be695
ff0ab039ff91e580e05463c8b3eb3252feee28e5
1676 F20101205_AAABVP stansberry_a_Page_132.pro
a1a4a8109825c7800622ebe6bd2cefc5
effca4c7084bded68e3a1e57555f582bd8e428df
108623 F20101205_AAAALL stansberry_a_Page_096.jpg
0bfec6a97d43d1f252e09f6f925b9c26
eac0f2a1ff435fbb6e9a6cce8b125725997a5412
8488 F20101205_AAACSJ stansberry_a_Page_061thm.jpg
4d1af831ff43a367e6f0854f7d0ee9ab
3ffb4690a8c613da90c9a0939bb27bec56eb7858
F20101205_AAABIF stansberry_a_Page_084.tif
b324311e89e943dbbf24691f2df1543c
a47952d5dd33e967f150962e1511a14ca1e3f423
F20101205_AAAAYX stansberry_a_Page_149.jp2
e2f1c4a3295d2d5fe227be9685773bb7
d1f98cacf16e4a0e228cda3edc9ffb0b6bc3f5f4
1952 F20101205_AAABVQ stansberry_a_Page_133.pro
16a6dd4a0945b290ef75a0afb87ffc55
3497676dfc32541fc8cc2a975023a0c73169ff1f
112212 F20101205_AAAALM stansberry_a_Page_097.jpg
9200d0b85c16b4af3985593fe51cb62e
26a075b1adfb333b10c5f1133c49a183efa40c9c
37228 F20101205_AAACSK stansberry_a_Page_062.QC.jpg
ab4bd3afe52a7b4df310dd7cc68f28fa
daa4a4a0c249b6748af72aa70fd66f0f29a725c2
F20101205_AAABIG stansberry_a_Page_085.tif
795024ba130620d3e6a164db93e319cb
b94f9f2eef8c8a85113c3af68ab90a8908dc603b
732963 F20101205_AAAAYY stansberry_a_Page_150.jp2
9d267d9e0c82176a3971cea922164c1e
1982f25b8d8f63370edfb5621eb4baf0669a8ec2
5943 F20101205_AAABVR stansberry_a_Page_135.pro
6cf5a630257671711f2af8471633d7df
b16c31c7ab3823924cde6bf5438ee2a485a3c36e
110865 F20101205_AAAALN stansberry_a_Page_098.jpg
c961c339d997df8d8da5329f0f1af4bb
89aca1474390df7054704cf49f76e16096af8faa
9005 F20101205_AAACSL stansberry_a_Page_062thm.jpg
632e7a1ffb70d754baca591a64ac213b
e658107b2426ac298d81cbd160b1b55d5ad4bb5a
F20101205_AAABIH stansberry_a_Page_086.tif
f014944a708beffc9e774f0c0a26e3ba
bf27c094fdde198dca1bb587341a692b7ee1d43c
106856 F20101205_AAAAYZ stansberry_a_Page_152.jp2
01962be0434fe431658ff1702dd47e56
37c0d82a24d3af467ca1442b625d3e3986281219
2361 F20101205_AAACFA stansberry_a_Page_076.txt
5480ace1e320d5cc23b17b2f8bd9f95d
6a3f85288fe339787cb15d0768182dfddf0bc964
2602 F20101205_AAABVS stansberry_a_Page_136.pro
990f58daa5adf64757adc8add1e98ca9
171b020dca523711da6b88119688ade6236a9d00
117010 F20101205_AAAALO stansberry_a_Page_099.jpg
840f35569cf8726a20177b8499b171fd
d7c8417fe001102315400a693795ccd5c7a3109b
38730 F20101205_AAACSM stansberry_a_Page_063.QC.jpg
fb84f810b7b3772220ffdfa8e1d49576
c3f0b4385c57fedcf68ad183ff2598251e6f1538
F20101205_AAABII stansberry_a_Page_087.tif
6b4d27ecaa873516dd06ebf147baa488
db136a1020411f17feea9b2cba45058518659a34
2175 F20101205_AAACFB stansberry_a_Page_077.txt
81cba71380f47b7c9aa3cf18983b838a
d082626d124272b04053283e964e26db7ff54b0a
3266 F20101205_AAABVT stansberry_a_Page_137.pro
f42eb353f871b375ac774368f63326bb
a8ae94d0cc95a1038f4ac2182f2516696bd4c452
110558 F20101205_AAAALP stansberry_a_Page_100.jpg
2ec25cf7a56c89a58c5eff618d1b20cf
03fdf5fc56daceeeeefa066d21c4b5b093a5b9ec
9392 F20101205_AAACSN stansberry_a_Page_063thm.jpg
a266bac4c0ca05e5d2119d2ad66b6308
33bf830c9e323e1dd282486584d7f628bc7249cc
F20101205_AAABIJ stansberry_a_Page_088.tif
7b1aa7783921e11224a5f7126c7662e9
7a85a1921ebd949ed2f46dd581f00311ab38075e
2172 F20101205_AAACFC stansberry_a_Page_078.txt
9f81393fd8b6d557b077dc4783cc74a6
b8cc1a2340652c2ef1b574a53f45f14ea7c07a62
4943 F20101205_AAABVU stansberry_a_Page_138.pro
edb9315aa5ecc15f143d1ee1523f1d00
d7f1ebc15ffb7efd15acc27296f8a02710626224
108467 F20101205_AAAALQ stansberry_a_Page_101.jpg
ec0116128c0ebeacb066ad06a8dca6e4
429dc01ba38182ed594dd4004f5c22c29b2805f3
36493 F20101205_AAACSO stansberry_a_Page_064.QC.jpg
39898c2f8c3b1e4b8bc33e1a0dbbb518
f59fc3b41b8367905b233b789623739477718277
F20101205_AAABIK stansberry_a_Page_089.tif
4d4bfdb78716e0374f87e0d2c0baeb95
0f73170f1eb98991272ea52036ac33478ad17172
2396 F20101205_AAACFD stansberry_a_Page_080.txt
0960fb47a6e5c3613a62ef46428510c9
0c9218f9374f1e397bed7d12ea85e219b437708a
3154 F20101205_AAABVV stansberry_a_Page_139.pro
d692c7b171ec859cc739a1dfd5ddb71d
c5596903bf43dc0a7dc6d0bfd429205347572384
115635 F20101205_AAAALR stansberry_a_Page_102.jpg
e4675d9c570245cb402bc170f598793f
6e7c651f8fd0cb0d6be5aebf793f7ed7c6f5fbba
9104 F20101205_AAACSP stansberry_a_Page_064thm.jpg
f522098503782f88a4799867bec0a7e7
5341d89529b8e161a3490d8a339eb86bb497c913
F20101205_AAABIL stansberry_a_Page_090.tif
29fcee4a1b558dcc5e88f234e9545bd7
f9d16139ffef74ad38eef77d14a401f769661643
2173 F20101205_AAACFE stansberry_a_Page_081.txt
b36eedac935aab8e75e0cee9f38821f1
a5339b38270440fd9e8e8bdb7b42e1671a483965
3693 F20101205_AAABVW stansberry_a_Page_140.pro
0b6ac72989ac13fd966ea00dbf6acada
edf8e866a9c7e0b511cd24609db36e8a9fa4863f
112985 F20101205_AAAALS stansberry_a_Page_103.jpg
2a4e37df0c541c7160dd7075dce8c35e
027d05a7edfbad5bf873a9cfec31f6df1c2c319a
37412 F20101205_AAACSQ stansberry_a_Page_065.QC.jpg
b2270c8737aec3611d2c8ed679a19dbc
4a940946f03a382cce8e88e35ff74afe2fd570e1
F20101205_AAABIM stansberry_a_Page_091.tif
75596e4845e6f1822935e4a2c7695e3f
71cc518030d4470d08817a2048914e30b61e78a1
2121 F20101205_AAACFF stansberry_a_Page_082.txt
f7ec5fe32fd0e312d164f5f1465e2310
4a1d3f7fbf0c57e748f020aed6b22228ab03b9bb
5524 F20101205_AAABVX stansberry_a_Page_141.pro
92c25eb129b9d71b44620ff35ecb77c5
7e970dc76d149de8128c9c9d5c6f1db411245b94
108547 F20101205_AAAALT stansberry_a_Page_104.jpg
3b0e8c3a2c9c2b70d34e689ef82c0f2b
9696a035233bf3269964428e7edcb8965348ff5a
F20101205_AAACSR stansberry_a_Page_065thm.jpg
a416a452003f10c975b6fb90aa9cfb43
b51462ba7c114af69ab07a10541d46f670972252
F20101205_AAABIN stansberry_a_Page_093.tif
eff0f0f5d493ba89243ca0be40fd161d
3e1e9f9d5bafb1d5b9de6a72d089541930d70ec8
2657 F20101205_AAACFG stansberry_a_Page_083.txt
34e897371f40fe6bb40a0e993aaf2c6f
07ab706353218722c03783fa6ac16f978e9db765
6157 F20101205_AAABVY stansberry_a_Page_142.pro
0981c1e3b4886f627990050ec724e63b
0e65b8e98c8e55ca2087ddc13cc7da522e188fbe
112975 F20101205_AAAALU stansberry_a_Page_105.jpg
7c17e3a6a516a4af6fc5293762d3e33d
4bf5877344045e506061ca701536c3348b822bce
8836 F20101205_AAADCA stansberry_a_Page_202thm.jpg
b472b7c48101205e424fd14737049911
f8114cefbfab233effd4ac7c602f51fd4321a867
F20101205_AAACSS stansberry_a_Page_066thm.jpg
e15407bce800e9a728f0c1b14f494dbb
eb38d8e2c4f5037ee02f7e0da26ccb7a314362ef
F20101205_AAABIO stansberry_a_Page_094.tif
545d3da038483ff759ab746c97c2b79e
82a8679fd1c8a75283ace4b004bbec0be64ab451
2471 F20101205_AAACFH stansberry_a_Page_084.txt
72e43c210b1757a0cc1b4e813ed8c963
f0a90eedc4efbb04bd409b1e422118d31c899f6e
4004 F20101205_AAABVZ stansberry_a_Page_143.pro
a76093f99567305c1a82afbd6c490f99
562f4a320a6ed8d8518f8264a3aafc5d24f9a7c6
36460 F20101205_AAADCB stansberry_a_Page_203.QC.jpg
846d6d3284c7e4dfdf763584000fa746
674920dbed8be9dfd59f4b474f23a5d1c03a891c
34937 F20101205_AAACST stansberry_a_Page_067.QC.jpg
6e9d13c28d7e0a8fccd1294996a9f959
1291d1cec690849d9f3b9cf1b460d8d5153e7ce3
F20101205_AAABIP stansberry_a_Page_095.tif
c51e1fed3ae013061da01dc4c8150d8c
7e8597772f1d30cd14b86895cf0db4ad2a44ab1b
F20101205_AAACFI stansberry_a_Page_085.txt
8e739fac6fd48f095ff0db361c42194b
8887fb2496daba522f14e170cb0554fc4ea838f0
115499 F20101205_AAAALV stansberry_a_Page_106.jpg
9a525b4b0ff46da89a5e258bf7938131
27e74949dc004f9719882fb721559e364c80dfe7
F20101205_AAADCC stansberry_a_Page_203thm.jpg
61f0d3db4faa239356c04b1213fdf0aa
d4e6538156a8eeebf057628f1d40687e649fbfac
8771 F20101205_AAACSU stansberry_a_Page_067thm.jpg
ba92206f9da8ccb754e6ce0b9423c516
5aadbc86efa79b5898a962a5df73b47ad4cb90e0
F20101205_AAABIQ stansberry_a_Page_096.tif
86892b0fb93740c05b8aa17ed6db146f
1e438d4d29bc2010aeb394b38b6811e7f638adeb
2163 F20101205_AAACFJ stansberry_a_Page_086.txt
d4566d1898981fe446a39786280fbbd0
69c20cc976a5b346ef75242a5da6be0c50b88128
113490 F20101205_AAAALW stansberry_a_Page_107.jpg
f041f1e7332d07ba562eaf4e6a44988e
9dd957d6690d2727344e709d12c3b06c98ea78b7
8657 F20101205_AAADCD stansberry_a_Page_204thm.jpg
ec830756d4bb0cc7523be526854527c8
6500792acd4d7e9fd83d8a6e7d6ea1faa74716dd
35579 F20101205_AAACSV stansberry_a_Page_068.QC.jpg
843ec6923fbf1a466339d97ac0f60ca6
f74f5dabbcac2ff4df720569ccd9c18476e18c4c
2071 F20101205_AAACFK stansberry_a_Page_087.txt
000a3126ec2b471e8fa8d076fe0ae33b
6c770e5e3ffd5a17a8f9f6b8998368ee7ad2c029
114617 F20101205_AAAALX stansberry_a_Page_108.jpg
991fdd7d5c81210207ae93c36a24dde9
32bd55642e5b2bc34f354418cb5cc431f1d15c79
36177 F20101205_AAADCE stansberry_a_Page_205.QC.jpg
34d6d40e3bf49e084e5ca3effbe95081
dd7bf852ce88654bef3db4b325646e1e0adadde9
9063 F20101205_AAACSW stansberry_a_Page_068thm.jpg
38b9ddfb0b9f2ef20595cbf7592b0a66
d4521b02433ca9b2d505a9154c60e903122659c7
F20101205_AAABIR stansberry_a_Page_098.tif
69ddf32bd8b32988217e72a2c1bbb496
7cb0e1f7dbc42036bf3a3f7fdee12fb42c6ecf06
2124 F20101205_AAACFL stansberry_a_Page_088.txt
92ab95c2f20806e58aa68b6319bd1a47
c559f6c507b591232d4b88f942d79615921f8ca7
109144 F20101205_AAAALY stansberry_a_Page_109.jpg
52c7ea0570ad002a293e898a25bea6fc
d83972d2ca92f0228040a60177fe44239467ee61
F20101205_AAADCF stansberry_a_Page_205thm.jpg
7a3cb590e5dbcb13a5a21f3c254f6d6e
2844be64e007a7ad61659e59f37d9305f48e2f9d
36801 F20101205_AAACSX stansberry_a_Page_069.QC.jpg
05fdd4e52b737009c23ea85bfa6b3ab4
fe769bb39c21537befea78bcb0e0c1aa328217b1
F20101205_AAABIS stansberry_a_Page_099.tif
23b40846276775cfaed58f9c4e8c2313
f7703314c1d91bb28007990bcda6080a50d49d2f
2491 F20101205_AAACFM stansberry_a_Page_089.txt
beaea8a77078125c83136a4cbbf65c26
6a9155a99bc34f1bbdf53258b47a9d3f3e9baad8
115174 F20101205_AAAALZ stansberry_a_Page_110.jpg
8854f39ad0a4014f13b70745cd707a37
ac894b2931e58de7118df0d47119d851f9003028
38510 F20101205_AAADCG stansberry_a_Page_206.QC.jpg
bd5da806673139286175a92ab8248bdb
5d482e7bd0ef0dbc35d46c5cada487595dd24631
9194 F20101205_AAACSY stansberry_a_Page_069thm.jpg
79619307b6b2e014879f4a807c479900
de852a399751942a986e94bed8158b18356b6561
F20101205_AAABIT stansberry_a_Page_100.tif
51cea8ab3bb011e47813bc6fc0563c70
c319f4764e2571c353df19084997182babe5a46a
9100 F20101205_AAADCH stansberry_a_Page_206thm.jpg
0be224d7f96300d11c587821d2672fd1
32f9c147883fd739815f65cd1ea05a50a292d111
38528 F20101205_AAACSZ stansberry_a_Page_070.QC.jpg
029002db46d4abac5b8e7ee31b2bd152
39af5e561cbfd30d22d857070adb7a84301c5725
F20101205_AAABIU stansberry_a_Page_101.tif
47b44cc5c134932634f03fb1e5471240
7564facb6f8bb2c720fc607df70c9bfc789f6dbe
2233 F20101205_AAACFN stansberry_a_Page_090.txt
c7410a8dc602192b1533e64b99bceb96
f65b485cd662e11eba5ea45bceb816ebc8d91581
37606 F20101205_AAADCI stansberry_a_Page_207.QC.jpg
7bc8722b633b457ec4e85ab298c81e02
204cdeda283522a64a8cc2e78ff62042141dabd2
F20101205_AAABIV stansberry_a_Page_102.tif
1d8b9d4e637489845df52532134f39ad
1e404c3f67046cab3d4803407a5c8dc2287ede8b
2086 F20101205_AAACFO stansberry_a_Page_091.txt
a4a556d1d2ac6ca8364fe65bc7431d16
068ad9a677a374d5397412da521dfd70c2ae028c
F20101205_AAABIW stansberry_a_Page_103.tif
4c0e344da8d1c22e6f6c6cee2f9dd7ff
29708b53d43270e65b4e58f2fdf9652b2f764d77
2277 F20101205_AAACFP stansberry_a_Page_093.txt
6d738c6845e6811304c22ebed13a36f1
d87894ab6f2c2bc8f18d12a295a6d3bae775b07b
9212 F20101205_AAADCJ stansberry_a_Page_207thm.jpg
4706bd4b1e94b33db95287e8cfcdaa99
78065c3e240eafc65ffe526a58f3121c137b04cf
F20101205_AAABIX stansberry_a_Page_104.tif
35142e6781813b1e80cfa3b1575a760a
1b62323e9a343a6506640d7acb88b23522d09ff1
2178 F20101205_AAACFQ stansberry_a_Page_095.txt
b16afbde2ce091ceb45097f4111ffafb
b227dd83194d3b9f525479eac05dd1fb52ed0c4d
35519 F20101205_AAADCK stansberry_a_Page_208.QC.jpg
895f4b0e4f6d3ca8dc7ce75ef599d7d2
865d5c24dc45c4d161b748a59f06b96e08efe275
F20101205_AAABIY stansberry_a_Page_105.tif
4b5dc4531744bbba7f4cda72fb80dfdf
734dec7338e4637b50c97f50db4040d0ea996cf5
2140 F20101205_AAACFR stansberry_a_Page_096.txt
dcd1a9ee7057effc44d210449fd8f357
160d983e10017908b4cc502bce740ae615b39412
8667 F20101205_AAADCL stansberry_a_Page_208thm.jpg
ac616f66750fe0649d099db961af4a4b
bf7447291ab2c80aed7ad72a70e426ee6ccf93ac
F20101205_AAABIZ stansberry_a_Page_106.tif
ea6b806a169207b861f9d6e28b0f1355
60a013a983ccb2bc5e2b946e60768c75cabea964
F20101205_AAACFS stansberry_a_Page_097.txt
2acbb3c93675207e0461a8e3653eb530
96adb91c40f1894d2c62326f364102b2e53d15f7
18116 F20101205_AAADCM stansberry_a_Page_209.QC.jpg
1c6bbe84f379933db14993df3d026f7d
009e7dbfbd44f9f5d37a9c19eaf296d1feebc2b7
F20101205_AAACFT stansberry_a_Page_098.txt
05509898edec900e2d8195dd1d23b0db
dfb5ee97dab821e005a3f812e7721bee04302105
4533 F20101205_AAADCN stansberry_a_Page_209thm.jpg
c616ee0a34f3545088f4a1a796b9d0b4
88e63e6fdd2c5168e3b41fb69cbbd9a924bdc913
2323 F20101205_AAACFU stansberry_a_Page_099.txt
78932dca4c7b2a9e11cff93b59e4915e
00b6033800d5199cc88f46ad0ec5e2aaee313d36
56040 F20101205_AAAARA stansberry_a_Page_261.jpg
097869bd1b5990e94a6ad53809091c6a
34887b2e77ad8fb5b5e4d1a7dbab4ae9c56175e8
35949 F20101205_AAADCO stansberry_a_Page_210.QC.jpg
1c93bab7bab916d875a1ad8fd1e278d3
45cf35e6266ab940bcf688917a057943d24ec24a
2205 F20101205_AAACFV stansberry_a_Page_100.txt
11a51d5819ac0fee21f7e2b8319cab04
22be1ce5e86de459c4689aa8c3fc84a32bfb9f22
83549 F20101205_AAAARB stansberry_a_Page_262.jpg
fd760f764982c0ce5e4652848b4f83fc
72f6250cb2ebcdd5505e12ece922b3ef010d228a
8650 F20101205_AAADCP stansberry_a_Page_210thm.jpg
386a2474b046aa068a79f895c85aa7c7
8e05a612ab3a74a40f0632e0abc8ff42686d9876
F20101205_AAACFW stansberry_a_Page_101.txt
fb74cf08094bc7614f5569d2b2086527
1e91eb6f808a4d4e88a866664de20d023e179ca8
95915 F20101205_AAAARC stansberry_a_Page_263.jpg
2b4ce57d33c12ff5e693df7598045cd6
05befb2500a5b0996d497fa3443ab8fd35572e0c
38326 F20101205_AAADCQ stansberry_a_Page_211.QC.jpg
81514701c1d0c2759b5261f9831daf02
c017415294370b4f2051e4b27f75c7062acb5a4e
24470 F20101205_AAACYA stansberry_a_Page_142.QC.jpg
42c2daa3858fa9c2a20ef806b50da845
99851bfa03ae1b251fe8942eb1bfb5479eff8ca2
2348 F20101205_AAACFX stansberry_a_Page_102.txt
49be03edb9dceae995f8bf7c6f1fe7f6
020ebe11ce7b787f3a1cd100907ac496db9eaa70
82365 F20101205_AAAARD stansberry_a_Page_264.jpg
9490cde147aabab44c12169c5d517dcf
2a9caf4ee6249ed7d0670b6fcd4dcc55879d69c3
22638 F20101205_AAADCR stansberry_a_Page_212.QC.jpg
1bf4a50994c7e49a96714ef347460ee3
aeca2b93c6a355c52c18e7e9239d9cb72634b920
6726 F20101205_AAACYB stansberry_a_Page_142thm.jpg
663111521c835960fe004925957a260e
92e16f570a65e2e4cd1ede37f2d87dd89ee093c9
2210 F20101205_AAACFY stansberry_a_Page_103.txt
38cda1389dfba8473f4ed04457b8a707
6f6e380ff051337d475bdca73b6ee0fd313fd39f
69212 F20101205_AAAARE stansberry_a_Page_265.jpg
e4232b3b28782f6c807b81c4d3632dec
6f5bbc14df04650e07e407f848d0a4dcbc06f086
5390 F20101205_AAADCS stansberry_a_Page_212thm.jpg
1781d14c5898e6a2619f459e271ef7b7
01c7f5e7a75a0786dd4c813d15c5d530bba36e3e
23474 F20101205_AAACYC stansberry_a_Page_143.QC.jpg
b05962494141f3ba2082220b68ae7030
ccf0327530a813a1086814c0fce3ed7ed98c4bad
F20101205_AAACFZ stansberry_a_Page_104.txt
8326f20e4065fdc14b1d0f23dfce19aa
538868c363598dcf43078dcfbaac4e71dd21c0a7
77589 F20101205_AAAARF stansberry_a_Page_266.jpg
e3c242839f68bcca38c37bda0760ddaa
7de0e962a21a541702d085f6f2fa2183f43c0617
35727 F20101205_AAADCT stansberry_a_Page_213.QC.jpg
c678bb8257e16a3143179f42586ed6ed
9ae0ebcfc947d694aa83fda6d5fc23fa55e72631
F20101205_AAACYD stansberry_a_Page_143thm.jpg
e888cde3a2ad6e000f69b5a31a67e567
831bc8c6e24a6064de59d15d62d94cc287fa9ed5
83208 F20101205_AAAARG stansberry_a_Page_267.jpg
676202fc47a5bc882849fff150a34c88
643c63ce5435dbc2c435b8e49dfdf9642eba0e2b
38833 F20101205_AAADCU stansberry_a_Page_214.QC.jpg
9e25e2daa2b671212115ace067a390ef
a327607ca9da3f43657bfa73b344d033be400a99
15804 F20101205_AAACYE stansberry_a_Page_144.QC.jpg
07a6a90c0e1385ca9aafe13101e3e97f
458301bae80fc362c5ecac95c2c49695404d31af
F20101205_AAABOA stansberry_a_Page_249.tif
1bfbcd4d509bafc6bb889f038aa6a582
7126c9188312dc74b42a304e86723f216845f706
75073 F20101205_AAAARH stansberry_a_Page_268.jpg
056b6eb2cdd0fd3c46a59c3178382d39
a6616c688f3ada91ddd170d575cd3e9c5ee8a15f
F20101205_AAADCV stansberry_a_Page_214thm.jpg
d0b7781e2528781b4e791fc03f645f4f
643dd81510f242d6b95a744b000500ca7ca1053a
4818 F20101205_AAACYF stansberry_a_Page_144thm.jpg
110cb6630389f66edf8452c95dda9aee
530de3cd5b3556b57900ed5f9adc9bdcadf1bcee
72556 F20101205_AAAARI stansberry_a_Page_269.jpg
fc691e4b42b18ed228d8cfa58cce029e
066bcb964c30c5fceb3275f27da72d5bd0fc4985
F20101205_AAABOB stansberry_a_Page_250.tif
8e97d878271fc82210a9b4cf494609cd
b458230a3ddadcb3fb034c435dc200e2ebf51f49
37408 F20101205_AAADCW stansberry_a_Page_215.QC.jpg
d52a68deebdf920b899d20f55dd6708b
6b09c3cec8c80c02c26561b4cdbcd7d20c43de9f
F20101205_AAACYG stansberry_a_Page_145thm.jpg
707845fba8dba0278dd788b24c19bda0
0c2eecf62d292ece834fee044bb88ec1ba1c9b19
75047 F20101205_AAAARJ stansberry_a_Page_270.jpg
7818000b7dd79ed32caaf0fccdfba6af
afedda1b501f6e784cac3042f6942f36c3aa244d
F20101205_AAABOC stansberry_a_Page_252.tif
4be7f1379a99836a2e8625df769b0879
70b4bd825c6ad9d9c96685457694f659ecfda10d
9310 F20101205_AAADCX stansberry_a_Page_215thm.jpg
31ecd065573a0881e327cf643ee83582
b07436f495c0cea94f7a7ee6a40afbb81b4ef531
17082 F20101205_AAACYH stansberry_a_Page_146.QC.jpg
086b572c6ba0535ca4b6a8c72bd2a924
aac9726a8a45151d6079b67ee1f1cd7d49195b7b
87504 F20101205_AAAARK stansberry_a_Page_271.jpg
8b6b8c6692c3b5c0f7da15cb0a42cab4
e34afe870d16b9688d7d86b5dc70edd3322bae6f
F20101205_AAABOD stansberry_a_Page_253.tif
3d63c00818b26d9c84a7addd89c364b5
f3d75a5848b82ee368efe1567c8c734720d8d75c
34646 F20101205_AAADCY stansberry_a_Page_216.QC.jpg
5efb0a6879679b3a93d459aa599fbbc6
09027d4898f4ee79a9561c8cea1225f3d9ca4054
4756 F20101205_AAACYI stansberry_a_Page_146thm.jpg
f5bb3dda27e7d1317be42ee1d7a0e2a4
d53fec13397bebbfeb9e4ab4ea0e0ae6c708a025
36564 F20101205_AAAAEA stansberry_a_Page_020.QC.jpg
24b331fe47ec9f42e03c3378a844ae2c
abcfa45883f885c0b6ee3988dc34bc6b9667ea46
76905 F20101205_AAAARL stansberry_a_Page_272.jpg
1b46443a1d9da75db71437f890b7e65e
613f5717807863c7a3bd1e6c6a251e21520f6894
F20101205_AAABOE stansberry_a_Page_254.tif
03e453dd7ac7f4cad796faedf1fed547
7358d1c3b607006f45bb675ca2a35f2496b4d8c1
8587 F20101205_AAADCZ stansberry_a_Page_216thm.jpg
e1f6212490f8dce8259f24892cc1d0f7
428aba46c3f2288a8bd88f27cc084817f027574a
33397 F20101205_AAACYJ stansberry_a_Page_147.QC.jpg
2d3a25e1b45b71726d24b80ede008c12
7bae7c9910403bc5370b14ad375f11d48e519902
441474 F20101205_AAAAEB stansberry_a_Page_328.jp2
cd1d2baae616b080404e9aa1eafbeb61
f4e81be4c8c98699df27e8d7150c59cb00331295
107793 F20101205_AAAARM stansberry_a_Page_273.jpg
c1bc318c23cb1cb8f506984ec9229c06
d84124772c9e140a5b0d0e7a208f32aea4b4b98c
F20101205_AAABOF stansberry_a_Page_255.tif
fa4579a9c681e59a88dab1c976cd8925
c31ba07626b60f022def72ce94bf164661bc6165
15906 F20101205_AAACYK stansberry_a_Page_148.QC.jpg
e3f78e60972444fe4b7f93853bbb04fd
25f3f57b4952f1077ff154fbe9f19a825bd0b9a7
23306 F20101205_AAAAEC stansberry_a_Page_272.QC.jpg
11fbc569dbb75e39235b10672ac0dbf0
88be6b65a6b72d13ad99d4921d2e902ed290467a
105542 F20101205_AAAARN stansberry_a_Page_274.jpg
e68ba6c5e31ca1bd8eedd0d1cced2bd3
bde7399ccfa7be8ccc192f99a75128e0543b9510
F20101205_AAABOG stansberry_a_Page_256.tif
db92f81f7af3ad229fc813e9cdfe30a9
c332acba42fa14a2c8f4fe7b46e70ee8a79e8ab7
4371 F20101205_AAACYL stansberry_a_Page_148thm.jpg
5ab5276dd5c250e62f78d7521be6f60f
0ecbe0c75627862071b8dc0e77a0a11d01db19b4
1629 F20101205_AAACLA stansberry_a_Page_250.txt
1e50b92a44a5c5df9e1e8ed36bdec79b
4b8134055b53f6aee119edd72999853a9c69fdae
8675 F20101205_AAAAED stansberry_a_Page_051thm.jpg
6c2dd8adf83ff97477f894fbce932228
8dd5415e0204918d22a39c8215e9d2ec2e3cefcc
112858 F20101205_AAAARO stansberry_a_Page_275.jpg
bac5e5a2d47b778a41a37973f3bdf5c8
fdc0d171e9bf6670be88818b796aee558433df72
F20101205_AAABOH stansberry_a_Page_257.tif
f194eece0f58a5348d8d4a462bfec6f7
c07e83f2ebb83e1241438a596dd49d16768ad1ce
26628 F20101205_AAACYM stansberry_a_Page_149.QC.jpg
01738a184735e9a20f1593357479e739
748eaf7e0e9a714a66280432eae80d0d97ec405f
3305 F20101205_AAACLB stansberry_a_Page_251.txt
8b227e4b61cd9214bbef530cab22be4c
570e8991024eaf6dd634601af9806e5ca312a6f4
221 F20101205_AAAAEE stansberry_a_Page_119.txt
4e2dcbe178b24d8ddb247b2fbda90694
ce5e7ed36e40680d89f5f4448f17e54b54f062e3
114215 F20101205_AAAARP stansberry_a_Page_276.jpg
0dc539980682aac529fb403f9a7f4790
347b637884cc95a2339cad18fc646569da447478
F20101205_AAABOI stansberry_a_Page_258.tif
11fbbd5d4b061d46f288b31df83f48b1
d1fcfd53c184af562baf78c7334332dde81d07d9
7205 F20101205_AAACYN stansberry_a_Page_149thm.jpg
4fb869066fd8c25a4465c29375bc9f27
3fb81aee4666e21859a01d01a504d79ee7a6d035
1475 F20101205_AAACLC stansberry_a_Page_252.txt
8e01d2bd2676799b2ff44f3e8c94be2d
766dcddf958a02aaa3247bab1ff6e0f2ce774f8a
53761 F20101205_AAAAEF stansberry_a_Page_046.pro
8d0a63483daad52d6d4ceb4c31130be7
749c5fe17cae44d519b443ad980a6b9b9079dbe8
125076 F20101205_AAAARQ stansberry_a_Page_277.jpg
38871bd309f92619af2b22ca6c23b16c
93a36a0b5a34f1df9cf917b26544912832964f11
F20101205_AAABOJ stansberry_a_Page_260.tif
a954b039dad6c8a9385d4fe28243d018
918e0fe8edb261e5586d0ca0ccd784d9a95554f2
14324 F20101205_AAACYO stansberry_a_Page_150.QC.jpg
3da299359949dd16e2f5e00495dec3f3
97708fa8297abece848f58840a38f6133f2c09e9
309 F20101205_AAACLD stansberry_a_Page_253.txt
bef16a86cfc5e190edf968cdafef92eb
543a09ef747e88420105be7931b96ac233ada996
1051934 F20101205_AAAAEG stansberry_a_Page_295.jp2
ba8cc2e7ccce00561e9c3667682ed16c
91ccff52cd40ac476d99c57527262e1b0ee25353
115717 F20101205_AAAARR stansberry_a_Page_278.jpg
64e0e84dfc2620b49bd50e46bcba3e18
45fc4c145cb595007c3470c8c4e9f966a5b42412
F20101205_AAABOK stansberry_a_Page_261.tif
7119e705bfa61450778eea00170dcefc
9341b06c204b54a13306a9c29e2930999df0f81c
4106 F20101205_AAACYP stansberry_a_Page_150thm.jpg
6bfb7fcbb34e3a6a058096a969e967f5
f66eded8e3ea410c7d3f0d41e73ce0e24a53ef3d
298 F20101205_AAACLE stansberry_a_Page_255.txt
3202ae952320526e79704400730d6e87
d5db58e808c31bccec6b11fc1ef3718260f36903
F20101205_AAAAEH stansberry_a_Page_003.tif
fc00cc808c670285762effd76f6d4168
294bf1fc7baf2d23f516b3720da5108e38d27e9f
115019 F20101205_AAABBA stansberry_a_Page_208.jp2
328efcd5f6eed755abfb32ae2e249d7d
0dfb0bcada19c868836288631cf03cb11035d213
126638 F20101205_AAAARS stansberry_a_Page_279.jpg
2b80e3c83fc91ad6b01c8106701b0f28
5bc8c4c0c44b0419784e2fd8cbcfb3cbddc2724d
F20101205_AAABOL stansberry_a_Page_263.tif
26e6fc958828f026f1fd2272a7bc4007
5414713268349055ebf9be24cf9b3d923e1b525e
22269 F20101205_AAACYQ stansberry_a_Page_151.QC.jpg
bb46911ea67f84c4a31a14d5ed057485
6fb83c85862f74b1d23a7ac0c1192e4cae5ca5bd
F20101205_AAACLF stansberry_a_Page_256.txt
b6af7aeb108c89cc82b461c8e99dd86a
4ae1aad342c0993e8ac4a972681f18bbbe1a4ed7
F20101205_AAAAEI stansberry_a_Page_027.jp2
c4af752d75af48cbbf30170500612d93
7656c512ddce557fee9e72a8fb0c83816ae1cc64
56337 F20101205_AAABBB stansberry_a_Page_209.jp2
0adec95db4f4a92c23d68a9271f1c5b2
958eb945200315a837d0ae5b5cecd41dc839abfd
104150 F20101205_AAAART stansberry_a_Page_281.jpg
f2b91f82562a8426ba27d0ed5f78e9db
6a141edc3e7c46bafd085a60a50ab7ec99e538cd
F20101205_AAABOM stansberry_a_Page_264.tif
2e6f2c7a016eb8147f00f50995f2cb2d
1aee3ee8268d301485d4ab0b9c0bf9e52507a520
5660 F20101205_AAACYR stansberry_a_Page_151thm.jpg
d257246399db357d37bb773c3794ea00
fb057fa60c47c0fb65e5dbfe13b45a8d5c12742f
280 F20101205_AAACLG stansberry_a_Page_257.txt
05c9e2fd254e68861c809a7948d4886e
43847ab60ca75797b9649aa485f7596eef9d0ace
111872 F20101205_AAAAEJ stansberry_a_Page_033.jp2
c89d9319e33cc9ddf0c3e379464fbb4b
c8b6d12547cf9d4662fab1fde5e31e30430e7cb9
147773 F20101205_AAABBC stansberry_a_Page_211.jp2
1b97a8118e4e00ed64872baa1f9eff37
bc4eccdf9dc6ac00aa66d65cb65018a0e3195517
95316 F20101205_AAAARU stansberry_a_Page_282.jpg
78eae2f641badc1c3d6bdd97200c9eec
b392db4022b5b6dffe13faccbfb740506ea985aa
F20101205_AAABON stansberry_a_Page_265.tif
ca35a11c495f149c2ee4bd8b77d45e4d
188f640d9cafb0d69613d75e9c327f50735b1633
24013 F20101205_AAADIA stansberry_a_Page_288.QC.jpg
a6f7ff4f57a45b1b3d7f5c6b16f4a6cb
0b48d15bd14665d335e96181d4666d78ac2c59d5
34917 F20101205_AAACYS stansberry_a_Page_152.QC.jpg
efc47bef8871a96ba152f82af8a791a8
4421618ee761877d251d537528e210fdeeae9886
291 F20101205_AAACLH stansberry_a_Page_258.txt
950fdd21b864c6326809c816714fea82
e46822ef2c1a5277ff82223077ba1e95ce497732
115021 F20101205_AAAAEK stansberry_a_Page_065.jpg
21ea35250d247f99c60f856c981d146b
52a4183422f3a691956c685c296d03adc2dd7760
86193 F20101205_AAABBD stansberry_a_Page_212.jp2
259254db3cca59779c30674ce03dcaa3
f809eb7e4f8f10a67861006e6647216c21cab755
68591 F20101205_AAAARV stansberry_a_Page_284.jpg
3664545aa448077730f27b6fed51a831
7b3dcb944085ae4853ba282fafe30069bbe1235e
F20101205_AAABOO stansberry_a_Page_266.tif
a95ba5154a49d238c7ab0409573fb4a8
735e7f87e5acb749f9983d2ab5890c9d17d150f9
6230 F20101205_AAADIB stansberry_a_Page_288thm.jpg
1fdb4cd940039c7ae3fdaa2826bad679
d71440d2178cf0d2053503f8b15cc102c63113f0
8434 F20101205_AAACYT stansberry_a_Page_152thm.jpg
d6800ebf3ff2b9c608773c6c2d02e6ed
3874ee5232dfd3d13bd87a7606a75a946542e1c2
3026 F20101205_AAACLI stansberry_a_Page_259.txt
ca509cf804ec429981e69a3e2a36ed4f
b99c9b45c1cb38a375f90cdaf98918442738ec00
F20101205_AAAAEL stansberry_a_Page_020.txt
3d52c4950e222fbe081c8a808d8ac3d7
13bde2788d1188b46eb831fbb577847a5d3e6a45
125296 F20101205_AAABBE stansberry_a_Page_213.jp2
4b4ac8bde93f50193c1eb9a4b50a78fe
bf7838b854ba0e59fb73dd0a9af1362499cdb97d
82921 F20101205_AAAARW stansberry_a_Page_285.jpg
4c80f1a7349ffe29aa39411d28c692b3
07a107970cd5bf5f139e7fa13abe1bfcf8e46198
F20101205_AAABOP stansberry_a_Page_267.tif
679acb2361e86d7d76741c154aa5e243
a020e458f9e1105770734933de453a8bfa626bee
25986 F20101205_AAADIC stansberry_a_Page_289.QC.jpg
321ded023881f66a8ba26c346f5f936c
6de468a154c1f2413320c7fe9a1f5ef055578ada
34557 F20101205_AAACYU stansberry_a_Page_153.QC.jpg
d4f3080bd7326a3106966a5800e672be
7cc9b36d2331748aab8764f703a7f5f8c598e6dd
F20101205_AAACLJ stansberry_a_Page_260.txt
f5e6e43a3e45212e41bbfa7904d4bb69
9a70f8a2f0488b4e799725d61274d397de1d8a83
96888 F20101205_AAAAEM stansberry_a_Page_219.jpg
9f3a15d6c45efe84dacca6e37191a8eb
1550326ac06aa098b3c81c13d9a424181245bd44
121203 F20101205_AAABBF stansberry_a_Page_215.jp2
37977ec719bea14d7683954b3f0bdf3f
6151e7eaf2790dc08a697ffff3e3837b80d826f8
90102 F20101205_AAAARX stansberry_a_Page_286.jpg
4384b8fe5963e7e899923e556b166dcf
59380edf323c846b0f5bc20ce247cf5162c33f82
F20101205_AAABOQ stansberry_a_Page_268.tif
5f2f04215e6e979882d1b874f353a155
43d24b69d4a0407791df4859387baacac05ec0b7
6331 F20101205_AAADID stansberry_a_Page_289thm.jpg
81189694836141d8d3631b20de927137
3f7ed94d649c75cd17490a67f2cb0d650d675033
8672 F20101205_AAACYV stansberry_a_Page_153thm.jpg
c705f867afadead11583c2de29edfed9
59351b7654f07685851bd5e0a49d8fc77f499fe9
1495 F20101205_AAACLK stansberry_a_Page_261.txt
c3da964a63e27b18342edb4a58be8617
608b23d2275902e6955fe3de8233d003e0a514d0
251 F20101205_AAAAEN stansberry_a_Page_143.txt
5bb77fc097cf0af392c602125f851ea5
2db3d51b3c8fc75bc993f8e64fae5ed61e4928fa
109905 F20101205_AAABBG stansberry_a_Page_216.jp2
91ebb7de59ee47d820fe6c5515ee5631
2e25066efa3790c20d27848b6c0e2a93b0fcbffe
97208 F20101205_AAAARY stansberry_a_Page_287.jpg
ccb0885ea8e8ca5b1b0d13f71c434ecf
48b73c7fbbeb58e3fd79b4be2c14f1e40759d799
F20101205_AAABOR stansberry_a_Page_269.tif
48a3e76d314585d3be4644c43520b211
8fd7197ebe04c87798a7d14e893ab2ecb90a9384
29813 F20101205_AAADIE stansberry_a_Page_290.QC.jpg
97a7e94445e70efd3e86aa4554255965
2f0a8ca1696493ef1d782d2ff27ca5d745870a4b
37441 F20101205_AAACYW stansberry_a_Page_154.QC.jpg
886d3018df6d972926a2fb5b4c988151
2449da4fc67f4e954d2cdd5ef2592b2545adfddb
3498 F20101205_AAACLL stansberry_a_Page_262.txt
090e20c4a2e7b2eb848bbae23a2ba0c4
859e5e89aaf86cffb5325b68342cdde3c81b61b1
113289 F20101205_AAABBH stansberry_a_Page_217.jp2
7c57797a042af71a884d0b6ab708cce9
21883b9a7d1460058fb48c021a79bd34823214d9
90646 F20101205_AAAARZ stansberry_a_Page_288.jpg
87b50e0881844fc34885db114e1aaecd
f446b03ae08a907301cda7151e6f2d05a9f02c81
F20101205_AAABOS stansberry_a_Page_270.tif
1471575adda482ba81aa963a11880e96
93f17c059b5b8c1b171b3f3b2578b79258993504
7031 F20101205_AAADIF stansberry_a_Page_290thm.jpg
dd128a3600a7034ad903adc75ca8d521
abe03605b4ad0112c8a064dae690fe0d68f9e5e4
9210 F20101205_AAACYX stansberry_a_Page_154thm.jpg
62964c40b20ff983f0b9f521cd260ace
f6973cb80b10ed69e87b0d369269d06d9d186478
1557 F20101205_AAACLM stansberry_a_Page_263.txt
746472afdf93a325cdd2e3cdf7280517
b4adc25d0788d6f1be1b7259947f85707b018664
F20101205_AAAAEO stansberry_a_Page_238.tif
137f268bb53d6fab12335a95aae48c31
de03b6a157305eee13fe5c521144410e8838dd14
120984 F20101205_AAABBI stansberry_a_Page_218.jp2
6d93d87a313adfdbdbf5a61869225b9d
ebb9047bb28580c6bd6f83ac6822ed5ecb394355
F20101205_AAABOT stansberry_a_Page_271.tif
9a8960f85897aab5908b6499998e677f
944e92ab2694e3e8f6470ea62239c94ad6052475
26913 F20101205_AAADIG stansberry_a_Page_291.QC.jpg
c72c53acdff80a9d4bec796946da387f
7fcde1c89bc2e8b1b4b4f88fb7c607733c613565
37691 F20101205_AAACYY stansberry_a_Page_155.QC.jpg
054b54c7b119b8bf9fe5ac2f98147612
0fb308c4a3fd2e416b541ee64892a642ffaa3ab7
1583 F20101205_AAACLN stansberry_a_Page_264.txt
30c50382a57986f312f18b64e20c40fe
7d3c1a80d801940ee075ee1a7ef3882886c72f5a
124110 F20101205_AAAAEP stansberry_a_Page_214.jp2
c41e95adf74420230805375511dd3fe9
b8e98e798cca50527854df36112fbe6afbeb06f5
102793 F20101205_AAABBJ stansberry_a_Page_219.jp2
e90782a224171cf20c3a677bb9d5cd89
0d8ced2c21646611553c00c0e2946f0aebc27f71
F20101205_AAABOU stansberry_a_Page_272.tif
939a05ed79c0e80d89ca3aa23b97032e
21098a542ee3bc358558d56a87ed61e0af037704
6575 F20101205_AAADIH stansberry_a_Page_291thm.jpg
d68c7bafa12f2c34697ba4e1edfb3e0b
0da24ce8ee6e00586f60da568792b500b299833d
8955 F20101205_AAACYZ stansberry_a_Page_156thm.jpg
d95e58b4ab662bcec71cce3bdf2e51c6
1c9821af7142e03ad9f17f88808b60d94001644e
1256 F20101205_AAACLO stansberry_a_Page_265.txt
92bd62250de036ce31571d5bd4243fc3
75b8ae174c996e3e29ed6e2bd164de41d5c726ac
F20101205_AAAAEQ stansberry_a_Page_323.tif
38975ec76dc36d87e95a0fcaf4ff7c1c
e523aaa6012c4a0205bed6ff637a3c68995216ec
F20101205_AAABOV stansberry_a_Page_273.tif
089f684e1b92485788415fe7e35b9939
81a7c968a4df07766cbe5334139fb04dd251fdec
19652 F20101205_AAADII stansberry_a_Page_292.QC.jpg
2527d12e338c118b495c20aaf07ef062
4c2cf2889cfb6c5c6fab89cbde8b1944eaf057bc
1487 F20101205_AAACLP stansberry_a_Page_266.txt
924b566535c179079f1a7b2094338202
f466db97f0d8dd0db5d1ddc24dbc68fbcce92c2e
F20101205_AAAAER stansberry_a_Page_151.tif
eec2e2b7fa3b8b07f9447ce0fc0675e3
795caba0fb23ff44c0f9d0278b4e1a998e4c566b
117256 F20101205_AAABBK stansberry_a_Page_220.jp2
6e28b8ea4fd9615287a0fec6b9447065
629595820aae5a55ab16d817947a156604a8dd0c
F20101205_AAABOW stansberry_a_Page_274.tif
38fca249c084909e6a69716b860a6187
67da5c2af38fa21eac0f0e48b1ff31173195beda
F20101205_AAADIJ stansberry_a_Page_292thm.jpg
7dcf1ee81fe8f9b41dbf37828c5a8b00
74bb5669c0d906f3cb9aba4daea0ec74b5b5d215
F20101205_AAACLQ stansberry_a_Page_267.txt
a648dbf141da69f45ebbbaa93d781717
b03c31d557c03dea86f790f14436ac084259d92e
74586 F20101205_AAAAES stansberry_a_Page_283.jpg
816a32061e87e4685711dc0ef996cb63
aeccd60b14740fe9ece83a8148b82285cfe0cf62
110501 F20101205_AAABBL stansberry_a_Page_221.jp2
8eb26f72a01f765e552cadbacae03bdf
d30ff06d3296869027f322de8f7487b2b086e7af
22643 F20101205_AAADIK stansberry_a_Page_293.QC.jpg
dd4033a777d7a7471915c8967ccde19a
e1b238d533843d6b0070e3b3e28f06420a3d65d5
1446 F20101205_AAACLR stansberry_a_Page_268.txt
5d899b450edbde7967c65bebf1848cf4
768ab91a1c22333d5448f4d533d69ec83f97ee49
1051875 F20101205_AAAAET stansberry_a_Page_151.jp2
f8cacf65c8e528ed57f6defd984a039e
080214c58cf5b174866a4c1ce41f661988330cf3
114149 F20101205_AAABBM stansberry_a_Page_222.jp2
d8bf81604f07d720cf9cf6fe152e63dd
d9b859b93052816ba4f8d2d578da134df2e7772d
F20101205_AAABOX stansberry_a_Page_275.tif
d611672e42822a170b348ca1e8a41081
b04d53cacac3702b4261249efff7783a57922f65
5875 F20101205_AAADIL stansberry_a_Page_293thm.jpg
290a54805ba880aa99976463e347f79a
85137d8590858c7bdcbc67b3d4c2440c26f2eb54
1416 F20101205_AAACLS stansberry_a_Page_269.txt
b7caafebc6d662f0ef863abff2d1715d
18aa071530e4c254fb45dad9a218184dc9e5c177
55996 F20101205_AAAAEU stansberry_a_Page_069.pro
8727d159185d96f62044ca3dc2184c61
493b6a8c2f83c5473355960579a55860d5f20f38
113530 F20101205_AAABBN stansberry_a_Page_223.jp2
3abbdbe8215153a3297ad483c7106e82
8b5a48ac46aaae5b67f1fbe5d920e9bd629c671c
F20101205_AAABOY stansberry_a_Page_276.tif
3f051ea4c7b86eeab384fec9d4398be7
1882d90e05d9392e6194e29f62e7274e68da72a7
23762 F20101205_AAADIM stansberry_a_Page_294.QC.jpg
a35d974b355fefe4735d76137a3a96cf
597c7995e942d925da3cfdb3e9a84933bc67f5d1
36803 F20101205_AAAAEV stansberry_a_Page_227.QC.jpg
cf2b5c0a18a50dcd3659ea927f1c2add
202e15da735249580121b3051903f3c2895203ea
115764 F20101205_AAABBO stansberry_a_Page_224.jp2
cee8fdf1577481318e5b1c54e5d7449d
2662ac915dff0227e21460bb3388444bd4df3aa5
F20101205_AAABOZ stansberry_a_Page_277.tif
b033e3f0152fb783d6adf76dc5ec2464
440d058c0df3adf08826f657bf8fe46b4446bfd3
F20101205_AAADIN stansberry_a_Page_294thm.jpg
dc2254a5a917cd8f6ea95090ad84a135
7993c341776d12d4d7c2fc16ea3ceb5089d7dfde
1374 F20101205_AAACLT stansberry_a_Page_270.txt
530bc9c64a2d6b852f68769571e40f13
ff92fbfea084a3246d3c158618f1cad82ee8a766
33344 F20101205_AAAAEW stansberry_a_Page_236.QC.jpg
a14b5728cb3c3cfc1712db327b8d3b3c
f3bd667a31d347ea6a6deed4f2031e7a96d91ca7
119524 F20101205_AAAAXA stansberry_a_Page_097.jp2
4673f5cc556d37dd85be8eb2b7214f73
59d3b67576108a06ff7efe008884314417b31ce7
110336 F20101205_AAABBP stansberry_a_Page_225.jp2
313be7c54e3fc9be4021b2f02e22eea6
1790f577fc6267a8e3b2f72c32b931b241443794
27964 F20101205_AAADIO stansberry_a_Page_295.QC.jpg
c5b7913b16b7b26956049a1983afc482
f383fb887474af24dc1c1c0aa6fc494ac8d57cd9
1679 F20101205_AAACLU stansberry_a_Page_271.txt
890ae6fe0daf899a27c7a7871ba826c6
26f0e4af86b902acac6d2dd4ca26864de173d0d5
F20101205_AAAAEX stansberry_a_Page_092.tif
c92fef4fdd9471530364963cf4b69a04
508346aa7b5a98a5d088a762eb27947663cb3c3d
116140 F20101205_AAABBQ stansberry_a_Page_226.jp2
3e9765335f320c650279cf519f39d7b8
310c9e06ab2c155436e2043f7a45021bad17550e
2033 F20101205_AAACLV stansberry_a_Page_272.txt
611a514de6d868a0fefe66b4e1f8d16f
ed7fd9baa926f9b0b03679cf3804594c9d63ba1a
12586 F20101205_AAAAEY stansberry_a_Page_148.pro
830302fbda008f33167ac135855d9bf5
644487ac38791c1ca6fea84ddb17cae46badf968
116054 F20101205_AAAAXB stansberry_a_Page_098.jp2
5a568ce3e059d0c6769086aecd7b36b4
c9f28753aca481b24684c0d7d74070b9ca82adaf
103195 F20101205_AAABBR stansberry_a_Page_228.jp2
7262251a6212a6717ba9e0870420c11f
b3af7e68942fb9799bf2d7928b8fcea3bee3434f
7927 F20101205_AAADIP stansberry_a_Page_295thm.jpg
9397541edf34914707031ae6dd8f8f17
631e0f4e31972ea6a268c3ba604c019279001f2c
3006 F20101205_AAACLW stansberry_a_Page_274.txt
bd122278c5b05ea4e2228ede1c69bb80
540b28121e474eaea9285506326c33942ef2f96c
41593 F20101205_AAAAEZ stansberry_a_Page_043.QC.jpg
61382d406f07f67cd041440e2943b8af
fc03aeb143856258afd46bb0f0eadcc4166150e6
121584 F20101205_AAAAXC stansberry_a_Page_099.jp2
f9b884fa720c002ce1f6fceffe4d4b8e
209461852154561b65725384c547ac2399c2cdfd
113096 F20101205_AAABBS stansberry_a_Page_229.jp2
53973b8656baac858c77ae73fad7d22d
3c110b82f5f2b27eeda0e6c9b59d22521e55afe9
29705 F20101205_AAADIQ stansberry_a_Page_296.QC.jpg
3fa0d2565cebccaea2616a9bba04edb3
f86bae61a493fdc67faf0b803f9499c2d7227906
3227 F20101205_AAACLX stansberry_a_Page_275.txt
7b69ea4e05542c559531ded1c254f1c1
740b14480fbb8b77e7c93299c2dc461c06e558f2
116777 F20101205_AAAAXD stansberry_a_Page_100.jp2
70b4da2cb68d095c5a02e9ee2924c67d
bde0b1e34c9405fc4c61f0ddbb1931517b160b9b
105603 F20101205_AAABBT stansberry_a_Page_230.jp2
aefd60d01805628491f92d015c94b771
240a4bc81d1c9ffc58654712535687124010b605
7559 F20101205_AAADIR stansberry_a_Page_296thm.jpg
06dab8286c8fb4c72ed1f7b94fa3eaee
adf4e3946e8c4e6b5b39eb4f192e902aeb055191
3287 F20101205_AAACLY stansberry_a_Page_276.txt
beadef7f803acf52935f04f95bb80c2c
3fef1ea37259fe1ba81ebcceba2b40b870414ab3
114417 F20101205_AAAAXE stansberry_a_Page_101.jp2
9c8c0539ecf4242da585afd7e421170c
e6e291dddd6e87a08087c51e9023f0dc87a680cc
107228 F20101205_AAABBU stansberry_a_Page_231.jp2
96987f931d906734b330193325a3e1d1
e4681a2496aa780bf5d6067e1dbed348d60b2bd0
8172 F20101205_AAADIS stansberry_a_Page_297thm.jpg
0928cd82d8e26afc9b6fac86268a5cc3
49c77cda34fe3cbd1f6b0526625f939090bb7fd0
3709 F20101205_AAACLZ stansberry_a_Page_277.txt
34f4d1a4f7c8ad29fdcf122a8d2d18cc
0f3d8f0f403ea2cdfa8c95cc7e4a649fc38c9bb9
121865 F20101205_AAAAXF stansberry_a_Page_102.jp2
9c4552c13ff25885374e98d232ead83e
8b4f5b9542918fb3cb529d13a34e923ae1fc1c45
110353 F20101205_AAABBV stansberry_a_Page_232.jp2
b072708a6a8c5f8035d302c195fa6951
d19af50d0279d4d782c2eac9b5929479b81a88e8
7640 F20101205_AAADIT stansberry_a_Page_298thm.jpg
9375d64c352bcc62784e283f9868213a
8204710c8a2d88bfa7e8d24437cb72c3de54d34c
118649 F20101205_AAAAXG stansberry_a_Page_103.jp2
b680af7b9dfdd31e51d0d2196adceb11
7a5a68be203a10bd560b48cd58edb1a3f7106a4f
56198 F20101205_AAABBW stansberry_a_Page_233.jp2
caa3128a70de5d8c066f7606ae30475d
5355f264f76c26e0e668762745c8739f20714a26
28528 F20101205_AAADIU stansberry_a_Page_299.QC.jpg
4120476aec7e4c71cb0dc8c60a4f45bb
8dd3fcde4ca5162d2e59c1cbe74e60d4eceda0e3
114401 F20101205_AAAAXH stansberry_a_Page_104.jp2
ea8588918bf45c0cf75419d8ddc6c13f
a97be3fabb4f71b6e1e73a907026a1b612bdf2d2
129341 F20101205_AAABBX stansberry_a_Page_234.jp2
81a224fa567d2bcdda9f41a991aa9b29
304dc64e6a82c2a2e7b76162e864ba45968fd776
56328 F20101205_AAABUA stansberry_a_Page_090.pro
f9f881015ed0876828c929b4bc103c2d
81d90539d81fd4f2e266f9c3791819d35b85cdd9
7261 F20101205_AAADIV stansberry_a_Page_299thm.jpg
be819b3e8a74f4213b07a6c90bfa31e0
b666c783a0d43a49520c8d8921b5cc9982708966
119573 F20101205_AAAAXI stansberry_a_Page_105.jp2
91e72bbbe1fa63fc104ba34ac38b3562
3e40b4a2bc5932f83ff9ee0d33ca2fd139474cd6
73920 F20101205_AAABBY stansberry_a_Page_235.jp2
eaa03d2dc57b8c9f83a3c04c3691a096
f41d390d49b3bbea6580ecfdb3755843800d5b7c
53005 F20101205_AAABUB stansberry_a_Page_091.pro
c14f35b1506a5c43a0412665e3b75753
32a93a7f9c98448a20401af49db94a1cd33b54bb
26290 F20101205_AAADIW stansberry_a_Page_300.QC.jpg
189f6de5323fce65490d853edf589747
35d08d6c7a4a0e0254b8d78f8fbf9ce836734dae
121083 F20101205_AAAAXJ stansberry_a_Page_106.jp2
31161f38312edc9ad7c2af983fb457ad
ae11ab83c3575004ff494e6030e1c564d830fffb
108046 F20101205_AAABBZ stansberry_a_Page_236.jp2
6815e9848e620ed7aff2068337301e99
a113d4dd6dcd5923ba9cdffb01f43809b72766e9
65401 F20101205_AAABUC stansberry_a_Page_092.pro
d6aaf406ae151ef00d7fb8a7fee790d0
0616996f072f3973a113b0b1ff71c9d56e03a869
6906 F20101205_AAADIX stansberry_a_Page_300thm.jpg
6ea91265952a58d4eb3a5ac386bcac6e
bf9fcba52971eaf07db1827439b23f996932692d
119722 F20101205_AAAAXK stansberry_a_Page_107.jp2
d0d76fa60dc7727ade8a0cffb42d314d
160a8898587fe4c653b245629b6725ac2c763159
58049 F20101205_AAABUD stansberry_a_Page_093.pro
85b23ecc82b57266e5c732e5c145e0e8
85b4a54f6f68a395b73bc7e77acc059b266880a8
26984 F20101205_AAADIY stansberry_a_Page_301.QC.jpg
32d0ac4f13e3dcce8bf263c20a36c8f9
6ba70e98e1c34d3f781280a5de31aba795ffe29f
106759 F20101205_AAAAKA stansberry_a_Page_057.jpg
e8eb5271ad19e873dddcf70197c24057
88032d8d67ab4924e62162d4a88a1f5bd5b957e2
119679 F20101205_AAAAXL stansberry_a_Page_108.jp2
846db935b0f7a9ac8feabe24974be5e1
7da5e856239e339ea46e6f9a66a761591ea4f221
57287 F20101205_AAABUE stansberry_a_Page_094.pro
ac20fae2d16c397733a71d9da06fcfdf
045a83e3a957d1837ae51ddaf199b0ab04ba6f7d
7025 F20101205_AAADIZ stansberry_a_Page_301thm.jpg
a24f9fd8cef788b44ac311fd4d65d15f
c2e369aa4e444785b3963a383bc95ad30727ee5a
101154 F20101205_AAAAKB stansberry_a_Page_058.jpg
acff6148ac8315bbdfbd1e293ebba88c
7a386c115b92bb999d2f494079dbdd2e612f2587
115846 F20101205_AAAAXM stansberry_a_Page_109.jp2
7c736adc282c8549c969a8f618914ae8
774accf4628c08af476377699bca4fb20da4754b
55430 F20101205_AAABUF stansberry_a_Page_095.pro
ded343993c42b20770252d03f8b6afc9
0ee4986e6fb84a843abdfd397060f09ea536ed62
110295 F20101205_AAAAKC stansberry_a_Page_059.jpg
ddb0d72a2f930d3cb9a7fda0ad0a28c0
11bbdca54818e5a2f9f6a475a6d2458697807ffc
119509 F20101205_AAAAXN stansberry_a_Page_110.jp2
d134f6e67061aff58a36335d9ca86428
6cdc9c101bba00f21a6ea7ac7cfbf99c34509505
54485 F20101205_AAABUG stansberry_a_Page_096.pro
38329d6964990ecaedf8f442a39cc9ac
ad36e6e8309b5df73c8c91d6dad0c4ab5804447a
9241 F20101205_AAACRA stansberry_a_Page_041thm.jpg
cee24423cd1fc50a86b601f36c46f6ef
f78472e95dd8126c37f9808d7366a5342403d6f6
126363 F20101205_AAAAKD stansberry_a_Page_060.jpg
077580fce12e21fbfd92aa64544eeab5
4027099cb3590c32d5cb545ed6e9c7e6b9c8903a
F20101205_AAAAXO stansberry_a_Page_112.jp2
d3d7e4e2f399af2ad3dc4ef19c027a64
656cd3d27c4eb9ae9fac332e9b3bf1dc61e3abf6
57224 F20101205_AAABUH stansberry_a_Page_097.pro
57de5978a699c399f438505246213a66
2a1d3c9f4cb89da8f2d7f2580e2ccec8afab7e58
33588 F20101205_AAACRB stansberry_a_Page_042.QC.jpg
3315ce454d80220ab0349e783efe2f33
554e8e87062fbc3f569d06bc2d899c7dbd64022e
105573 F20101205_AAAAKE stansberry_a_Page_061.jpg
7df9287edced80729085c2ac3a9ce218
708b3caaec530ce33beebf875626d5ab14256ec7
523725 F20101205_AAAAXP stansberry_a_Page_113.jp2
cca0521c022e01ef5ea502510c4fdbf4
71fe1af601e5f6cebb82809d5ff8988415ce10b6
55416 F20101205_AAABUI stansberry_a_Page_098.pro
24f34cb9aeeb51f5b0fc6526c3bf94e8
629cd34a79b9bd3178a065e5675857d918434284
8471 F20101205_AAACRC stansberry_a_Page_042thm.jpg
97f12595d914e4a3f8dea73938a5b272
75474b4088dc2b36166c2202175609e9bb344f31
112175 F20101205_AAAAKF stansberry_a_Page_062.jpg
f59cd29c2ae8042da691bd521195decc
572b45ae5f957b74430d10ba83a27cfbc0496ad0
591688 F20101205_AAAAXQ stansberry_a_Page_114.jp2
bcb185d5d041a9473eeedf2928a02bfb
9d06c1990700764ea4f1a0584d621a9f39cc9f63
58149 F20101205_AAABUJ stansberry_a_Page_099.pro
ff19afe1c22b967d96258c2d29172a99
32d793103bcbb33e849ed0ed5edb536510848e9f
9193 F20101205_AAACRD stansberry_a_Page_043thm.jpg
9a9395d25360d7aa8189ad8a0ba0e970
4c7ac93a78755751e22a10f7455c62d5b3579d69
120464 F20101205_AAAAKG stansberry_a_Page_063.jpg
c949f1b1f1a0683c8fabb3a8186ff934
9788b4347f087daa737a32ac231a202b2470a457
275731 F20101205_AAAAXR stansberry_a_Page_115.jp2
561fff0a9d2d10a89bfe63625430a600
d42fc36528d99c9b91e4c2b6a89890efd3ddcc15
56239 F20101205_AAABUK stansberry_a_Page_100.pro
8305ff15d4b4e1a84439032cb1ec6714
bd0bb826a7ad7050e004bea4e32db9a9c17ea3c1
40335 F20101205_AAACRE stansberry_a_Page_044.QC.jpg
31077cd370609d66333bd7f909df6c12
4768f064a988634987cd6acd4106bc369a14e51e
121760 F20101205_AAAAKH stansberry_a_Page_064.jpg
419d50ca29944f6dbab1927f5d9ef8c4
4f101afe1d73b8bd02fccbd91e80e8b3b11a14b8
F20101205_AAABHA stansberry_a_Page_049.tif
0a7a7a7be3e3bb70fdcac473734105c0
5583e46e9254df8a13ac8e1b5c42c9dafbb5f2ad
632283 F20101205_AAAAXS stansberry_a_Page_116.jp2
235ddac7da8069fe5a15338df52251e5
6ede3f25f3f831584b73e510a023616786dc2513
53881 F20101205_AAABUL stansberry_a_Page_101.pro
897cd9266a325a01ad8b0ad5072de479
108840fe24e12a982b67a09d585d29d4a35a6baa
F20101205_AAACRF stansberry_a_Page_044thm.jpg
2d2f7eb5f968a13c0e0dc2c5523b9720
01518eb346a196b7373c8fc19a0c917c709f4f29
111375 F20101205_AAAAKI stansberry_a_Page_066.jpg
194f09300455b59ca340f4436bbc0708
f51050764b7942ba5ea6887f21c982f658381a49
F20101205_AAABHB stansberry_a_Page_050.tif
6d7bcc46838e66eb99001d4e6eb2d1b6
26d818e4946ee4fd95502f7f3b2176193a0e7eef
984828 F20101205_AAAAXT stansberry_a_Page_118.jp2
f80627b3530e09b1bc763999bc2da612
32258aead5c962141af69c37c551cdc4a0167180
58936 F20101205_AAABUM stansberry_a_Page_102.pro
bdeb77b146466252e93d030c88e96a01
b2144729fc01d0ec5b8ec9bbc08743894f7ab685
35449 F20101205_AAACRG stansberry_a_Page_045.QC.jpg
4719ac6a1013bb5cb26a065aaabaa25c
9cff4cac83335f00633569188a6cef28b0f98ab6
108803 F20101205_AAAAKJ stansberry_a_Page_067.jpg
fa0954fef63f6407bd392335500d924c
d3cba0b951b9e759c5faceeb0933acbf4d97d9ad
F20101205_AAABHC stansberry_a_Page_051.tif
894c2ef398d7c0eeb30155f1f5f370fc
3d87db25487ca60096b6e6c5b27a6d7a17e7eba0
1051861 F20101205_AAAAXU stansberry_a_Page_119.jp2
6b65ac21d2d17d6f713a7b4228e8c2aa
e582a3273a1eb670b8316c00ca421d037e34f96d
56359 F20101205_AAABUN stansberry_a_Page_103.pro
49a385e57438161a3e4e854ea23b46de
c792e92cc56400503fd3346a194fc3336dce1693
35136 F20101205_AAACRH stansberry_a_Page_046.QC.jpg
b882297e99d920d8918c5d14f8487159
9f8124434bc93c5adfb5c0082518156b3e1fce4f
110724 F20101205_AAAAKK stansberry_a_Page_068.jpg
07c36da949431309511d5a1539543015
b21eb74999cd2861a02ae94ca4e89b0d62d52d11
F20101205_AAABHD stansberry_a_Page_052.tif
d42f007c9cbde8e378c70ff753ca405b
d6845f3de1e811dce9cad7de07d66615a7643d24
889736 F20101205_AAAAXV stansberry_a_Page_120.jp2
0da51917d402f7726a4e760e26c540c3
04d6f3341d6cce5551b4381d3ea8f4cb857ad9ce
52878 F20101205_AAABUO stansberry_a_Page_104.pro
243707e07af461afbc08b5bdf31532e4
f1bd4be3aaf1bcbb4caf2ca17b159d901fc6f18c
8793 F20101205_AAACRI stansberry_a_Page_046thm.jpg
09f1ef2a2166759954a5b4d824714aa6
1733322c7c92627341f6a1fb62759d695bfbb99a
F20101205_AAABHE stansberry_a_Page_053.tif
a4de09948a8f3c6bcbe17d6da1f96e74
fee80412cbf92e4e64d2fcbba63f54e2e51e04ab
803311 F20101205_AAAAXW stansberry_a_Page_121.jp2
88e3088c230a632ae5973e6b84d5f3f6
84b56ac960ce279459de2099a06cfb96e4ddf29b
57970 F20101205_AAABUP stansberry_a_Page_106.pro
53248b24bc4cc3b4b9cb9ed76976fb6f
dc636602d911d1d37a117e2364bb976483de9b66
112350 F20101205_AAAAKL stansberry_a_Page_069.jpg
08ae297b3fca2f0aadd237303a54d704
4ada61a6993f8c56e68ee4dd0f44a0291dd332a6
34708 F20101205_AAACRJ stansberry_a_Page_047.QC.jpg
7adc5ebb8c48f39c202d45eb6e53e51a
2d841391f34553ac07a2bd13bdc9bfb62a119998
F20101205_AAABHF stansberry_a_Page_054.tif
6251b9e6bc05fa677b8ef243330c0b04
5e8adfee5cd4f8a321b8db02dd2bbec01deab7a4
569659 F20101205_AAAAXX stansberry_a_Page_122.jp2
655a3eb389f5ea3b6acca6ecde7b7993
cb21676f50579d34b44871033b37bc92e08c3284
56399 F20101205_AAABUQ stansberry_a_Page_107.pro
48ec50c0273cc52f165e7a90dd427019
2242dd3f8f2a07ccb62e5ca626c6e8bbafa91ad1
115231 F20101205_AAAAKM stansberry_a_Page_070.jpg
b4d047999c2c73faeefc95dfc20aab2b
b1f7d6d2d777ded06d10e8895d7b1946f4ea588e
8743 F20101205_AAACRK stansberry_a_Page_047thm.jpg
b0789c5f082f2026c1cc4bdaa8f0091e
278ad466f052470b205a9ec97e769940b1b78b5d
F20101205_AAABHG stansberry_a_Page_055.tif
186d51c00795674e0a8268514dd16562
d28d62699e9182cb364a1f76929d9c265307667f
724391 F20101205_AAAAXY stansberry_a_Page_123.jp2
cba566996eb971deedee01b447620d54
844223ecb37b5cfdf0fa9ea7399e7b1969720683
57219 F20101205_AAABUR stansberry_a_Page_108.pro
c89d827dfcdff6e3c8d19125851aa269
2e283cfbec9ce096498b7500ebb4b6ff7c929589
110302 F20101205_AAAAKN stansberry_a_Page_071.jpg
c065080d4aa848f191479962014d69c4
91e50999946081a65a63a44dffc7a062dc74a023
38370 F20101205_AAACRL stansberry_a_Page_048.QC.jpg
3e83cdf7224378500c10ce224a649017
50dd7e6dd0702fb1fdb0e98b759d5df715ee8b7d
F20101205_AAABHH stansberry_a_Page_058.tif
e757913fbc218bba3675176e39bebaeb
91ed7c73117fb5dd9813e8430a50844b02ec1c6b
1051960 F20101205_AAAAXZ stansberry_a_Page_124.jp2
a81e56623674f70f7a3f9869a5789aaa
2ef27fd34bed27dcebbda1e32ebedc8b4cf1a965
2112 F20101205_AAACEA stansberry_a_Page_045.txt
d6caf7920208b9f2d702dad6e87648c6
87ef26bb93cdf8d787539c86f5c2afe21af9fa41
55043 F20101205_AAABUS stansberry_a_Page_109.pro
a3352c78e88ff59bb943b380e2c97479
4d7ab55d6a6f0eb3c062a82c263182174fedb433
116504 F20101205_AAAAKO stansberry_a_Page_072.jpg
6379d237948c47f0179f26e0ee1a6b98
5edd792b597540308d3e2d01ab4264019af76a0a
9333 F20101205_AAACRM stansberry_a_Page_048thm.jpg
0d56386bbe572f648ff2d100c8e127e4
e3eb7fe58728ccca029bfcf117b8fb342e653908
F20101205_AAABHI stansberry_a_Page_059.tif
f1f8ed0c16e4c722ce159f13d576eac9
2d62a06aa5a4ce76c00ebd8e4881040e12f62fe5
2118 F20101205_AAACEB stansberry_a_Page_046.txt
da438bb8fc5ffd7dc1865dc6654f8acd
1a0dd26d9b4401e9641f923b74d62157c37c8381
56706 F20101205_AAABUT stansberry_a_Page_110.pro
41df3f365527d71d377e84de515d9d3b
1c875cd4f5eaa03e0cb06001e9351d9b1133cd1d
111843 F20101205_AAAAKP stansberry_a_Page_073.jpg
14b4d2e21ef6ea077ec180dbfb53e2ae
f19bf773e978985db1729b8c808f2acc61cd2255
33525 F20101205_AAACRN stansberry_a_Page_049.QC.jpg
2ec3804130f5e9ca3d0a48bcab2f73d9
83acc12eb51213fb841c9d7ec27f339480d8971a
F20101205_AAABHJ stansberry_a_Page_060.tif
9cf313ab7be9f648de9af18c98e0fe49
a9b2701a096c0e7101afff3c30b5636144aaee2c
F20101205_AAACEC stansberry_a_Page_047.txt
8b782180be63d48bd37efe0d776eb8dc
7293538975d3ed9c387218d2a11f3fd2bf478888
33839 F20101205_AAABUU stansberry_a_Page_111.pro
3ed573d6da464ff43d28252beb9d5780
09818eb6f8be54254405e6dabde1f971bd0f67c7
125728 F20101205_AAAAKQ stansberry_a_Page_074.jpg
85de4b0024896e225223240f59c6de4c
c9f982b893d281d0200e2b92fc7e0d15c831c9ab
8707 F20101205_AAACRO stansberry_a_Page_049thm.jpg
eb18bb5ada79ebc2a8eab5b37a36add4
de43cd1cb822cf0c28d5a0df17e1a241d7447204
F20101205_AAABHK stansberry_a_Page_061.tif
b8e5ceadf22365762563860c4beee542
8ed944201ce18f976341197b6598f87a107a90a9
2404 F20101205_AAACED stansberry_a_Page_048.txt
4714d00df9d9b19e064fd1e5c0295dc7
371fed978ee1e94e03ed8671f46d056284836a96
2822 F20101205_AAABUV stansberry_a_Page_112.pro
d13295ad339bee511fc47b4c893e914c
712ee3e8820496a28ed70f87c38aa91f0a69c62b
110048 F20101205_AAAAKR stansberry_a_Page_075.jpg
9e8fe3ec2dd35eb348f031cfcadfcddd
df9967f28f714c6afe8b5167f181ceef80180f2e
37257 F20101205_AAACRP stansberry_a_Page_050.QC.jpg
504a9d027f087bb932106c422bdbf5e9
36f207fae98888ec6c50fe51cf82d93b615da556
F20101205_AAABHL stansberry_a_Page_062.tif
1f26571b84cf82fd872b93e3368a7653
77df49790a96519e44142fae1096b384fe333ec9
2774 F20101205_AAACEE stansberry_a_Page_050.txt
508f7ba3e06ade8c22e813f448b5b3b9
29e1183ccb2826890883919ede77b309b2b726d7
4615 F20101205_AAABUW stansberry_a_Page_113.pro
465ac2f8f45d02074200e82be5faebc3
f1de605e57854c549f199212d3db4dcaab35185d
117544 F20101205_AAAAKS stansberry_a_Page_076.jpg
5f3e4e0df6fbad36a8a5ef83c0235c3b
48accc66a7783d79f5a4f743d15c33a5da296fb1
37224 F20101205_AAACRQ stansberry_a_Page_051.QC.jpg
88adb0c8d36cc425ddba2cf0da4953ba
21315f9714438bb787a71676a8027dde6f814289
F20101205_AAABHM stansberry_a_Page_063.tif
eb9c86bc8673c27657fc5c581d4f9e6d
26e199109a48f20104b2b706331255d6d2b0221b
2637 F20101205_AAACEF stansberry_a_Page_051.txt
52918cebd87ee0eb2256069604ed808f
438a7c88446de9f7955807d4e9cf3cd49a2e939f
5456 F20101205_AAABUX stansberry_a_Page_114.pro
2c5bffbf4e468f8cde04250492d552e2
c205ff5088329e522c73a594739b78e04f89efe5
112718 F20101205_AAAAKT stansberry_a_Page_078.jpg
a961c120aa17761d23077ad0b448c8a9
42ec35ddaa298edede92c2875d19811156be090b
37376 F20101205_AAACRR stansberry_a_Page_052.QC.jpg
9273d579d06ce3d4448598bee435b972
4092ec87a72661d01120700041b219ec9714e095
F20101205_AAABHN stansberry_a_Page_064.tif
8a2344703efb6b968547ab2b56b04727
e35b02bdd823553ab98a6259ef12b01b08c9e8a0
2975 F20101205_AAACEG stansberry_a_Page_052.txt
224645bb09b04b3a96e57924a3991ebd
20f8747de089dac2cdcbed9b2bff6fc9a4c19257
4063 F20101205_AAABUY stansberry_a_Page_115.pro
d2c73022a3e9010b80213064929a63b5
199b597be53916d870168a5e63d5e9f2347da4dc
8673 F20101205_AAADBA stansberry_a_Page_186thm.jpg
600f8a7654713d4865b11cbce1fba2c5
2b658877a03244ca302c5ddd3abfe05ddf37298b
8889 F20101205_AAACRS stansberry_a_Page_052thm.jpg
ba45b2cce5a6c8a7190e2e6f7ba65bca
f15542cae2a6b62bbe8efa139ebf49b326faa965
F20101205_AAABHO stansberry_a_Page_065.tif
4302741e334c36379a1801a5cdd3560b
fe1cd71683119b0011e768619e39c3143277ce5a
2310 F20101205_AAACEH stansberry_a_Page_054.txt
1883f03871a24a04c4a4b5cc5200e3f5
5fa666ac10f490f4ecbe88d4331ebcf37ce12e77
22556 F20101205_AAABUZ stansberry_a_Page_116.pro
ec874faf2f6a47f25aa4efe158a9a07b
785a7f7f30b5060c41572a2f511a4245c177c140
113590 F20101205_AAAAKU stansberry_a_Page_079.jpg
fd6a77bd086c80e998942c373255de69
270bdc6cff6b34239c7a056d924224147bcc237c
38607 F20101205_AAADBB stansberry_a_Page_187.QC.jpg
8f953468207ac788e0b7152f7339470d
1dfdb7ec658427ba8315b951f9a9e49d94f208b3
38128 F20101205_AAACRT stansberry_a_Page_053.QC.jpg
4bfb78124647d38b394f8dec25fc0bf5
92e517dd3da14d7850e5400e65d45f42f9d74c1f
F20101205_AAABHP stansberry_a_Page_066.tif
1fa83c649e55d85461f7cf8e8128ffe3
d96f9ebef6d0b2c99a4324872ebf51899551e9b8
1964 F20101205_AAACEI stansberry_a_Page_058.txt
a547bdb82b2ca58541a9dcd56fafcfd6
316c28f5438456648d69b994de38841f09b4a062
122627 F20101205_AAAAKV stansberry_a_Page_080.jpg
71f220f5c3cc930bf5a266ef08c0ced1
8f94df861e5da71cc1253caa9525df5fd0215e57
F20101205_AAADBC stansberry_a_Page_187thm.jpg
cacc01ea3193bb8cc4fb8b63ab8c7a46
872d1d09592f3814ed8cf95f83786accc69f04bb
9402 F20101205_AAACRU stansberry_a_Page_053thm.jpg
73f131b41601fc6bf216b331c34232d6
8f0ed49e1af711bc69eadf160b2a50ce7da56d00
2120 F20101205_AAACEJ stansberry_a_Page_059.txt
99803074e3846c94362484ffe26dbe7e
ec1955bc70db4cdfbfcdcfd58a15363b1c606f36
113087 F20101205_AAAAKW stansberry_a_Page_081.jpg
d7c851dcca5bff99107e62434a23f865
035b337df502cccef5a0644dd039a68adeb33907
36576 F20101205_AAADBD stansberry_a_Page_188.QC.jpg
9e2aff56faa03bec22191f60fc9ba485
e7dab3d311317f648a8786ba08de130b12c4cd82
35972 F20101205_AAACRV stansberry_a_Page_054.QC.jpg
004dcc8ba650e60431fab45b8713f944
ebf6950177f9e4e10cb48b6af563c50d3d2b6235
F20101205_AAABHQ stansberry_a_Page_067.tif
2fb530114757e8572b2c71ffaeb722d0
a96dcbbfe179a21a4cfbdcd08e6f283a05cc48f5
2642 F20101205_AAACEK stansberry_a_Page_060.txt
a22f92fbd821de59e79ee92e49884ee9
424d6b56aa64059ad15fef8920fc90699cfe13a1
108483 F20101205_AAAAKX stansberry_a_Page_082.jpg
2918c9b3538897491bf146ebc2ba84ea
84dffa61b7b814f54d220e9e64a50b3d0790f866
9188 F20101205_AAADBE stansberry_a_Page_188thm.jpg
22e79c90cc0791e28d1d341e946a2e36
22e9ff9d6a66c4ac9c525c98d82c2bb8158213ee
8804 F20101205_AAACRW stansberry_a_Page_054thm.jpg
6e74d7f42bd5c3433b8b19d66a40d3f6
d0cd62c910dd1e9480dea4fbf6ef10ead5a89ab8
F20101205_AAABHR stansberry_a_Page_068.tif
eb31ef835e3a4e7e8d94cc46e7a9a657
dfbfb0602ae62c1ba2a843c7e5873067726db17e
2052 F20101205_AAACEL stansberry_a_Page_061.txt
3d54947b43649b7e4f95856cdfc189d2
54a7e919351422b0fc82c331122b89ae5c9316ba
126791 F20101205_AAAAKY stansberry_a_Page_083.jpg
5f63b79def2a521816377a4177b86d5d
c8e802590a21bb8f6cede674855b75e220f898dd
32917 F20101205_AAADBF stansberry_a_Page_190.QC.jpg
8020d75bd0b5140ce73e183ec7f505c2
0cb9708e8de59859c30e44810e326122bbfecd9c
35769 F20101205_AAACRX stansberry_a_Page_055.QC.jpg
9397ad7ee654e326ddd03a8794317f8a
d4a8ee99f4b699c7d2f0d8cd30fd86059b76ab6a
F20101205_AAABHS stansberry_a_Page_069.tif
e5e18835d618b1951e3b151735dca430
b00f3acab8537f3aafdd579d07329dde4686f8d1
122268 F20101205_AAAAKZ stansberry_a_Page_084.jpg
2bcdb3fad211dd2f3a294576fce8d17a
91df9a829445ef67143579e5db6e04db5c4d8f23
8202 F20101205_AAADBG stansberry_a_Page_190thm.jpg
9520833efe6fdf3694082fa2bbec50d3
ab91d740eb29eee3982de035b3b215f551c1857b
8627 F20101205_AAACRY stansberry_a_Page_055thm.jpg
5130891d9122433be123a0a624574d90
e892bd2d994fa80b70b2c644a0c25727ebb10c80
F20101205_AAABHT stansberry_a_Page_070.tif
3c1509e421b642f7f686298ed90f8726
df6aebe7449a3453b0a8624938e96874d06dd4d3
2270 F20101205_AAACEM stansberry_a_Page_062.txt
d4a7bd7dc14de1c5a23d55b89c08f819
21c633a7f42ed7a0ee9e24344e9db8cdb88d60f7
31117 F20101205_AAADBH stansberry_a_Page_191.QC.jpg
748912b5d4ee9f8afffdc484c1ad6af8
075c7f88bffff587ac0c2118a01430a5c51f04d7
F20101205_AAABHU stansberry_a_Page_072.tif
3838f9cadb71cecb35f2cda8262ed704
3292ceae1a6751d2176bfc1161569a7e574bfbcd
2322 F20101205_AAACEN stansberry_a_Page_063.txt
c9e31eab0684d1fe6edb495f4a3b10c5
2c710c6c4c37112ac77d2853c6926876d7ce465f
8453 F20101205_AAACRZ stansberry_a_Page_056thm.jpg
302649489178d280a444165d8db05733
0b89ca6a1ad278120a8090fb012b482c48aaf674
F20101205_AAABHV stansberry_a_Page_073.tif
cb089a4576b8e98e856e7000a8cc0f2f
c9a30f474876e3c6f81cee62dd5bfabd90353a5b
2394 F20101205_AAACEO stansberry_a_Page_064.txt
de291c7a7110efbfa88c8227f08596b8
1a32b02c587f7fdcff1a647d5fc7ebd9bb4003ad
7774 F20101205_AAADBI stansberry_a_Page_191thm.jpg
9a39918fe4953af992da07986c937031
e10a0154b138aa3c4c841041a68e2153613ceab8
F20101205_AAABHW stansberry_a_Page_075.tif
0b33ad0a42fa91ca2ba2b13bfc5468eb
0daeb8f5206546164ddf2d28ab24c3e22c837bc2
2223 F20101205_AAACEP stansberry_a_Page_065.txt
d3bf7f112a5b8ec7e0b0342e5eb5dc25
751ca15da586914671ea97e88792054c7aeb0431
F20101205_AAADBJ stansberry_a_Page_192.QC.jpg
ea25060c289dae6e3d0636f943466d20
1e6c098326b6fd8080b612eac4ae6f378b20c82d
F20101205_AAABHX stansberry_a_Page_076.tif
88d8c9589bac2a7127e2f0eaa9d9df13
9b2de30b4bd19de384f899ce82b49bf40524874c
F20101205_AAACEQ stansberry_a_Page_066.txt
eb722cdb0a93f77e9b295b6faf3d272d
35282c7c7399dc24f1644ff2fef68bb734c9330a
8428 F20101205_AAADBK stansberry_a_Page_192thm.jpg
59279d321fc7cec528fdf35bb6edd2fd
09375d50492688fd033ac0d7e45d37ff9bcf7bd6
F20101205_AAABHY stansberry_a_Page_077.tif
9ac40bc51bd69de3fcbee24ce9a3a392
3f5fe6c909a3957a7286aa6fa4e6abf157f67cee
F20101205_AAACER stansberry_a_Page_067.txt
573c6cab585569edcf544484848adc8e
e7ffcbade76478973bd43144a9db7390ceb4d4da
37023 F20101205_AAADBL stansberry_a_Page_193.QC.jpg
cfee63d22b3a35fbd50e5d5f11eae927
5ac815de3abe096c3e908f51809e9b334d26daa8
F20101205_AAABHZ stansberry_a_Page_078.tif
422f145c993190c178fc294d6cd86540
7745ed28d99255fcccd61d05fd7f8e31c9096a69
2194 F20101205_AAACES stansberry_a_Page_068.txt
250d7d3ec197d2dbb9040db19f3298db
bd7e301bca9d695017fc06c5194915b9632c153d
9080 F20101205_AAADBM stansberry_a_Page_193thm.jpg
a7331c349ad4a322bf10d40745c40986
cbe7ab1001a3202f836bff5acbd6a6e29c733446
2200 F20101205_AAACET stansberry_a_Page_069.txt
9ed38ca2a78fb6efa5fd6f8705d69ec9
b91aa965e77a60885b83edccce895e2dae8620ea
36667 F20101205_AAADBN stansberry_a_Page_194.QC.jpg
147cc8aa1ffae72a3f5d5d96d9cd1e87
3c4f0c4d35138f47f9b476d547005e1339fedfea
2269 F20101205_AAACEU stansberry_a_Page_070.txt
bd9ac4e5a210d2eb974e83d2d772abee
7db6805ffca3212c2b345b5914c8a4670b521444
100276 F20101205_AAAAQA stansberry_a_Page_230.jpg
6b5c0e9f676ba9b16eb490a5c2f3557f
36c3fa0545e588b2d13ca5b0ae42ca7a256efb8f
33599 F20101205_AAADBO stansberry_a_Page_195.QC.jpg
d4a17d0358df24b500c06f8cc9d0a170
70d0072271e1946f5d0a434f60d4b3b436e1edae
F20101205_AAACEV stansberry_a_Page_071.txt
6bb01b695a68b6acaf49c30781a5b0ed
1afe39f63fa4498fa7671f10fdf8c72c8652eadb
101627 F20101205_AAAAQB stansberry_a_Page_232.jpg
a1e96101c4d19f131478c93b1976a018
d7c5b9315644aa5450b6d420b7f1ba69b1290be5
8426 F20101205_AAADBP stansberry_a_Page_195thm.jpg
9f975f80da0468cbd0314f41b2e970ec
e2682bc8d845df045166b5d5c10cc56aa01649d1
F20101205_AAACEW stansberry_a_Page_072.txt
5348af15331fb94d694377b289f7f049
785d15c972b9f391663aa5c84ec27525b4133cd8
52783 F20101205_AAAAQC stansberry_a_Page_233.jpg
37bf11c1963354131233ef8cf87f0132
b9f058faef114adc30ade85d8148d1608c037749
35797 F20101205_AAADBQ stansberry_a_Page_196.QC.jpg
082d2ad395f90a76920eb28125c1016e
9256693cb1e460d0ee2051f3c10f30f7130fa038
15144 F20101205_AAACXA stansberry_a_Page_128.QC.jpg
b1c1cb52658f623f5f6015fb09e2f01a
17c7d03cce262a3daad291ffaf91fd47c171371e
F20101205_AAACEX stansberry_a_Page_073.txt
070b8a712ba0a9e6d582a20695d8b156
8c4de7667e203e3fac70e1db12bccabb8c821050
121543 F20101205_AAAAQD stansberry_a_Page_234.jpg
e73430fdf09231f21d4435cb2f3443a0
0d6e75da9a7dd1120abd474fe8bd708a89ac4d56
F20101205_AAADBR stansberry_a_Page_196thm.jpg
35ad7ba521b187236bea52cd0bed83ea
d80583b345b26a961e4ecab2877a2591a89e7d47
4211 F20101205_AAACXB stansberry_a_Page_128thm.jpg
b47e23a3a773aeed8350ba3523b24c81
4ab8f96fa193877468f3da9f68d44877806777c4
2519 F20101205_AAACEY stansberry_a_Page_074.txt
cb0f3198f271d7ffef33f57b178f55a1
7b68544e6cabad14d61589148f73dced3385d389
70238 F20101205_AAAAQE stansberry_a_Page_235.jpg
cf6e13b18df6677d48f70737d428ed6c
142c3e8cb0ceb01d3fad7fa937b937810c208530
34140 F20101205_AAADBS stansberry_a_Page_197.QC.jpg
5227645c1bfb6c081c49d83df8980bcc
e02891bb5373f5f5c0ee39e275f19d87c824fa77
11736 F20101205_AAACXC stansberry_a_Page_129.QC.jpg
ff9a24c81042a246e4dc06503355e2ef
3207941c39a135ceee976f960e04bce6eb2f410c
2149 F20101205_AAACEZ stansberry_a_Page_075.txt
2bf444a43676e42852aff87a185a93bf
6ebbb5f35b60f1e94b1dda9283d94c66f015fbe5
102365 F20101205_AAAAQF stansberry_a_Page_236.jpg
74ed73e167c0b97a1849beefb43e5c7e
2aad6810dcb8dc35e68bed290e2925bcaaccad9a
8373 F20101205_AAADBT stansberry_a_Page_197thm.jpg
defbf06690ab712c0c11b8b69cb276dd
9399869a06f97e2a3b078bb278dc27d482270af9
3526 F20101205_AAACXD stansberry_a_Page_129thm.jpg
27d7f37a8e94dd928cc157af2d499220
a00e16a39c9fdf8b200b514b6d46ce8b5d9057c9
96771 F20101205_AAAAQG stansberry_a_Page_237.jpg
3fb67eab03a2a05875c437d008819355
23ca556902e894fc6b2be55ff8cd334762efb064
37133 F20101205_AAADBU stansberry_a_Page_198.QC.jpg
b7340beb61aaea41aa9d95fd5ab51ca1
82f262a8eb63493a3a22afcfc4e08fc20e36a0a0
11918 F20101205_AAACXE stansberry_a_Page_130.QC.jpg
7e6335b25ca228ae4c5619f16fa53a38
37183b8ecbd00451d49746a5636790cc7e6b7910
F20101205_AAABNA stansberry_a_Page_222.tif
07debbb20686d36683881e66d8bef5be
9769a7434a65c222d7d30d903f658fc23e608f66
105292 F20101205_AAAAQH stansberry_a_Page_238.jpg
c860282928a601236ed3c1afff0163e7
1ff522f4d74562af71df73cb5005a4dcb8082df3
14922 F20101205_AAADBV stansberry_a_Page_199.QC.jpg
e4681063e570d4966b98083dd88a7eda
dd9f99e56aa5444e7a02cefcda060b36f7cc6e33
3380 F20101205_AAACXF stansberry_a_Page_130thm.jpg
006c572d4dac0f9333ffc45be9fe2885
c2a76d49c2f68c0fa15e222c9c8e4a45d66b4444
F20101205_AAABNB stansberry_a_Page_223.tif
59d1d2b6a0e14a2db11d4fa56a0f226e
3b82423046ccb8d36370c555e72df1ec2527a20b
106385 F20101205_AAAAQI stansberry_a_Page_239.jpg
f19e1bce02cff7345771a2973f933e2c
540cf1f73823696128e26ffffa365fe6a8a64633
3807 F20101205_AAADBW stansberry_a_Page_199thm.jpg
40779dc6002ecac522676b7b23312400
6b25c2f3725f2f5a8d2ec92f4db225341fd27c9a
13938 F20101205_AAACXG stansberry_a_Page_131.QC.jpg
ad79ea1e3e23f6e628cbe08672f5556f
9c3bda44b5539664720857ab9c308293d362b2fa
F20101205_AAABNC stansberry_a_Page_224.tif
45971d86039b8dc233a37942bce18d03
f54fd1a610b77af106c24f5c8290b3f5eea77b58
112644 F20101205_AAAAQJ stansberry_a_Page_240.jpg
b0b1a892be0e7b248edf9eb801b7fcaf
df5be160e9f4cf6c0af86785eaea1874f5df496c
26460 F20101205_AAADBX stansberry_a_Page_200.QC.jpg
b48e5b213ee131f7ee833a060682197b
a39dd30e0d7042269933d43f28a4aad8533849c8
4087 F20101205_AAACXH stansberry_a_Page_131thm.jpg
ef8e8cf19af397463d65c29563d89fab
2b90b333e91660002d2c12825c8c809925cbbfe2
F20101205_AAABND stansberry_a_Page_225.tif
776a842b6f079a91387a55f70645846c
0a0d96f9b15f01f7a7b587a88176485cedc28bb0
F20101205_AAAAQK stansberry_a_Page_242.jpg
8593ff48580caaed848102d969e68e26
b44d2ea52085ebacb8800f7b56ddb1c8a9342dbb
6513 F20101205_AAADBY stansberry_a_Page_201thm.jpg
10894ac503ec2783920b257fa48254ac
d76ab29d10f03bd39c33bc7588d4a46971d18f77
16995 F20101205_AAACXI stansberry_a_Page_132.QC.jpg
2b2bad62b9d8860521814f20360b4006
3cbd538978107f3d6a146e0f14202ef9b0f81b5a
F20101205_AAABNE stansberry_a_Page_226.tif
37dcc39934f13563ee4130d7c6bb6f72
97e76a9ad90b08765ccecfb848b3bf7d194c906b
113720 F20101205_AAAADA stansberry_a_Page_174.jpg
69fe9321feba1d0cda5c0300e7c134af
3b4522ed32d38d751bd75fb6125b88f48e7741be
111069 F20101205_AAAAQL stansberry_a_Page_243.jpg
1d18cc2871c16c09e1b3b72230959943
49eb6e96b264c7b10d1d28ecfb5423154f4c3a32
35125 F20101205_AAADBZ stansberry_a_Page_202.QC.jpg
aeafa6ac1b95aec4cab9c477092c4026
ad0361b69dab1080e3d6792253a7e79f32892dc4
4647 F20101205_AAACXJ stansberry_a_Page_132thm.jpg
768d6eba9b4cb51ea974c2a4536fcb67
02a449d617e130e06812610bdf0d2cbf5971dcf0
F20101205_AAABNF stansberry_a_Page_227.tif
75c46d3490937bc9f665ea24e1c1588f
b03f8818ea80ee7ecb06873d16f2461dda8acde2
111731 F20101205_AAAADB stansberry_a_Page_029.jpg
cc329407c213e5726f4eaccd78d0bab9
47882fe302c64a248659011b68dde9b8b49d71b8
138631 F20101205_AAAAQM stansberry_a_Page_244.jpg
e6b729fbd16cdab173b36f8be9485090
90ae1bc87a563486601fba32a97229716425bf82
18988 F20101205_AAACXK stansberry_a_Page_133.QC.jpg
244f5883d443cca82e08dcb5023491d7
26f9d0ab547ece1aef9b4a85dbf8bd36ce5bfd09
F20101205_AAABNG stansberry_a_Page_228.tif
7c1a100cd8fcc168e20e387ebaae4731
3a51dfeb58e5888a87b79a73f1eb439514b879ae
85145 F20101205_AAAADC stansberry_a_Page_297.pro
2011f64b44ed1dee1833754baed34427
7a8e715c3466f08c985e4de00f6ea06f6f8d5e8a
141617 F20101205_AAAAQN stansberry_a_Page_245.jpg
43d2630354aa712342fc1c6312eeab27
a21c70753de3cc0ba2b4f1f6f1bc617015dd7845
5022 F20101205_AAACXL stansberry_a_Page_133thm.jpg
aa9db65decee830d0ec227c2e52560e7
cf6514ea72ad1185c788700576bec2458eee2e41
F20101205_AAABNH stansberry_a_Page_229.tif
b51d579cec4eebe1a3c078f443560eee
a03a4d5301e692fe775b3e2dac5c23ed77720a1d
2174 F20101205_AAACKA stansberry_a_Page_220.txt
341b8cb969755f80e4b5397965c010d5
2471c319af0a5599faf19a88dd2dacaeded2dcee
2011 F20101205_AAAADD stansberry_a_Page_056.txt
c8010452b7c4a9a2f2c97f6849f73dd0
79dc6abb73cb0b265db6fd9ae5db7494fd4cc32f
154219 F20101205_AAAAQO stansberry_a_Page_247.jpg
25c269fcf7a49a33fbbbbc0feee45710
dc2078b07e4b02f1465548f749d995bcadedacf8
23970 F20101205_AAACXM stansberry_a_Page_134.QC.jpg
0c27cc384d7a23205f514945c238cb14
822f2a0ce4615e442e0d0944c66f1b3cd43e40ff
F20101205_AAABNI stansberry_a_Page_230.tif
dede78b8143218bb572b47d584baf597
20457192ad07e63cea7336a058db18c1900d3c2d
2029 F20101205_AAACKB stansberry_a_Page_221.txt
04b0a57370e2fcfd7f88ad1ac3a1b954
8bfcd9a4c4514298e0ab7f4f5b3483475ffc21e6
6842 F20101205_AAAADE stansberry_a_Page_200thm.jpg
496bf69dd8a97f998ffe3d7a9d64d2c6
146645606153232395195d265a250849eeee1b21
146295 F20101205_AAAAQP stansberry_a_Page_248.jpg
c8975c2e990ceb9bbd0ebf33a2385eff
389ef6cb6ed25faf5e0bef1749c037a583745210
6966 F20101205_AAACXN stansberry_a_Page_134thm.jpg
5738ea521c28f376bdd514f93b0320fd
b2c2e45c2d504dae53a4f3339cf44530cd5fd3cf
F20101205_AAABNJ stansberry_a_Page_231.tif
587b78756214179e92986e6a4d591244
ba546d11cd546529bcef56965e8e9d85c62f2789
2135 F20101205_AAACKC stansberry_a_Page_222.txt
8b79807ed1f096ee9165bc93bea5d107
661010c80e6b4b0b6b98a08a227645a0d4052a57
33486 F20101205_AAAADF stansberry_a_Page_161.QC.jpg
c5f4f2d2710459b3565e1a16017e8188
521dbd70b4e2750531486298dc21f3af50f1ac62
78892 F20101205_AAAAQQ stansberry_a_Page_250.jpg
9b0edd3581aa320cd6da0698650277d2
cfbcb162312194c97eb6eeece67c93625678fe3a
23911 F20101205_AAACXO stansberry_a_Page_135.QC.jpg
e38969296ec71d16d0465ff93010342b
d77bff3c9a13e48586cb5be0d7a80da21e2195de
F20101205_AAABNK stansberry_a_Page_232.tif
1e1247cab0b011c4d6ef7c76f86bcbcd
68aa80a011aa1599baa5871ec2bea5b183f33c64
F20101205_AAACKD stansberry_a_Page_223.txt
fadac9f121d1387e0687d2b5b5ca8f4d
c0358ded04702638cfaa406e86a2c53f73f70500
F20101205_AAAADG stansberry_a_Page_188.tif
93572e8bb82e00da2031b0efa910bc59
0cfc536c876e0be56bbb28d60f4dc7384e8a9bcf
160366 F20101205_AAAAQR stansberry_a_Page_251.jpg
1b6fdedaf5a703eb34e99c92d91a04bd
eee9cbe909beacdd231f5bd402a49966fec224ce
6680 F20101205_AAACXP stansberry_a_Page_135thm.jpg
1e3a198fe2fd55977c2df82c9c7a9d1e
e8e3ce7a644cbb0fff0693ea5bb667e7a614ac03
F20101205_AAABNL stansberry_a_Page_233.tif
2eceea6ee2d70f15de84a9c72999f380
9f6fb1c071da84f5a65b73ccad73697d41184afb
2126 F20101205_AAACKE stansberry_a_Page_224.txt
4027223488df93687cfa4e91aef4c8f4
d8bf8ba4d853eabe5fce7a26c8a5543b618a4e50
117124 F20101205_AAAADH stansberry_a_Page_213.jpg
04afa2477f70923882a7ee88ebc158e0
761690947ebd2574c6c1482793c7ffd80818fb00
119839 F20101205_AAABAA stansberry_a_Page_180.jp2
730cf42c1640086232da2ec9d8ce26a2
e195b0fa32295d5177d27ec5d06dcc881208b5ee
73649 F20101205_AAAAQS stansberry_a_Page_252.jpg
6933ecb44919002538b6d75d98d92f74
bfcf6c9f4e50da42529c11a432a6478ebbb1135f
16686 F20101205_AAACXQ stansberry_a_Page_136.QC.jpg
366683e9ba3097d1859a3b153d973b4f
f8dfac6e41bb4acc78ebf16427da4c8ef656176f
F20101205_AAABNM stansberry_a_Page_234.tif
8e619c40ae8cf1a808ff12181e8e5364
c2a2a44a577e2d61e2862aef60e85ff2368d589c
2022 F20101205_AAACKF stansberry_a_Page_225.txt
00810780e2dedaea8bede9b33d48ce0c
4624bf727e63f2fcc67f1b945d1637cb2239db97
105533 F20101205_AAAADI stansberry_a_Page_231.jpg
794668899c369e0253923b6468ead7bb
776085d5d2b5b0010fcf39afcc11ec1fc4f5153f
118296 F20101205_AAABAB stansberry_a_Page_181.jp2
4e0eb74729247766e8dbbf7cab002bd4
6303d140e7009437cc99024c1c5acbd08ff07445
91020 F20101205_AAAAQT stansberry_a_Page_253.jpg
b175af42b97f32c14cf94feb26d5b12a
5349e7de15b9a4313d19124a3c6dad595c13dcbd
4470 F20101205_AAACXR stansberry_a_Page_136thm.jpg
ca6ee11b5fe535c0f6634777b4ea6308
186a79a44c43f080c96044cfa6747154e4cac785
2156 F20101205_AAACKG stansberry_a_Page_226.txt
7be5aec256f160f9b9b4dc844fc51a43
e7d6fc6081f29081595ecacd1e796081403a07b0
F20101205_AAAADJ stansberry_a_Page_291.jp2
c62908a432e710cdd908aff28fdc4cdd
15cf3fc0002e6bd7c7405816b86d92615c14805b
117511 F20101205_AAABAC stansberry_a_Page_182.jp2
2512375ca7081407b78b8829d3de9af0
711cc15197f8f85da60a2a35f7df08ad16246591
79112 F20101205_AAAAQU stansberry_a_Page_254.jpg
06089d3996c5469f5add4f6aa8314ff9
bc4acff56023b8d884c14fc278d53dd1e297bfe1
F20101205_AAABNN stansberry_a_Page_235.tif
dec226634d935d1cfefc43c1b11a7eb2
835d8b1ef160dcadd259bdcb42d8487eb65c6141
F20101205_AAADHA stansberry_a_Page_274thm.jpg
4741b4bd521e1bdea2767cc41bb4b365
4bbbf450dd26bf59531e14c0b3fba8f4670197b7
16567 F20101205_AAACXS stansberry_a_Page_137.QC.jpg
a99b2300c5a19f66ec8c11df7f99c5af
f7c6ee48afdbd0f2c929ecdeb908fbce5a0090b4
F20101205_AAACKH stansberry_a_Page_227.txt
d4735967921ab45beb36041075ff55c8
d8db42d76d96776db0d3470476f6ce76428fef8c
46485 F20101205_AAAADK stansberry_a_Page_125.jpg
bbd007a708f25fec49444301af512975
9336137787d06ce0156253b422b9e469605dd15b
107003 F20101205_AAABAD stansberry_a_Page_184.jp2
56de88a5ce825fd454ed3462590876f0
0c4975f8f2c441f02267a0b8f5898dffc6f25688
64500 F20101205_AAAAQV stansberry_a_Page_255.jpg
77b1bed955868b66153b6d1d5dc40148
ec48367d434b77dba85560a1b7b3070cce30bfd7
F20101205_AAABNO stansberry_a_Page_236.tif
e57c711eb6c996bcc37e0e1b787a1b5f
d4892b4488d5a217fb7686f8f3fd4ccf03916f2c
30398 F20101205_AAADHB stansberry_a_Page_275.QC.jpg
a0d1653dd3ec00978495cff6f5efd4b1
726b5fc74a6c0cf2e09d5d76109a71e46f5c2298
17244 F20101205_AAACXT stansberry_a_Page_138.QC.jpg
e6ace542ac16e24cd974d5cad1c65df2
962ce76591efa0f9fe1869fc73cf67363328384b
2114 F20101205_AAACKI stansberry_a_Page_229.txt
c4c2af16740b98a1a7d568ba50c52f1e
a04e6a49432da685879ff744d343aeafd27110e1
30052 F20101205_AAAADL stansberry_a_Page_302.QC.jpg
707682e190499b8150881869cc6172fe
39f2880807e04e421c8df192b7790212a316f661
105274 F20101205_AAABAE stansberry_a_Page_185.jp2
51662e9151f2542d70e5da698c707087
752d1c97e36773d291d700e5da0eedffe9365f1c
36064 F20101205_AAAAQW stansberry_a_Page_256.jpg
8fba84f5cd981e57b8786d9469cf09e4
9c6dd3fc539ef9d93a0db0238f0009e9588e7928
F20101205_AAABNP stansberry_a_Page_237.tif
83c8afde1a9b3c740dab105a1329d168
9fe3becc38e38e4d1a20e478125cb8aa24e992ac
7916 F20101205_AAADHC stansberry_a_Page_275thm.jpg
b930cf0a84856cbfbf76e8fc66b1855f
94a5405270b0d6a4817f27e0dd0ef9a206605013
4048 F20101205_AAACXU stansberry_a_Page_138thm.jpg
5a77585f2ba903d0b3adfd48beb49a35
dc21cf0786c7235fc5e78a88da237425b94fbd62
F20101205_AAACKJ stansberry_a_Page_230.txt
9499b2de8fb61bddafeedb9d7ad864c3
c8288d43bc3b70dc491a02ae862a9fdf8f1e57cf
54582 F20101205_AAAADM stansberry_a_Page_162.pro
66ec1596c9e99f505ce5ab9710985e71
e23069055395b6235d5dface5efa4c1f14f75fd6
115970 F20101205_AAABAF stansberry_a_Page_186.jp2
8199da6f5916fc320c641ff7c76ed2db
5c5d43a6f4ff98fa0883db5f14052295d0d832cf
36112 F20101205_AAAAQX stansberry_a_Page_257.jpg
791d99d1d1d1a888da6c7e1a7518b20d
e2a175476def9ea9e3e08be949a45418b8112670
F20101205_AAABNQ stansberry_a_Page_239.tif
fb4c84b4f529b7d22bc4863e4f492b6c
3c74081087cf5da0c63002236f51bd0393a601f6
31232 F20101205_AAADHD stansberry_a_Page_276.QC.jpg
ed61622bc538685b87e79619a57f9f59
21906e8be251f274fca53933b1f489aa23e88ce4
13208 F20101205_AAACXV stansberry_a_Page_139.QC.jpg
d6b3d1942efda3504023df0eab2ccf1f
33ed87855ae57ad4e98c80b5eb66c78633176ce3
2137 F20101205_AAACKK stansberry_a_Page_232.txt
38a76664cdb8e2f795f0cc0cbb9e57bd
35ad581a36db8dfcdbdbf1d655039636531a35fb
133709 F20101205_AAABAG stansberry_a_Page_187.jp2
d64bd287beebfc4ad3437870b87db782
0af89cf5de89ae6ad63db65ee9501c7fc4063670
37124 F20101205_AAAAQY stansberry_a_Page_258.jpg
d5765b35b13ff7a7a921dbc2ddba6617
f23ca512aad7a10f848a253ad38456886e5fc10d
F20101205_AAABNR stansberry_a_Page_240.tif
0b7e8078855953da332ee1076a0d6566
52a64c71167df18d1e7203807de4d9dcb6da22d3
7651 F20101205_AAADHE stansberry_a_Page_276thm.jpg
d889566e26e4e428c57f4d82b580824a
1d73eb3c4f5a91587bbf1f9f436b7598c9b9a9cd
3524 F20101205_AAACXW stansberry_a_Page_139thm.jpg
5301cb28b9175bb40726dc521776eb66
899689ed5e26ff13a6144180783fd2c3a8e6a917
1018 F20101205_AAACKL stansberry_a_Page_233.txt
8594545e4327e9a5da706f0bf5f69b4a
f4a0b6cf6164090fbd53313097c056d2268b76ec
36447 F20101205_AAAADN stansberry_a_Page_234.QC.jpg
4d9184515f3f59077241699d8e7babc3
8c8ccb187f62cdd4b19e4562bb7750b7ed22072d
118733 F20101205_AAABAH stansberry_a_Page_188.jp2
ead042a5931730dc0cf49182df597bc0
86f773e8e37d11e36ae69c4ad818325b724a49c7
96018 F20101205_AAAAQZ stansberry_a_Page_259.jpg
50f9cb5676e6e4cf71c46f9125cc866a
45ea8a95eb60a0089c4e79bd8d8dd4826c638643
F20101205_AAABNS stansberry_a_Page_241.tif
27774b90369af36f783c95c3e6b8075d
fe3bdd015c2ba5cd8536b9613415a2532679b40e



PAGE 1

1 NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS By AMY J. STANSBERRY A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ARCHITECTURAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

2 Copyright 2006 by Amy J. Stansberry

PAGE 3

3 To my husband, Mills, for all his support and encouragement

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my chair, Professor Peter Prugh, co chair, Professor Emeritus Herschel Shepard, and member, Professor Roy Eugene Graham for their advice and guidance. I thank Jodi Rubin, the Historic Preservation Officer for the City of Orlando for her mentoring and patience. I thank Amy E. Alvarez, Nantucket Hi storic District Commission Sta ff, for her assistance with information for the case studies I thank my parents, Roy a nd Judy Johnson, for their love, support, and all they continue to do for me each and every day.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .........8 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................14 Objective to Accomplish........................................................................................................14 Path of Exploration............................................................................................................ .....14 Importance of Investigation....................................................................................................16 Limitations and Parameters of the Investigation....................................................................17 2 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES..............................................................19 Definition..................................................................................................................... ...........19 Consequences of Listing..................................................................................................19 National Register Criteria................................................................................................21 Listing a Resource on the National Register...................................................................22 National Historic Landmark Districts.....................................................................................24 Local Historic Districts....................................................................................................... ....27 Historic District Ordinances...................................................................................................29 3 LANDMARK DISTRICT......................................................................................................35 Case Studies: Old Hi storic District.........................................................................................35 10 Vestal Street............................................................................................................... .35 125 Main Street...............................................................................................................39 18 Mill Street................................................................................................................. ..49 3 Coffin Street................................................................................................................ .55 20 Milk Street................................................................................................................. .57 Analysis of the Case Studies: Conse quences of not Including Non-contributing Properties in the Old Historic District.................................................................................62 Consequence of Re-use...................................................................................................62 Consequence of Non-prevalence.....................................................................................64 Consequence of Overlooked Significance.......................................................................70 Consequence of Inconsistent Management.....................................................................72 Proposed Criteria for Including Non-contribu ting Properties in a Landmark District...........83 Revise the Building Classifications.................................................................................83 Qualifications for Historic District Commission Members.............................................86 Restrict and Focus the Purvie w of the Existing Commission.........................................87 Establish an Overlay Ordinance and Include Secretary of Interiors Standards.............88

PAGE 6

6 Create Standards for Alterations, Additions and New Construction...............................88 Establish Standards for Demolition.................................................................................95 Establish Standards for Relocation..................................................................................99 Establish a Universal Purpose.......................................................................................102 Establish Major and Minor Review Processes..............................................................103 Improvements to the Design Advisory Council............................................................104 Required Considerations for Appeals............................................................................105 Summary: Case Studies and Related Issues.........................................................................105 Application and Consequences of Proposed Criteria...........................................................110 4 LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT...........................................................................................152 Case Study: Lake Eola He ights Historic District.................................................................152 223 East Concord Street................................................................................................152 Case Study Analysis: Consequences of not Including Non-contributing Properties in the Lake Eola Heights Historic District.................................................................174 Consequence of Perception...........................................................................................174 Consequence of Historic Period of Significance...........................................................175 Consequence of Reproductions.....................................................................................176 Consequence of Plans for Future Utilization.................................................................180 Proposed Criteria for Including Non-contri buting Properties in a Local District................181 Applications for the Revised Building Classifications..................................................181 Improvements to the Design Review Committee..........................................................184 Revise and Tier Standards for Demolition....................................................................184 Establish Standards for Relocation................................................................................185 Required Review for All Buildings in the District........................................................186 Objectives and Standards fo r Appropriate Alterations..................................................186 Objectives and Standards fo r Appropriate Additions....................................................187 Objectives and Standards for New Construction...........................................................189 Height.....................................................................................................................191 Scale and massing..................................................................................................191 Setback...................................................................................................................191 Rhythm of solids & voids.......................................................................................192 Styles......................................................................................................................192 Fenestration patterns, orientation, mate rials and textures, and roof shapes...........192 Required Considerations for Appeals............................................................................193 Summary of Case Study and Related Issues.........................................................................194 Applications and Consequences of the Proposed Criteria....................................................198 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................202 APPENDIX A BASIC RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................210 Recommendations for Ordinances........................................................................................210 General Recommendations for All Historic Districts...........................................................211

PAGE 7

7 B STANDARDS: LANDMARK DISTRICT, THE OLD HISTORIC DISTRICT, NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS..................................................................................213 Building Classifications....................................................................................................... .213 Standards for Alterations to Existing Stru ctures in the Old Historic District.......................214 Standards for Additions to Existing Stru ctures in the Old Historic District.........................220 Standards for New Construction in the Old Historic District...............................................223 Standards for Demolition......................................................................................................230 Step 1: Determination of Historic Viability..................................................................231 Step 2: Future Utilization..............................................................................................232 Standards for Relocation.......................................................................................................232 C REVISED STANDARDS: LOCAL DISTRICT LAKE EOLA HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT, ORLANDO, FLORIDA...................................................................................234 Building Classifications....................................................................................................... .234 Standards for Alterations to Existing Structures..................................................................235 Standards for Additions to Existing Structures....................................................................236 Standards for New Construction...........................................................................................237 Standards for Demolition......................................................................................................239 Step 1: Determination of Historic Viability..................................................................240 Step 2: Future Utilization..............................................................................................241 Standards for Relocation.......................................................................................................241 D LANDMARK DISTRICT: FIGURES AND MOCK REPORTS........................................243 Staff Report for 10 Vestal Street..........................................................................................244 Staff Report for 125 Main Street: Demolition......................................................................248 Staff Report for 125 Main Street: Relocation.......................................................................251 E LOCAL DISTRICT: FIGURES AND MOCK REPORT....................................................259 Staff Report for 223 E. Concord Street................................................................................318 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................327 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................329

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1 10 Vestal Street. Front elevation......................................................................................112 3-2 Vestal Street. Street elevation..........................................................................................112 3-4 10 Vestal Street. Existing footpr int. Courtesy of Nantucket HDC..................................114 3-5 10 Vestal Street. Proposed footpr int. Courtesy of Nantucket HDC................................115 3-6 125 Main Street. District Data Sheet from the Nantuck et Island Architectural and Cultural Resources SurveyC ourtesy of Nantucket HDC...............................................116 3-7 125 Main Street. Photographs depicting the side elevation. Courtesy of the Nantucket HDC............................................................................................................................ .....117 3-8 125 Main Street. Proposed garage apartm ent and large front yard. Courtesy of Nantucket HDC................................................................................................................118 3-9 127 Main Street. Front elevation loca ted 10-0 or less from the street..........................119 3-10 125 Main Street. Hedge and fence repl aced the Folk-Victorian house. 123 Main Street in foreground.........................................................................................................119 3-11 123 Main Street. Located 10-0 or less from the sidewalk............................................120 3-12 Main Street. View of Main Street de picting the established site utilization....................121 3-13 129 Main Street. House w ith a large front yard...............................................................122 3-14 7 Okorwaw Way. New site for the Folk-Victorian style house.......................................123 3-17 7 Okorwaw Way. Folk Victoria n style house in new location........................................125 3-18 7 Okorwaw Way. Front door...........................................................................................126 3-19 18 Mill Street. Located less th an 5-0 from the street....................................................127 3-20 18 Mill Street. Massing and volume are overly large......................................................127 3-21 1 Norquarta Drive. Contributing bungalow st yle house that was originally located at 18 Mill Street................................................................................................................. ..128 3-22 18 Mill Street. Relationship to adjacent one-story house................................................129 3-23 Mill Street. Sloping site condition...................................................................................130

PAGE 9

9 3-24 House across the street from 18 Mill Street with faade oriented to the side yard..........131 3-25 Four-bay side gable house facing the side yard...............................................................132 3-26 18 Mill Street. Photograph of crisp new foundation........................................................133 3-27 18 Mill Street. Photograph showi ng the energy efficient windows.................................134 3-28 1 Norquarta Drive. General setting is ru ral with no similarity to Mill Street..................134 3-29 Norquarta Drive. General setting is ru ral with no similarity to Mill Street.....................135 3-30 Norquarta Drive. Closest structures with no similarity to the structures in the Old Historic District.............................................................................................................. ..135 3-31 3 Coffin Street. Detail of trim and color inconsistent with approved plans....................136 3-32 3 Coffin Street. Photograph of front door, which lacks the light fixtures approved in the elevations................................................................................................................. ..137 3-33 3 Coffin Street. Approved front elevation.......................................................................138 3-34 3 Coffin Street. Photograph of air-c onditioning unit at second floor window................139 3-35 3 Coffin Street. Footprint of new construction................................................................140 3-36 Bartlett Farm. Rural surroundings and the poor condition of the relocated cottage........141 3-37 Bartlett Farm. Rural surroundings and the poor condition of the relocated cottage........141 3-38 Bartlett Farm. Relocated co ttage in rural surroundings...................................................142 3-39 Bartlett Farm. Relocated co ttage in rural surroundings...................................................142 3-40 Bartlett Farm. Relocated co ttage in rural surroundings...................................................143 3-41 Bartlett Farm. Relocated co ttage in rural surroundings...................................................143 3-42 Bartlett Farm. Location of cottage...................................................................................144 3-43 20 Milk Street. Bungalow style house.............................................................................145 3-44 125 Main Street. Proposed site plan with a large fr ont yard and rear garage apartment...................................................................................................................... ....146 3-45 Milk Street. Houses adjacen t to 20 Milk Street depict a regular and consistent street edge........................................................................................................................... .......147 3-46 Milk Street. Streetscape depicts a regular and consistent street edge..............................147

PAGE 10

10 3-47 20 Milk Street. Proposed new lo cation for the Bungalow style house............................148 3-48 Norquarta Drive. Lot 13 proposed loca tion for the 20 Milk Street bungalow.................149 3-49 18 Mill Street. Adjacent one-story house with front yard...............................................149 3-50 41 Liberty Street. Front elevation of the contributi ng building with no additions visible........................................................................................................................ .......150 3-51 41 Liberty Street. Side elevation of cont ributing building with tw o additions visible....151 4-1 223 E. Concord Street. Non-contributing resource sheet with statement of significance pages 1-2......................................................................................................200 D-1 Article from Inquirer an d Mirror with details concer ning 20 Milk Street case...............243 D-2 10 Vestal Street. Property location in re lation to outlying area. (Town of Nantucket. (2006) Web-Based GIS: Maps and Parcel Data..............................................................253 D-3 10 Vestal Street. Aerial photograph that depicts the massing along Vestal Street (Town of Nantucket. (2006) Web-Based GIS:................................................................254 D-4 10 Vestal Street. Building footprints displaying massing (Town of Nantucket. (2006) Web-Based GIS: Maps and Parcel Data..........................................................................255 D-5 8 Vestal Street. Estimate of square f ootage (Town of Nantucket. (2006) Web-Based GIS: Maps and Parcel Data..............................................................................................256 D-6 14 Vestal Street. Estimate of square f ootage (Town of Nantucket. (2006) Web-Based GIS: Maps and Parcel Data..............................................................................................257 D-7 10 Vestal Street. Estimate for impervious surface ratio (Town of Nantucket. (2006) Web-Based GIS: Maps and Parcel Data..........................................................................258 E-1 Historic Preservation Boar d staff report, pages 1-3.........................................................259 E-2 Criteria for Demolition from the City of Orlando Land Development Code..................262 E-3 Lake Eola Heights Historic District Ordina nce pages 1-9...............................................263 E-4 Historic Preservation Board meeti ng minutes dated December 2000 pages 1-12...........272 E-5 Proposed site plan for two duplexes w ith garage apartments at 223 E. Concord Street......................................................................................................................... .......284 E-6 Addendum: Historic Preservati on Board staff report March 2001..................................285 E-7 Historic Preservation Boar d staff report dated March 7, 2001 pages 1-7. Courtesy of...286

PAGE 11

11 E-8 Proposed elevations and perspectives fo r two duplexes at 223 E. Concord Street..........293 E-9 Historic Preservation Board meeting minutes dated March 2001 pages 1-11.................294 E-10 Definition of StructureNon-cont ributing from City of Orlando Land Development Code...........................................................................................................305 E-11 Documentation of National Regi ster of Historic Places listing.......................................306 E-12 Excerpt from Lake Eola Heights Surv ey dated 1983. Courtesy of Orlando HPB. .........307 E-13 Excerpt from National Re gister of Historic Places Nomination Form dated 1980.........308 E-14 Recommended Order for the Applicants Appeal pages 1-9.......................................... 309 E-15 223 E. Concord Street..................................................................................................... .323 E-16 213 E. Concord Street..................................................................................................... .324 E-17 229 E. Concord Street..................................................................................................... .325 E-18 Arial view of 213, 223, 229 E. Concord Street................................................................326

PAGE 12

12 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Architectural Studies NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS By Amy J. Stansberry December 2006 Chair: Peter Prugh Cochair: Herschel Shepard Major Department: Architecture A historic district is a geogra phic area comprised of a signifi cant concentration of sites, buildings, structures, or objects lin ked by past historical events, an aesthetic plan or the physical development of the area. From an inventory of th e proposed district, buildi ngs are classified as contributing, meaning they add to the districts historic charac ter, or non-contributing, meaning they do not add to the districts historic charac ter. Two factors determine the classification: the age of the building at the time the district is designated and the hi storic period of significance for the proposed district. Buildings le ss than fifty years old when th e district is designated and buildings constructed af ter this period are generally cons idered non-contributing, and may be removed from the district, either by demolition or relocation. In some districts, even buildings classified as contributing are rendered insignificant and treated as non-contributing. With only two possible classifications, th ese judgments are too absolute Many non-contributing buildings are significant, but presently th ere is no way to define how they contribute to the district. The solution may be to elim inate the term non-contributing, use the historic period of significance to define contributi ng buildings, and introduce new cla ssifications that represent the primary ways in which these buildings contribut e. The value of non-contributing buildings, if any exists, could be determined by examining the impact on districts where non-contributing

PAGE 13

13 buildings have been removed. These buildings should be defined more accurately because noncontributing buildings are usually replaced with new construction, sometimes heavily inspired by the districts prevalent architectural style. Th e resulting environment misrepresents the past and misleads the public with regard to the districts au thenticity. Because this practice is unrelated to the actual mission of preserva tion, it must be prevented. Therefore to examine these problems in detail, I have selected tw o existing historic districts for discussion. Both were selected because of my familiarity with the districts and the fact that they represent different levels of importance. The firs t district is the Old Historic District, an important por tion of the National Historic Landmark, Nantucket Island, Massachusetts, which is important to the entire country. The second is the Lake Eola Heights Historic District, Orland o, Florida, which is important at the local level but honored by being listed on the National Register of Historic Places. By using two opposing districts, there is an opportunity to set priorities based on the importance of each district. Both districts had similar issues surroundi ng non-contributing buildings. In the Landmark district, I questioned why contributing buildings of recognizable architectural style, considered significant in other districts would be approved for removal from the Old Historic District. In the local district, I questioned why a non-contribut ing building requested for demolition was not classified as contributing. Fort unately it was determined to be architecturally significant. By tracing these buildings through th e individual review processes, it is possible to identify modifications required to manage non-contributing buildings and re lated issues more effectively. These modifications are applicable not only to these specific exam ples, but also to all local and landmark historic distri cts throughout the nation.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Objective to Accomplish This study investigates the term non-contribu ting, buildings that were less than fifty years old when the district was designated and were not built during th e historic districts designated period of significan ce. Currently non-contributing buildings are perceived as insignificant to the district, which is not always true. In reality th e category is composed of many types of buildings that enrich th e district in various ways. Some are an architectural style that was unrecognized when the district was designate d. Others were recently constructed and it is too soon to fully appreciate their value. Also, some non-contributing buildings may describe the districts development after the historic period of significance, possess certai n intrinsic values, or support the district by th eir existence. Therefore, the curr ent classifications, contributing and non-contributing, fixed by the designat ed period of significance are too rigid. I wish to determine if the building classifications s hould be revised to eliminate the term non-contributing. Perhaps new building classifications could be adopted that aptly describe how these buildings enrich the historic district and th e community. By doing so, the built envi ronment of the historic district would correlate to the history of the area, which is a continuum. Path of Exploration Due to Nantucket Islands appearance, Na tional Historic Landma rk status and the published design guidelines, Building with Nantucket in Mind I thought that the practice of preservation would be stringe nt. However, when attending Historic District Commission Meetings as a student at the Univ ersity of Floridas Preservation In stitute: Nantucket, I witnessed unmethodical decisions by the co mmission and a staggering volume of cases. I wondered why a house of a recognizable architectural style, but not of the prevalent st yles in the district, would be

PAGE 15

15 moved out of the district. Then I questioned if simila r decisions in the past had created the pristine appearance of the district. To investigat e these questions, I conducted five case studies of buildings in a portion of a Nati onal Historic Landmark, the Old Historic District, Nantucket, Massachusetts. While one case study investig ates a non-contributing building, the other four investigate contributing buildings. This may seem unrelated to the topic of non-cont ributing buildings, but these buildings were rendered noncontributing by the way they were treated. From review of the meeting minutes and design guidelines, I hope to understand how and why these buildings were removed from the National Historic Landmark Di strict. Also, I hope to determine if the new locations were reviewed for a ppropriateness, review the buildi ngs in their new location, and determine the impact on the district where c ontributing buildings we re replaced with new construction. These findings will indicate if any deciding factors should be altered. Due to the fact that the hist oric districts in Orlando, Fl orida lack National Historic Landmark designation and separate published design guidelines, I thought that the practice of preservation would be less strict than that of Nantucket Island. Bu t after working as the Historic Preservation Officer for the City of Orlando, I became convinced the opposite was true. The Historic Preservation Board in Orlando, Florida was effective and thorough. When a noncontributing building was requested for demolition, I questioned why it was not considered contributing to the district. The house was a recogni zable architectural style, celebrated in many districts, however, it was not of the prevalent styles in this dist rict. After extensive review and controversy, the non-contributing building was declared architectur ally significant and retained. To investigate this question and board decisi on, I conducted a case study of this non-contributing building in the Lake Eola Heights Hi storic District, Orlando, Florida.

PAGE 16

16 I hope to understand how and why the demolition was denied and identify the factors that formed the decision, the non-contributing building is significant albeit outside the contributing definition. These findings will indicate if alte rations could be made to judge non-contributing buildings by their attributes, for the benefit of all historic districts. Some of the deciding factors consist of the following: the Overlay Ordinance fo r Lake Eola Heights Historic District, the Land Development Codes Design and Demolition Sta ndards, the requirements for preservation commission members, a professional staff, written reports for requests, monthly meetings and a manageable caseload. From the case study analysis, proposed criteria can be suggested to include buildings now classified as non-c ontributing and to manage all resources more effectively in most residential historic districts. Furthermore, specific recomme ndations can be made for the Lake Eola Heights Historic District in Orlando, Flor ida and the Old Historic Distri ct, Nantucket, Massachusetts. Importance of Investigation This investigation is important for two r easons. The first deals with the philosophy of preservation, and the second deals with the actual management of historic districts. Both can be viewed from the perspective of th e districts level of importance. For example, local Ordinances and Design and Demolition Standards s hould embody the preservation philosophy and management required for the di strict and should not be disr egarded. However, Ordinances, Standards and Design Guidelines at the Landmark le vel should be written and enforced to attain a higher standard in the realm of preservation philosophy and management. The mission of preservation should be authen ticity both in the small realm, such as materials, and in the large realm, such as the bu ilt environment. With this in mind the goal of the built environment within a districts boundary should be authentic preservation instead of a quaint fabrication. We should be wary when we encounter the removal of an original building

PAGE 17

17 with authentic material for a reproduction of a pr evalent style in the district with new material. When contributing buildings and some non-contri buting buildings are moved or demolished to improve the style in the district, this is exactly what is occurring. We must question, examine and determine if this is appropriate preservation pr actice. If it is, we must define when it is appropriate, because in most situations this prac tice is more related to an arbitrary form of contemporary urban planning, far removed from preservation. All buildings in historic districts, regardless of the districts impor tance, are affected by how they are managed. For the districts in the ca se studies, the amount of effective management does not correlate to the importance of the distri ct. Currently, while one district may strictly adhere to management standards, another may be remiss to the poi nt of negligence. For example the preservation management in the landmark dist rict is composed of: staff comments, which do not sufficiently analyze the reque st; design guidelines, which do not provide direct standards; a commission composed of non-professionals, who do not heed the advice of the professional staff; and an overwhelming caseload. In comparis on, the local district is composed of required written reports, clear and c oncise standards, a board composed of professionals, and a manageable caseload. Perhaps districts important to the entire count ry, National Historic Landmark Districts, should operate at a higher st andard than a district important at the local level. Requiring this would elevate building pr otection at the landmark level, and the ruling body would be held accountable. A standard pro cedure for preservation management should be required for all residential historic di stricts, whether landmark or local. Limitations and Parameters of the Investigation As a former Preservation Officer I wanted to explore the main components that form decisions on individual property requests of each historic district. Some of the components include: enabling legislation or ordinances, de sign guidelines or sta ndards for changes to

PAGE 18

18 buildings, the review process, the commission or board comp osition, and the schedule of meetings. By examining how and why the decisions were made, alterations can be suggested to serve individual buildings more effectively. To fully understand the issues that surround noncontributing buildings, I needed to use two locati ons that I was familiar with. However, because it was time consuming to delve into the level of detail needed to gain this understanding, case studies in other distri cts were not conducted.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 2 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Definition The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the most important hi storic preservation legislation ever passed by Congre ss, established the National Regist er of Historic Places. Until this time, the historic preservation movement was centered on incredibly significant individual landmarks. Preservation became proactive due to the National Historic Preservation Act, which requires agencies to locate, i nventory and nominate properties to the National Register of Historic Places. This instills a responsible attitu de toward the preservation of historic buildings. The National Historic Preservation Act advocates the expansion of the register and maintenance of the resources. After this ac t was passed, the Secretary of th e Interior decentralized the responsibilities of preservation (Murtagh, 1997). So in each state, there is now an appointee, a State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) that manages the directives at the state and local level. The National Historic Preservation Act requi res the documentation of significant historic properties through grants from the State Histor ic Preservation Officer to local preservation organizations (Tyler, 2000). Consequences of Listing Listing on the National Register of Historic Places provides a procedural protection against federally funded, licensed, or sponsored projects. Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Advisory Council on Hist oric Preservation must review and comment on federal projects that may have an affect on Natio nal Register properties, both listed and eligible for listing. However, this does not pertain to state, local, or privately fu nded projects that may affect historic properties. Th e Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is an independent Federal agency under the Executive branch that advises the Pres ident and Congre ss on historic

PAGE 20

20 preservation policy. Currently the Council has tw enty members including the secretaries of the interior, transportation, h ousing, and urban developm ent, and agriculture. When a review is commenced, the federal agen cy that is involved in the project must identify the historic properties that may be affected, consults the State Historic Preservation Officer or the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer to determin e which properties are listed or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The Adviso ry Council determines whether the proposed project will have no effect, no advers e effect, or an adverse affect. If an adverse affect is anticipated, the Advisory Council on Hi storic Preservation cons ults with the State Historic Preservation Officer and others to determine how to mini mize the negative affect. This results in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which outlines the mitigating measures to be taken. If the Memorandum of Agreement is execu ted, the agency can proc eed with the project under its terms (Tyler, 2000). So, this review pro cess cannot halt federal pr ojects, but there is consideration for properties listed on the National Regist er of Historic Places. There are misconceptions about listing on the Na tional Register of Historic Places. Listing on the National Register does not restrict what private citizens can do with their property and their own funds (Murtagh, 1997). Pr operty owners are free to main tain, manage, or dispose of the listed property as they choose. If they wish, they can even prevent thei r property being listed on the National Register of Historic Places by formally objecting (Ditchfield and Wood, 1995). In this case, the property categorized as eligible for listing, rather than li sted. However, this does not prevent historic proper ty laws from applying. National Register properties enj oy many tax benefits. For properties listed on the register, rehabilitation is encouraged for income produc ing historic properties that meet preservation standards through tax incen tives (Tyler, 2000). Property owners in a National Register Historic

PAGE 21

21 District are eligible for a 20% rehabilitation tax credit on historic and non-historic buildings used in trade, business, or production of income. This does not pertain to residential historic properties used for a primary residence. The proposed re habilitations must adhere to the Secretary Standards for Historic Preservation and be s ubstantial. Substantial means the taxpayers expenditures must be greater of the adjuste d basis of the building, or $5,000 during any 24month period. The adjusted basis is the purch ase price plus the amount of previous capital improvements. This figure is then reduced by the depreciation deductions taken already. The basis does not include the land value (Boyle, 199 6). Furthermore, there are actually federal income tax disincentives for the demolition of income producing property listed on the National Register of Historic Places (Tyler, 2000). Because of the concern that historic designa tion would give the federal government new powers over individual property owners, the desi gnation provisions in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 did not allow for any direct federal regulat ory power over private properties. In fact, since the 1980 amendment to the Act, such listing can only be done after notice to the owner is and provided the owner does not object. If an owner objects, a historically significant property would be listed as Register E ligible(Tyler, 2000). Properties can lose their historic designati on. Reasons for dedesignation range from an unsympathetic renovation, neglect or an act of nature, but the re sult is the propertys loss of character defining features. The procedure for removal depends upon the ordinance for designation. However, preservation law reco mmends there be a recession procedure. National Register Criteria In order to define a Nationa l Register Historic District (NRHD), one must understand the National Register of Historic Pl aces and historic districts. The National Register of Historic

PAGE 22

22 Places is a list of historic and cultural resources with national, state, or local significance. The specific criteria for listing on the Nationa l Register is defined as follows: The quality of national significance is ascribed to districts, sites, bu ildings, structures, and objects that possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States in histor y, architecture, archeology, engi neering, and culture and that possess a high degree of integrity of locati on, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: 1. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to, and are identified with, or that outsta ndingly represent, the broad nati onal patterns of United States history and from which an understanding and ap preciation of those patterns may be gained; or 2. That are associated importantly with the liv es of persons nationally significant in the history of the United States; or 3. That represent some great idea or ideal of the American people; or 4. That embody the distinguishing characterist ics of an architectural type specimen exceptionally valuable for a study of a period, style or method of construction, or that represent a significant, dis tinctive and exceptional entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or 5. That are composed of integral parts of the environment not sufficiently significant by reason of historical association or artistic merit to warrant individual recognition but collectively compose an entity of exceptional historical or artistic significance, or outstandingly commemorate or illustrate a way of life or culture; or 6. That have yielded or may be likely to yiel d information of major scientific importance by revealing new cultures, or by shedding light upon periods of occupation over large areas of the United States. Such sites are those whic h have yielded, or wh ich may reasonably be expected to yield, data affec ting theories, concepts and ideas to a major degree. (National Park Service. (2002). National Register Bulle tin 15: Criteria for Evaluation, Retrieved on July 2006 from http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publicati ons/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_9.htm ) Listing a Resource on the National Register Before a district, site, building, structure or object is listed, the resource is carefully documented using a Registration Form, which can be obtained from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Citi zens or organizations interested in the preservation of the resource may initiate the process and prepare the forms, but the State Historic Preservation Officer actually nominates the resource to the Na tional Register of Historic Places. Each state

PAGE 23

23 has a professional board that revi ews nominations. They make a recommendation of eligibility to the Keeper of the National Register, who conducts a review. Pending this approval, the resource is listed (Boyle, 1996). The purpose of collecting information on the resource is to determine the historic significance. The historic significan ce of a resource must be based on one of four categories. These are association with historic events or activities, association with important persons, distinctive design or physical char acteristics, or potential to provi de important information about prehistory or history. Obviously, the historic resource must meet at least one of these categories. The general rule is that a resource is not consid ered historic until it is at least fifty years old. Every Registration Form requires a resource to be placed within a historic context. Context is the period, place, and the cultural events that created or influenced the resource. The historic context links the resource to the big picture, th e community, state or nati on. In describing historic context, association and period of significance are important factors. Association is how the property relates to the chosen historic significance category, listed above. The association should be direct. For example, if the property is significant for the as sociation with significant people, the person must have lived there, worked ther e, or been there when he/she achieved the significant accomplishment. Period of significance is the time span during which the significant events or activities occurred (National Park Service, Na tional Register Bulletin, 1997). Most importantly, all resources must posse ss integrity, the auth enticity of physical characteristics directly related to the prope rtys significance. When a resource retains its character-defining features, there is a clear relationship to th e significant event, person, or design. However, if the structure ha s been drastically alte red or most of the historic material has been removed, it may not be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

PAGE 24

24 Historic integrity is based on seven factors: location, design, se tting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The Register Form records the property as it is at the time of listing and justifies how the property qualifies for the Nati onal Register of Historic Places. Additional general information is required like the location, size, and boundari es of the property. Also, after all resources have been evaluated the number of contributing resources is represented in a percentage verse the total number of properties. The propertys historic use and current use, architectural and material cla ssification are also recorded. National Historic Landmark Districts A resource listed on the Nationa l Register can be placed in a special category at the National level and known as a National Historic Landmark (NHL). These properties are of exceptional value to the nation as a whole, but this listing is honorific. However, National Historic Landmark designation may provide a higher degree of pr otection from federal actions (Tyler, 2000). This protection is procedural and would take action at the National level. National Historic Landmarks are defined as buildings, sites, districts, st ructures, and objects that have been determined by the Secretary of the Interior to be nationally significant in American history and culture. This is the highest form of designa tion (Tyler, 2000). The speci fic criteria for listing on the National Register as a National Hist oric Landmark is defined as follows: The quality of national significance is ascribed to districts, sites, bu ildings, structures and objects that possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States in hist ory, architecture, archeology, t echnology and culture; and that possess a high degree of integrity of locati on, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: (1) That is associated with events that ha ve made a significant contribution to, and are identified with, or that outs tandingly represents, the broa d national patterns of United States history and from which an understandi ng and appreciation of those patterns may be gained; or (2) That are associated importantly with the lives of persons nationally significant in the history of the United States; or

PAGE 25

25 (3) That represent some great idea or ideal of the American people; or (4) That embody the distinguish ing characteristics of an architectural type specimen exceptionally valuable for the study of a peri od, style or method of construction, or that represent a significant, dis tinctive and exceptional entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (5) That are composed of inte gral parts of the environment not sufficiently significant by reason of historical association or artistic merit to warrant individual recognition but collectively compose an entity of exceptional historical or artistic significance, or outstandingly commemorate or illustra te a way of life or culture; or (6) That have yielded or may be likely to yi eld information of major scientific importance by revealing new cultures, or by shedding light upon periods of occupation over large areas of the United States. Such sites are those whic h have yielded, or wh ich may reasonably be expected to yield, data aff ecting theories, concepts and ideas to a major degree. Ordinarily, cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious pur poses, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings and propertie s that have achieved significance within the past 50 years are not eligible for de signation. Such properties, however, will quality if they fall within the following categories: (1) A religious property derivi ng its primary national signific ance from architectural or artistic distinction or hi storical importance; or (2) A building or structure removed from its original location but which is nationally significant primarily for its architectural merit, or for association with persons or events of transcendent importance in the Nation's hist ory and the consequential association; or (3) A site of a building or structure no longe r standing but the person or event associated with it is of transcendent importance in the Nation's history and the consequential association; or (4) A birthplace, grave, or burial if it is of a historical figure of transcendent national significance and no other appropriate site, building or st ructure directly associated with the productive life of that person exists; or (5) A cemetery that derives its primary nationa l significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, or from an ex ceptionally distinctive design or from an exceptionally significant event; or (6) A reconstructed building or ensemble of buildings of extraordinary national significance when accurately executed in a su itable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration ma ster plan, and when no other buildings or structures with the same a ssociation have survived; or

PAGE 26

26 (7) A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own na tional historical significance; or (8) A property achieving national significance within the past 50 years if it is of extraordinary national importance. (Nationa l Park Service. (2006). National Historic Landmarks Program: Questions and An swers, Retrieved on March 2006 from http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/QA.htm#1 ) About 2,200 sites, which are about 3% of th e properties on the National Register are National Historic Landmarks (T yler, 2000, p. 106). As an example Central High School, in Little Rock, Arkansas, is nationally significant because it was the site of the fi rst major confrontation over implementation of the Supreme Court's 1954 d ecision outlawing racial segregation in public schools. The city's resistance le d to President Eisenhower's deci sion to send Federal troops to enforce desegregation at this school in 1957 (Nat ional Park Service. ( 2006). National Historic Landmarks Program: Questions and An swers, Retrieved on March 2006 from http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/QA.htm#1 ). The National Park Service id entifies these National Historic Landmarks through theme studies, which analyze properties associated w ith a specific area of American history. The National Park Service evaluates the historic importance of potential Landmarks through a National Park System Advisory Board public mee ting twice a year. The Advisory Board consists of citizens who are nationa l and community leaders in the cons ervation of natural, historic, and cultural areas. Recommendations by the Advisory Boar d are made to the Secretary of the Interior on potential National Historic La ndmarks. Final decisions regardi ng National Historic Landmark designation are made by the Secr etary of the Interior. Design ation may be delayed if the Advisory Board or the Secretary of the Interior raises questio ns regarding the significance, physical condition, or boundaries of a poten tial Landmark. The process for Landmark designation is similar to listing a property in the National Register (National Park Service.

PAGE 27

27 (2006). National Historic Landmarks Program: Qu estions and Answers, Retrieved on March 2006 from http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/QA.htm#1 ). Local Historic Districts The majority of properties listed on the Nationa l Register are primarily of state and local significance. The impact of this listing is restrict ed to a regional or smaller geographic area. For example, many historic schools are listed on the Na tional Register because of the historically important role they played in educating individu als in the community or state in which they are located. In laymans terms a historic district is a neighborhood. The National Register of Historic Places defines a historic district as,A geographically definable area urban or rural, large or small possessing a significant conc entration, linkage or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, and or objects united by past even ts or aesthetically by plan or physical development (Murtagh, 1997, p. 103). Prior to the establishm ent of a historic district, an inventory is taken of the structures within the district, meaning each stru cture is photographed and researched. From this information, a structure is classified as contributin g, meaning it adds to th e historic ch aracter of the district, or non-contributing, m eaning it does not add to the hist oric character of the district. The creation of a district is jus tified when a grouping of buildings has at least one unifying factor that links all or most of the buildings within the boundaries. The factor the group of buildings represents could be an architectur al period, style, or an important era in the communitys history. In some cases a noncontiguous district may be supported if the unifying factor is early settlement. However, the boundaries are substa ntially contorted, which does not capture the sense of place (Tyler, 2000). The boundaries of a district are important. Na tural features and edges are probably the most common forms of setting up boundaries. Earl y settlement patterns ar e a logical solution for defining boundaries. If these patter ns are not obvious today, early maps and descriptions can be

PAGE 28

28 examined. Sometimes boundaries are simply reacti onary, drawn to protect a historic area from adjacent development (Tyler, 2000). Some boundarie s are considered inclusive; meaning the study committee has included more area, rather th an less. The committee does this to include every single historic property. Unfortunately this weakens the hi storic properties within the boundaries, because the boundaries should have as mu ch integrity as possible. They should have some basis in logic. It is usually better to be more selective and restrict boundaries to the smallest area that retains the strongest elements of the districts goals. The Stat e Historic Preservation Officer considers approval for propos ed districts by examining the ra tio of historic properties to non-historic properties. The highe r the proportion of historic st ructures, the more likely the historic district will be supported. The State Historic Preservation O fficer does not recommend gerrymandering the boundaries of a district to achieve the highest ratio possible (Tyler, 2000). However, some ordinances cover a large portion of a city to give the commission as much latitude for review as possible. In the Ypsilanti Historic District Ordinance, the district included many non-significant structures because they were seen as part of the context to the surrounding historic structures (Tyler, 2000). When submitting documentation for a proposed historic district, the National Register of Historic Places requires certain informati on. First, a written statement of the historic significance of th e area is required. Second a map th at shows the proposed district boundaries and justification fo r the placement of the boundaries Third, the percentage of structures that contribute to the character of the proposed district versus the number of noncontributing buildings must be calculated and a map locating the buildings in each category. The percentage of contributing structur es from that total number of structures determines whether the proposed district qualifies as a hi storic district. Fourt h, detailed descriptio ns of the individual

PAGE 29

29 buildings in the area need to be recorded. Lastl y, photographs of significant historic structures and typical streetscapes (Tyler, 2000). There are many reasons historic district s are created. In Norman Tylers book Historic Preservation he identifies motivation such as: to protect against a sp ecific threat of development, to encourage development in an ol der area, a tool of main taining property values, to improve the image of a community at large. At the heart of hist oric districts, there should be history and we may have lost sight of this idea. While there are other valid reasons for creating a district, preservationists should concentrate districts that are created simply for the history they represent. In some situations, a district may comprise nonc ontiguous sites or structures if they have a common theme. Perhaps the structures repres enting early settlement, for example, are scattered across a city. In this case, trying to collect the si gnificant buildings within one physical district would mean a substantial c ontortion of the boundary lines. A thematic district made of noncontiguous elements may be the most appropriate approach, but this is relatively rare, since it does not capture the sense of place, an important factor. (Tyler, 2000, p. 68) One must question why a current sense of place is such an important f actor if there is a physical record of significant history. Historic District Ordinances A local ordinance may establish a Historic District Commission, who defines what activities within the historic dist rict are subject to review. The ac tivities usually include exterior alterations, additions, new construction, and demolit ion. The extent of cont rol is a decision made by the local community through its legislative body (Tyler, 2000). Owners of structures within the historic district must obtai n a Certificate of A ppropriateness for the work they plan to do before a building permit can be issued. The hist oric commissions approv al or denial of the request is based on criteria establ ished in the ordinance. Historic District ordinances are often overlay ordinances, which build on existing zoning ordinance.

PAGE 30

30 Characteristics of Effective Ordinances. An effective ordinance will stand up to legal challenges if it includes six factor s. First the ordinance should a dhere to the provisions of the state enabling legislation and provide for lo cal concerns. Second the ordinance should be predictable in its application by the review agency. This allows property owners to be reasonably certain of approval if provided cl ear and direct standards. If th e approval by the commission is unpredictable, the ordinance is e ither weak in composition or inte rpretation. Third an ordinance should not be too vague. If so, approvals are based on the discretion of the commission or sometimes the dynamics of the commission. Fourth ordinances must reference the standards and guidelines by the Secretary of In terior. This helps to insure th at the local commission does not misinterpret the ordinance. Th e Secretary of Interiors Standa rds are nationally recognized for determining appropriate alterations and addi tions. Commissions shoul d work together to formulate an understanding of what is appropria te design (Tyler, 2000). Fifth ordinances should not attempt to define property maintenance prov isions, which allows for a commission to take action against an owner that fails to maintain a property. And finally the body that is responsible for the enforcement should do so consistently. The code enforcement department is usually granted this power. It is imperative for preser vation staff to forge a good working relationship with the inspector assigned to overseeing historic districts. If the inspector is selective in enforcement, an owner may claim he has been singled out. The argument may be awkward for the commission or the city to counter, but the co urts generally defer to commissions as expert bodies, and failure to enforce in one case is not a legal defense in another (Tyler, 2000, p. 75). A historic district ordinance is a legal document and must fo llow requirements of the state and local government. It should be evaluated acc ording to three basic provisions. First, its purpose should promote public welfare, written to benefit the community rather than a select

PAGE 31

31 group of property owners. Second the ordinance should be rational, and third the ordinance should be fair, applying to everyone equa lly within a specif ied group (Tyler, 2000). Example of an Effective Ordinance. The Lake Eola Heights Hist oric District Ordinance describes the area, as one of Or landos oldest and most architectur ally significant. Originally a citrus grove, residential development took place after the freeze of 1894. The ordinance does not use the terms non-contributing and/or contributing. Ra ther than restrict itself to buildings that were fifty years or older when the district was designated, th e ordinance discusses what is architecturally significant. The prevalent archit ectural styles built in the district and their corresponding dates are identified, but the styl es are not limited to th is list, ranging in significant styles but not limited to (Lake Eola Heights Historic Dist rict Ordinance, 1989, p. 1). The purpose of the ordinance is, to protect an d preserve the elements which contribute to the architectural and historic si gnificance of the neighborhood (Lake Eola Heights Historic District Ordinance, 1989, p. 1). The preservation philosophy for the district is proclaimed, the historic and architectural signi ficance of the Lake Eola Hei ghts neighborhood has been achieved over time and the growth and development of this neighborhood is part of the history of Orlando which is worthy of protection (Lake Eola Hei ghts Historic District Ordinance, 1989, p. 2). The concepts of significance achieved over ti me and growth and development worthy of protection are the essence of preser vation. This statement continues, this ordinance seeks to maintain and pres erve what is unique to the neighborhood by preventing future growth that is incomp atible with surrounding structures and neighborhood and assure changes within the neighborhood will be compatible with the historic character of the structures and the environment of the Lake Eola Heights neighborhood. (Lake Eola Heights Histor ic District Ordinance, 1989, p. 2) A Certificate of Appropriateness must be acqui red before a building permit is issued for exterior alteration, construction, or demolition, according to Chapter 58 of the Orlando City Code (Lake Eola Heights Historic District Ordinance, 1989, p. 3) When an ordinance builds off

PAGE 32

32 the existing zoning, it is called an Overlay Ordi nance. Because the District Ordinances take precedence over requirements in the Land Developmen t Code, exceptions specific to the district are listed. For example walkways and patios not subject to view, landscaping, emergency repair without change to exterior design, and paint color are not reviewed in this district. For the same reason there are certain items specific to the distri ct that are allowed like chain link fences in the rear yard and the permission for Historic Pres ervation Board to adopt additional legally valid guidelines and criteria as it deem s appropriate (Lake Eola Heights Historic Distri ct Ordinance, 1989, p. 7). Therefore the Ordinance can be updated or changed as needed if approved by City Council. Evolving from the districts stated purpose, the Historic Preservation Board is reminded to, seek compatibility of structures in the district in terms of size, texture, scale and site plan and to consider the Secretary of Interiors Standa rds for Rehabilitation when considering requests for Certificates of Appropriateness (Lake Eola Heights Historic Distri ct Ordinance, 1989, p. 4). The authors recognized that the Land Developmen t Code would allow cons truction inappropriate to the character of the ne ighborhood. The ordinances demolit ion criteria correspond to the Criteria for Demolition in the Design and Demo lition Standards defining five criteria most important to the Lake Eola Heights Historic District and omitting the category of existing conditions or maintenance and economic hardshi p. Considering future ut ilization the ordinance requires a substantial plan for the site, but exactly what drawings should be submitted and what level of detail is required is not indicated. Finally the Lake Eola Heights Historic District Ordinance was accepted May 22, 1989, which is th e date of designation for the district. Oppositions to Ordinances. Opposition to the establishment of a historic district comes from several sources. Existing departments with in local government may fear losing power or

PAGE 33

33 not want the extra work. The City or County may not be willing to allocate additional funds for a new department. If institutions have a stake in the property, they may not be in favor of a historic district (Tyler, 2000). However, most oppositi on comes from homeowners in the proposed district, who have two concerns. First homeowners object to design guidelines an d standards that contro l alterations to the exterior of their house. They believe objective sta ndards for beauty or appearance is impossible, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Therefore they see the le gislation of aesthetics subjective and arbitrary. Homeowners accept land use zoning, such as building codes, because they know it protects their genera l welfare, health and safety. Th is is also accepted because it does not impose restrictions on landowners re garding the aesthetic appearance of the built environment. The courts have agreed that the pr eservation of historic di stricts meets the zoning criteria of protecting the public welfare, health and safet y. Although some homeowners of proposed districts have no problem with guidelines and standards that preserve what currently exists. They take issue with the guidelines and standards for additions and new construction, basically the changes to the existing built enviro nment. Property owners view these changes as arbitrary. Admittedly some alterati ons to districts are far from th e intent of preservation, and are really closer to a contempor ary form of urban planning. Second homeowners oppose the creation of a histor ic district and feel it is a taking, the government is restricting the their rights to us e or develop the property without compensation for the loss in value. The opposition from the property owners is usually repr esentative of the degree of control being proposed. Obviously the key is to educate and persuade property owners that the positive aspects of historic districts outweigh the negatives.

PAGE 34

34 If the designation of an hist oric district were successful the ideal board or commission would be composed of an impartial panel of i ndividuals who are knowledgeable of local history, architectural history, and pres ervation. They should make judgements on requests for change within the district (Tyler, 2000). Because members of a historic commission or board are sometimes not required to be knowledgeable or not interested in becoming so, design guidelines are helpful for visual instruction. Design Guidelin es are defined as, Crite ria, locally developed, which identify local design concerns, drawn up in an effort to assist prope rty owners to respect and maintain the character of the designate d district (Murtagh, 1997, p. 216). Although in some districts knowledgeable staff can serve th is purpose by a personal consultation with the applicants regarding their design request. Historic Preservation is most effective at the local level because this is where ordinances are created and proposals for changes to historic structures are reviewe d. Property owners deal directly with the historic preser vation officer or planner and then with the Historic Preservation Commission or Board. This is where the real protective power is found. The idea that the community should determine for itself what is hist orically significant, and what steps should be taken to provide protection encourages a comf ortable and uncontroversial environment (Tyler, 2000). The concept here is understa ndable, the residents take owne rship of the district and its history. However, this is a conf lict of interest for citizens to make decisions about what is historically significant. Besides the fact that they may lack know ledge of the areas history or general preservation practices, thei r own property is at stake. Sure ly limitations that could be placed on their property will effect their decisions While this approach may be fine for local historic districts, the gover nment should step in and make judgement calls for National Landmark Districts.

PAGE 35

35 CHAPTER 3 LANDMARK DISTRICT Case Studies: Old Historic District The citizens of Nantucket Island created the Nantucket Historic District in 1955. In 1966 the National Park Service designated the town of Nantucket a National Historic Landmark and listed it on the National Regist er of Historic Places (La ng and Stout, 1995). Because of incompatible new construction, the Nantucket Hi storic District Commission was formed to review and approve all c onstruction on the island w ith design guidelines, Building with Nantucket in Mind (Lang and Stout, 1995). Originally th e area under the Commissions purview was restricted to two main districts of Nantuc ket and Siasconset, but in 1975 this was extended to include the entire island of Nantucket (L ang and Stout, 1995). In 2000, the National Trust for Historic Preservation placed Nantucket on its list of Americas 11 Most Endangered Places due to, the trend to renovate hi storic structures out of existen ce (National Park Service. (2006). National Landmarks Program: Search for a NHL, Retrieved on September 2006 from http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId581&ResourceType=District) These case studies investigate properties located in the town of Nantucket, the Ol d Historic District. 10 Vestal Street The dwelling at 10 Vestal Street was surveyed in August of 1989 by AGS. Per the Inventory Form, the ownership history of the dw elling is unknown. This is a one-story weathered shingle dwelling was built circa 1930. It has a concrete foundation, composition shingle side gable roof, and a center unpainted brick chimney. Ot her architectural featur es include a central flush frame entry, plain corner bo ards and six-over-six windows. Th e structure is noted as being located in a densely built reside ntial area of the Old Historic Di strict. The significance of the house to the National Register Hist oric District is non-contributing.

PAGE 36

36 Request for relocation. Application #38,051: May 4, 2001: Request to Demolish or Move Building. The existing building is recorded as being 26 in length and 29 in width with a total square footage of 648 SF. The application di ffers from the inventory form, listing the date of construction as 1956 (one-room house) with an addition in 1966. Also th e applicant lists the original builder as his grandmother. There are no staff comments attached to this application. However, a plan of the existing site was s ubmitted with the application, which depicts the dwelling about 12-0 from the sidewalk, 17-0 from the left side property line, and 12-0 from the right side property line. The Historic District Commissi on approved this application a nd issued the Certificate of Appropriateness #38,051 on May 22, 2001. Personal critique. The HDC review of the non-cont ributing property and the new location was not critiqued, because the availabl e paperwork did not note a proposed location. Request for new construction. Application #38,050: May 4, 2001: Description of work to be performed: Request to construct a two-st ory dwelling in the Old Historic District. The structure is proposed to be 48-0 in length and the 46-0 in wi dth. The proposed square footage of the first floor is 1731 SF and 1300 SF on the second floor with a 15 by 24 deck. The proposed ridge height is 26-0 above th e finished grade in each direction. The applicants propose an 8 poured concre te foundation to be painted gray and a chimney constructed of used red brick. Th e proposed roofing material is gray asphalt architectural shingles with wood gutters and 4 by 4 leaders. The proposed exterior treatment is white cedar shingles and trim painted white. Other proposed arch itectural detail s are 1 by 6 corner boards, double hung windows with true divi ded lights and sashes painted gray. The front door is proposed to be six panel with sidelight s and the rear door will be a french door, both

PAGE 37

37 painted gray. The applicants propose a wood-a pplied overhead garage door and a gravel driveway. The Historic Dist rict Commission approved the a pplication and Certificate #38,050 issued May 22, 2001. HDC review of the proposed new construction. This Certificate of Appropriateness was not discussed at the HDC meeting. There were no staff co mments or meeting minutes in case folder. Personal critique of the proposed new construction. The guidelines define a noncontributing structure as, a build ing which is not an intrusion but does not add to a historic districts sense of time, place and historic deve lopment (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 21). Therefore, 10 Vestal Street meets the criteria for demoliti on under the second standard listed, the structure is a protected structure by virtue of its presence in the historic district but is non-contributing to the district (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 21). In spite of its classificati on as non-contributing, 10 Vestal Street is a small cottage (Figure 3-1). It is wedged between a gable one-s tory dwelling and a tw o-story Federal style house (Figure 3-2). This cottage provides a stop in the rhythm of the street. One could argue the structure adds to the sense of place, you are not in the midst of town but on the edge of the Old Historic District about to ente r the outlying area. Even with so me two-story dwellings sprinkled intermittently this idea is evident. The decision to replace the cottage with a Federal-like twostory house affects the perception of the towns historic density. Stylistically, the proposed building is a 2-1/2-story house with three bays as seen in the pr oposed front elevation (Figure 33). The front door is off-center with sidelights an d the chimney located at the side of the main mass. The exterior sheathing is clapboard with 6/6 windows. These are sub tle characteristics of

PAGE 38

38 the early Federal style, commonly seen in town. A small cottage like 10 Vestal Street in this location provides a distinct sense of place. Since the mass and location of the 70 year-old cottage is not a consideration in planning for new construction, the guidelines for Building in the Historic Town of Nantucket consider site planning, bulk, proportion and s cale, and massing. The size of the proposed new construction may detract from Old Historic Di stricts actual sense of time, place and historic development. There will be a definite impact on the context of Vestal Street by replacing a 1930 one-story dwelling of 648 SF (Figure 3-4) with a twostory dwelling of 3,030 SF (Figure 3-5). The proposed square footage is more than 4.5 times that of the existing bu ilding. Interestingly, the guidelines do not address this issue directl y. However, if more strictly applied, the recommendation concerning scale would make a di fference. Any new construction in the town should be on a scale compatible w ith that of adjacent buildings. Al so the scale of spaces between buildings should be carefully considered (Lang and Stout, 1 995, p. 67). If applied to what existed previously, the latter statement here, s cale of spaces between buildings could prove useful in the preserving the Old Hist oric Districts sense of place. The increase in the overall size of the build ing will be further impacted because the buildings setback is less. While the 1930-era ho use was located about 12 from the sidewalk (Figure 3-4), the new construction will be about 7 from the sidewalk (Figure 3-5). From the guidelines, on a street of generally ali gned facades, it is recommended that any new construction conform to the predominant height of the facades of the existing buildings on the street. In any case, no new constr uction should be more than 10% taller in either its faade or overall height than the tallest building on the block on which it is to be built (Lang and Stout, 1995). While the proposal may actually meet these criteria, one should require the height and

PAGE 39

39 mass of the proposed construction be more visually compatible with adjace nt dwellings to help preserve the sense of place. Additional guidelines could c onsider the qualities of a noncontributing structure. The mere presence of the structure could be preservi ng aspects important to th e districts sense of time, place and historic development. For example, if the footprint of a building were preserved, it would help maintain massing important to th e sense of place and the areas density. Noncontributing structures can f unction as a bookmark and hold a pl ace in the built fabric. Noncontributing buildings are usually visually obvious as non-originals, but new construction in the form of a reproduction cannot be easily read as a new addition. 125 Main Street The dwelling at 125 Main Street was surveyed in August of 1989 by AGS. Per the Inventory Form, the ownership of the building is private. The one-and-three-quarter tall wood frame dwelling is clad with horizontal weathe red siding and has a brick foundation. The gable roof is characterized by extended eaves and expos ed rafter tails. The roof is sheathed with composition shingles. There are two unpainted, corbeled chimneys located off-center. The dwelling has a one-story side porch oriented to ward the faade. Other architectural features include an off-center front door, plain corner boar ds and two-over-two windows. It is noted that a side rear shed extension was added at some point in time. The last page of the Inventory Form is mi ssing from the Historic District Commission files. This page records the significance of the stru cture to the National Regi ster Historic District. However, a separate document entitled, Nantuck et Island Architectural and Cultural Resources Survey, District Data Sheet, lists all the properties in the distri ct by address, and classifies 125 Main Street as contributing to the National Regist er Historic District. It also indicates this structure existed by 1887 (Figure 3-6).

PAGE 40

40 Request for relocation. Application #30,010: February 6, 1997: Request to Demolish or give away1895 to 1900 non-co ntributing building. The app licant noted the portion in quotes. A site plan of the property was submitted w ith the application. The site is located on the corner of Main Street and Quarter Mill Hill. It depicts an 8-0 setback from the sidewalk. This application for a Certif icate of Appropriateness was pr esented to the HDC for four times before being issued. This is the sequence of comments from the HD C meeting minutes. February 11, 1997: Application for demolition pr esented to Historic District Commission. The following staff comments were read, Request advertising for potential move. Housing Authority does not have use for it. Hold for consideration with proposed new structure. Request for black and white phot os. The following comment was made, Mr. Avery observed that this house is very typical of Victorian infill arch itecture. He said he did not understand why it would not be c ontributing. Next a motion was made and seconded to hold the app lication for viewing. February 18, 1997: Application reintroduced. Ms. Butler states that the purchaser of the property, Wayne Dupont, is offering $3,000 to help someone move the house. Ms. Deeley stated that she had a problem with the house being demolished and thought it was somewhat contributing. At this point Mr. Av ery said that he did think the house would be reused. Ms. Deeley then added, Lets s ee what [Mr. Dupont] is going to put in its place. Motion and second to hold both applica tions until drawings of the new scheme are submitted. March 4, 1997: Lack of quorum. On March 11, 1997 the HDC approved and i ssued Certificate of Appropriateness #30,010 with a sixty-day hold on demolition allowing someone to move the structure for reuse. According to the Historic District Commission meeting minutes, the approval of the demolition was based on the lack of historical or architectural significance. Personal critique of the HDC review of non-contributing property and new location. From HDC meeting minutes on Fe bruary 18, 1997 in response to the question of the structure being considered historic, Mr. Avery says he th inks the house will be reused. The issue of reuse is separate from the issue of hi storic significance in a historic district the issue of reuse should only be considered if the building is deemed to be insignificant.

PAGE 41

41 Also, the next statement,Lets see what [Mr. Dupont] is going to put in its [the houses] place leads one to think, if presented with an appropriate design, the house may not be that historic. The objective to create an appropriately designed Nantucke t-like dwelling in order that the Victorian style house is not missed is fault y. When the discussion appr oaches this point, the question of historic viability mu st be answered first. By maki ng a determination on the historic significance of the structure, you prevent pitting the HDC against the architect/owner/applicant in a contest for design appropr iateness. This scenario a ffects both non-co ntributing and contributing buildings. When dealing with the latte r they are not usually of the style favored in the district. In this case we ha ve a Folk Victorian style structure in a district where the Typical Nantucket style, Federal style and Gr eek Revival style houses are favored. From the HDC meeting minutes on March 11, 1997, the lack of historical or architectural significance is a failure of the HDC to fulfill its purpose. If the HDC cannot research a historic property, the applicant who wi shes to remove the structure will not. The HDC should research the property and examine the gui delines for determining the future of this structure. Each decision impacting a singular structure also impact s the district. The guidelines provide an overview the HDC should follow in ca se by case decisions. Wh ile there is no single appropriate style for the island, as indicated by the diversity of its bu ildings, understanding the continuity of development and relatedness of the styles described will exemplify the legacy shared by all Nantucket buildings(Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 37). For example, the Victorian style has an exact context in Nantuckets history. In the end, the economic collapse of the isolated island in the 1850s, when whaling succu mbed to the discoveries of oil and gold, was responsible for the unique preservation and integr ity of the town today. Only in the late 1800s, when well-to-do people sought out unspoiled Nant ucket as a summer resort, were numbers of

PAGE 42

42 new houses built again (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 35-36). In addition, As the community turned to the summer resort trade, a few of these Vict orian houses were built in town (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 44). One-twenty-five Main Street is phy sical evidence of th e, continuity of development within this historical context. Without examples like 125 Main Street there is no relatedness of the style to w itness. The guidelines feature 73 Main Street, another example of the Victorian style in the same vicinity. From this we can conclude the dwelling at 125 Main Street is not an anomaly. The property at 125 Main Street is an exampl e of the Folk Victorian style (Figure 3-7). This style is characterized by Vi ctorian details applied to a simp le house form. The structure is one of the principal sub-types of Folk Vict orian, a gable front and wing form, creating an asymmetrical faade. Located at the front wi ng is a one-story front porch. Typical of Folk Victorian, the porch is set within the L. The porch is usually the primary area for the application of Victorian detailing, however the railing de tail is minimal with an x motif. Other characteristics of the style are simple pedime nts above the window and door surrounds and twoover-two double hung windows. Request for new construction. Application #unknown: Ja nuary 22, 1998: Request for new dwelling. The basic volume of the two-story dw elling is proposed to be 32 in length and 28 in width. The proposed square footage of the first floor is 896 SF and 780 SF for the second floor. This is a total of 1676 SF. The proposed height of the roof ridge is 24 in all directions. The applicants propose a 6-8 deep parged block foundation. The proposed exterior treatment is natural cedar shingles with white trim. The main roof and dormer roof is proposed to be charcoal gray asphalt shingles at a pitch of 8 over 12 with wood gutters and downspouts. The

PAGE 43

43 applicants propose double hung win dows with true divided lights. The proposed front door and garage door will be a wood. The proposed driveway material is shell. Certificate #32,087: At the same meeting the approval to move the existing building from 125 Main Street was issued. However, the NHAs application to move the same building to 7 Okorwaw Avenue was held for a viewing. The commission has approved the building relocation without a specific location. HDC review of new construction. These are pertinent excerpts from meetings. From the HDC meeting minutes: January 27, 1998, Staff comments: Recommend referral to DAC (Design Advisory Council). The massing is not appropriate, particularly at the front. The structure being set back from the st reet is atypical of Ma in Street houses. January 27, 1998: HDC meeting minutes: Applic ation introduced. Twig Perkins attended and stated that this design is intended to co mpliment the Rhodes House at 127 Main Street. He explained the property was acquired by th e Rhodes so their house could have a large yard. The above staff comments were re ad. Then, Ms. Hall states, If the proposed structure is an outbuilding, it should match the main house. Mr. Avery then adds, Although the front dwelling is inappropriate for a second dwelling facing Main Streetthere are bigger issues at stake here than ju st the design, referring to the pattern of siting on the street. At this point a motion was ma de and seconded for referral to the DAC. February 3, 1998, Design Advisory Council Meeting Memorandum: The HDC members present where D.Neil Parent and Duncan Fog. Their comments on the design where to create a carriage house char acter with simple forms. They recommend a shed dormer on the front elevation with a smaller shed roof over the entry. They state the massing is not inappropriate, if a more rural form is devel oped. In conclusion, they advise to see the open lot and for it to be landscaped appropriately. March 31, 1998, Staff Comments: Staff critiques the current proposed plans both as a main residence and a garage apartment. For a main residence Staff recommends, Gable dormers are the preferred type on the front [elevation], reco mmend gable type set back one foot from the wall plane as recommended by th e guidelines. For a garage apartment Staff recommends, Triple mulled 12/12 double hung windows are not appropriate to a simple carriage house structure. Then staff conti nues by questioning th e entire situation, Staff is concerned with the precedent this case represents. The existing structure was approved for demolition with the understanding that the new structure would closely resemble a house that had been on this site prev iously. If the applica tion is approved with a different house in a different lo cation, it not only erode s the traditional str eet edge, but also it erodes the historical context of this neighborhood. Furthermore, it completely undermines the HDCs policy of requesting development scenarios as a condition of

PAGE 44

44 reviewing demolitions. Along this line, staff que stions the validity of the demolition if the premise upon which it was based is removed. Staff requests the opportunity to consult with Town Counsel regarding this issue before the HDC acts. March 31, 1998, HDC Meeting Minutes: The pr evious Staff Comments where read. The outcome of this meeting is unknown. April 7, 1998, Staff Comments: The Staff reite rates the statement from above, If this application is approvedthe histori cal context of the neighborhood. April 7, 1998, HDC meeting minutes: The conc ept of replacing a primary dwelling on Main Street with a large yard and garage apartment is sti ll a troubling concept. The only redeeming thing about the situation is that the Housing Authority wants the existing building. But after airing c oncerns the HDC instructs th e applicant to, bring in a landscape plan showing how he proposes to make this lot more conti guous in nature with 127 Main Street. Mr. Perkins then pointed out that the yards get larger as you go up Main Street. Motion and second was ma de to hold the application. On April 27, 1998 a site plan was stamped r eceived by the HDC office. This plan shows the residence at 127 Main Street and a garage apartment at 125 Main Street with a large landscape area in the front. The only feature addressing the str eet at 125 Main Street is a fence. The garage apartment is in the same location at the rear of the property. May 5, 1998, Staff Comments: The staff remain s steadfast in thei r evaluation of the situation. Recommend a primary dwelling on the street due to the history and contex t of this lot. The proposed landscaping may be beautiful but is not appropriate The pattern of Main Street is houses on the street. Recommend the HDC be consistent on this issue. If the HDC deems this use of the property to be appropr iate, recommend all dormers conform to the 1 setback from the eave and the front transom be removed. May 5, 1998, HDC Meeting Minutes: Basically th e same delimma is restated in the dialogue between HDC members. Ms. Voorhees st ates, I think it is t oo bad that there is not a house on the street. Mr. Perkins said he would feel differently about it if there were not similarly large yards with houses set back a little farther up Main Street. Ms. Hall asks if there is a reason the garden has to be in th e front since keeping the street edge is very important. Ms. Voorhees then states that she w ould not like to see this particular house o the street edge. A motion was made and sec onded to hold for revisions to the carriage house. At this point the paper trail of this case is incomplete. The last staff comment on record is from May 12, 1998 where the staff states the reques ted revisions to the st ructure are appropriate. I assume because of existing photos of the building this refers to the dormer offset and the panels under the windows being removed.

PAGE 45

45 Personal critique of the HDC review of the new construction. On March 11, 1997, the HDC has allowed for the removal of a contribut ing building at 125 Main Street without a new location determined. The new construction is not approved until May 12, 1998. What is the hurry to remove a contributing building? Unfortunately in the end, the new construction is not what the HDC had originally bargained for. One of th e HDC members voices this view, I think it is too bad that there is not a house on the street. The original hous e was 8 off the sidewalk, and the proposed dwelling is 60 off the front property line and 8 off the rear property line (Figure 38). To avoid this situation in the future, the HDC should hold issuing a COA for a building move or demolition until they have approved the new de velopment plans for that same site. This way they can guarantee that these plan s are not just proposals by the appl icant, but the applicants real intentions. On January 27, 1998, I must question what ha s happened here. In this meeting the HDC clearly states that they are wait ing for drawings of the devel opment plans. At this meeting, it is obvious to the HDC that they have approved th e removal of a contributing structure, so the applicants can have a large yard and detached garage. When this is revealed, the discussion centers on the pattern of buildi ngs along the street. Obviously, th e applicants intentions do not follow the historical pattern of the street. With this issue in mind, the HDC refers the applicants to meet with the DAC. At the DAC meeting, the streetscape and pattern of houses along the street is not addressed. Perhaps if the HDC member who brou ght up this important point had attended the DAC meeting, this idea c ould have been the focus of the m eeting. If the HDC members at the DAC meeting had consulted meeting minutes, this would have been an evident issue to discuss. After all the DAC would not want the applicants to go to the ne xt HDC meeting and still have

PAGE 46

46 issues that the majority of HDC members object to. In situations like this staff can be helpful to steer the DAC to serve the concerns of the HDC. The HDC members that attended the DAC meeting were Pare nt and Fog, who apparently had no issue with the historic patt ern of buildings on the street. They instructed the applicants in how to appropriately create a garage apartmen t on the rear of the lot and to appropriately landscape the enormous front yard. However, this advice is not consistent with the comments of HDC members or staff, nor is it representativ e of the guidelines. Under site planning, new construction should follow a pattern of site utilization similar to th at already established adjacent to it (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). One-twenty-sev en Main Street (Figure 3-9) and 123 Main Street (Figures 3-10 and 3-11) are 10-0 or less from the side walk. The pattern is evident (Figure 3-12) in the front yard setbacks of the houses at 119123 Main Street. The guidelines specifically state, consideration should be given to the setback of the buildings from the street. Also, Where buildings are predominately aligned along the street creating a unified edge or wall along the street space, the front of a new building should be ali gned within the general faade line of its neighbors (Lang a nd Stout, 1995, p. 61). With all these recommendations directly from the guidelines, Parent and Fog do not re ly on them to advise the applicants. At the HDC meeting on March 31, 1998, the staff comments read at the meeting critiques the most current plans, even though they maintain their original opposition of the proposal. The concept of replacing a primary dwelling on Main Stre et with a large yard a nd garage apartment is a troubling concept especially for anyone involved in preserva tion. At this point, the HDC advises the applicant to bring in a landscape plan and model the vacant lot on larger parcels farther up Main Street. They seem to tire of th e basic differences between what the applicants

PAGE 47

47 want and what staff wants. The larger parcel th ey refer to could be 129 Main Street (Figure 313). On May 5, 1998, Mr. Perkins said he would feel differently about it if there were not similarly large yards with houses set back a little farther up Main Street. I think Mr. Perkins is over simplifying the issue. The fact that there wa s once a contributing buildi ng in this location is forgotten. While there are large yards farther up the street, they were not once occupied by a contributing building that addresse d the street. And if that was th e case at one point in history, it is not why this decision was made. The house at 129 Main Street has a large front yard, but was constructed at a later era. This site follows a modern pattern of buildings along the street with front yards (Figure 3-13) as the gu idelines explain. After the wh aling era, houses diverged from the customary single-plane faade and consistent street side building placement, thereby fragmenting the unified st reet edge. New houses then began to ha ve front yards, large lots, a lack of consistency in setbacks from the property line, and orientations to the water or view rather than the street(Lang and Stout, 199 5, p. 61). For this reason, a patt ern of a large front yard or side yard is not prevalent on Ma in Street nor is th e likelihood of a Nantucket style house having a large side yard. Voorhees then states that she would not like to see this particular house [referring to the carriage-style garage] on the street edge. Th is is a response to what the applicant has designed not what could be designed. After they repeatedly disagree with a general concept of the development plan, staff provides a backup comment, which is true in this case. These design suggestions are implemented a nd the plan is granted a Certificate of Appropriateness. As a preservationist who has worked in a si milar capacity, there are opportunities to learn and improve this review process. Someone, staf f or Mr. Rivers, should be required to write a

PAGE 48

48 detailed report to analyze the issues in total. For example, there is not a traditional Nantucket style house like the one at 127 Main Street that has a large side yard on Main Street. The house at 129 Main Street sits further back from the street but does not have a garage apartment to the side. The person that writes the analysis should be present at the HDC me eting and available to speak, especially when you are dealing with an elected board. This would provide some continuity for important design and preservation issues. Some HDC members do not come from a design or preservation backgr ound and would benefit from deta iled guidance on controversial cases, if not all. The property in question shou ld and could be evalua ted from a staff or Mr. Rivers experience and credentials. One must que stion why the historical significance of the property is unknown. It is there, ready to be investigated. The plan submitted for new construction in th e Old Town of Nantucket on this lot should meet the goals for new construction. I believe this plan fails on the following points, To preserve as unchanged as po ssible the old structures buil t before the middle of the 19th century in their original sett ings and conditions; also to ma intain the fundamental harmony of the historic community by approving new st ructures and changes in old ones only when they blend harmoniously with the er a before 1846. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 9) The fact that 127 Main Street has a large side yard and a rear garage apartment is not in accordance with what would have existed before 1846. To preserve the historic character of the old town of Nantucket as a whole, including its pedestrian scale as well as its close and complementary pattern (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 9). The Victorian style plays a part in the historic character of the town a nd it was not preserved in this case. To preserve the integrity of the historic buildings that physi cally express the history of th e island (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 9). As mentioned before, 125 Main Street was the physical evidence of a certain portion of Nantuckets long history. To make certain all new buildings are compatible with the buildings adjacent to them and contribute to the overa ll harmony of the street (Lang and Stout, 1995, p.

PAGE 49

49 9). As stated before and shown by the photos, th e garage apartment is not compatible to the buildings at 127 Main Str eet or 123 Main Street. Personal critique of the contribut ing property in the new location. The new location for the folk Victorian style hous e is near the Nantucket Memori al Airport at 7 Okorwaw Way (Figure 3-14). The house is barely visible fr om the street (Figures 3-15 and 3-16). The streetscape is very unlike the original site for th e house. There are other dwellings in this area on the same dirt road however there is no rhythm cr eated or streetscape represented. The property is in good condition (Figures 3-17 and 3-18). From th is photo of the front facade one can clearly observe the folk Victorian details, as mentione d earlier. While it is useful as low-income housing, it is regrettable that the property has been relocated, esp ecially without ca reful attention to location. 18 Mill Street The dwelling at 18 Mill Street was recorded by the HDC. The date is unknown. Per the Inventory Form, Jerry E. OKeffe owns the dw elling. According to the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for the area, the dwelling was built afte r 1923 but before 1949. The dwelling is visible from a public road. This is a one-story three-ba y Bungalow with a concrete foundation. The main roof is a gable and the one-story front por ch is a shed roof, both are co mposition shingles. There are two unpainted brick chimneys, one located off-center th e second on the end wall. Other architectural features include an off-center flush frame front door, front stair with ba lustrade at the porch, plain corner boards and six-overone flush frame windows. The Stru cture is noted as having the Cape Revival influence to the style of architectu re. It is located 10 feet or less from the street with the residential surroundings densely built up. Features rela ted to the structure are the

PAGE 50

50 gardens and parking. The structure is noted as being in good conditi on. The structure is classified as contributing to the Old Historic District. Request for relocation. Application #32,826: August 31, 1998: Request to Move Building and for Demolition. The applicant requests to demolish the rear section then move the house and front porch. The square footage listed on the application is 1064 SF with a dwelling le ngth of 38-0 and a width of 28-0. There is a 10-0 x 28-0 deck. Staff comments, September 8, 1998: Structure is listed as co ntributing, the question is if the house is a significant according to guideline s on page 162. If significant, the proposal is inappropriate. Hold for black and white photos and an elevation of the proposed rear. HDC Meeting Minutes, September 8, 1998: The staff comments above were read. Mr. DaSilva made a motion for approval. Ms. Voorhees seconded, and it was so voted. Mr. McLaughlin and Ms. Hall opposed. Certificate #32,726 was issued. Immediately following this approva l, Application #32,827 was heard. The applicant NHA Properties requ ested to move a build ing [dwelling located at 18 Mill Street] to One Norquarta Drive. M r. Rivers read the following staff comments: Hold for the move off approval and elevati on with new front entry door. Mr. DaSilva made a motion to approve with driveway. Ms. Voorhees seconded, and it was so voted. Mr. McLaughlin and Ms. Hall opposed. Certificate #32,827 was issued. Personal critique of the HDC review of th e contributing property in the new location. In the staff comments on September 8, 1998, they state that the building is classified as contributing and the guidelines dealing with th e structures significa nce on page 162, under the Demolition Policy. If significant, the advice to th e HDC is to deem the proposal inappropriate. Since the structure is already de fined as a contributing structure, a structure which adds to the Districts sense of time, place and historic de velopment (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162), this is confusing. The definitions continue and the si gnificance of a buildi ng is described as, Any structure within the Historic District of Nantucket Island wh ich is in whole or in part fifty years or more old and which has b een designated by the Commission to be a significant structure after a finding by the Co mmission that the building is either: (a) importantly associated with one or more hist oric persons or events, or with the broad architectural, cultural, political, economic or social history of the Island or the

PAGE 51

51 Commonwealth; or (b) hist orically or architectu rally significant (in te rms of period, style, method of building construction, or association with a famous architect or builder) either by itself or in the context of a group of buildings. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162) 18 Mill Street is a bungalow style ho use. It is characterized by, low-pitched roofs, exaggerated roof overhangs and porches, often within massive, square supportstraditionally one-to 11/2 story dwellings, modest in design, with a horizontal emphasis, gently pitched roofs and incorporat ed front porches. .c oziness of its porch, which both integrates interior a nd exterior space and at the same time hints to the passer-by the charming intimacy that lies within. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 49) Request for New Construction. Application #32,944, August 17, 1998: Description of Work to be Performed: Request to construct a two-story building in the Old Historic District. The structure is proposed to be 74-10 in le ngth and 38-10 in width. The proposed square footage on the first floor is 2010 SF and the 180 0 SF on the second floor with a 3,810 SF total. The applicants also propose a 500 SF deck. The propos ed height of the roof ridge is 29 9-1/2 from the finished grade. The proposed dwelling will have an 8 bric k foundation with exterior white cedar shingles and wood trim painted white. The propose d roof pitch of the main mass will be 8/12 and of the porch will be 4/12 covered with white ced ar shingles. The applicants propose wood gutters and leaders. The applicants propose wood windows and doors with true divided lights. The proposed windows are 6/6 double hung windows with sashes painted white. The applicants proposed a French door painted white for the rear faade. Other proposed architectural details are white shutters and cornerboards. HDC review of the new construction. Staff Comment, August 25, 1998: Recommend a viewing. Proposal is overly formal and out of scale with the immediate context. Gu idelines recommend chimneys on larger houses be interior, particularly in town. Guid elines discourage bay windows and hexagonal masses in the OHD. 14 columns are atypical of Nantucket and the OHD. If this formal five bay design is deemed appropriate, r ecommend the front second floor windows be more traditional in their size. Note a move off demolition ap plication will be required for the existing building. May want to hold for approval of either.

PAGE 52

52 HDC Meeting Minutes, August 25, 1998: The a bove staff comments were read. Ms. Voorhees was concerned with the size of the house. Ms. Voorhees made a motion to hold for viewing and revisions per staff comments and would like to see application for the existing 1923 house. Staff Comment, September 8, 1998: Door change and chimneys moved interior is appropriate revisions. Reducti on of porch posts also appr opriate. Otherwise general concerns with overall appropriateness of th e design in this context remain. Note new context photos have been submitted. HDC Meeting Minutes, September 18, 1998: Th e staff comment from September 8, 1998 was read. Mr. McLaughlin states the house is overpowering for the area it is in and there is visibility, also east elevation windows are out of proportion. Ms. Hall stated that the house is too large. Mr. DaSilva motioned to hold for revision. Ms. Hall seconded, and so it was voted. Staff Comment, September 22, 1998: Change to a less formal four bay is a tremendous improvement. Use of mulled windows throughout is not in keeping with the historic context. Detail of gable-end shutters s hould be provided. Scale and massing of east elevation may be a concern in this cont ext, as much of it will be exposed. HDC Meeting Minutes, September 22, 1998: The staff comments from September 22, 1998 were read. Glenn Winn and Michael McClung attended on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Voorhees stated that mulled windows are inappropriate. Ms. Voor hees agrees with staff comments. Mr. McLaughlin stated eas t elevation is over powering height, not appropriate height compared to other houses in this area. Ms. Hall is concerned with the overall sizing and agrees with staff comments Mr. Winn stated that we could put more of a jog in the building. Shortened 8-10 or lowe red. Mr. DaSilva made a motion to hold for revisions. Ms. Voorhees s econded, and so it was voted. Staff Comment, September 29, 1998: Revision s are appropriate. Recommend approval. HDC Meeting Minutes, September 29, 1998: Gary Winn attended on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Avery abstained. The staff comments from September 29, 1998 were read. Mr. DaSaliva made a motion to approve with dormers on the east elev ation raised up and shutters on the gable ends removed. Mr. Axt seconded, and so it was voted. Mr. McLaughlin opposed. Ms. And Mrs. Osdell, abut ters, arrived later in the meeting and voiced their opposition to the proposal. Certificate #32,944 was issued. Personal critique of the HDC review of the new construction. Even though the staff has recommended denial of the current design, they provide back-up advice in their comments dated August 25, 1998, If this formal five bay design is deemed appropriate because the HDC

PAGE 53

53 does not always heed their advice. This is unfortu nate, especially in a Na tional Historic Register District. The HDC is an elected body and benefit from staff guidan ce. In the guidelines, section 3 of Appendix A, There is hereby established in the town of Nantucket an Historic District Commission consisting of five (5) unpaid members who shall be resident taxpayers of the Town of Nantucket, to be appointed by the Selectme n (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 155). Therefore, the commission has no requirements for members to be design or preservation professionals. The house at 18 Mill Street was classified as a contributing structure to the Old Historic District. During the course of this review and approval, the contributing classification has been stripped. Clearly, the guidelines created to protect this structure are not followed. Also, the new dwelling is not consistent with a number of guidelines. The setback is less than five feet from the street. This creates quite a formal feel for Mill Street (Figure 3-19). The massing and volume of the house seem overly large (Figure 3-20). This is true when comparing the new construction with the original contributin g structure (Figure 3-21 ). The property records indicate the square footage of the 2-1/2 story new dwelling is 3,185, while the one-story original property was 1,064 SF. The new construction is almost 3 times the size of the original. Also important is the relationship to the adjacent one story house (Figure 3-22). The site conditions do not benefit the massiveness of the new constructi on. While the adjacent house is one story and sits on the low side of the hill, the new two-stor y sits on the high side (Figure 3-23). This portion of N. Mill Street is nearing the edge of the Old Historic District as you can see on the map of the Old Historic District. The street is less densely populated than th e center of town; there are some large vacant lots and more space is between hous es. The house across the street is similar in design to the new construction (Fi gures 3-24 and 3-25). However, due to the fact the front fourbay side gable faade is facing the side yard, th e overall result is much less formal. Before the

PAGE 54

54 relocation of the contributing building and the new construction, the character of the area and context of the street were representative of the edge of the district. With the formality of the new construction, this quality will eventually be lost. There are details about the cons truction, which reveal that it is recent. They had to be pointed out to me, but I will relay them. The fou ndation has a crisp new appearance that original foundations do not (Figure 3-26). An other detail is the energy e fficient windows (Figure 3-27). The plan submitted for new construction in th e Old Town of Nantucket on this lot should meet the goals for new construction. I believe this plan fails on the following points, To preserve as unchanged as po ssible the old structures buil t before the middle of the 19th century in their original sett ings and conditions; also to ma intain the fundamental harmony of the historic community by approving new st ructures and changes in old ones only when they blend harmoniously with the er a before 1846. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 9) The contributing structure at 18 Mi ll Street has not been preserve d in its original setting. The mass and the style of the new construction do not blend harmoniously. To preserve the historic character of the old town of Nant ucket as a whole, including its pedestrian scale as well as its close and complementary pattern (Lang and Stout 1995, p. 9). To preserve the integrity of the historic buildings that physica lly express the history of the is land (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 9). The contributing bungalow style house plays a part in the historic charac ter of the town Built between 1923 and 1949, this structure is a product of Nantuckets survival as a district. During the time it was built, tourism was reborn on the island and became the towns livelihood. To make certain all new buildings are compatible with the buildings adjacent to them and contribute to the overall harmony of the street (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 9). As stated before and shown by the photos, the new construction is massive, close to the street, and stylistically confusing to understanding the difference of th e town verse the outlying areas.

PAGE 55

55 Personal critique of the contribut ing property in the new location. Another unfortunate aspect I see from a preservation standpoint is th at the lack of concern for the placement of an original structure. The HDC did not review the new site at 1 Norquarta Drive for the placement of the contributing property. The general setting is rural, which is not consistent with the original setting. The street itself has no similarity w ith Mill Street (Figure 3-21, 3-28 through 3-30). The closest structures are not similar to the structures in the Old Historic District (Figures 3-29 and 330). 3 Coffin Street The Historic District Commission surveyed the dwelling at 3 Coffin Street, but the year was not recorded. Per the Inventory form the ow nership of the building was private. The onestory three-bay structure has a weathered shingle exterior with a concrete foundation. The sidegable roof is composition shingle with a metal chimney located off-center. The dwelling has a covered front entry porch with trel lis-walls on either side. Other ar chitectural features include the central flush-frame entry, plain corner board s and six over six windows. The building is classified as contributing to the district. A dditional information included on the form is the building size of 1300 SF and setback noted as 10 f eet or less from the street. The property is noted as having a shed and fence, while the context is noted as densely built up. Request for relocation. Application #37,092, November 21, 2000: Request to move the building. The building is 38-7i n length and 22-3 in width. The applicant has noted the structure as 644 SF, which differs from that noted on the inventory form. Application #37,093, November 21, 2000: Request to move the building at 3 Coffin Street to 33 Bartlett Farm Road. A site plan depi cts the proposed location in the northwest corner of the Bartlett Farm Property, roughly 120 feet fr om the side property line and 60 feet from the rear property line.

PAGE 56

56 Personal critique. The HDC review of contributing pr operty in the new location was not critiqued, because the meeti ng minutes were unavailable. Request for new construction. Application #37,179, Novemb er 24, 2000: Request to build a two-story dwelling at 3 Coffin Street. Th e proposed size of the new building is 38-10 in length and 22-4 in width. The applicants propose 701 SF on the first and second floors. This is a total of 1402 SF overall. They propose a one-story front entry porch, 6-6 wide by 3-6 deep. The proposed height of the ridge above finish grade is 26-6. The applicants propose an 8-16 concrete foundation and exterior sheathing of natural white cedar shingles. The proposed roof pitch is a 7:12 on the main and secondary roof, which will be clad with gray asphalt shingles. The a pplicants propose a white aluminum skylight; double hung windows and six panel wood doors. Th ey propose the trim, window sashes and doors be painted white. The proposed walkway will be constructed of slate. The existing fence proposed to be painted gray. HDC review of the new construction. The front, rear, and side elevations are stamped approved June 13, 2000. There are no meeti ng minutes available for this case. Personal critique of the new construction. My photos of the new structure at 3 Coffin Street depict a two-story build ing that differs from the appr oved application details and drawings. The trim is gray, not white as planne d (Figure 3-31). The columns at the front entry are unpainted (Figure 3-32). The approved elevat ion (Figure 3-33) depi cts exterior lights flanking the entry door, but they do not exist on the building (Fi gure 3-32). There is a window air-conditioning unit at the second story of the left wing (Figure 3-34). Therefore, it seems the building lacks exterior architectural details commonly found on most buildings in the Old Historic District.

PAGE 57

57 However, the footprint of the new constructi on is exactly the same as the contributing one story cottage (Figure 3-35). Pe rhaps due to the small size of the site, only .11 acres, and the only option for gaining additional square foot age was to go up adding a second story. This presents an interesting idea; ne w structures could conform to th e footprint of the original to preserve the rhythm and open space along the street. It was also prevent proposed structures from being too massive. Personal critique of the contribut ing property in the new location. The previous contributing structures new locat ion on Bartlett Farm possesses no similarity to the original context. The original context, as mentioned on the historic inventory was densely built up, while the existing surroundings ar e rural (Figures 3-36 through 341). There is no relationship to a primary or secondary type street (Figure 342). The original house is poor condition; the building has been stripped of the character-defining front entry porch with trellis walls. The lack of consideration for the building in its new su rroundings and the lack of maintenance for the building have rendered it non-cont ributing and non-significant. 20 Milk Street The dwelling at 20 Milk Street was recorded by AGS on August 12, 1989. Per the Inventory Form, the owners were Arthur & Ma ry Desrocher. The ownership history is unknown. According to the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps and an aerial photo, the dwelling was built circa 1930. The dwelling is visible from a public road. This is a 1-1/2 story Bungalow with a c oncrete foundation and a wood frame structural system. The main roof is a hip with a one st ory shed porch that ex tends the length of the dwelling. Both the main and porch roofs are co vered with composition shingles. There is one unpainted corbeled chimney located off-center. Th ere is a hip dormer on the front faade. Other architectural features include an off-center, flush frame front door front stair with balustrade,

PAGE 58

58 plain corner boards and six-overone flush frame windows. The Stru cture is located 10 feet or less from the street with the residential surr oundings densely built up. Features related to the structure are the garage and deck. The stru cture is noted as being in good condition. The structure is classified as contribu ting to the Old Historic District. Request for relocation. No application # at time th at information was gathered. Application submitted May 17, 2002: Request to Move Building. The historic name of the property and the original builder are unknown. Also included in the a pplication is a site plan of the proposed location, Lot 13 on Norquarta Drive. Personal critique. The HDC review of the contributi ng property in the new location was not critiqued. When the information on 20 Milk Street was gathered, the house had not been relocated and remained in the original location. Request for new construction. No application # at time that information was gathered. Application submitted May 15, 2002: Request to cons truct a new dwelling. The basic volume of the new two-story dwelling is proposed to be 50 -10 in length and 27-0 in width. The first floor is planned to be 1170 SF and the second floor is planned to be 735 SF. This is a total of 1905 SF. The proposed height of the roof ridge is 25-0 from the east and west, 26-0 from the south and 24-6 from the north. The proposed dwelling will have an 8 poured concrete foundation with exterior natural cedar shingles and wood trim painted Nantucket Gr ay. The roof pitch of the main and secondary mass will be 8/12. The pitch of the dormer will be 8/12 as well. The roof will be covered with red cedar shingles. The gutters and leaders wi ll be constructed of wood. The windows will be double hung with true divided lights and a six over six light pattern with Nantucket Gray sashes.

PAGE 59

59 The front door will be a six panel wood door. The side and rear door have f our lights. All will be painted Nantucket Gray. HDC review of the proposed new construction. The remainder of my information was attained from an article printed in the Inquirer and Mirror Nantuckets newspaper, Figure D-1. The following was revealed about the case. The ow ners of 20 Milk Street are Ben and Adlumia Garnnett. They own the property next door and purchased 20 Milk Street from the previous owners, the Desrochers in May. Of interest is th at Mr. Desrocher is a former selectman and state legislator. The purpose of attaining this adjacent pr operty was to increase the size of their yard or build a garage. Also the owners wish to move the existing building to Norquarta Drive and donate the building for affordable housing. Publ ic comment on the issue was Neighbors in the Milk Street area supported the house move becau se they said the house did not fit into the character of the neighbo rhood (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). The HDC denied the owners request to move the contributing structure from its original site sometime on or around May 28, 2002. As quot ed in the article, HDC member Dirk Roggeveen defended the HDCs vote stating, t he 20 Milk Street home represented an architecture style popular in th e first half of the century. Ro ggeveen added that because a building did not fit into the charac ter of other buildings on the stre et, it did not mean the building did not have historical signifi cance (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). He also pointed out the HDCs purpose is not to recreate a New England village (Fiegl 2002, p. 7A). The owner f iled an appeal to the Selectmen, who overturned the HDCs decision. Attorneys representing the owners sited a previous case where the HDC allowed a bungalo w style building to be moved from 18 Mill Street to 1 Norquarta Drive in 1999. Matt Fee, th e sole Selectman to vote against overturning the HDCs decision stated, he did not want to see the Disney-ifica tion of Nantucket. Chairman

PAGE 60

60 of the Selectman Committee, Frank Spriggs expr essed his approval in the article, he did like that the housing proposed to replace the bungalo w style house would go along with a similar footprint of a building built in the 1840s (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). Commission administrator, Mark Voight, said the commission was not against creating affordable housing, but the bungalow style home repr esented one of the 14 different styles of architecture found on Nantucket (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). Personal critique of the proposed new construction. This case raises the same issues as 125 Main Street. 20 Milk Street is defined as a contributing, a structur e which adds to the Districts sense of time, place and histor ic development (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162). Significance of a buildin g is described as, Any structure within the Historic District of Nantucket Island wh ich is in whole or in part fifty years or more old and which has b een designated by the Commission to be a significant structure after a finding by the Co mmission that the building is either: (a) importantly associated with one or more hist oric persons or events, or with the broad architectural, cultural, political, economic or social history of the Island or the Commonwealth; or (b) hist orically or architectu rally significant (in te rms of period, style, method of building construction, or association with a famous architect or builder) either by itself or in the context of a group of buildings. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162) 20 Milk Street is a bungalo w style house (Figure 3-43) It is characterized by, low-pitched roofs, exaggerated roof overhangs and porches, often within massive, square supports . traditionally one-to 1-1/2 story dw ellings, modest in design, with a horizontal emphasis, gently pitched roofs and incorporat ed front porches . coziness of its porch, which both integrates interior a nd exterior space and at the same time hints to the passer-by the charming intimacy that lies within. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 49) Beyond the fact that it is a bungalo w with architectural characteri stics, it speaks of a time on Nantucket where the economy was no longer dependant on whaling. Under the Styles of Architecture, Craftsman, and Bungalow Styl e (1900-1948), the Guide lines state, Low, unpretentious and ideally suited to the concept of the vacation ge t-away cottage, a handful of craftsmen style cottages sprang up across the town . and at 20 Milk Street . . (Lang and

PAGE 61

61 Stout, 1995, p. 50). This structure is specifically mentioned and the HDC made a sound decision in denying the proposal. Selectmen or anyone should not be able to base approvals on poor decisions made in the past. Does this mean that the approved plan is acceptable? Or that it is just okay to move the bungalow? The argument may be awkward for the commission or the city to counter, but the courts generally defer to commission s as expert bodies, and failure to enforce it in one case is not a legal defense in another (Tyler, 2000, p. 75). The proposed new construction with a large front yard and structure at the rear of the lot (Figure 3-44) is inconsistent with the site planning guideli nes. Under site planning, new construction should follow a pattern of site utilization similar to th at already established adjacent to it (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). The houses on either side of 20 Milk Street establish a regular and consistent street edge (Figures 3-45 and 3-46). Th e guidelines specifically state, consideration should be given to the setback of the buildings from the street. Also, Where buildings are predominately aligned along the st reet creating a unified edge or wall along the street space, the front of a new building should be aligned within the general faade line of its neighbors (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). Because these recommendations come directly from the guidelines, it is understandable why the Histor ic District Co mmission denied the request. Personal critique of the contributing property in the proposed new location. The area surrounding Norquarta Drive is rural. The street itself is be coming denser with a relocated bungalow from 18 Mill Street (Figure 3-21) and new multifamily dwellings (Figures 3-29 and 330). The proposed location for 20 Milk Street Bu ngalow is Lot 13 located to the left of the 18 Mill Street bungalow (Figures 3-47 and 3-48). Norquarta Drive is becoming a depository for the

PAGE 62

62 islands unwanted bungalows. Affordable housing is a worthy cause. However, the absence of this house in the Old Historic District is unfortunate. Analysis of the Case Studies: Consequences of not Including Non-contributing Properties in the Old Historic District When noncontributing buildings are unrec ognized, they suffer many consequences. Unfortunately the effects are a detr iment to the where they are located. This is evident in the case studies of the Landmark Historic District, the Old Hist oric District, Nantucket, Massachusetts. Consequence of Re-use When considering a move-off request for a contributing building, approval is easily attained if the building is being reused in anot her location on the island. The case study of 125 Main Street is the most obvious example of this. When questioned if the structure is historic, Mr. Avery says he th inks the house will be reus ed (Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes, February 18, 1997). The issue of reuse is sepa rate from the issue of historic significance. Reuse should only be considered if th e building is deemed to be insignificant. The case study of 18 Mill Street case presents a similar situation. When considering the buildings value, the staff comm ents, Structure is listed as contributing, the question is if the house is significant according to the guidelines on page 162. If significant the proposal is inappropriate. The Historic Distri ct Commission approved th e buildings relocation without discussion. The Historic District Commission may be open to move-off requests due to the long tradition of building reuse on the island Building with Nantucket in Mind states, There was no natural source of building mate rials on the island, so materials had to be shipped in at considerable cost. . A Nant ucket house, moreover, was seldom destroyed; it was moved or its parts reused as long as they endured. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 34) However, this does not give the Commission pe rmission to move contributing buildings today. Eighteen Mill Street was relocated to 1 Norquart a Drive, a rural location becoming denser with

PAGE 63

63 relocated bungalows and newly constructed mu ltifamily dwellings (Figures 3-29 and 3-30). These surroundings are not consiste nt with the context of Mill St reet, where buildings were 10 feet or less from the street a nd the surroundings were described as densely built up (Figures 321, 3-28 through 3-30). The closest structures are unlike the stru ctures in the Old Historic District (Figures 3-29 and 3-30). Another example is th e case study of 20 Milk Street, where the proposed new location is Lot 13 on Norquarta Drive adjacent to 18 Mill Street (Figures 3-48 and 3-49). Lastly, the case study of 3 Coffin Street fa red the worst in relocation. This is a quaint cottage with a covered front entr y porch flanked by trellis-walls. It was classified as contributing to the district. The new location is rural, located in the northwest corner of the Bartlett Farm property, roughly 120 feet from the side property line and 60 feet from the rear property line (Figure 3-42). This location possesses no similarity to the original context described as densely built up, and 10 or less from the street (F igures 3-36 through 3-41). Also, there is no relationship to a primary or secondary type street (Figure 3-42). The building has been stripped of character-defining features and is in poor condition. The lack of consideration for the buildi ngs new locations causes them to be noncontributing and non-significant. This is problema tic for the Secretary of the Interior states, Properties listed in the Nati onal Register should be moved onl y when there is no feasible alternative for preservation. When a property is moved, every e ffort should be made to reestablish its historic orientat ion, immediate setting, and genera l environment (National Park Service. (2004). National Regist er of Historic Places: Progra m Regulations, Retrieved on April 2006 from http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/regulations.htm#6014 ). If these buildings are to remain contributing to the district, the new locations shou ld be analyzed with the referenced criteria. If it is proposed that a propert y listed in the National Regi ster be moved and the State Historic Preservation Officerw ishes the property to remain in the National Register

PAGE 64

64 during and after the move, the State Hi storic Preservation Officershall submit documentation to the NPS prior to the move . . (National Park Service. (2004). National Register of Historic Pla ces: Program Regulations, Re trieved on April 2006 from http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/regulations.htm#6014 ) Due to the fact that the proper documentation was not submitted to approve the move, these buildings can no longer be counted as contributing. The ratio of contributing to noncontributing buildings must be altered, which may threaten the Landmark st atus of the historic district. In the event that a property is moved, deletion form the National Register will be automatic unless the above procedures ar e followed prior to the move If the property has already been moved, it is the responsibility of the State, Federal agency or person or local government which nominated the property to not ify the National Park Service. (National Park Service. (2004). National Register of Hi storic Places: Program Regulations, Retrieved on April 2006 from http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/regulations.htm#6014 ) While moving a building within a re gistered historic district is not as grave as moving a building individually listed on the National Re gister, the concept is the same. The Historic District Commi ssion should review a move-off request thoroughly. They must verify that it is the only alternative for rehabilitation, not that th ey would rather have a building with a more prevalent style built in this location. When buildings are moved, the new site should be reviewed for consistency w ith the existing surroundings. Moving contributing historic buildings w ithin a landmark district should be proh ibited unless it is an absolute last resort, such as coastal erosion or a natura l disaster. Moving a building to improve the concentration of a certain style with a new struct ure is an arbitrary form of urban planning and not related to preservation. It is inconceivable that the landmark stat us of the district can survive this action. Consequence of Non-prevalence When most of the contributing buildings in a district exhibit certain prevalent styles, contributing buildings of other styles are often moved or demolished. Many times they are

PAGE 65

65 replaced with new construction, re productions of the favored styles in the district. The island of Nantucket is celebrated for many th ings, but people are drawn to th e Old Historic District for the quaint town atmosphere. In Building with Nantucket in Mind many architectural styles are discussed, but the prevalent styles in the distri ct that create this quaint environment are the Typical Nantucket style, Federal style and Greek Revival style. Th e buildings in th e case studies were not prevalent styles: Folk Victorian, Bungalows, and small co ttages. All were relocated and replaced with new construction. Within the case studies of contributing buildings the consequence of non-prevalence is demonstrated. For example, 125 Main Street case is a Folk Victorian built before 1887 (Figure 37). The building possesses Victor ian details applied to a simple house form: horizontal siding, a brick foundation, a gable roof with extended eaves, a nd exposed rafter tails. There is a one-story front porch set within the L of the building form, typical of the Victorian style. Other characteristics are simple pediments above th e window and door surrounds, as well as, the twoover-two double hung windows (McAlester, 1984). The house is contributing to the National Register Historic District, as documented in the Nantucket Island Architectural and Cultural Resources Survey, District Data Sheet (Figure 3-6). The applicant requests to demolish or give away the building. The Historic District Comm ission board member, Mr. Avery comments this house is very typical of Victoria n infill architecture, and he di d not understand why it would not be contributing. Ms. Deeley felt the house was s omewhat contributing a nd that it should not be demolished but also adds, Lets see what [Mr. Dupont] is going to put in its [the houses] place. On March 11, 1997 the Historic District Commission approved the demolition or moveoff based on the lack of historical or architec tural significance. The Folk Victorian house is not of the prevalent styles in the district, which seems to make th e contributing status negotiable.

PAGE 66

66 Nine months later the applicants request a two-st ory dwelling clad with natural cedar shingles. At the same meeting the Historic District Comm ission issues a Certificat e of Appropriateness to move the existing buildi ng from 125 Main Street. Later the applicants (the owners of the adjacent house) present a site plan showing a re ar location for the proposed dwelling, obviously a garage apartment, and a large yard in place of the Folk Victorian building. The proposed placement is atypical of Main Street; therefore st aff recommends referral to the Design Advisory Council. The Design Advisory Council advises the applic ants to create a carriage house character with simple forms. They state that the massing (re ferring to the site) is ap propriate if a more rural form is developed. For five months from January to May the Hist oric District Commission struggles with the idea of losing a contributing structure to a lawn and a garage apartment. On May 12, 1998, the staff states the revisions to th e garage apartment are appropriate. Today the view from Main Street is a white fence and a tall hedge; the roof is the only visible portion of the new construction. This is a corner lot, and the structure can be viewed from Quarter Mile Hill Way. From this location the garage apartment looks like it has always been there, because it closely matches the main house, a contributing structure. The premise from this case is that the historic viability of the existing property has to be determined before new construction is considered. If not, this leads one to think if the committee is presented with an appropria te design, the house may not be that historic. The objective to create an appropriately designed Nantucket-like dwelling in order that the Victorian style house is not missed is faulty. By making a determinati on on the historic signifi cance of the structure, the Historic District Commission and the architect/o wner/applicant are not placed in a contest for design appropriateness. In this case the outcome was not what the Histor ic District Commission

PAGE 67

67 hoped for, and the final comments from st aff and certain commission members reflect disappointment. Staff states, Reco mmend a primary dwelling on the st reet due to the history and context of this lot, and the pa ttern of Main Street is houses on the street. Recommend the HDC be consistent on this issue. At the meeting Ms. Voorhees states, I think it is too bad that there is not a house on the street. The case study of 18 Mill Street is a one-sto ry three-bay Bungalow built between 1923 and 1949. The architectural details of the building are typical of th e bungalow style: a gable roof, one-story front porch with a shed roof, porch balustrade, six-over-one flush frame windows and plain corner boards. The structure is classified as contributing to the Old Historic District, but was easily approved for relocation with no disc ussion noted in the HDC meeting minutes. The Bungalow style is not one of th e prevalent styles in the dist rict, which seems to make the contributing status negotiable. The proposed new construction shows influence of both the Typical Nantucket and the Federal styles. Characteristics of the Typical Nantucket style are the four bay faade, an off-center door with a transom above, first floor 12 over 12 double hung windows; aligned with second floor smaller 6/6 windows, a roof with an 8 inch pitch, and small plain cornice (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 39). Characteristic of the Fe deral style is shown in the use of the twin chimneys rather than a central chimney (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 41). There are details about the construction, wh ich reveal that it is recent The foundation has a crisp new appearance that original foundati ons do not (Figure 3-26). Another detail is the energy efficient windows (Figure 3-27). Because these details ar e not obvious to an untrained eye, it is questionable if the new construction serves the true purpose of the Secretary of Interiors Standard. All buildings, structures and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time.

PAGE 68

68 Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be avoided when possible. The case study of 3 Coffin Stre et is a modest cottage, classified as contributing to the district. The Historic Di strict Commission approved the reloca tion. The style of the cottage is not inspired by the prevalent styles in the district, which seems to make the contributing status negotiable. The proposed new construction is a two-story dwelling with a minimum of architectural detail, reminiscent of the Quaker influence with a shingled exterior, 6/6 windows, trim, corner boards, and a small cornice. Howe ver the built product does not reflect the approved elevations. In addition, the quality of construction is not of the high level seen in the district. In this case, more than the existence of the contributing building is lost. The case study of 20 Milk Street is a bungalow with a hip roof, one-story front porch with a shed roof built in 1930. Other f aade details are a central hip dormer, plain corner boards and 6/1 flush frame windows. The applicants propose to build a two-story shi ngled house with true divided lights in a 6/6 light patt ern, a side gable roof and two gable dormers. Characteristics of the Typical Nantucket style are shown in the design details: an off-center front door with a transom above, a roof with an 8-inch pitch a nd a plain cornice. However, because the new construction sits at the rear of the lot, the contribu ting house is actually be ing replaced with a large lawn (Figure 3-44). This is uncharacteristi c of the other structures on Milk Street and inconsistent with the site pla nning guidelines, new construction should follow a pattern of site utilization similar to that al ready established adjacent to it (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). The houses on either side of 20 Milk St reet establish a regular and consistent stre et edge (Figures 345 and 3-46). The guidelines specifically state, c onsideration should be given to the setback of the buildings from the street (Lang and St out, 1995, p. 61). Also, Where buildings are

PAGE 69

69 predominately aligned along the stre et creating a unified edge or wall along the street space, the front of a new building should be aligned within the general faade line of its neighbors (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). With all these recommenda tions directly from the guidelines, it is understandable why the request was denied. The applicants reside in the adjacent contri buting house and their objective is to gain a garage apartment and large lawn. The Histor ic District Commissi on smartly denied the applicants request, probably to avoid a scenario like 125 Main Street. In the defense of their decision, a Commission memb er stated, the 20 Milk Street home represen ts an architectural style popular in the first half of the century (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). Also, he added that because a building did not fit into the char acter of the other buildings on the street, it did not mean the building did not have historical significance (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). Most importantly he pointed out that the Historic District Commissions purpose was not to r ecreate a New England village (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). So unfortunately while th e Historic District Commission made their decision based on information stated in the design guidelines, Building with Nantucket in Mind the Selectmen overturned it based on a previous case, 18 Mill Street. If this is the product we desi re, we are not preserving but cr eating. We have left the realm of historic preservation and ente red the realm of theme districts for economic development. All the existing buildings discussed above were cont ributing, which is alarming. The entire island of Nantucket is on the National Register of Historic Places and the town of Nantucket is a National Historic Landmark (Lang and Stout, 1995). Preservati on at the Landmark di strict level should exhibit the highest integrity. The Old Historic District is not just important to the region or community, but to the entire country. One should be ab le to trust that the ar chitectural fabric is authentic and not construed to be Nantuc ket-like. Moving a building to improve the

PAGE 70

70 concentration of a certain style with a new struct ure is an arbitrary form of urban planning and not related to preservation. It is inconceivable that the landmark stat us of the district can survive this action. Consequence of Overlooked Significance Even if a non-contributing building is not of a distinguishable style, it can add value to the district. The size and scale of the property an d/or the building may be a visual asset. The presence of a non-contributing structure can ge ographically or historically describe the development of a district. The case study of 10 Vestal Street is that of a small cottage built circa 1930 (Figure 3-1). It is wedged between a gable one -story dwelling and a two-story Federal style house (Figure 3-2). This cottage provides a stop in the rhythm of the street ; it is not in the midst of town but on the edge of the Old Historic Dist rict about to enter the outlying area. Even with some two-story dwellings sprinkled intermittently this idea is evident. The decision to replace the cottage with a Federal-like two-story house impact s the rhythm of the st reet and affects the perception of the towns historic density. Stylisticall y, the proposed 2-1/2story building reflects subtle characteristics of the early Federal styl e commonly seen in town. This is seen in the proposed front elevation (Figure 3-3). The front door is off-cent er with sidelights, and the chimney located at the side of the main mass. The exterior sheathing is clapboards with 6/6 windows. A small cottage like 10 Vestal Street in th is location provided a distinct sense of place. The other four case studies document decisions made by the Historic District Commission, which have stripped these contri buting buildings of their status; therefore, they can be included in this discussion. The presence of a building can historically describe the development of a district. For example the Folk Victorian dwelling at 125 Main Street resp ected the street edge, followed the established historic pa ttern, as well as, added to the d iversity of its [the islands] buildings and the continuity of developmen t (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 37). While there is

PAGE 71

71 no single appropriate style for the island, as indicated by the diversity of its buildings, understanding the continuity of development a nd relatedness of the styles described will exemplify the legacy shared by all Nantuc ket buildings (Lang a nd Stout, 1995, p. 37). The Victorian style has an exact cont ext in Nantuckets history. In the end, the economic collapse of the isolated island in the 1850s, when whaling su ccumbed to the discoveries of oil and gold, was responsible for the unique preservation and integr ity of the town today. Only in the late 1800s, when well-to-do people sought out unspoiled Nant ucket as a summer resort, were numbers of new houses built again (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 35-36). As the community turned to the summer resort trade, a few of these Victorian houses were built in town (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 44). One-twenty-five Main Str eet is physical evidence of the, continuity of development within this historical context. Without examples like 125 Main Street th ere is no relatedness of the style to witness. The presence of a non-contributing structure ca n geographically and hi storically describe the development of a district. For example, 18 Mill Street is a bungalow built between 1923 and 1949, and like 10 Vestal Street, it provides a sense of place. This portion of N. Mill Street is nearing the edge of the Old Histor ic District. The street is less densely popul ated than the center of town with large open lots and more sp ace between houses. Before the relocation of the contributing building and the new co nstruction, the character of the ar ea and context of the street were representative of the edge of the district. With the formality of the new construction, this quality is diminished and will eventually be lost. The bungalow at 20 Milk Street is represen tative of a time on Nantucket where the economy was no longer dependant on whaling. In fact this particular property is mentioned in the design guidelines, under the Bungalow Style (1900-1948), Low, unpretentious and ideally

PAGE 72

72 suited to the concept of the vacation get-away cottage, a handful of craftsmen style cottages sprang up across the town, . and at 20 Milk Street. . (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 50). A new classification of potenti ally significant is required to protect buildings that cannot be classified as contributing, architecturally significant or ancillary when the district is designated. These buildings could be re-evaluat ed when they are 50-years old, which would provide flexibility for the distri ct. While the 50-year time period may be arbitrary, it is probably long enough to divulge significance The primary purpose would be to protect structures until enough time passes to make an informed judgment on the buildings signif icance. If significance is recognized before the fifty years, the stru cture can be re-categoriz ed as architecturally significant, which recognizes a si gnificant building that enriches the district even though it did not exist during the designated historic period of significance. Consequence of Inconsistent Management There are nine management issues that impact buildings within the Old Historic District. The first deals with the makeup of the Commi ssion. The Historic Distri ct Commission is an appointed body with no requirements for the appointees to be design or preservation professionals, established in the town of Nantuc ket an Historic Distri ct Commission consisting of five (5) unpaid members who shall be resident taxpayers of the Town of Nantucket, to be appointed by the Selectmen (Lang and Stout 1995, p. 155). The problem is the board lacks professional knowledge and often disregards recommendations made by staff, which is unfortunate in a National Register Landmark Dist rict. They could definitely benefit from the staffs professional knowledge. For example, in the case study of 125 Main Street, the staff is presented with a proposal to replace a contribut ing house, which is locat ed 8 from the front property line with a garage apartment to be sited 60 from th e front property line. Needless to say, the staff remains steadfast in their evaluation that the applicants proposal is inappropriate.

PAGE 73

73 Recommend a primary dwelling on the street due to the history and context of this lot The pattern of Main Street is houses on the street. Recommend the HDC be consistent on this issue. However, they supply alternate advice knowing th at the Historic Distri ct Commission does not always follow their recommendation. If the HDC deems this use of the property to be appropriate, recommend all dormers conform to the 1 setback from the eave and the front transom be removed. Another example of the same disregard for the staffs professional advice is the case study at 18 Mill Street. The Staff has recommended a viewing and pointed out several basic design issues deali ng with the formality and scale. Again knowing that the board often does not heed their advice they make an a lternative suggestion, If this formal five bay design is deemed appropriate, recommend the front second floor windows be more traditional in their size (HDC Meeting Minutes, August 25, 1998). Often the Historic District Commission does not even discuss the staff comments, which come directly from the design guidelines. For example in the same case, the initial staff comments were as follows. Structure is listed as contributing, the question is if the house is a significant according to guidelines on page 162. If significant, the pr oposal is inappropriate. Hold for black and white photos and an elevation of the proposed rear (Staff Comments, September 8, 1998). The Historic District Commission meeting minutes note the following, The staff comments were read. Mr. DaSilva made a motion for approval. Ms. Voorhees seconded, and it was so voted. Mr. McLaughlin and Ms. Hall op posed (HDC Meeting Minutes, September 8, 1998). The purpose of the Historic District Commission is to uphol d the design guidelines and their review should directly involve requireme nts and suggestions from that document. The second management issue is that the de sign of new constructi on cannot be handled with staff comments. The staff comments are of ten written the day of the Historic District

PAGE 74

74 Commission meeting. Staff does not have time to review the application and examine the site. This system of making comments piece-meal only hits with the highlights, the most pressing design issues. For example, the new construction at 18 Mill Street is inconsistent with a number of guidelines. The setback of the structure is less than five feet from the street, creating a formal feel for Mill Street (Figure 3-19). The siti ng of the new construc tion does not meet the requirement in the guidelines, Any new construc tion should follow a pattern of site utilization similar to that already establ ished adjacent to it (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). The adjacent one story house is set at least 10 from the street and has a small front yard (Figure 3-49). In addition, the massing and volume of the house seem overly large (Figure 3-20). This is evident when comparing the faade of the new construction w ith the original contributing bungalow (Figure 321). The design guidelines state, The proportions of the faade of a new building along a street should be compatible with the proportions of the existing buildings (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 66). This requirement is not met; the adjacent building is dwarfed by the new construction (Figure 3-22). Even though the ac ts and amendments enabling the hi storic district state that, The Historic District Commissi on shall not consider relative size of buildings in plan, interior arrangement or buildi ng features not subject to pub lic view. The Commission shall not make any recommendations or require ments except for the purpose of preventing developments incongruous to the historic as pects of the surroundi ngs and the Historic Nantucket District. (L ang and Stout, 1995, p. 158) Not considering relative size in plan would be understandable if that was the only factor examined. However, the relativ e size of the proposed building to adjacent buildings can be informative, especially if other factors indicate that the building is too massive. For example, the property records indicate the squa re footage of the new construc tion is 3,185, while the one-story bungalow was 1,064 SF, similar in size to the adj acent one story house. The new construction is almost 3 times the size of the bungalow that onc e sat here. Therefore the new construction shows no relation to the adjacent one story house (Figure 3-22). Again this is in violation of the

PAGE 75

75 design guidelines; Any new constr uction in the town should be of a scale compatible with adjacent buildings (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 67) In addition the large mass of the new construction is exaggerated by the site conditions While the adjacent house is one story and sits on the lower side of the hill, the new two-story si ts on the higher side of the hill (Figure 3-23). Obviously, staff comments are not sufficient. The third management issue is the lack of a written report to analy ze the aspects of the applicants proposal with a sta ff recommendation. Wit hout a report of this type, fundamentals fall through the cracks. For example, the request to move 125 Main Street is approved noting the lack of historical or archite ctural significance (HDC meeting minutes, March 11, 1997). This is a failure of the Historic Distri ct Commission to fulfill its purpose. If they cannot research a historic property, the ap plicant who wishes to remove the structure will not. According to the design guidelines, the Historic Di strict Commission is allowed to request additional information, documentation, or evidence as is necessary to ma ke a decision, and is required to make its decision based on all the evidence at the public hearing (Lang and St out, 1995, p. 162). In this case they could have requested staff research the property. Another effect of the lack of a written report is that it causes misunders tandings. For example in the same case, 125 Main Street, Mr. Perkins responds to the comment that there is no house on the street. He said, he would feel differently about it if there were not similarly large yards with hous es set back a little farther up Main Street. This is simplifying the issue. It seems that the fact a contributing building once stood here is forgotten. While there are large ya rds farther up the street, they were not once occupied by a contributing building th at addressed the street. If they did, this is not the reason the Historic District Commission made this decision. A well-written re port could make distinctions

PAGE 76

76 and improve the commissions decisions. The Hi storic District Commission is reminded to consider, the general design, arrangement, texture, materi al and color of the bu ilding or structure in question, the location of the lot and the relation of such fact ors to similar features of buildings and structures in the position of such building or stru cture in relation to the street or public way and to other buildings or structures. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 157) With this in mind, the staff report could consider the house at 129 Main Street, which has a large front yard and was constructed at a later era. This site follow s a modern pattern, buildings along the street with front yards (Figure 3-13). The design guidelines explain, After the whaling era, houses diverged fr om the customary single-plane faade and consistent street side building placement, ther eby fragmenting the unifi ed street edge. New houses then began to have front yards, large lo ts, a lack of consistency in setbacks from the property line, and orientations to the water or view rather th an the street. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61) A pattern of a large front yard or side yard is not common on Main Street. Another important topic for investigation would be how common it is to have a Nantucket style house with a large side yard on Main Street. The staff should be re quired to write a detaile d report to analyze the issues in total and make it available for the Hi storic District Commi ssion members to review before the meeting. The author of the report should be present at th e Historic District Commission meeting, available to speak. This would provide some continuity for design and preservation issues. The property in questi on should be evaluated from a professional perspective, and it is of the utmost importance in a historic district im portant at the landmark level. The fourth problematic management issue is th at buildings are not protected until a plan for new construction is approved. The Historic Di strict Commission and st aff must not issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition or relocation until the Certificate of Appropriateness for new constructio n is issued. Currently, the Hist oric District Commission has

PAGE 77

77 a policy described by staff as, requesting deve lopment scenarios as a condition of reviewing demolitions (HDC Meeting Minutes, March 31, 1998) However, they have experienced first hand that this is not adequate. For example, considering the ca se study of 125 Main Street, the Historic District Commission is sued a Certificate of Appropria teness for relocation on March 11, 1997 based on the lack of histor ical or architectur al significance. This Certificate of Appropriateness may have expired, because on January 22, 1998 another Certificate of Appropriateness was for relocation. At this mee ting, the initial proposal for new construction was presented. However, at th e next Historic Di strict Commission meeting, January 27, 1998, the applicants reveal their true intentions. Twig Perkins attended and stated that this design is intended to compliment the Rhode s House at 127 Main Street. He explained the property was acquired by the Rhodes so their house could have a la rge yard. From this point forward, there is an inherent discord where the a pplicants intentions do not confor m to the historical pattern of the street. At this point in time, the Historic Di strict Commission could have cited the applicants for changing their development scenario after receiving approval for relocation based on this scenario. This could have been considered a violation, for any person to knowingly submit false, fraudulent or misleading informati on to the Commission in connection with any application (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 158). In the future, the Historic District Commi ssion could specify that a Certificate of Appropriateness for relocation is contingent on the Certificat e of Appropriateness for new construction. In this case, the new construction for the site is not approved until May 5, 1998 and unfortunately it is not what the Historic Distri ct Commission had original ly bargained for. To avoid this situation in the future, it is imperativ e that the Historic Dist rict Commission adopt a strict practice that insures submittals are the applicants real intentions.

PAGE 78

78 The fifth management issue deals with the De sign Advisory Council (DAC). The Acts and Amendments for the Nantucket Historic District require the following for denied requests. In case of a disapproval, the Comm ission shall state its reasons therefore in writing, and it may make recommendations to the applicant with re spect to appropriateness of design, arrangement, texture, material, color and the like of the bu ilding or structure invol ved (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 158). Therefore, the DAC meets with applicants to discuss appropriate design solutions. In the future, staff must attend the meetings and dire ct Council members to the reason for the meeting. For example, the first staff comments pertaining to 125 Main Street, Rec ommend referral to the DAC. The massing is not appropriate, particularly at the front. The structure being set back from the street is atypical (Histo ric District Commission Meeting Minutes, January 27, 1998). At the Historic District Commission meeting, it is ob vious they have allowed the relocation of a contributing structure for the applicants to obtai n a large yard and detached garage apartment. Historic District Commission boa rd member, Ms. Hall states, If the proposed structure is an outbuilding, it should match the main house ( HDC meeting minutes, January 27, 1998). Historic District Commission board member Mr. Avery responds Although the front dwelling is inappropriate for a second dwelling facing Main Street, there are bigger issues [the historic pattern of buildings on the stre et] at stake here than just th e design, (HDC meeting minutes, January 27, 1998). With this in mind, the Historic District Commission refers the applicants to the DAC. The Historic District Commission members th at attended the DAC meeting had no issue with the historic pattern of buildings on the stre et, because they advised the applicants to design the garage apartment to match the main house. Also, they suggested how to landscape the front yard appropriately. This advice was not consistent with comment s from Commission members or

PAGE 79

79 staff, and does not conform to the guidelines. Under site planning, n ew construction should follow a pattern of site utilization similar to that already established adjacent to it (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). The adjacent build ing at 127 Main Street (Figur e 3-9), and 123 Main Street (Figures 3-10 and 3-11) are 10 -0 or less from the sidewalk. The buildings at 119-123 Main Street display the regular pattern of front yard setbacks (Figure 3-12), which is taken from a point closer to town looking toward the 125 Main Street. The guidelines specifically state, consideration should be given to the setback of the buildings from the street. Also, Where buildings are predominately aligned along the st reet creating a unified edge or wall along the street space, the front of a new building should be aligned within the general faade line of its neighbors (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). Neve rtheless the DAC does not rely on these recommendations to advise the applicants. If the Commission member wh o brought attention to the design issue was present at the DAC mee ting, perhaps the outcome would have been different. In any event, the atte ndees should be given copies of the Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes. Preservation staff should steer the DAC to serve the main concerns of the Historic District Commission. The sixth management issue is that the Hist oric District Commissi ons responsibility does not cease when the Certificate of Appropriateness is issued. Th e commission must make sure that the built product is representa tive of the approved plans on f ile. When they fail to do so, the results are unfortunate. For example, the built facad e at 3 Coffin Street differs from the approved plans. The trim is gray, not white as pla nned (Figure 3-31). The front entry columns are unpainted (Figure 3-32). The appr oved elevation depicts exterior lights flanking the entry door (Figure 3-33), which were not installed (Figur e 3-32). There is a window air-conditioning unit at the second story of the left wing (Figure 3-34). Th ese architectural details do not exhibit the high

PAGE 80

80 level of construction usually found in the Old Hist oric District. The design guidelines give the Historic District Commission a defense. No occupancy permit shall be issued by the Bu ilding Inspector with re spect to any building or structure in Nantucket Hist oric District unless and until th e Building Inspector receives a written certification from the Historic Di strict Commission that the building has been constructed or altered in compliance with th e terms of the certificate of appropriateness issued therefore. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 156) However, to clear up discrepancies between the built product and the approved plans, they must take advantage of this leverage. The seventh management issue is the resulti ng negative cumulative effect. An example is the case study of the bungalow at 20 Milk Street. The owners of the adjacent property purchased the contributing bungalow for relocati on, so they could increase the size of their yard and build a garage apartment. Public opinion on the issue wa s, Neighbors in the Milk Street area supported the house move because they said the house did no t fit into the character of the neighborhood (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). Clearly the public has a stilte d view of preservation formed by previous Historic District Commission de cisions. The Historic District Commission denied the owners request to move the contribut ing structure from its original site on or around May 28, 2002. Historic District Commission member Dirk Roggeveen defended the Historic District Commissions decision, the 20 Milk Street home represented an ar chitecture style popular in the first half of the century (Fie gl, 2002, p. 7A). In addition to the fact that the bungalow has architectural significance, it sp eaks of a time on Nantucket where the economy was no longer dependant on whaling. This structure is specifi cally mentioned in the design guidelines, and the Historic District Commission made a sound deci sion in denying the proposal. Then Roggeveen added, because a building did not fi t into the character of other bui ldings on the street, it did not mean the building did not have hist orical significance, and that th e purpose of the HDC is not to recreate a New England village (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). Historic District Commission

PAGE 81

81 administrator, Mark Voight, said the commi ssion was not against creating affordable housing, but the bungalow style home represented one of the 14 different styles of architecture found on Nantucket (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). This decisi on is pivotal, the Commission seems poised to uphold the uphold the premise in the design guide lines.While there is no single appropriate style for the island, as indicated by the diversity of its buildings, understanding the continuity of development and relatedness of the styles described will exemplify the legacy shared by all Nantucket buildings (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 37) The Historic Distri ct Commission members realized that without examples lik e 20 Milk Street, there is no relatedness of the style to witness. The eighth issue deals with appe als to the Historic District Commissions decisions and is demonstrated in the appeal of the 20 Milk St reet case study. When the owner appealed to the Selectmen, the Commissions deci sion was overturned. The owners attorneys sited a previous case, 18 Mill Street, a bungalow that was move d to 1 Norquarta Drive in 1999. The Selectmen should not be able to blindly ba se approvals on past decisions made by the Historic District Commission without considering the premise behi nd the Historic District Commissions altered decision in the current case. The argument may be awkward for the commission or the city to counter, but the courts generally defer to commi ssions as expert bodies, and failure to enforce it in one case is not a legal defense in another (T yler, 2000, p. 75). Matt Fee, the sole Selectman to vote against overturning the Histor ic District Commission s decision stated, he did not want to see the Disney-ification of Nantucket (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). The authenticity of the district is brought to the forefront rather than a Nantucket-ish creati on. Chairman of the Selectman Committee, Frank Spriggs defended action, he di d like that the housing proposed to replace the bungalow style house would go along with a simila r footprint of a building built in the 1840s

PAGE 82

82 (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). This would be a logical ar gument for a vacant lot, but it is not a good defense for the loss of a contributing bungalow style house. The ninth management issue is that th e area under Historic District Commission management is too large. In 1966 the town wa s placed on the National Re gister of Historic Places and designated a National Historic Landmar k by the National Park Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior (La ng and Stout, 1995). In spite of all these protections, Nantucket has been threatened by overbuilding for years. Nineteen seventy-two marked the peak of the building boom after the restoration of the waterfront (Lang and Stout, 1995). Heavy incompatible development caused the island to ex tend the jurisdiction of the Historic District Commission to include the entire town of Nantucket (Lang and Stout, 1995). The Commission was formed to review and approve all construction on the island and published Building with Nantucket in Mind to provide a guide to appropriate design (Lang and Stout, 1995). Since July 1975 all of Nantucket has been listed on the Nati onal Register of Histor ic Places (Lang and Stout, 1995). So, there is one commission to re view and approve construction on the entire island. There are too many responsib ilities for one organization. There is not time for the staff to consult the design guidelines, to wr ite staff reports, to visit sites or research requests made by the applicants. The lack of time for analysis compromises all properties on the island. The geographic area under Historic Di strict Commission review must be reduced to insure the districts integrity. The Historic District Commission has nine management issues: a commission comprised of non-professionals; inadequate time for staff to review major requests for Certificates of Appropriateness; no requirements for written sta ff reports; no protections for existing buildings while proposed plans for new cons truction are reviewed; an incons istent relationship between the

PAGE 83

83 Historic District Commission; staff and Design Review Comm ittee; no verification that the actual construction reflects the Historic Dist rict Commissions appr oved plans; arbitrary decisions by the commission that create preceden t leading to the Selectmen overturning their decisions; and a management area that is too large. Proposed Criteria for Including Non-contribu ting Properties in a Landmark District The following recommendations would recogniz e the value of non-contributing buildings and benefit the management of most residential hist oric districts. In addi tion, specific changes to the governance and guidelines for the Old Historic District are suggested for the same reasons. Revise the Building Classifications Many residential historic dist ricts would benefit by adopti ng new classifications that accurately reflect the value of th e districts buildings. Buildings in proposed districts should be surveyed, and non-contributing build ings in existing districts s hould be re-surveyed, using the following terms: potentially significant, arc hitecturally significan t, contributing, and ancillary. The term potentially significant refers to a bu ilding that is less than fifty years old when the district was (is) designa ted. These buildings will be evaluate d when they turn fifty years old, and categorized as architecturally significant or ancillary. They ar e not eligible to be contributing because they were not built durin g the designated period of significance. If significance is recognized before the fifty years, the structur e can be re-categorized as architecturally significant. This classification protects buildings that were recently built for the reason that it might be too soon to fully appreciate their value. This term provides flexibility for the district. There is no other r eason for the set 50-year time period except that it is probably long enough to divulge significa nce. This revision is necessary because noncontributing buildings can be architecturally significant. Currently, for a non-contributing building to be approved for demolition, it must be deemed architecturally insignificant. Interestingly, architectural significance is not de fined as fifty years or older at the time the district is designated. The term architecturally significant refers to a building that wa s not built during the designated historic period of signi ficance but enriches the district in spite of this fact. These buildings would be preserved without question.

PAGE 84

84 The term contributing refers to a building that was (is) at least fi fty years old when the district was (is) desi gnated, existed during the designated hi storical period of significance and enriches the district. The term ancillary refers to a building that supports or aids the di strict, at least by its existence, but does not possess architectural si gnificance of its own. In cludes buildings that were built during the designated period of si gnificance but have lost their architectural integrity, or buildings that were not built du ring the designated period of significance and are not architecturally significant. While the districts designated period of significance is uphel d, the possibility of additional architectural significance is recogn ized. If a majority of potentially significant buildings are reevaluated as architecturally signi ficant, the designated historic period of significance should be reviewed for either an amendment to the original period of significance, or to add another period of significance. In this situati on, the architecturally si gnificant buildings that correlate to this change in the period would be classified as contributing. If the governing body wishes to change a buildings classification after the re-s urvey, evidence would be required to show that the buildings status has changed. The Historic District Commissi on staff should re-survey the bu ildings in the Old Historic District with these revised classi fications. When changes are proposed to buildings in the district, they should be reviewed and ev aluated regardless of classification. These buildings have an effect on the contributing buildings as part of the district and many significantly enrich the district. Therefore the New Standards would st ate, Alterations and a dditions to potentially significant, architecturally signifi cant and ancillary structures in Old Historic Dist rict shall be reviewed for their appropriateness in respect to the design, massing, and scale of the existing structure. The concept of modernizing a non-co ntributing structure would be omitted, because the term would be eliminated. The New Standa rds would continue, No structure shall be redesigned to create a false historical appear ance (Derived from Noncontributing Structures, City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-114).

PAGE 85

85 If these building classifications are not a dopted, the Historic Di strict Commission must redefine their existing building classifications to reflect the universally accepted definitions. Currently, the Nantucket Historic District Commission has great l eeway to re-classify buildings in the Old Historic District. The definitions in the Demolition Polic y empower the Commission to change the district drasticall y. In the realm of real protection from demolition or relocation, no building is truly protected by cl assification alone. For example, the Demolition Policys opening statement is, no Certificate of Appropriateness shall be issued for the demolition of any protected structure (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162). Protected stru ctures are defined as, Any significant structure which the Commission determines is in the public interest to preserve or rehabilitate rather than demolish (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162). However, a protected structure can be granted the Standards for Appr oval for demolition if the Commission finds that either the structure is insignificant or that the st ructure is only considered protected because of its presence in the district and is non-contributing to the di strict. So a significa nt structure in the public interest to preserve is then judged non-contributing. Th e definition of a contributing property is A structure which adds to the Districts sense of time, place and historic development (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162). The uni versal definition of contributing buildings is that they enrich the district and indicates the structure was pr esent during the historic period of significance and preservation is required. However, the Historic District Commission defines the term significant structures to mean, Any structure within the Historic District of Nantucket Island wh ich is in whole or in part fifty years or more old and which is or ha s been designated by the Commission to be a significant structure after a finding by the Co mmission that the building is either: (a) importantly associated with one or more hist oric persons or events or with the broad architectural, cultural, political, economi c or social history of the Island or Commonwealth; or (b) hist orically or architectu rally significant (in te rms of period, style, method of building construction, or association with a famous architect or builder) either by itself or in the context of a group of buildings. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162)

PAGE 86

86 Therefore significant structures are similar to contributing structures elsewhere. No classification is completely dedicated to preservation. The high degree of flexibility is not acceptable for a landmark district. Likewise the non-contributing is de fined in the guidelines as, A structure which is not an intrusion but does not add to a historic di stricts sense of time, place and historic development (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162). Usually non-contributing is defined as a structure that was not built during the designated period of significance and was less than fifty years old when the district was designated. Altera tions to a National Historic Landmark should not be subject to the whim of the Historic District Commission. The Commission members are not required to possess knowledge of preservation and do not seem to heed the advice of the historic preservation st aff. The following should be adhered to: the Commission shall state their reasons for denial of a request in writing (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 158). This should include the abili ty of the Commission members to re-classify buildings in the district. Qualifications for Historic District Commission Members Members of the commission or board that revi ews and approves proposed alterations in the historic district, must be qualified. The commissi on should be composed of one or more of the following organizations: a preservati on professional, a local historia n and/or architectural or art historian, a business, commercial finance or invest ment counselor, an archite ct, a city planner, a landscape architect, a lawyer, an en gineer or building contractor, a realtor or property appraiser, residents of the citys historic districts (Der ived from City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 65-21). This would be a vast improvement for the Historic District Co mmission. Currently, the only requirement for Commission members is that th ey are resident taxpay ers of the Town of Nantucket. This is insufficient for any historic district and especially for a National Historic

PAGE 87

87 Landmark. The preservation staff s hould identify current members of the community that meet these criteria and nominate them to the Selectmen. Restrict and Focus the Purview of the Existing Commission In historic districts the go verning body should have a manageable workload and ample staff. Otherwise the integrity of th e buildings in the district and th e status of the district may be compromised. Currently, the purview of the Hist oric District Commissi on is defined as the Nantucket Historic District, the land and waters comprising the Town of Nantucket (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 156). This is too massive for one Commission. In addi tion, to require the Landmark Historic District guidelines be followed outside the Old Historic District is demeaning to the original construction of th e town of Nantucket. Therefore, to manage the district more effectively the responsibili ty must be delegated. Two review commissions with ample staff suppor t should be created. Fi rst, an appearance and environmental review board, the Outlyi ng Area Commission would manage proposals for alterations in the open space and moors. Standard s for review should be developed from Chapter V, pages 101-148 of the current guidelines, Building with Nantucket in Mind Second, another historic review commission woul d manage individual historic di stricts in other towns on the island like Siasconset, Quidnet, Wauwinet, Surfsi de and Madaket. Standards for review should be developed for these districts from Chapte r IV, pages 89-100 of the current guidelines, Building with Nantucket in Mind Both commissions would follow the same management procedures as the Old Historic District, such as monthly meetings and wr itten reports for Major Reviews to analyze requests with the Standards. With the new boards established, the Historic Di strict Commission can re strict their review to the Old Historic District. This would allow preservation staff the ability to concentrate on the

PAGE 88

88 design guidelines, write staff repor ts, visit sites of current cas es, and conduct research for applicants requests for one Historic District Commission meeting per month. Establish an Overlay Ordinance and Include Secretary of Interiors Standards Historic Districts should use an overlay ordi nance, because it is directly linked to the Standards for Alterations, Additions, New Cons truction, Demolition and Relocation in the Land Development Code. For example, the Lake Eola Heights Historic Dist rict is a Historic Preservation Overlay District with an Ov erlay Ordinance, which builds off the Land Development Code. As referred to in the Ordinance, A Certificat e of Appropriateness shall be required when a building permit is required fo r the exterior altera tion, construction, or demolition of a structure in a historic district according to Chapter 58 of the Orlando City Code (Lake Eola Heights Historic District Ordinance, May 22, 1989, p. 3). Also the Secretary of Interiors Standards for Historic Preservation shou ld be included in the Ordinance and the Town Building Code. For example, the City of Orlando lis ts the Secretary of In teriors Standards for Rehabilitation as General Standards in Section 62.201 of the City of Orlando, Land Development Code. They provide a philosophy for th e district and can be used for review when a request for a Certificate of A ppropriateness does not correlate to the Standards for Alterations, Additions, New Construction, Demolition or Relocat ion. The Old Historic District would benefit from an Overlay Ordinance and th e incorporation of the Secretar y of Interiors Standards for Historic Preservation. Create Standards for Alterations, Additions and New Construction Historic districts should provi de clear and concise standard s for three areas of work: Standards for Alterations to Ex isting Structures, Additions to Existing Structures, and New Construction. They should be written to retain existing material and to recognize all contributing buildings in the district.

PAGE 89

89 In the Old Historic District the following st eps were taken to create Standards for review from the existing design guidelines. The requireme nts in the guidelines were separated from the explanations and divided into the appropriate area of work. Then di rect and concise criteria were incorporated into the requirements to fill in where gaps existed. Lastly the criteria were revised to recognize all contributing buildings. After the requirements were separated from the architectural, historical, and cultural explanations, they were sorted into three areas of work, Alterations, Additions and New Construction. Currently requirements, recommen dations, and considerations are embedded in one lengthy document, Guidelines for Building in the Historic Town of Nantucket under nine headings. While the explanations are interesting and insightful, the guidelines provide too much information. Applicants probably have difficulty sifting through the info rmation to determine what is allowed. Described as, criteria by which the Commission will determine the appropriateness of this new construction (L ang and Stout, 1995, p. 59), they are directly referenced in the staff comments but usually the Commission members do not reference them. Straightforward standards would insure that the committees decisi ons are based on the guidelines and not a whim. For example consider the following regarding the Siting of a Building as currently written, Any new construction should follo w a pattern of site utilizati on similar to that already established adjacent to it. In particular, consid eration should be given to the setback of the buildings from the street, the width of th eir facades and the spaces between them, especially because these factors contribute to th e rhythm and continuity of the buildings as seen together. Where buildings are predomin antly aligned along th e street creating a unified edge or wall along the street space, the front of a new building should be aligned within the general faade line of it s neighbors. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61) Keep in mind this only reflects the italicized porti on in the guidelines, more information exists in the text. Therefore the regulations for the Siti ng of the Building must be simplified. Compare the site-planning standard as written above to the following with the explanations and

PAGE 90

90 background omitted. The front yard setback of ne w construction must follow a pattern of site utilization similar to the adjacent buildings. Th e front faade of the new building should be aligned within the general faade line of the ad jacent buildings (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). When the criteria stands on its own, it is hard for the applicant, the staff or the Commission, to vary from it. Next, other design standards must be incorpor ated to fill voids in the current guidelines. For example, the concept of the rhythm of solids and voids is introduced to complete the Siting the Building requirement. New construction must be designed and positioned on the site in such a way that it reflects the regular patte rn of buildings and open space along the block face (City of Orlando, Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD-62-119). This concept comes from the Design Standards from City of Orlando Land Deve lopment Code, which were used to fill in where there were omissions in the requirements. These were selected because they deal with materials, concepts and elements in a direct and thorough manner. Another benefit of using the Design Standards from City of Orlando is that they place an emphasis on material. The existing requirements in the design guidelines seem to overlook material. The Commission permits regular mainte nance, repair or replacement of exterior architectural features that doe s not change the design, materi al, color, or the outward appearance thereof without a Certificate of Appr opriateness. This creates a permissive attitude of the maintenance, repair, and replacement of the existing fabric. Compare this to Historic District Commissions definiti on of subject to view: wherever such exterior featur es are subject to view from a beach, public way, public park, public body of water, traveled way, a street or way shown on a land court plan, or shown on a plan recorded in the regist ry of deeds, a proprietors road or a street or way shown on a plan approved and endorsed in accordance with the Subdivision Control Law. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 157)

PAGE 91

91 Adopting an all-encompassing philosophy to material review would establis h the fabric of the building as a priority. In a National Landmark Historic District thes e small but important material replacement requests should require Histor ic District Commission review to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness. Specifically the Standards for A lterations will address materials and elements: wood, masonry, roof and roof feat ures, windows, shutters, door a nd door details, garage doors, porch and porch features, site issues, entrances, color and other items, with the following basic philosophy. If the existing material is in good co ndition, it shall be reta ined. If the existing material is repairable, it shall be repaired. If the existing material is deteriorated it shall be replaced to match the existing material in size, shape, and texture. The Standards for Alterations would also include the concept of proper treatment of materials a nd replacement of items that are inappropriate to the style a nd period of the building. Perhap s the emphasis on material will translate into a renewed sensitivity to gut rehab and curtail this practice of removing a buildings original interior fabric for new material. By preserving material, the authenticity of individual buildings and the en tire district is maintained. Lastly the Standards must be revised to recogn ize all contributing buildings in the district, which helps to develop concise and straight forward Standards. For example the current guidelines for roofs on additions designate the appr opriate pitch for each traditional roof shape. Compare this to, Roofing on additions to existi ng buildings should be appropriate to the period and style of the original structure (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 71). In this case to achieve a concise Standard for roof additions, the design variables th at must be appropriate are specified. The roof on an addition should have similar shape, detailing, pitc h and materials as the existing building

PAGE 92

92 (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-117). Because all contributing buildings are valued, the st andard can be simplified. Other revisions have been made to the Standards when needed. For example, emphasis on material in National Historic Landm arks is important, but buildings should be allowed to develop naturally. Therefore when considering windows on additions, the Standards should incorporate the philosophy from the Secretar y of Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation. All buildings, structures, or sites shall be r ecognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an ea rlier appearance shall be discouraged (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-6). When the fenestration of an addition is closely matched to the original, an earlier appear ance may be created. However, small variations from the original would not be detrimental if controlled. Therefore, th e Standard would read, Requirements for windows on additions vary depending on the eleva tion. On the street elevation, windows shall match the original wind ows in materials, frame type, orientation and configuration. These windows should be of a similar size to the original windows and possess a ratio of glass to wall surface similar to that of to the ex isting building. On other elevations, windows should match the existing windows in material and frame type, may be similar to the existing windows in orientat ion and configuration, bu t may differ in size. The arrangement of the windows within each faade should be ordered and balanced in keeping with the style and period of the bui lding. (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 77) When considering the Standards for Additions, a strict material standard may create the illusion of an earlier appearance. Therefore the revised standard would permit a small variation in the design of the addition. T he wall surface material should be appropriate to the style and period of the existing building. While the wall surf ace must match the material and color of the existing building, the size, orientation, and texture of the material can be similar to the existing building. There should be one material per single wall plane. Foundations of additions should be similar to the existing building. While more deta iled than the current ru les and regulations, the new standards will insure a truthful de piction of the buildings progression.

PAGE 93

93 The quality of a buildings progression must not be lost or the environment becomes too staid. The Nantucket Federal Styl e house located at 41 Li berty Street is a 21/2 story with some Greek Revival detailing. From the primary street faade there are no additions visible, and the 12/12 windows and clapboard wall surface are consiste nt (Figure 3-50). The side of the building tells a different story. At least two additions are visible. The fi rst addition exhibits 2/2 windows, typical of the Victorian era and the same cla pboard wall surface. The second addition has three windows and the wall surface is wood shingles in stead of clapboard (Figure 3-51). With many inconsistencies this elevati on does not even meet the revised Standards for windows on additions. However due to the sim ilarity in window material, si ze, and orientation, the overall effect is successful. The inconsis tencies do not detract, but add to the authenticity of the building. Other changes to the Standards deal with porch and roof walk additions. Currently, Porches additions should be ke pt to the rear wher e they can be unobtrusive (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 82). However, in certain situations porche s could be added as part of an addition and uphold a historical precedent. For example, there are many Nantucket-style houses with side ell additions and recessed first floor porches. Theref ore the revised standard would read, A porch may not be added to the primary faade of an existing building. A porch may be added to a secondary faade, behind the primary faade plane, if it is part of an addition and is appropriate to the style and period of the building (Der ived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 82). The only situation where a porch may be added to the primary faade is if convincing evidence is presented that a porch originally existed as part of the faade and that porches are appropriate to the style and period of the building. Situations like this would not be spelled out in the Standards, but would be open to the discretion of preservati on staff. Any other request requiring a building permit determined by the Planning Official or his designee to ha ve an impact on an exterior

PAGE 94

94 structure in the Old Hist oric District shall be reviewed by th e Historic District Commission using the most closely analogous standards (Derived from City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-118). To create Standards for sp ecific types of work, some revisions are necessary to cover a topic that is not addressed in the desi gn guidelines. For example, the appropriateness of a roof walk as a portion of an addition is not specifi cally discussed in the existing guidelines. However, the guidelines do stat e that they are a historical feature of many Nantucket buildings found on visually dominant ma sses. Since additions should not be visually dominant, Roof walks are not a ppropriate for additions. Finally, the revisions made to the Standa rds for New Construction serve to uphold the integrity of the district. The design expectations for new construction in hi storic districts range from conforming to a prevalent style in the dist rict to simply shari ng design variables with contributing buildings in the distri ct. In historic districts that f unction as living museums, there is merit in creating a seamless district, one frozen in the designated period of historic significance. However, for buildings in resident ial historic districts, this does not meet the philosophy of the Secretary of Interiors Standard, which states All buildings, structures, or sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Altera tions that have no hist orical basis and which seek to create an earlier app earance shall be discouraged (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-6). Alterations that seek to create an earlier appearance should be avoided in a National Register Historic District, where the built surroundings should be authentic. The current philosophy for new construction in the Old Hist oric District is, A bu ilding can fit into its context if it embodies relatedness to surroundi ng structures. Relatedness means, simply, a similarity of a number of different architectur al aspects among neighboring buildings (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 59). Therefore, hypothetically the guidelines permit design that would be

PAGE 95

95 recognized as a product of the current day. If St andards that promote si milarity to the built surroundings are maintained, the design inspirat ion for new construction could widen, while avoiding the extremes, contemporary design or reproductions. Presently, the guidelines do not address the sensitive issue of st yle. However, it must be confronted: New Construction may be influenced by, but not duplicate historic styles. If a historic style influences new construction, that style must already exist or have existed in the Old Historic District (Derived from the City of Orlando, Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-119). The design of new construction may not distract from contributing buildings (D erived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 59). Designs for new construction should differ from the exis ting established structures. Also, the design should strive for compatibility in size, scale, color, material, and character of the neighborhood or immediate environment. National Historic Landmarks deserve all the protections available. The recommendations in the current design guidelines, Building with Nantucket in Mind would be updated to reflect the new Standards, and both could work together to benefit the Old Historic District. The preservation staff could provide applicants with the appropria te Standards for the requested proposed work, explain the ideas behind them, and if needed refer to the guidelines for further explanation. When the applican ts bring in preliminary drawin gs, the staff could work with applicants on the design of the proposal. These ch anges will help Nantuc ket operate in a more organized fashion, as a la ndmark district should. Establish Standards for Demolition When considering a demolition proposal, the build ing in question should be reviewed with the Standards for Demolition. These Standards w ould provide clear criteria to examine the building in a larger realm specifically the build ings architectural, historical, and cultural significance. All buildings in the district th at are requested for demolition, regardless of

PAGE 96

96 classification must be reviewed with these criter ia. These Standards will provide the framework for the staff report a nd commission review. Key elements of the Standards for Demolition respond directly to current problems with non-contributing buildings in landmark districts. First, the demolition request should be tiered as a two-step process with the determination of histor ic viability as the first step. In fact only basic information on the future utilization may be prov ided: the type of structure, the inspiration stylistically, and an estimated size of the buildi ng. Additional information is distracting to the commission and may cloud their decision on the bu ildings historic viability. Only after the building is determined as signifi cant or insignific ant will the future utilization, the second step, be considered. The reason for this tiered process is to insure that the buil t fabric of the landmark district remains authentic. The second key elemen t is the concept of mitigation for buildings that are determined insignificant, which entails re viewing the building with the Standards for New Construction. The purpose of this is to determine if there are any aspects of the building that indirectly add to the district. If some exist, these values will be incorporated into the requirements for the future utilizat ion. For example, if the footpr int of the original structure added to the rhythm and open space along the street the footprint of the new building would be required to conform to the footprint of the orig inal to preserve the rh ythm and open space along the street. The Standards for Demolition follow. The co mmission will consider a Certificate of Appropriateness if a building is defined as an imminent hazard, the determination by the building official and the histor ic preservation officer that th e repairs would be impractical (Derived from City of Orlando Land Developm ent Code, 1999, p. CD 62-120). As part of this determination Criteria (g) and (h) would be considered for the purpose of to discouraging

PAGE 97

97 intentional harm to buildings. Therefore, if any m easures have been taken to prevent the structure from deteriorating, such as normal maintena nce, repairs, provision of normal tenant improvements, the historic preservation sta ff will recommend approval to the commission (Derived from City of Orlando Land Developm ent Code, 1999, p. CD 62-120). However, if the structure was willfully or negligently allowe d to deteriorate the recommendation to the commission will be for further investigation. If so, any measures taken to save the structure from further deterioration will be ta ken into consideration, such as collapse, arson, vandalism or neglect (Derived from City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-120). If the structure is beyond saving or if certain measur es are recommended and action is not taken, violations will be issued. Otherwise, to obtain a Certificate of A ppropriateness for Demolition, the building would be reviewed with the Standards for Demolition, which is a tiered two-step pr ocess. The first step would be to concentrate on the bui ldings historic viability, specifi cally architectural significance, as defined in Criteria (a)-(c), and remaining examples, as defi ned in (d) and (e). Also, the following criteria will be considered: The qualities of the building which enrich the district, including the general design of the building in question, as well as, the relation to the street and to other buildings. The possibility that the presence of the building provides information about later architectural movements within the district. The information the building provides to the se nse of place, the historical development or geographic development of the district (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 157). The applicant may provide basic information for th e future utilization of the site: the type of structure, the inspiration stylistically, and an es timated size of the building. Historic preservation staff will help the applicant gauge an appropr iately sized proposal for new construction by providing the square footage of the existing build ing and the adjacent buildings, as well as, the

PAGE 98

98 existing Impervious Surface Ratio for the lot and the adjacent lots. While these values are not requirements, the square footag e of the building provides an eas ily understood comparison. If the proposed new construction is significantly greater the design may be denied. Applicants will be informed that the analysis of the new construction will examine the relative mass, size, and location to existing buildings in the district. If the subject property is determined to be insignificant, mitigation must be considered. If the building indirectly enriched th e district in some way, the futu re utilization must incorporate these values into the design proposal. The s econd step would concentrate on the future utilization. The applicant will be required to provide drawings for staff evaluation. This Standard will be revised, The floor plans, elevations, and a perspective of the future utilization of the site and the effect those plans will have on the arch itectural, historical, archeological, social, aesthetic or environmental character of the di strict (Derived from City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-120). If the applicant feels two submittals and reviews by the commission is an imposition, he or she will be reminded that it is not easy to get a building demolished in a Landmark district. Because new construction must be approved befo re a permit for demolition can be issued, the Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition and the New Construction will be issued at the same time. This will be stated in terms of the Certificate of Appropriateness to provide a direct correlation to the Historic Preser vation review process. The app licant must present a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition and new construction based on the standards set forth in this Chapter, prior to receiving a bu ilding permit for either (Deriv ed from City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-122) If it is determined that the building enriches the district and the applicant clai ms an economic hardship, this will be reviewed by the commission,

PAGE 99

99 as defined in criteria (j). The commission w ill follow the criteria and investigate the factors listed in this section (Derived from City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62120). The Old Historic District would benefit by adopting Standards for Demolition. Currently, the Demolition Policy in Appendix C of the guideline s states the intent, building definitions and Standards for Approval. However, there are no cl ear criteria to examine the significance of a building. The intent of the Historic Di strict Commissions Demolition Policy is, to avoid the unnecessary demolition of architectur ally, historically or culturally significant structures by providing a suitable time period during which the owner or agent and interested persons may explore reasonable alternatives to demolition and make appropriate arrangements for the preservation of such structures; and by provi ding a process whereby determinations can be made between the right s of the public to continue to enjoy the structure and those of the owner to enjoy the property. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162) Basically if the style of the stru cture is not prevalent on Nantucke t, demolition is almost a given. A designated time period to suggest alternatives to demolition is pr ovided, but this is insufficient. Also the second portion of the intent give s the property owner t oo much power. When considering demolition in a landmark district, the fo cus should be the architectural, historical, or cultural value of the build ing. If the building is significant, al ternatives for preservation are not an issue, and demolishing or moving the bui lding should be prohibited. If the building is insignificant, it may be a candidate for relocatio n or demolition. However, it would be incorrect to assume that an ancillary building is auto matically a candidate for relocation or demolition. These buildings can support the di strict in a significant ways, wh ich can only be defined through the review process. Establish Standards for Relocation When considering a proposal for a move-off or relocation, the building in question should be reviewed with the Standards for Relocati on. These Standards would examine the proposed

PAGE 100

100 location compared to the existi ng location in respect to the hi storic orientation, immediate setting, and general environment. A ll buildings in the historic dist rict regardless of classification must be reviewed with these criteria. However, because universally a contributing building is one that enriches the district, moving this type of building will be prohibited and only permitted in rare occasions, such as, a natural disaster If the commission permits relocation, the new location must be reviewed. Key elements of the Standards for Relocation directly respond to th e problems encountered with non-contributing buildings in the landmark historic district. Th e first key element is to tier the Standards for Relocation, maki ng it a two-step process. The fi rst step is to determine the historic viability of the build ing with only basic information concerning the future utilization. Any additional information is distracting to the commission and may cloud their decision on the buildings historic viability. If the building is determined to be insignificant, mitigation will be provided and the aspects of the building that indirectly add to the district will become requirements for the future utilization. The second step considers the future utilization of the property. The reason for the tiered process is to insure that the built fabric of the landmark district remains authentic. Overall these Sta ndards would provide the framework for the staff report and the major topics for review in the commission meeting. The National Landmark or National Register Staff should caution govern ing bodies that if the new location is not reviewed for appropriateness to the original location or if the new location is not appropriate and the building is moved anyway, the classi fication of the building will be changed to ancillary. In turn, the ratio for contributing to the total number of buildings in the district will be adjusted. If too many contributing buildings are moved, the district may be in danger of losing its National Register and/or Na tional Landmark status. If requests for relocation

PAGE 101

101 of contributing buildings are approved regul arly, the governing body should re-survey the buildings in the district. If for some reason the classification of individual buildings has changed, the National Register Registration Form should be amended to reflect this. The Nantucket Historic District which includes the Old Histor ic District, and the Historic District Commission are establishe d by state enabling legislation, ac ts and amendments used in lieu of an ordinance. Currently, the acts defi ne the terms constructed and razed, which provide some insight to the Historic District Commission s view of mo ved buildings. Constructed is defined as, built, erected, inst alled, enlarged, and moved. Razed is defined as destroyed, demolished and removed (La ng and Stout, 1995, p. 155). Clearly, they do not consider a contributing building razed if it is moved to anot her location on the island; it is simply constructed at another location. However, the lack of a review process th at considers the appropriateness of the new location strips the building of its contributing status, similar to razing a building. The Standards for Relocation would establish th e criteria needed to review a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a move-off, as it is commonly referred to. Currently the Historic District Commission has a policy described by staff as, requesting development scenarios as a condition of reviewing demolitions or a move-off (HDC Meeting Minutes, March 31, 1998). However, they have experienced first hand that this is not adequate. To guarantee that submittals are the applicants real intentions, the Certificate of A ppropriateness for Relocation will be issued at the same time as a Certificate of Appropriatene ss for New Construction. If the applicant has misrepresented their intentions and later presents inappropriate plans for new construction, the Certificate of Appropriateness for Relocation and New Construction are not issued and the existing property remains intact.

PAGE 102

102 When proposals are altered after an existi ng building is approved for relocation or demolition, the Historic District Co mmission must enforce the policy that is currently in place. It is a violation, for any person to knowingly submit false, fraudulent or misleading information to the Commission in connection with any applicat ion (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 158). This is the consequence of a false proposal. Furthermore, vi olations should be issued to property owners when the actual construction does no t reflect the approved plans on file with the Historic District Commission Office. Establish a Universal Purpose All National Landmark Districts should have a universal purpose of authentic preservation with added local concerns. The island of Nantucket is a historic district an d the Historic District Commission is established for the Town of Na ntucket by state enabling legislation, acts and amendments used in lieu of an ordinance. Current ly, the purpose of the historic district and the Historic District Comm ission is defined as, The purpose of this Act is to promote the genera l welfare of the inhabi tants of the Town of Nantucket through the preservati on and protection of the hist oric buildings, places and districts of historic interest through the development of an appropriate setting for these buildings, places and districts and through th e benefits resulting to the economy of Nantucket in developing and maintaini ng its vacation-travel industry through the promotion of these historical asso ciations. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 155) While Nantuckets economic livelihood is ba sed on summer tourism, Nantucket has a responsibility to the National Register Landmark status of the district The purpose of the Act should center on the preservation of Nantucket for historys sake, the first portion of the stated purpose above, and not for developing and mainta ining its vacation-travel industry through the promotion of these historical associations. The first priority should be to preserve the town authentically, and then attract tourism. This Act was written in 1970 and reflects Nantuckets financial instability. However today the isla nd has the opposite problem: there are too many

PAGE 103

103 visitors and too much development. Therefore the purpose of the histor ic district must be updated. Establish Major and Minor Review Processes Develop two review processes for obtaining a Certificate of Appr opriateness. The Major Review is used for construction, alterations, a dditions, restorations, relocations or demolitions of a landmark or a building (Lake Eola Height s Historic District Or dinance, May 22, 1989, p. 8). In this type of review an application for a Certificate of Appropria teness is submitted along with the required information and drawings. If submitted by the designated due date, which would be a month before the next board meeti ng, the case will be placed on the next commission meeting agenda and a staff report will be writt en. This systematic report will review the applicants proposal with the applicable Sta ndards, then make a recommendation to the commission for approval or denial. Th is is important to the manageme nt of all histor ic districts, but is of utmost importance in a Landmark Di strict. The careful revi ew of the proposal will prevent fundamental concepts, as well as detail s in the design, from falling short, which does occur with staff comments. The staff report a nd a copy of the applicants submittal must be delivered to the commission members at least one day before the meeting to allow them to review the cases and visit the pertinent sites. The commission members will arrive at the meeting briefed, anticipating the issues they will encounte r. The author of the staff report should be present at the commission meeting and available for questions when the case is discussed. Other concerns requiring this level of attention w ill be listed in the District Ordinance. The Minor Review is for construc tion and alteration to a building in a historic district that will have a minor impact on the significant histori cal, architectural, or cultural materials of the structure in question. The minor review applies to the following: fences and gates, awnings, signage, materials replaced on gates, fences, driv eways, walkways, steps, siding, roofs, doors, or

PAGE 104

104 windows, paint color, signs, mechanical system s including heating cooling and irrigation and any other request determined by the planning offi cial or his designee and the Minor Review Committee to have a minor impact. For a minor re view, there is no writte n staff report and the full commission does not hear the proposal. Howe ver, the preservation staff does consult the Standards, make recommendations, and conduct a review with the Minor Review Committee, comprised of two members of th e commission. If the applicant appe als the decision of the Minor Review Committee, the request becomes a Major Review, a staff report will be written and the case will be placed on the agenda for the next commission meeting (Lake Eola Heights Historic District Ordinance, May 22, 1989, p. 9). Improvements to the Design Advisory Council In most historic districts, there is usually an advisory board made up of actual commission members that meets with applicants outside of the formal meeting to discuss appropriate design solutions on pending proposals. This forum provides a setting where the applicant, the staff and a portion of the commission can concentrate on the issu es related to the prop osal, whether specific design details or larger concepts. While the meet ing is more informal than the regular monthly meeting with the full board, these meeting tend to be too informal. The following suggestions would provide more structure for these meetings. Fi rst, staff must be required to be present, conduct the meetings and distribute copies of the Meeting Minutes in order to direct the discussion. The Committee member who brought atte ntion to the design issu e should be present. If not, the member should provide a statement to explain the issue. Me eting minutes should be required. The goal of the meeting should be wr itten recommendations for design changes based on the appropriate standards. In the Old Histor ic District, the Design Advisory Council would benefit from these alterations.

PAGE 105

105 Required Considerations for Appeals When unfortunate design decisions are made in historic districts, there must be a measure for prevention rather than the blind co ntinuation of poor precedents. Therefore the judicial body, which handles appeals to the comm issions decisions, should consider the reason behind the commissions alternate deci sion in this particular case. In the Old Historic District, if the Histor ic District Commissi on finds a past design decision unsuccessful, they often make an alte rnate decision when pres ented with a similar request. If the applican t appeals the Commissions ruling, th ey appeal to the Selectmen. In general the courts recogn ize that a historic district meets th e zoning criteria of protecting public health, welfare, and safety. To respect the Co mmissions efforts to fulfill their mission, the Selectmen should consider the comm issions reason for making an alternate decision in this case, as opposed to their judgment on a past similar case, which may have created poor precedent for the district. By requiring the Hi storic District Commission to in clude design professionals, the Selectmen would have more confidence the Commissions decisions. If members of the Selectmen have a conflict of interest, they shoul d pardon themselves from the proceedings of the appeal. If the majority of the Selectmen are not objective, they should not be in the position of making a ruling. In order to minimize conflicts of interest and avoid deci sions, which may not be based upon an understanding of pres ervation ordinances that are in effect, appeal responsibility should be delegated to an unbiased hearing officer who could handle the appeals of the Historic District Commissions decisi ons in a quasi-judicial hearing foru m. However, an effective overlay ordinance must be written for the Old Historic Di strict to serve as a legal basis for appeals. Summary: Case Studies and Related Issues Although Nantucket is a National Historic Land mark with detailed design guidelines, Building with Nantucket in Mind the enabling legislation prov ides the Historic District

PAGE 106

106 Commission too much latitude to redefine the district. This study includes five case that document the HDCs review of requests for Certificates of A ppropriateness, one noncontributing building and four cont ributing buildings. None of the contributing buildings used in the cases are the celebrated styles of the wha ling era, which are the T ypical Nantucket Style, Federal Style and Greek Revival Style. All are la ter styles of the vacation era, Folk Victorian, Bungalow Style and cottage style. The Commissi ons review of the relocation requests involved little or no consideration of the appropriateness of the building in the new location. The acts and amendments define the terms constructed and razed, but do not define the term move-off. Perhaps the Commission finds relocation easier to accept and not as final as demolition, as well as merit to the structures re-use. However, relocation of contributing buildings should not become common practice in a National Historic La ndmark District or any ot her historic district. In fact relocation should only be permitted when there is no other altern ative for preservation, a last resort due to a natural disast er or force of nature. If this is the case, the effect of moving a structure without analysis of the proposed loca tion is equal to the demolition of the structure. When reviewing proposals for Certificates of A ppropriateness, the Histor ic District Commission staff issues a comment when there is a conflict with the design guideli nes. This abbreviated review process proves insufficient for the manage ment of a National Hist oric Landmark or any other historic district. Evidence of these indisc retions is contained within the case studies. The first case study involves a non-contribu ting building, 10 Vestal Street, which was probably demolished, while the other case study build ings were contributing and relocated. This is the only building classified as non-contri buting, however upon further investigation the contributing buildings were being treated like non-contributing buildings, in spite of their classification. In any event, both types of buildings no longer remain ed at their original sites.

PAGE 107

107 Without a case study that examined a non-contribu ting building, no gauge is available to judge the Historic District Commissions treatment of contributing buildi ngs. By treating some contributing buildings like they have no value, the Historic District Commission has construed the appearance of the district. Looking past the classification of 10 Vestal Street, this cottage provides a sense of place. It is not located in the midst of to wn but on the edge of the Old Historic District where you are about to enter the outlying area. Visually this idea is evident, in spite of the fact that some two-story dwelli ngs are sprinkled intermittently. The decision to replace the cottage with a Federally inspired tw o-story building, a style commonly seen in town, impacts the rhythm of the street and affects the perception of the towns historic density. A small cottage like 10 Vestal Street in this location prov ided a stop in the rhythm of the street. Perhaps if the mass and location of the cottage been a f actor in the design of the new construction, the sense of place may have been preserved. The second case study is a contributing Folk-V ictorian style house located at 125 Main Street. In this case the Commission had to judge wh at was appropriate for the district, either an existing contributing building with an undetermined historic si gnificance or a new structure would closely resemble a house that had been on this site previously (HDC Staff Comments, March 31, 1998). However, after ob taining the Certificate of A ppropriateness for move-off the applicants plans were altered and were inappropriate for the site. The Historic District Commission policy of, requesting developmen t scenarios as a condition of reviewing demolitions (HDC Staff Comments, March 31, 1998) is inadequate. Stronger safeguards would prevent false proposals. The guidelines present an overview of the district. While there is no single appropriate style for the island, as indicated by the dive rsity of buildings, understanding the continuity of development and relatedness of style described will exemplify the legacy

PAGE 108

108 shared by all Nantucket Buildings (Lang a nd Stout, 1995, p. 37). The Historic District Commissions actions do not reflect this philo sophy. Basically they chose a reproduction, new construction similar to a house that once existed on this site, instead of an authentic historic building, the Folk-Victorian. This contributing building was represen tative of the diversity of buildings. The buildings historical and archit ectural significance is representative of the continuity of development pres ent in the Victorian style and the 1800s summer resort trade. The removal of this contributing structure crea tes a void. Without examples like 125 Main Street there is no context for grander examples like 73 Ma in Street, and in turn, there is no relatedness of style to witness. Also, the la ck of historical and architectu ral analysis in the form of a systematic staff report prevents commission me mbers from clearly unde rstanding pertinent issues. This becomes evident when observations by commission members do not quite correlate to the actual situation. If they were an inte gral part of the meeti ng, preservation staff could provide clarification by fielding questions from the commission. The third case study is a contributing bungalow located at 18 Mill Street. In this case the relocation of the building caused a loss in the sense of place. Also, the lack of analysis concerning the new construction further emphasized this loss. Staff comments only deal piecemeal with the proposed designs, and this does not result in an effective review. The Historic District Commission, an elected bo ard with no professional requireme nts, would benefit from the knowledge of their own staff. However the Comm ission frequently does not heed their advice and staff regularly provides alte rnate comments. In this case th e massing of the new construction is overly large, three times the size of the original bungalow, and the slope of the site adds to the incongruity. A systematic report analyzing the new construction could have examined these issues. Also, this portion of Mill Street is nearing the edge of the Old Historic District. This area

PAGE 109

109 is less densely populated than the center of tow n, characterized by large vacant lots with more space between houses. Before the relocation of the contributing bungalow and the construction of the formal four-bay faade, the character of the area and th e context of the street were representative of the edge of the district. With the formality of the new construction, this quality will eventually disappear. Other than the excessive massing, it would be difficult to identify this building as new construction. The foundations crisp appearance and the energy efficient windows are both clues to the recen t construction. Because these details are not obvious, it is questionable if the new construction serves the true intent of the S ecretary of Interiors Standard. All buildings, structures and sites shall be reco gnized as products of thei r own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appear ance shall be avoided when possible. The fourth case is a contributing cottage loca ted at 3 Coffin Street. The most obvious issue was the lack of a review proce ss for the proposed new location. This building fared the worst in relocation. The new site possesses no similarity to the original context, the building was in poor condition and had been stripped of character de fining features. The pr oposed new construction, a two-story building conforming to the original footprint of the cottag e, showed promise. However, the execution of the bu ildings details is inferior to the approved elevations. The Historic District Commission must insure that the built product is appropriate before the Building Official grants th e Certificate of Occupancy. The final case study is a contributing bungalo w located at 20 Milk Street. Many of the previous issues are represented in this case. Howe ver, unique to this case is the cumulative effect of the Commissions past decisions. The poor preced ents created definitely take a toll on this contributing property. Reminiscent of 125 Main St reet, the owners of the adjacent property

PAGE 110

110 purchased 20 Milk Street with the intent for demo lition or relocation to increase the size of their yard and build a garage apartment. The Histor ic District Commission de nied the relocation due to the buildings architec tural significance. The neighbors felt the structure did not fit into the character of the neighborhood, th e Commissions response was th at their purpose was not to recreate a New England village. Unfortunately du e to past Commission decisions, the public may have a stilted view of preser vation. When this decision was a ppealed, the Selectmen overturned the denial based on the Historic District Commissi ons approval to relocate 18 Mill Street to 1 Norquarta Drive in 1999. Application and Consequences of Proposed Criteria From the case studies two buildings were sel ected for review using the proposed criteria. Because the new classifications for buildings w ill not entertain certain requests, contributing buildings will be preserved without question, the current building classifications will be used. The dwelling at 10 Vestal Street will be re viewed using the proposed criteria. Currently classified as non-contributing, it would probably be redefined as ancillar y. The applicants initial request was to demolish or move buildi ng. Since there was no address for relocation in the HDC meeting minutes, the building was proba bly demolished. Therefore, the Mock Report located Appendix D considers the demolition reques t with the proposed criteria, Standards for Demolition located in Appendix B. The dwelling at 125 Main Street will be review ed using the proposed criteria. Currently the building is classified as contributing. However, if it had not been relocat ed, it would have been redefined as architecturally signi ficant. The applicants request was to demolish or give away 1895 to 1900 non-contributing building, but the first submittal did no t include a possible site for relocation. At first the applican t claimed the future utilization would be a house designed to resemble a structure that once sat on this site. After obtaining the Certif icate of Relocation, the

PAGE 111

111 applicant revised their plans to a rear garage apartment and a large yard to compliment their residence next door. Therefore, the Mock Report located in Appendix D will consider a request for demolition and a rear garage apartment with a large yard. The proposed criteria, the Standards for Demolition and the Standards for New Construction located in Appendix B were used to review this request. Eleven months after the init ial request, a site was suggest ed for relocation, 7 Okorwaw Way. Therefore, the second Mock Report located in Appendix D will consider a request for relocation and a rear garage apartment with a la rge yard. The proposed criteria, the Standards for Relocation and the Standard for New Construction located in Appendix B were used to review this request. Conclusion. These mock staff reports demonstrate the need for thorough analysis. Unless proposals are examined and analyze d, pertinent issues are overlooke d. While this is true for all cases, it is imperative for controversial cases. Therefore, a systematic review will examine proposals with the appropriate Standards. The major issues in each case can be identified in this fashion. This process will help uphold the authen ticity of the Old Historic District and the National Historic Landmark status.

PAGE 112

112 Figure 3-1. 10 Vestal St reet. Front elevation. Figure 3-2. Vestal Stre et. Street elevation.

PAGE 113

113Figure 3-3. 10 Vestal Street. Pr oposed front elevation. Courtesy of Nantucke t Historic District Commission Office (HDC).

PAGE 114

114 Figure 3-4. 10 Vestal Street. Existing footprint. Cour tesy of Nantucket HDC.

PAGE 115

115 Figure 3-5. 10 Vestal Street Proposed footprint. Cour tesy of Nantucket HDC.

PAGE 116

116 Figure 3-6. 125 Main Street. Distri ct Data Sheet from the Nantu cket Island Architectural and Cultural Resources SurveyC ourtesy of Nantucket HDC

PAGE 117

117 Figure 3-7. 125 Main Street. Photogra phs depicting the side elevation. Courtesy of the Nantucket HDC.

PAGE 118

118 Figure 3-8. 125 Main Street. Propo sed garage apartment and larg e front yard. Courtesy of Nantucket HDC.

PAGE 119

119 Figure 3-9. 127 Main Street. Front elevation located 10-0 or less from the street. Figure 3-10. 125 Main Street. Hedge and fence replaced the Folk-Victorian house. 123 Main Street in foreground.

PAGE 120

120 Figure 3-11. 123 Main Street. Located 10-0 or less from the sidewalk.

PAGE 121

121 Figure 3-12. Main Street. View of Main Street depicting the established site utilization.

PAGE 122

122 Figure 3-13. 129 Main Street. H ouse with a large front yard.

PAGE 123

123 Figure 3-14. 7 Okorwaw Way. New site for the Folk -Victorian style house, 120 from the street. Courtesy of Nantucket HDC.

PAGE 124

124 Figure 3-15. 7 Okorwaw Way. House is barely visible from the street. Figure 3-16. 7 Okorwaw Way. House is barely visible from the street.

PAGE 125

125 Figure 3-17. 7 Okorwaw Way. Folk Vict orian style house in new location.

PAGE 126

126 Figure 3-18. 7 Okorwaw Way. Front door.

PAGE 127

127 Figure 3-19. 18 Mill Street. Located less than 5-0 from the street. Figure 3-20. 18 Mill Street. Massing and volume are overly large.

PAGE 128

128 Figure 3-21. 1 Norquarta Drive. Contributing bunga low style house that was originally located at 18 Mill Street.

PAGE 129

129 Figure 3-22. 18 Mill Street. Relations hip to adjacent one-story house.

PAGE 130

130 Figure 3-23. Mill Street. Sloping site condition.

PAGE 131

131 Figure 3-24. House across the street from 18 Mill St reet with faade oriented to the side yard.

PAGE 132

132 Figure 3-25. Four-bay side gable house facing the side yard.

PAGE 133

133 Figure 3-26. 18 Mill Street. Photograph of crisp new foundation.

PAGE 134

134 Figure 3-27. 18 Mill Street. Photograph showing the energy efficient windows. Figure 3-28. 1 Norquarta Drive. General setting is rural with no similarity to Mill Street.

PAGE 135

135 Figure 3-29. Norquarta Drive. General setting is rural with no similarity to Mill Street. Figure 3-30. Norquarta Drive. Clos est structures with no similarity to the structures in the Old Historic District.

PAGE 136

136 Figure 3-31. 3 Coffin Street. Detail of trim a nd color inconsistent with approved plans.

PAGE 137

137 Figure 3-32. 3 Coffin Street. Phot ograph of front door, which lacks the light fixtures approved in the elevations.

PAGE 138

138 Figure 3-33. 3 Coffin Street. Approved front elevation. Courtesy of Nantucket HDC.

PAGE 139

139 Figure 3-34. 3 Coffin Street. Photograph of air-conditioning unit at second floor window.

PAGE 140

140 Figure 3-35. 3 Coffin Street. Footprint of new construction. Courtesy of Nantucket HDC.

PAGE 141

141 Figure 3-36. Bartlett Farm. Rural surroundings and the poor condition of the relocated cottage. Figure 3-37. Bartlett Farm. Rural surroundings a nd the poor condition of the relocated cottage.

PAGE 142

142 Figure 3-38. Bartlett Farm. Relocated cottage in rural surroundings. Figure 3-39. Bartlett Farm. Relocated cottage in rural surroundings.

PAGE 143

143 Figure 3-40. Bartlett Farm. Relocated cottage in rural surroundings. Figure 3-41. Bartlett Farm. Relocated cottage in rural surroundings.

PAGE 144

144 Figure 3-42. Bartlett Farm. Location of cottage. Courtesy of Nantucket HDC.

PAGE 145

145 Figure 3-43. 20 Milk Str eet. Bungalow style house.

PAGE 146

146 Figure 3-44. 125 Main Street. Proposed site plan with a large front ya rd and rear garage apartment. Courtesy of Nantucket HDC.

PAGE 147

147 Figure 3-45. Milk Street. Houses ad jacent to 20 Milk Street depict a regular and consistent street edge. Figure 3-46. Milk Street. Stre etscape depicts a regular a nd consistent street edge.

PAGE 148

148 Figure 3-47. 20 Milk Street. Proposed new location for the Bungalow style house. Courtesy of Nantucket HDC.

PAGE 149

149 Figure 3-48. Norquarta Drive. Lot 13 proposed location for the 20 Milk Street bungalow. Figure 3-49. 18 Mill Street. Adjacent one-story house with front yard.

PAGE 150

150 Figure 3-50. 41 Liberty Street. Fr ont elevation of the contribu ting building with no additions visible.

PAGE 151

151 Figure 3-51. 41 Liberty Street. Side elevation of contributing buildi ng with two additions visible.

PAGE 152

152 CHAPTER 4 LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT Case Study: Lake Eola Heights Historic District The Lake Eola Heights Historic District was established by an Overlay Ordinance in May of 1989. In 1992 the district became the first in Orlando to be placed on th e National Register of Historic Places (Figure E-11). This historic district is about 120 acres in ar ea. It is primarily residential, but also contains religious, educational and commercial buildings. The district has 664 buildings. Four hundred eighty-one are cont ributing and 183 are noncontributing (Johnston, 1980). As the National Register of Historic Plac es Nomination Form describes, The district possess a significant concentration, linkage, and c ontinuity of buildings united historically by plan and physical development (Johnston, 1980, p. 1). 223 East Concord Street The residence at 223 E Concord Street was bui lt in 1950. It is a sp lit-level Ranch style structure constructed of concrete masonry. The residence disp lays an overall horizontal emphasis with wide eave overhangs and horizontal bandin g. Details, such as corner metal-casement windows and glass block, are influenced by the Art Moderne style. The house also possesses some traditional details, such as a tile roof and two brick chimneys with a decorative brick banding and a metal hood. A center side gable conn ects two hip portions of the tile roof. This residence is non-contributing to the district, because it was c onstructed after the designated historical period of significance (1884-1940) for the Lake Eola Heights Historic District (Figure 4-1). Request for demolition. Request for Demolition: HPB#2000-00216: November 27, 2000: The applicant requested to demolish the single -family residence for th e construction of two Mediterranean Revival duplexes. A staff report dated November 27, 2000 (Figure E-1) analyzed

PAGE 153

153 this request with the Criteria for Demolition in the Design and Demoliti on Standards (Figure E2). The main topics in the report were the signi ficance, remaining examples, future utilization, existing conditions/maintenance, and economic issu es. The staff recommended approval to the City Council and to waive the 180-day waiting period. Personal critique of the staff report. In the report, the issue of significance was examined in the realm of how the structure relates to other structures within the historic district. The Lake Eola Heights Historic District was designated in 1989 by Ordinance (Figure E-3). At this time, the residence was less than 50 y ears old and categorized as noncontributing. In this report, it was recognized as representing the post-WW II-building period in Orlando, however, not significantly. This judgment seemed amiss, for th e background information contains a detailed description of the archit ectural significance of the structure (Figure E-1). The report examined remaining examples of similar significance and the difficulty of reproducing this type of building. No other rema ining examples were noted, but this example was noted for its size and scale. Specifically, the scale of the house as it relates to the expansive size of the lot. The report st ated that reproducing this rela tionship may be impossible, but unlikely would have been a more accurate word than impossible. Today, building one residence on two city lots is not cost-effective for most people. The report stated that the style of the resi dence is not valued in the district, and reproducing the structure would not be allowed. The design inspiration fo r new construction is not required to be a contributing style in the historic district; th e Standards state the style of new construction can be influenced by a style that has existed in Orlando. Nevertheless, it would probably be difficult to gain approval from th e Historic Preservation Board for this design.

PAGE 154

154 The future utilization for the site and the e ffect of those plans on the character of the historic district was examined in the report. The proposed two-story Med iterranean Revival style duplexes on each lot were accepted as appropriate. Th is was based on the fact that this style is contributing in the district and duplexes were common throughout the district. Historic Preservation Board review of the non-contributing property. Historic Preservation Board Meeting Minutes, December 6, 2000 (Figure E-4): The staff report was presented. The applicant stated that the owner as ked him to develop the property after failing to sell his house at a fair market value. They stat ed that previously, Ms. Rubin, the Preservation Officer, told them the house was non-contributin g. They discussed splitting the property and constructing two duplexes. The owne r read a letter from his nei ghbor at 213 Concord Street in favor of his development plans. Historic Preser vation Board member, Mr. Maines requested that all comments be limited to the subject demolition. At this point, five residents from the distri ct were present to spea k. All were in opposition to the demolition. Rick Adams was concerned about tearing down single family houses and building multifamily homes in their place. He fe lt the idea, tearing down a home and building a new home that looks old for profit, was ridicul ous. He felt the house was in excellent condition and worth saving. Mente Connery fe lt the size of the house would support a large family, and she supported families living downtown. She felt ther e were enough multi-family homes downtown and too few houses of this quality and size. Kerr y Kelly was concerned about the preservation of his neighborhood, traffic, and felt more multi-fam ily houses caused problems. He stated that Maury Hurtz, a renowned artist with paintings in City Hall and Orange County Court House, had grown up in the house. Ed Miesak felt the house was a contributing structure to the district. Replacing it with a synthetic structure is not in keeping with the district . He stated he would

PAGE 155

155 not have purchased his house at 222 East Concor d Street last Septembe r if 223 East Concord Street had been a multi-family structure. Raym ond Cox, President of the Lake Eola Heights Neighborhood Association noted that there may be hous es of this style, but not of this size. He continued, noting that the Lake Eo la Heights Historic District is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the defini tion of a contributing structure is a one that is 50 years old. He stated the house meets this cr iterion. Mr. Cox stated that demo lishing the house and building two other structures would dilute the percentage of contributing struct ures in the district and add noncompatible structures. He also stated the quality of life in the neighborhood would be compromised and downgraded by the construction of two duplexes because of the added density. The public portion of the hearing was closed and the board began discussion on the request. The board discussed non-contributing houses in respect to the Land Development Code, and touched on the topic of amendi ng a district ordinance to change aspects that are out of date and/or invalid. Further discussi on continued regarding the houses style, size, importance, and unique contribution to the district. HPB member Ms. Hill felt the structure had historical significance due the fact that the Hurtz family built the house. Th ey were managers at one of Orlandos first hotels and a member of the fam ily was an artist. She felt the house would be recognized for this association if allowed to exist. HBP chairman, Mr. Bryla felt there was no reason to act hastily and that the neighborhood and the owner coul d find a workable solution. He added that even though the house was built in 19 50, twenty years from now this style house could be lacking if they are all torn down. He felt the City Code was short-sided, since it does not seem to coincide with the Secretary of In teriors Standards. The board voted to deny the request. In closing, Mr. Main es recommended Lake Eola He ights Neighborhood Association amend their charter. Mr. Bryla recommended that the Historic Preservation Officer suggest each

PAGE 156

156 district review their inve ntory and ordinance to determine if th ey need to be amended. He also added that a demolition could not be approve d until a full set of plans is presented. Personal critique of the HPB revie w of the non-contributing property. The applicant made a statement, but did not add any useful info rmation or facts to back up claims of his failed house sale. Even though the future utilization of the si te was not the subject of the meeting, any amount of information, time and insight into the pr ojects purpose would have been beneficial to his case. The public outcry was based on six issues. The Historic Preservation Board was in agreement with most. The first issue was that the house was contribu ting to the district, excellent condition and worth saving and few houses of this quality and size. While the board may have agreed on this point, they did not make any comment. Th e second issue was that replacing the single-family struct ure with multi-family structures was undesirable. The residents felt that multifamily structures would lead to more traffic and compromise and downgrade the quality of life due to the added density. If pe rmitted by code, the Historic Preservation Board cannot dictate what type structur e can be built. Knowing this, th e board did not comment on this issue. The third issue was that the house had historical signif icance based on the Hurtz family. Ms. Hill offered some detail about the family; ho wever, these claims were not backed by facts. The fourth issue was that any new construction woul d not be compatible or as compatible as the existing home. Rick Adams felt the idea of tear ing down a home and building a new home that looks old for profit is ridiculous Ed Miesak felt replacing the house with a synthetic structure was not in keeping with the dist rict. The fifth issue presented is based on the criteria for the National Register of Historic Places. During the meeting Mr. C ox of the Lake Eola Heights Neighborhood Association and Mr. Bryla of the Historic Preservation Board brought up this

PAGE 157

157 criteria; however, both were mistaken While it is true that a struct ure has to be fifty years of age or older to be considered historic structures within a historic dist rict are judged when the district is surveyed or designated. Most of the time, this is before the area formally is recognized as a district. Lake Eola Heights Hist oric District was formally rec ognized in 1989 (Figure E-3), and the house was 39 years old. At the time of de signation it was categori zed as non-contributing (Figure 4-1). This classification remains until a district is resurveyed. If changed, this classification should be based on an extension in the era of signifi cance or the declaration of an additional significant era. Re-surveying a dist rict is not commonly done, but is probably prompted by cases like this. So, saying the house is contributing because it is 50 years old was incorrect. The sixth issue, solely expressed by Hi storic Preservation Board Chair, Mr. Bryla, was that this house, if not contribu ting now, might be contributing in the future. Mr. Bryla felt that even though the house was built in 1950, twenty years from now this style house could be lacking if they are all demolished. Recognizing the quality of design and construction, he felt the City Code was short-sided, since it does not seem to coincide with the Secretary of Interiors Standards. Based on this information the Histor ic Preservation Board denied the applicants request. During the boards closing discussion certain comments were made, specifically the lack of a site plan, and then later, a demolition could not be done in any event until a full set of plans are presented. To the applicant and owner, who did not want to hear that the demolition would not be approved, these comments gave hope to their development plans. For others, these comments clouded the reason for denial. Ongoing activity. Three Design Review Committee meeti ngs were held on the following dates: December 20, 2000; January 18, 2001; and Fe bruary 12, 2001, with the applicant and/or

PAGE 158

158 the owner. The Committee is made up of three members of the Historic Preservation Board. They critiqued the proposed Mediterranean Revi val duplexes and garage apartments (Figure E5). Against the recommendations of the staff, the applicant reque sted to be placed on the March agenda. Staff issued the Addendum to March 7, 2001 Staff Report (Figure E-6). The final Design Review Committee recommendations are summari zed in the staff report dated March 7, 2001 (Figure E-7). Request for new construction. HPB#2000-00216: March 7, 2001: The applicant requested to demolish a single-family reside nce for the constructi on of two two-story Mediterranean Revival duplexes and twotwo-st ory garage apartments. The staff report (Figure E-7) analyzed this request with the criteria in the Design and Demolition Standards. In addition to the background information from the previous staff report, pertinent information about the denial of the demolition was included. The staff recommended deferral of the proposal because the proposed buildings were too large for the dist rict. In addition, the reason for denial was based on the architectural significan ce of the residence, in sp ite of its classification. Personal critique of the staff report dated March 7, 2001. The report was divided into two sections. The first dealt with the demolition, and the second dealt with the proposed new construction. Due to the denial of the demo lition at the December 2000 Historic Preservation Board Meeting, the issue was re-visited. In spit e of the classification as non-contributing, the structure was significant and posse ssed design elements characteristic of the Art Moderne style. This report offered a new remaining example, the residence at 323 East Concord Street, which was similar in size, style, and time frame a nd has maintained its original character. This residence was also classified as non-contributing, due to the fact that it was built in 1947. The report stated because the struct ure was non-contributing, it could be demolished in the future. If

PAGE 159

159 the house at 223 E. Concord Street was demolis hed, the same thing could happen to similar properties in the future like th e house at 323 E. Concord Street. The report stated reproducing th e structure would not be al lowed, which may or may not have been true. Even though this house style once existed in Orlando, it was unlikely a design of this style would have been a pproved. Most designs approved for new construction possess details reminiscent of a style prevalent in the district. Also the report stated, Considering the scale of the structure related to the expansive size of the lot, reproducing the structure may be impossible. This statement was made in regard to the large scale of new construction, which refers to the Land Development Code for what is permitted, and usually builds to the maximum. When a house is demolished, either the new constr uction dwarfs the lot or the parcel is split creating two lots with a house on each. For these reasons, impossible may have been the correct word, but improbable was more accura te. Concerning the issue of existing condition and maintenance, the report stated that becau se of the size of the structure, it would be impossible to be moved. Again, improbable is a better word. Because of the high cost of moving masonry structures, this would not be an option for most people or organizations. The second section of the report was an analysis of the future utilization of the site. Since the March 7, 2000 staff report, th e applicant has added two two-st ory garage apartments to his proposal for two two-story Mediterranean Revival duplexes (Figure E-5). However, this did not comply with the Land Development Code. After three Design Committee Review Meetings three suggested design changes remained unresolved. These were evaluated with the criteria found in the Standards for New Construction, Section 62.706 of the Land Development Code.

PAGE 160

160 First, the Design Review Committee recommended the parapet height of the rear portion of the primary structure be reduced on both duplexes. Instead, the appl icant created a difference in the parapet height on one buildi ng by raising the front parapet. The report stated, This is inappropriate as the Design Review Committee has been working with the applicant to achieve massing and scale similar to the contributing structur es in the district. In the previous submittal, the height of Building #1 and #2 was 24-0 in th e front portion and 23-6 in the rear portion. The staff recommendation was to return the front parapet height 24-0 to create a new average height of 20-0. Altering the height helped reduce the mass and blend the new construction with the residential character of the neighborhood. Second, the proposed structures were excessive in mass, and the additive massing utilized in the design was insufficient. Each of the pr oposed buildings was double the size of the adjacent houses at 6,021 square feet. The house to the left at 213 E. Concord Street was 3,868 square feet, and the house to the right at 229 East Concor d Street was 3,034 square feet. These houses actually appeared smaller by th e use of additive massing, a sma ller mass that is added to a visually dominant mass. The residence at 213 Ea st Concord Street achie ved this by attaching one-story additive elements: the front porch, porte-cochere, and a sunroom, which accounted for 1,289 square feet, leaving the tw o-story mass at 2,579 square feet The residence at 229 East Concord Street was composed of additive one-s tory elements that accounted for 1,011 square feet, leaving the total main mass at 2,023 square f eet. The front porch and the entry porch of the proposed duplexes were the only additive space. Another issue concerning mass dealt with the one-story section behind the primary mass (Figure E-8). Due to the fact the space is enclosed, it actually increased the pe rceived massing. Also, the proposed two-story structure behind the courtyard was double the square footage of othe r garage apartments in the neighborhood. Third,

PAGE 161

161 the Design Review Committee advised the appli cant to remove the penthouse. However, the applicant retained this element and reduced the size. The applicant proposed many appropriate el ements like the fenestration, orientation, materials and roof shape. Also, sensitive to the single-family neighborhood, each duplex had a single entry. In reference to rhythm of solid s and voids, the proposed buildings front yard setbacks each reflected that of the respective existing adjacent building. This helped give the buildings their own identity. Th e applicant has also looked to the pattern of the existing driveways to propose a shared driveway. On the issue of style, staff felt the proposed influence of the Mediterranean Revival style was appropriate and that the styl e itself has not be duplicated. St aff stated that this had been accomplished by the use of certain details, such as aluminum windows with modern transoms above differentiates it from true hi storic designs. This seemed like a very small detail to depend on to distinguish it from historic examples The staff report recommended deferral for two reasons: the clarification of ar chitectural significance and/or the outstanding design issues. However, the applicants requested their case be presented to the board for clarification, and an addendum was issued to inform th e Historic Preservation Board. HPB review of the non-contributing build ing and the proposed construction. The following information is from the Historic Pr eservation Board Meeting Minutes dated March 7, 2001 (Figure E-9). To re-acquaint the board with the cas e, the staff restated the applicants request, a brief history of the structure, and the denial of the demolition at the December 2000 Board Meeting. The reason for the de nial was either due to the ar chitectural significance of the house or the lack of information regarding the new construction.

PAGE 162

162 The owner of 223 East Concord Street read an excerpt from the December 2000 staff report, stating the build ing was non-contributing and outside the period of significance for the district, and the criteria for landmark designati on from the Land Development Code. He showed photographs of buildings inside and outside of the hi storic district, then concluded that he did not think the house met landmark criteria. Public comment commenced. Jim Hunt, an owne r of two non-contributing properties in the district, stated that he felt the house should be preserved, and that it contributes to the district. Ed Miesak, 222 East Concord Street, felt the house c ontributed to the district and would be replaced with over-development. Raymond Cox, 600 East Ame lia Street, felt demolishing a house in such good condition would cause other non-contributing properties to follow suit, resulting in a negative economic impact on the neighborhood. Jim Benson, 538 Broadway Avenue, felt that the house contributed to the district and replacing it with four un its would be a travesty. Rick Adams, 212 E. Concord Street, and T.J. Walche ssen, 235 E. Amelia Street were against the demolition and the proposed new construction. Letters were read from thre e other residents of the district against the demolition and redevelopment. Mr. Bryla, Chair of the Historic Preservation Board, outlined his understanding of the 50year requirement, and stated that he voted against the demolition in the spirit of what the LDC [Land Development Code] states in looking at stru ctures 50 years or older, not structures which fall into certain time frames. He requested that each board member clarify their position at the time of the December HPB meeting for voting for or against demolition. HPB member, Mr. Bass cited the architectural and historical si gnificance and the age of the house as his reasons for voting against the demoliti on. He further stated that he voted as he did regardless of the future plans for development. Ms. White cited the house as the best example of

PAGE 163

163 the ranch style in the Lake Eola Heights Historic District. She further stated that the plans for future utilization were not relevant as she felt the structure should be sa ved. Mr. Brito cited the significance of the structure as his reason for voting against the demolition. He felt the size, condition, and style made the house irreplaceable. He stated his vote for denial had nothing to do with what may occur after demolition. He said th at even though the structure did not meet the time requirements, the Board is allowed to make an exception to save a significant structure. Mr. Gaines cited that he voted for the demolition because the structure does not fall within the guidelines of protected time periods. He felt it was contradictory of the board to deny the demolition and also deny an application proposing the existing design. Ms. Jenkins cited the character of the house as her re ason for voting against demolition, and because of this she did not consider what would be built on the property. Ms. Hill cited the significance of the house as her reason for voting against the demolition. Mr. Bryla declared that the board consensus is that the house was a contributing structure. He stated the house did not qualify as a historic landmark, but the house does meet the criteria for historical significance. A motion and second were made to deny the request for demolition. However, discussion continued, and Ms. Painter outlin ed the process of appeal for the applicant. Mr. Marsa stated he was cognizant of his nei ghbors concerns regardi ng the density of the proposed construction, and he wished to notify th e Board that the Code allows for multi-family zoning on his property. In response Mr Brito stated that the Board is tasked to inte rpret the Code and read between the lines of the same. He fu rther stated he would vote to deny the demolition regardless of what is proposed to replace it, and the reason for denial is not a density issue, but the Boards finding that the stru cture is contributing, albeit outside of the window of the

PAGE 164

164 contributing definition (HPB Meeting Minutes, March 2001, p. 6). The motion was voted and passed with one nay. Ms. Painter instructed the board to hear the second part of th e owners request, the proposed construction of two structures. At the ap plicants request, staff announced that the two two-story garage apartments had been removed from the proposal because they did not meet code. She described the Design Review Committee recommendations for the duplexes, with one outstanding. The applicant had not changed the or ientation of the rear portion of the primary structure for a more linear alignment. Neverthe less, the staff recommendation was for denial based on the size of the proposed buildings. Staff st ated that the applican t was cautioned at each Design Review Committee Meeting that the buildings were too large. Mr. Marsa, the owner, read from the City of Orlandos Ethics Manua l in response to Mr. Brylas comments about the spirit of the C ode and reading between the lines. Mr. Marsa gave a history of his property, beginning with hi s 1994 purchase and ending with Design Review Committee Meeting topics. He recalled expressing his desire to agree on the design and size of the duplexes with the Committee at the s econd Design Review Co mmittee Meeting. He identified an existing penthouse, located at 600 Livingston Street and approved by the Board last year. Also, he referred to a building on Concord Street 3 wider and 7 taller than his proposed duplexes. Staff interjected that the building in question is half the square footage of each proposed duplex. Mr. Marsa felt the review should be limited to only what can be seen from the right-of -way. Mr. Marsa then closed his presen tation, stating the style of the proposed duplexes related to the contributing buildings in the Lake Eo la Heights Historic Dist rict more closely than the existing house.

PAGE 165

165 Mr. Raymond Cox opened public comment by st ating the applicant never met with the Lake Eola Heights Neighborhood Association as suggested at the December 2000 Historic Preservation Meeting. He was conc erned about the scale and massing, the depths visible from the right of way and the voids in the buildings. He was unhappy that the buildings were mirror images of each other with shared materials, de tails and style. He understood the intent was for the buildings to appear as single family homes but the appearance of the buildings and the shared easement created a compound rather than individuality. He closed by saying that there are no buildings similar in scale and mass in the Lake Eola Heights Historic District. Mark Hampton, 1100 Ayrshire Street, was concerned about the style of the duplexes and the treatment and recesses of the windows. Ji m Hunt, 1231 East Amelia Street stated he was opposed to attempts to downsize the neighborhood. He stat ed he hoped there could be a compromise between the applicant and the boa rd regarding scale and mass. Board discussed details of the design. Seth King, Assi stant District Attorney, recommended the board rule on both requests and reminded them that the demolition would have to be approved to build on the site. He suggested that if the board does not want to take action at this point that they move to continue the matter. Mr. Gaines was opposed to reviewing the proposal because of the denial of the demoliti on. Also, he stated that no matter what the proposal, the neighbors do not want the house demolished. Ms. Werth felt that a proposal for new construction could not be a pproved at this meeting. A moti on was passed to continue the hearing in the event the demolition was approve d, in which case, another Design Review Committee Meeting would be held be fore the request is brought back to the Board. The issues of size, scale and massing would be addressed again at this time (HPB Meeting Minutes, March 2001, p. 10).

PAGE 166

166 Personal critique of the HPB revie w of the non-contributing building. After the December 2000 denial of the demolition, and th ree Design Review Committee Meetings, the board was familiar with the request and the pr ogress of the proposed design. Staff asked the Board to clarify whether the denial of the demo lition was due to the architectural significance of the existing structure or the lack of in formation concerning the new construction. The owner opened his presentation by stating that the structure is classified as noncontributing to the district. Then he read the criteria for landmark designation from the Land Development Code suggesting that if the structure is significan t, it must be a landmark. After showing photographs of buildings he felt were si milar to his house, he concluded that his house was not a landmark. The question of the house be ing a landmark was nonsense. The photos that were shown depicted the incongru ity between his house and other hous es in the district. Even to the untrained eye, it was obvious these build ings were not of a comparable quality. In general, public comment was that the hous e contributed to the di strict and should be preserved. It was mentioned that the idea of demolishing a hous e in good condition could cause similar properties to follow suit, resulting in a negative economic im pact on the neighborhood. This is a viable concern since any decision by a board seems to mandate equal treatment for future similar requests, but the real negative w ould be the preservation of this period in the district. Mr. Bryla stated his vote against the demo lition was in the spirit of what the Land Development Code states in looking at structures 50 years or older, not struct ures that fall into certain time frames. Even though this statement is understandable, it was not accurate. When the National Register of Historic Pl aces was created, the 50-year tim e frame was instilled because it was thought to be long enough for one to recognize the significance of a st ructure. Therefore

PAGE 167

167 structures must be fifty years or older to be considered histor ic unless they are of exceptional importance. In saying, what the Land Development C ode states in looking at structures 50 years or older, he might be referring to the Land Development Codes definition of a Structure: NonContributing (Figure E-10): Histori c landmarks or structures in HP Overlay districts that, at the time of designation, are less than fifty (50) years old. He may have overlooked at the time of designation or decided to disr egard it. Lake Eola Heights Hi storic District was designated locally in 1989 and by the Nationa l Register in 1992 (Figure E-11) when 223 Concord Street was 39 years old. The survey work was prepared much earlier. The 1983 Survey Area List for the proposed district (Figure E-12) did not include 223 East Concord Street, because it was 33 years old. In the next portion his statement, not structur es that fall into certain time frames, he may have been referring to the November 27, 2000 Sta ff Report (Figure E-1). This residence is noncontributing to the district, because it was cons tructed after the designate d historical period of significance (1884-1940) for the Lake Eola Heights Historic District . This statement came from two sources. The first source is the documenta tion on the property en titled, Non-contributing Resource (Figure 4-1). This depicts a black and white photograph of the structure with a Statement of Significance, Constructed circa 1950, 223 East Concord Street is a non-contributi ng resource because it was built outside the period of historic significance for the neighborhood. According to guidelines established by the National Park Se rvice a non-contributing resource is one that is not at least fifty years old, or one that has been so radi cally altered that it no longer exhibits the architectural ch aracteristics of the period in which it was constructed. (Noncontributing Resource Sheet, 1983, Figure 4-1) In the National Register of Historic Places Re gistration form for Lake Eola Heights Historic District (Figure E-13) this is defined, The period of significant development associated with the district spans the years 1884 through 1940. All the stru ctures in a historic di strict are classified and recorded in this fashion. Unlike what Mr. Br yla is suggesting, the curre nt system does not re-

PAGE 168

168 evaluate non-contributing buildings located in a di strict each year when they reach the 50-year mark. Each board member proceeded to voice the reason behind their vote. The consensus for denying the demolition was the significance of the structure, the fact that the structure was irreplaceable and an exceptional example of ra nch style architecture. All members that voted against the demolition agreed that it was not due to the lack of information on the new construction. In their comments they explained th at they wanted the stru cture to be saved, for example, the plans for future utilization were not relevant as she feel s the structure should be saved. Mr. Britos comment was similar and he continued, even though the structure did not meet the time requirements, the Board is allowe d to make an exception to save a significant structure. This statement would prove true in the end and is a good ar gument to the pertinence of professional boards. Mr. Gaines was the onl y Board member that voted for the demolition, the structure does not fall within the guidelines of protected ti me periods. He felt the board was being contradictory, in that they would not approve the demolition and would not approve new construction of the existing design. The latter idea originated from the November 2000 staff report in the criteria for demolition, item (e). T he Demolition Standards state the difficulty or impossibility of reproducing such a structure becau se of design, texture, material, detail, size, scale or uniqueness of location should be consid ered. Because the style is not valued in the Historic District, reproducing th e structure would not be allowed. This statement may have been too absolute; however, there are certain design el ements that would not conform to the existing standards. The owner maintained that he knew the neighbo rs were concerned abou t the density of the proposed construction and wished to inform the Board that multi-family development was

PAGE 169

169 allowed in his zoning district. In response Mr. Brito stated the Board is tasked to interpret the Code and read between the lines of the same, wh ich caused the applicant to read from the Code of Ethics later in the meeting. Mr. Brito furt her stated he would vote to deny the demolition regardless of what was proposed to replace it, and the reason for denial is not a density issue but the Boards finding that the stru cture is contributing, albeit outside of the window of the contributing definition (HPB M eeting Minutes, March 2001). Hi s comments were intended to send a clear message to the applicant. Mr. Brito had a good understanding of how the structure is classified and why. Nevertheless he found this in error and was ruling ag ainst the structures removal. The request for demolition was denied again, with one nay. Personal critique of the HPB review of the new construction. The next portion of the meeting dealt with the proposed new constructio n, which understandably th e board was reluctant to discuss having just denied the demolition of th e building for the second time. In addition, staff still recommended denial based on the size and volume of the two buildings. Staff stated that this should not be a surprise to the applicant, he was warned at each Design Review Committee Meeting that the buildings were too large, and th ere had been no considerable change in this aspect. The applicant stated that at the sec ond Design Review Committee Meeting he wished to reach an agreement with the Committee on design and style. While the committee and Historic Preservation Officer advise and cr itique design, they do not dictate square footage or style. The Design and Demolition Guidelines are just that, a guide to designing and reviewing proposals for new construction. While this is helpful, it is not a simple task to design appropriate new construction. Either because of the lack of the information or skill, the proposed designs were consistently unsympathetic to the adjacent pr operties and inappropriate for the area. The architect or designer was not present at the three Design Review Committee Meetings, which

PAGE 170

170 would have been helpful. Design Review Co mmittee Meetings are taped and attendees are announced, but minutes are not produced. After re viewing the tape and personal notes, staff issued observations and recommenda tions to the applicant. A regular system would be beneficial and should be implemented to take full advantag e of everyones time and effort. The applicant identified a penthouse at 600 Livi ngston, which was approved by the boa rd last year. This is an interesting issue, which had been touched on befo re; the existence of an architectural element on one house may not be appropriate to the style of another. In this case, while appropriate, it did not help the size issue. Perhaps if the design were less massive, removing the penthouse would not be a Design Review Committee Meeting recommendation. If in fact it was not a successful aesthetic decision or proved to be a poor decisi on, a board should be able to make a different decision in the future without causing a controversy. The applicant also felt the board should only be involved with what can be seen from the street or the right of way. Some ordinances are set up this way, however the Lake Eola Heights Historic District Ordinance (Fi gure E-3) does not limit review to just what is viewed from the street. He claimed the style of the proposed duplex es relate to the contributing buildings in the district better than the existi ng building did. While th ere are contributing hous es in the district that are Mediterranean Revival st yle, the proposed design did not exhibit sympathetic qualities of scale and massing. Unless these de sign variables were appropriat e, the new construction would be an eyesore. Again the public comment was against the proposed duplexes. Raymond Cox was frustrated that the applicant ne ver met with the neighborhood asso ciation as the board suggested at the last meeting. When desc ribed as appearing single famil y, he thought the duplexes would be different styles. Instead, they were the same style, the plans mi rror each other, and there was a

PAGE 171

171 shared driveway between the dupl exes. Neighbors like Mr. Cox have a distinct idea about what is appropriate. To create a si ngle-family appearance, the staff envisioned two Mediterranean Revival duplexes with individual faade design and one entry door to each. Mr. Cox felt the shared easement created a compound. Since the patt ern of the driveways along the street dictated a shared driveway, staff found it appropriate with the benefit of less pavement and more green space. There are a few examples of original reside ntial apartments in the district, so a model does exist for this type of development in the distri ct. While the current desi gns did not meet staff expectations, it seemed like an achievable goal if the demolition was approved. While the board discussed the appropriate motion to make, Mr. Gaines interjected that no matter what the proposal he did not think the ne ighbors wanted the house demolished. This comment seemed out of place, since the neighbor or public reaction is important but not a de ciding factor. Also, the neighbors could appeal any deci sion made by the board on the case. Ms. Werth felt that a proposal for new construction coul d not be approved at this m eeting, which was insightful. It was obvious that the board felt discussing the new construction was illogical. The final motion was exact and direct. It stated if the demolition was approved, this hearing would be continued. However, before the proposal was presented to the board again there would be one Design Review Committee Meeti ng dealing specifically with the size, scale and massing. In summary, the board made no co mment and took no action on the proposed new construction. Applicants appeal and quasi-judicial ruling. The applicant filed a petition against the boards decision on March 30, 2001, which resulted in a quasi-judicial hearing held on June 8, 2001, and the recommended order received July 10, 2001 (Figure E-14). The burden of proof was on the applicant or the petiti oner, Mr. Marsa, to present s ubstantial competent evidence on

PAGE 172

172 the criteria in Section 62.707 (a)(f). The Hearing Officers d ecision was based on findings of fact, each corresponding to a criterion. During the course of the hearing, the applicant did not refute the facts listed in #1-6. The applicant refuted the fact s #7-11, however the Hearing Officer ruled the evidence he presented not credible. 7. Expert testimony was presented that th e proposed development, as shown on the preliminary drawings and assuming the re moval of the garage apartments, was incompatible with the Lake Eola Historic District due to its scale and massing. Although the Petitioner submitted evidence tending to show that there are other lots developed at the same or greater floor area ratio, that fact or alone does not show compatibility with surrounding structures. (Recommend ed Order, July 2001, p. 5) This dealt with the second portion of criteria, (f)and the effect those plans will have on the architectural, historical, archeo logical, social, aesthetic, or environmental character of the district (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-120). 8. Expert testimony was presented that the s ubject house is architect urally significant in that it is an excellent example of the ranc h-style homes built in the period immediately following World War II. It has many of the defi ning elements of ranch style housing: lack of a front porch; attached garage; sliding doors; use of masonry, iron and glass block rather than wood; picture and corner windows; wide overhanging eav es on low pitched roofs; and a general horizontal feel. No credible eviden ce was presented that this ranch-style house did not have architectural significance (Recommended Order, July 2001, p. 5) Again, these findings dealt with the criteria (a), The historic, architect ural, or environmental significance of the structure (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, CD 62-119). 9. Expert testimony was presented that the stru cture has architectural significance to the overall ensemble of structures within the Lake Eola Heights Historic District and that the structure is important to the integrity of the di strict. No credible evidence was presented to the contrary. (Recommended Order, July 2001, p. 5) This dealt with criteria (b), The historic, ar chitectural or environmen tal significance of the structure to the overall ensemble of structures w ithin the HP Overlay district and the importance of the structure to the integrity of the HP Ov erlay district (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-120). Expert testimony was presented that the house, which was

PAGE 173

173 designed by an architect, adds substa ntial aesthetic interest to the district. No credible evidence was presented to the contrary (R ecommended Order, July 2001, 6). Th is dealt with criteria, (c) The aesthetic interest that the structure adds to the HP Overlay district (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-120). 11. Expert testimony was presented that there are only three excellent examples of ranchstyle houses within the Lake Eo la Heights District, with th e subject house being one of them. There was also testimony that ranch houses of the quality of the subject house, on such a large lot are relativel y rare in the downtown area. No credible evidence to the contrary was presented. (Recomm ended Order, July 2001, p. 6) This dealt with criteria (d), The number of rema ining examples of similar significance in the HP Overlay district(City of Orlando La nd Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-120). The hearing officers decision was based on three conclusions. The first conclusion was that the applicant failed to carry his burden of proof. Specifically, he fa iled to prove the house was not architecturally significant or architecturall y significant to the ensemb le of structures in the district, or of aesthetic interest to the dist rict. He failed to prove that the demolition of the structure would not result in the loss of a rare ranch-style house in the district. In addition, he failed to present drawings that depicted what th e applicant stated would be built on the site. The second conclusion was that the applicant did presen t evidence that the hou se could be reproduced on the site, if the design could be approved by the board. The third conclusion was that the applicant failed to prove five criteria, a-d, and f, out of six applicable criteria, therefore the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition was de nied. The aftermath of this case served as a concise summation.

PAGE 174

174 Case Study Analysis: Consequences of not Including Non-contributing Properties in the Lake Eola Heights Historic District When non-contributing buildings are unrecognized, the effect s are a detriment to the districts in which they are located. This is evid ent in the case study of th e local district, Lake Eola Heights Historic District, Orlando, Florida, which is a National Historic Register District. Consequence of Perception When a building is classified as non-contributin g, the perception is th at it has little value and approval for demolition would be easily gr anted. However, the classification of noncontributing is not equal to architectural insign ificance. The term is mi sleading to homeowners, developers, policy administrators, planners or preservationists. In the Orlando Case Study, preservation staff was hesitant to recommend approval for the demolition of 223 Concord Street, but the planning department felt that the Histor ic Preservation Board would easily approve the request. The applicant and owner had met with the Historic Pres ervation Officer in the past, discussed the non-contributing st atus of the building, and cons idered possible development plans. The background information of the first staff report highlighted the character defining features of the building. Ultimately, the boa rd consensus was that the building was architecturally significant and described it as contributing, albeit outs ide the window of the contributing definition (Historic Preservati on Board Meeting Minutes, March 7, 2001, p. 6). The definition of a non-contributing structure is structures in HP Overlay districts that, at the time of designation, are less than fifty (50) years old . . (C ity of Orlando Land Development Code, 2006, Sec. 66.200). This definition alone ma kes no judgment concerning architectural significance. When the criteria for demolition are closely examined, there is no reference to the term non-contributing. Obviously, the classifica tion alone is not the de ciding factor. Actually, the demolition criteria include architectural, hi storical, environmental significance of the

PAGE 175

175 structure, and remaining examples of the stru cture. If one looks pa st the non-contributing classification, the demolition guidelines allow for the recognition of these values. In fact, 223 East Concord Street is recognized as one of the best examples of the ranch style in the city. The term, non-contributing is problematic and mu st be eliminated, because it implies that a building has no architectural significance. Consequence of Historic Period of Significance When historic districts are formed, the bu ildings within the pr oposed boundaries are categorized as contributing or non-contributing. The classificati on is based on the age of the building at the time of designation and the period of significance for th e district. The survey documentation for the property states, According to guidelines established by th e National Park Serv ice a non-contributing resource is one that is not at least fifty year s old, or one that has been so radically altered that it no longer exhibits the architectural characteristics of the period in which it was constructed. (Non-contributi ng Resource Sheet, 1983, p. 1) The residence at 223 East Concor d Street built in 1950 was 39 y ears old when the Lake Eola Heights Historic Distri ct was designated in 1989. The historic survey was prepared in 1983 when the house was 33 years old. Therefore at the time of designation 223 East Concord Street was categorized as non-contributing, because it was less than 50 years old. Also, the survey information states, Constructed circa 1950, 223 East Concord Street is a non-contributing resource . because it was built outside the pe riod of historic significance for the neighborhood . . (Non-contributing Resource Sheet, 1983, p. 1). The historic pe riod of significance for Lake Eola Heights Historic District is 1884 through 1940 (Johnston, 1990) In their explanation of a non-contributing building addition, the National Park Service stat es, it was not present during the period of significance or doe s not relate to the documented significance of the property

PAGE 176

176 (National Register, 1997, p. 16). Ther efore, a non-contributing struct ure is also built outside the period of significance for the district. Currently, this classification remains and will only be re-evaluated if a district is resurveyed locally and the National Register Fo rm is amended. Non-contributing buildings are not automatically re-evaluated when they r each the 50-year mark. The National Register Registration Form for the district may be amended to expand significance, to add an additional period of significance and to reclassify contribut ing and/or non-contribu ting resources (National Register, 1997). With two classifications, c ontributing or non-contributing, there is not a classification for an architecturally significant bu ilding in a historic district. Until a term is adopted as regular vocabulary for classifying buildings in historic districts, complex cases will continue. In any event, an archit ecturally significant building in a historic district is worthy of preservation without question. Therefore, a new cl assification of architectur ally significant is required to recognize significant buildings regardless of age. Consequence of Reproductions After non-contributing buildings are removed from the distri ct, they are often replaced with reproductions of a prevalen t style in the district. Even to people outside the preservation profession this seems ridiculous. The public co mment on 223 East Concor d Street included, He felt the idea, tearing down a home and building a new home that looks old for profit was ridiculous (Historic Preserva tion Board Meeting Minutes, Decem ber 2000, p. 5). If this is the product we desire, we are not pr eserving but creating. We have left the realm of historic preservation and entered that of theme distri cts for economic development. One must question this act. However, it is not uncommon for a non-contributing house to be demolished, like 223 East Concord Street, and replaced with new c onstruction inspired by a prevalent style in the

PAGE 177

177 district. Most designs ap proved for new construction possess deta ils reminiscent of a style in the district and the Standards for New C onstruction encourage this practice. New construction may be influenced by, but not duplicate, historic styles. If an historic style influences new construc tion, that style must exist or have existed in Orlando. Contemporary design shall be permitted provided that it meets the requirements of this section. (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-119) Contemporary design that meets the Standards for New Construction is hard to accomplish. Many designers are unable to so, and instead they propose a design for new construction inspired by a historic model. However, the problem is, th ere is no standard agai nst which to judge how this can be done appropriately, a nd often the results are misleading. It is questionable if the style standard serves the true purpose of the Secretary of Interiors St andard. All buildings, structures and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Altera tions that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be a voided when possible (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-6). This standard strives to delineate between old and new. Therefore, it is wise to examin e how non-contributing buil dings can enrich the district as products of their own time. Non-contributing buildings are examples of la ter architectural movements. 223 E. Concord Street is a split-level ranch style structure built in 1950. The de sign displays an overall horizontal emphasis with wide eave overhangs and horizon tal banding. Details, such as corner metalcasement windows and glass block, are influenced by the Art Moderne style. The house also possesses some traditional details, such as a tile roof and two brick chimneys with a decorative brick banding and a metal hood. Historic Preser vation Board member Ms. White stated, the house is a ranch-house style and is an architecturally sign ificant style. In different parts of the country, examples go back to the tu rn of the century. She also stated that this is the best example of a ranch-house in the Lake Eola Heights Historic Dist rict and one of the better ones in the City.

PAGE 178

178 . (Historic Preservation Board Meeting Minut es, March 2001, p. 5). In fact the Historic Preservation Boards consensus for denying the demolition was the significance of the structure, the fact that the structure was irreplaceable and an exceptional example of ranch style architecture. All members of the Historic Pres ervation Board that voted against the demolition agreed they wanted the structure to be saved and indicated their decisi on did not emanate from the proposed new construction. For example, the pl ans for future utilizatio n, were not relevant as she feels the structure should be saved. Mr Britos sentiment was similar, even though the structure did not meet the time requirements, the Bo ard is allowed to make an exception to save a significant structure (Histori c Preservation Board Meeti ng Minutes, March 2001, p. 5). If allowed to exist, the presence of a non-contributing structure can describe the development of a district. In the Orlando case st udy, 223 East Concord Street was designed by an architect and built in 1950. This building describes the continued development of the district, in spite of the fact that it was built ten years afte r 1940, which is noted as the end of the designated period of significance. This continued devel opment might be due to Orlandos economic base rooted in agriculture and touris m, which helped alleviative the effects of the depression. Also, the proliferation of the automobile increased tourist activity, which also helped the tourist economy. Although no subdivisions were constructed after the depres sion, individual buildings were constructed in the area, su ch as, Colonial Revivals on Hill crest and Livingston Streets, and an Art Moderne style house on North Highland Avenue. The Historic Register Nomination describes this house as, the only building in the district with modernis tic styling (Johnston, 1990, p. 13). However, the nomination continues to name a new style called Minimal Traditional. It was a low-cost building styl e that was small in size with concrete block foundations and asbestos shingle for exterior siding, the st yle was developed during the Great Depression

PAGE 179

179 as a less expensive altern ative to brick and wood. In 1940, several small residential buildings that embody Minimal Traditiona l styling were erected along Harwood, Livingston, and Ridgewood streets a nd Hyer Avenue. (Johnston, 1990, p. 8) The nomination describes development in the dist rict as moderate until World War II. Threetwenty-three East Concord Street is classified as non-contributi ng and was built in 1947. It is a ranch style residence with design elements of the Art Moderne style. This building is similar to 223 Concord Street in size, style, and time fram e. Both are evidence th at some development continued after 1940. Non-contributing buildings are usually compa tible. The staff report states, Considering the scale of the non-contributing structure related to the expansive size of th e lot, reproducing the structure may be impossible (Historic Preser vation Board Staff Report, March 2001, p. 2). A better word would be improbable instead of impossible. Today ne w construction is of a much larger scale than the existing buildings in historic districts. New construc tion refers to the Code to determine what can be built, th en builds to the maximum permitted. When a non-contributing house is demolished, the new construction usually dwarfs the lot. The struggle between the Historic Preservation Board and developers is inevitable. For example, two two-story Mediterranean Revival duplexes ar e proposed to replace the ranch at 223 E. Concord Street. The proposed stru ctures are excessive. Each propos ed duplex is double the size of the adjacent house measuring about 6,021 square feet. The existing house at 223 East Concord Street is 3,399 square feet (Figure 4-1). The house to the left, 213 East Concord Street, is 3,868 square feet, and the house to th e right, 229 East Concord Street is 3,034 square feet (Historic Preservation Board Staff Report, March 2001, p. 5). These houses are compatible to each other, only differing by about 400 square feet. They allocat e about a third of the to tal square footage in additive massing, a smaller mass added to a visually dominant mass. For example, one-story additive elements are attached to the residen ce at 213 East Concord Stre et, such as: the front

PAGE 180

180 porch, porte-cochere, and the sunroom. These account for 1,289 square feet with 2,579 square feet remaining as the two-story mass. As stated in the report, the additive space, helps cut down the massiveness and relate to the pedestrian scale on each faade (Historic Preservation Board Staff Report, March 2001, p. 5). The proposed front porch and the proposed entry porch of the duplexes are the only additive space, which is insuffi cient for structures of this size. Significant non-contributing structures en rich the district as products of their own time, but when demolished and replaced with new construction re producing a prevalent style in the district, a type of urban planning occurs that is more related to the creation of theme-districts than historic preservation. Consequence of Plans for Future Utilization When considering a demolition request for a no n-contributing building, the requirement to examine the future utilization of the site is at odds with the analysis of the historic significance of the non-contributing building. The Criteria for De molition include (f), The plans for future utilization of the site and the effect those pl ans will have on the architectural, historical, archaeological, social, aesthetic or environmental character of the HP Over lay district (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-120). The reasoning behind this is understandable; the applicants proposal may be allowable by Code but inappropriate for the neighborhood. However, the interpre tation of the word plans in criteria (f) crea tes a dilemma for the applicant. In the Orla ndo case study, the applican t provided floor plans and elevations for the proposed duplexes in his initial request for demolition. The board denied the demolition request. They commented on the lack of a site plan and that a demolition could not be approved until a full set of plans was presented (Historic Preservation Board Meeting Minutes, December 2000, p. 7). However, requesting a full set of plans from an applicant seems excessive when the architectural significance of the buildin g is undetermined. In fact, the lack of plans

PAGE 181

181 allowed the board to postpone j udgment on the architectural signifi cance of the building. In the months that followed, the applicant provided a si te plan, perspective a nd incorporated many of the Design Review Committees design recommenda tions to the proposed plans. However, the board still denied the demolition request at the March meeting citing the architectural significance of the non-c ontributing building. When an applicant approaches staff concer ning possible new constr uction, a rough analysis of the adjacent propertys square footage should be provided to the applicant within a reasonable amount of time. This could serve as a guide to an appropr iate proposal versus a proposal that will never work. The applicant should be cautioned that anything larger would n eed to be designed in such a way that the mass is additive. For exampl e, if the applicant had been provided with the massing analysis in the March 2001 staff report, he may have avoi ded the project altogether or proposed something more sympathetic to the ne ighborhood. Only after determination is made on the architectural significance of the non-contri buting structure can replacement proposals, the proposed new construction, be considered. If the non-contributing structure is determined as insignificant, the new construction will be reviewed in detail with complete drawings, analysis of building mass and other issues deal ing with neighbor hood compatibility. Proposed Criteria for Including Non-contri buting Properties in a Local District The following recommendations would recogniz e the value of non-contributing buildings and benefit the management of most residential hist oric districts. In addi tion, specific changes to the governance and guidelines for the Lake Eola He ights Historic District are suggested for the same reason. Applications for the Revised Building Classifications Many local historic districts w ould benefit by adopting new clas sifications that accurately reflect the value of the district s buildings. Buildings in propos ed historic districts would be

PAGE 182

182 surveyed, and non-contributing build ings in existing districts w ould be re-surveyed, using the following terms: potentially significant, arc hitecturally significan t, contributing, and ancillary. The definitions of these terms would be identi cal to the revised building classifications for the landmark district; refe r to Proposed Criteria of Chapter 3. These terms uphold the districts designated period of signi ficance and allow for additional architectural significance. To prevent the revised classifications from be falling the same fate as the non-contributing category, where certain buildings are overlooked, the instances wh ere the terms are applicable must be identified. Obviously the architecturally significant category wi ll be composed of buildings that are now non-contri buting, which highlights the fals e perception of this term and the need for change. Architecturally Significant buildings were not buil t during the districts historic period of significance but enrich the district, in spite of this fact. Architecturally significant buildings may be associated with an additional period of significance for the district. If a majority of non-contributing buildings are re-evaluated as architecturally significant, the designated historic period of si gnificance should be reviewed for either an amendment to the original period of significance or to add another period of sign ificance (Revised Standards: Local Historic District, Appendi x C). However, this is not required for a building to be considered architecturally significant. Aptly named, this category incl udes any building of a significant architectural st yle. In the Lake Eola Heights Hi storic District case study, 223 E. Concord Street would be re-cla ssified as architecturally signi ficant for the ranch style and influence of the Art Modern style. In addi tion, some buildings may provide an enhancing contrast to the surroundings. If a structure of this desc ription is not signif icant enough to become a local historic landmark, the qualities of the building that enhance the district and adjacent

PAGE 183

183 structures should be defined. These reasons w ould be noted for classi fying the building as architecturally significant. Theref ore, the judgment rests on the i ndividual characteristics of the building. The classification of ancillary will be composed of buildings now known as noncontributing. It is important to prevent this cat egory from inheriting the related perceptions of non-contributing, and any instances where the term could be misinterpreted must be identified. One example is when non-contributing buildings naturally fit-in by utilizing similar design elements as contributing struct ures, and design variables, such as: height, scale and massing, orientation, materials, roof shapes, and rhythm of solids and voids. Consider the Standards for New Construction in the Design a nd Demolition Standards for the Ci ty of Orlando. At first, the standard for scale and massing would seem to develop new construction similar only to the prevalent styles in the Lake Eola Heights Histor ic District, such as, Co lonial Revival, Bungalow or Mediterranean Revival. This would be a fals e perception of non-contribu ting buildings. If this were true, the scale and massing of new buildin gs would greatly diffe r from non-contributing buildings. However, because the Minimal Traditi onal style is considered contributing to the district, the parameter of what is appropriate is different from what one would imagine. The massing and scale of many non-contributing buildings is similar to the Minimal Traditional style. In any event, the term ancillary will consider build ings that fit-in, in spite of the fact that they are not architecturally signifi cant. This category should not be perceived as the new noncontributing, even though it includes buildings th at were built during th e designated period of significance but have lost their architectural integrity, or build ings that were not built during the designated period of significance and are not architecturally signi ficant. Simply stated, an

PAGE 184

184 ancillary building supports or ai ds the district, at least by its existence, but does not possess architectural signifi cance of its own. Improvements to the Design Review Committee Most local historic districts could benefit fr om better regulation of informal design review meetings. The recommendations for improvement ar e identical to that of the landmark district; refer to Proposed Criteria of Chapter 3. For th e Lake Eola Heights Hist oric District, following these suggestions would result in better communication of desi gn issues between all parties involved: the board, the sta ff, and the applicants. Revise and Tier Standards for Demolition Local historic district should have Standard s for Demolition, which apply to all building in the historic district, regardless of classification. Sin ce preservation is a pr iority in historic districts, the focus of the Boards evaluation shou ld be the architectural, historical, or cultural value of the structure in questi on with clear criteria for review. If found significant, the building should exist in the original loca tion. If the building is judged insi gnificant after analysis in a written staff report and discussion in the monthl y board meeting, the plans for new construction may be considered. The process for demolition in a local district will be the same as that of the landmark district; refer to Proposed Criteria of Chapte r 3. The building official and the historic preservation officer would make the same excepti on for a building that is an imminent hazard. Details of this procedure would be identical to that described for the landmark district. If this is not the case, the two-step tiered demolition pro cess described in the la ndmark district would apply. There are some minor differences from the landmark district demolition criteria. Local residential districts, such as La ke Eola Heights Historic Distri ct, will consider the demolition

PAGE 185

185 criteria of significance and remaining examples in th e realm of the city, inst ead of the district as currently stated in the City of Orlando Land Development Code. Also, a key element of the landmark process, mitigation for the removal of a building, would not be required in a local district. Mitigation would be reserved for Nationa l Historic Landmark Districts due to their high level of importance. Local districts will be equipped with preservation zoning to control designs for new construction. The revisions to the Standards for Demolition will help insure the existing historic fabric is retained. The alterations to the Standards mentioned above will cater specifically to the needs of local historic districts. Establish Standards for Relocation In the event that there is a request for reloca tion in a local historic district, Standards for Relocation should be established. Contributing bu ildings should not be moved because they enrich the district. However, if the Board de termines that a contributing building must be demolished in its existing location, it may be moved for preservation. Relocation Standards would compare the new location to the existing lo cation in respect to th e historic orientation, immediate setting, and general environment. The National Register Staff should caution govern ing bodies that if th e new location is not reviewed, or if the new location is not appropriate, the building will no longer be classified as contributing. In turn, the ratio of contributing buildings to the total number of buildings in the district will be altered. If relocations of c ontributing buildings are approved regularly, the governing body should re-survey the buildings in the district. If for some reason the classification of an individual bu ilding has changed from the initia l survey, this must be amended on the National Register Registration Form.

PAGE 186

186 Required Review for All Bu ildings in the District When a Certificate of Appropriateness is requ ested in residential historic districts, the Standards for Alterations and Additions should be consulted regardless of the buildings classification. Because all buildings in the distri ct have an effect on the contributing buildings and each other, their appearance must be review ed and evaluated. Alterations and additions to potentially significant, architecturally significant and ancillary structures in districts shall be reviewed for their appropriateness in respect to the design, massing, and scale of the existing structure. Ancillary buildings may be modernized, but no structure shall be redesigned to create a false historical appearance (Derived from City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-114). The modernization of a potential ly significant building would be prohibited, because it will be re-evaluated in the future and may be architecturally significant. Objectives and Standards fo r Appropriate Alterations In a local historic district, the Standards for Alterations to Existing Structures should focus on maintaining a bu ildings authentic appear ance by determining if the proposed change is appropriate to the existing struct ure. When considering materials and elements, if the existing is in good condition, it should be retained. If the existi ng is repairable, it should be repaired. If the existing is deteriorated, it should be replaced to match the existing in size, shape, and texture. Elements such as roofs, windows and doors ha ve a significant effect on the ability of buildings to retain their orig inal style. The general premis e defined separately under each element is to retain, repair or replace with ne w material that is similar to the original and appropriate to the building. This maintains the current appearance of the building, which is important to all buildings, but especially, potentially significant buildings, because they will be re-evaluated and may become architect urally significant in the future.

PAGE 187

187 Architectural features that give the roof its character, such as dormers, cornices, towers, decorative brackets, eaves, chimne ys, parapets, and exposed rafter ends shall be retained or replicated. (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-114, -115) When replacing existing windows that are inappropriate to the style and period of the building, they shall be replaced with new wi ndows that are appropria te to the style and period of the building. Windows shall be relocat ed, enlarged, reduced or introduced into a faade only when the alteration is appropriate to the style of the building. (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-115) Only when the change is appropriate to the st yle and period of the bui lding, shall doors be relocated, enlarged, reduced, or introduced. Doors with mode rn designs, flush or sliding doors, or any type of door which is inappropriate to the style or period of the structure shall be prohibited. (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-116) However, due to the advances in man-made pr oducts, the criteria for wi ndows would be revised to concentrate on the appearance of the material rather than the material itself. If windows or window details are determined to be unrepairabl e, they shall be replaced with new windows similar to the original in material, and matc hing in size and muntin and mullion proportion and configuration (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-115). Objectives and Standards for Appropriate Additions In local historic districts, proposed additions should be reviewed with the Standards for Additions to Existing Structures (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62117). These standards should focu s on the appropriateness of the addition in respect to the existing structure. Simultaneousl y, the standards must allow for differentiation from the existing building. If not, an earlier appearance is created. The Standards for Additions that apply to th e Lake Eola Heights Hi storic District, many aspects should be altered to allow for additions to differ from the existing building. For example, the faade material standards are too specific. Unle ss the existing structure is clad with brick, the standards require the material of the addition match the existing ma terial in size, shape, color, orientation and texture. However, the Secretary of Interiors Sta ndards for Rehabilitation state,

PAGE 188

188 All buildings, structures, or sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearan ce shall be discouraged (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-6). When the facade material of an addition is closely matched to the existing, an earlier appearance ma y be created. A clear delineation between the existing building and ad dition would comply with the Secretary of Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation. Small variations from the existing faade material would not be detrimental to the appearance of the building, but woul d be a truthful depiction of the buildings progression. The resulting revised sta ndards will require the material of additions be appropriate in reference to th e size, shape, color, orientation and texture. When considering existing brick structures, the standards require ad ditions be clad with brick, wood, or composite siding (like Hardi-boa rd). If siding is used for the additi on to a brick struct ure the standards require horizontally oriented, 4-10 wide and co mpatibility with the ex isting structure. When existing facades are clad with a combination of materials, the st andards require the addition be clad with one or more of the existing cladding mate rials in a manner that is in character with the style and period of the struct ure (Derived from City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-117). Therefore, these standards review the addition for appropriateness to the existing structure. Next, the Standards for Additions examin e the elements of buildings. Again, the requirements are quite specific. For example, wi ndows on additions that exist in the same plane as the principal elevation ar e required to match the existi ng windows in orientation, size, materials and configuration. The requirements for other windows are more fl exible, in that they are to have the same orientation and similar size as the windows on th e principal faade. To prevent creating an earlier appe arance, additions should not matc h the existing portion of the

PAGE 189

189 building this closely. The revised standard woul d require that the windows on the addition have the same orientation and materials as the windows of the principal faade. In addition, they will be reviewed for appropriateness to the existing structure in respect to the size and configuration. This allows the windows on the addition to differ from the original windows of the principal faade (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-117). Other design elements are specific as well. For example, roofs on additions are required to be similar in shape, material and pitch to the existing structure. Porch additions are required to have a similar roof type to the existing roof or that is appropriate to th e style and period of the building. And the scale, massing, and height of th e addition is required to be similar to the existing structure (Derived fr om City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-117). However, these standards insure that additions are visually linke d to the existing building. They would remain as written in the Land Development Code. Objectives and Standards for New Construction The design expectations for New Constructi on in historic distri cts range from new construction conforming to prevalent styles in the district to simply sharing design variables with contributing buildings in the distri ct. In historic distri cts that are living museums, there is merit in creating a seamless district, frozen in the pe riod of significance. For buildings in most residential historic districts, this does not meet the philosophy of the S ecretary of Interiors Standard. All buildings, structures or sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged (City of Orlando Land Developmen t Code, 1999, p. CD 62-6). Alterations that seek to create an earlier appear ance should be avoided in a Nationa l Register Historic District. The built surroundings should be authentic. Therefore, the goal of new construction in historic districts should strive for compatibility in size, scale, color, material and character of the

PAGE 190

190 neighborhood or immediate environment. In additi on, the Secretary of the Interior also states that, Contemporary design for alterations and addi tions to existing prope rties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and addi tions do not destroy si gnificant historical, architectural or cultural materials, and such is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of th e property, neighborhood or immedi ate environment. (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-7) At first this Standard may not seem to relate, but consider new construction in the historic district as an alteration or an addition to an existing hi storic property. While new buildings must exist harmoniously with the establishe d buildings, they must differ fr om the existing buildings and appear as products of the current day. The Standards for New Construction which appl y to the Lake Eola Historic District are effective, but do not go far enough. Therefore thr ee changes must be incorporated into the Standards: preservation z oning, a closer comparison to adjacent properties, and a stated stylistic preference for contemporary design. Preservation zoning would be a scaled back fo rm of the current residential zoning based on an average survey of the area. This zoning woul d provide direct criteri a for an appropriately sized proposal by stated requireme nts: height, scale and massing (F loor Area Ratio), setback, and rhythms of solids and voids (Imperious Surface Ratio). Land use in the district during the historic period(s) of significance would al so be considered. Wherever po ssible, the current land use should revert to the historic land use, imperative to preserva tion of the districts physical character. For example, if multi-family and/or professional use is now permitted where single family was the historic land use, every effort should be made to return the use to single family. Otherwise the character of the dist rict will slowly be modified to fit the needs of the new zoning.

PAGE 191

191 Height Currently without the considera tion of the other elements, the height standard allows the construction of a two-story residence on a blockface with all one-story residences. As written, what is allowed by code is in opposition to what currently exists in the district. Therefore, the revised standard would refer the applicant to th e average height of a new building permitted in the preservation zoning district (PZD); in addition the proposed height would be reviewed for appropriateness to the adjacent existing build ings (Derived from City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-118). Scale and massing The standard for scale and massing would be more effective if the adjacent properties were closely examined. After all, this is the junctu re between the old and the new. Similarly the standard for scale and massing woul d be revised to reference the applicant to the maximum floor area ratio permitted for the preservation-zoning dist rict. In addition, the scale and massing of the proposed building and its architec tural elements would be review ed for appropriateness to the adjacent structures (Derived from City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62118). Setback Currently without the considera tion of the other standards, a proposal can meet the setback required by Code while being closer to the street than other hous es on the block face. Therefore this standard should be revised to require setback s for new structures to fall within the maximum and minimum for the preservation-zoning district. In addition, the proposed setback will be reviewed for appropriateness to the adjacent pr operties (Derived from City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-118).

PAGE 192

192 Rhythm of solids & voids Currently the standard for the rhythm of solid s and voids is well wri tten. New structures shall be designed and positioned on their lots in such a way that they reflect the regular pattern of structures and open space along the block f ace (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-119). In addition, this stan dard would specify that the Im pervious Surface Ratio of the site should fall within the minimum and maximu m allowed in the preservation zoning district. Styles Currently the standards allow hi storic styles to influence ne w construction, but to what extent the design should differ from the historic style is open to interpretation. To the untrained eye, new buildings sometimes appear old. This standard allows contemporary design if the proposed design meets the other new constructi on standards. However, many designers are unable to conceive a contemporary style building that meets these standards. Because of the difficulty involved, many proposals for new cons truction are heavily inspired by a historic model. Therefore, the revised standards shoul d indicate a preference for contemporary design, but acknowledge that historic influences are also appropriate when they are not reproductions. Ideally new construction shall be contemporary and also meet the other requirements in this section. If a historic style influe nces new construction, that style mu st exist in the district, but the new construction may not be a reproduction of th is style (Derived from City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-119). Fenestration patterns, orientation, ma terials and textures, and roof shapes These four standards are effective as written and need no revision. Fe nestration patterns are required to be expressed vert ically, although groupings of vertical windows are allowed. Although they may appear in groupings, individual windows shall have a vertical emphasis to the windows found on contributing buildings in th e HP Overlay district (City of Orlando Land

PAGE 193

193 Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-118). Contributing bui ldings in the distri ct possess a vertical emphasis, which is not at odds with designing ne w construction that is a product of the current day. Concerning orientation the standard states, At least one public entrance of each new buildin g shall be oriented towards the front lot line. The front door to a new building shall be articulated on the principal faade with covered porches, porticos, stoops, pediments, door surrounds, or other architectural forms. (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-118) This encourages development of architectural details associated with the design of the principal faade or entry. Next, The materials and textur es on new structures shall be similar to the materials and textures of contributing struct ures in the district (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-118). Likewise, Roof shapes, pitches and materials on new buildings shall be similar to th e roof shapes, pitches and materi als of contributing buildings in the district (City of Orlando Land Developm ent Code, 1999, p. CD 62-119). These standards insure that the basic form of new construction w ill be sympathetic to the existing buildings in the district, but does not inhibit th e design of new construction. Required Considerations for Appeals In a local historic district, the board often makes alternate decisions on similar requests. Many times this decision is based on a past desi gn decision that was unsuccessful. In the Lake Eola Heights Historic District case study of 223 E. Concord Street, Raymond Cox spoke in reference to the demolition criteria that consider s remaining examples. He felt that demolishing a house in such good condition would cause other non-contributing properties to follow suit, having a negative economic impact on the neigh borhood. Undeniably, this must be considered carefully. Any decision by the board seems to mandate equal treatment for future requests. In the same case, the house at 323 East Concord is iden tified as a similar example to 223 East Concord Street in size, style and time frame. The hous e remains true to its original 1947 character.

PAGE 194

194 However, with the mandate of equal treatment in mind, the outcome of this demolition request could have repercussions on 323 Ea st Concord in the future. A micro-example of the same issue was appa rent when the applicant felt the proposed penthouse in his design should be allowed due to the fact that the board approved the same element on another house in the district. However, the existence of an ar chitectural element in one case does not make it appropriate everywhere Furthermore, if the results of a certain architectural element are inappropriate and cont rary to how the board thought the built product would appear, it should be noted as the reason fo r the boards denial in a current or future request. Boards must be able to learn from their visual decisions. In the future they can either alter problematic design elements or pr ohibit the requested de sign. If the applicant appeals the boards decision, the case is referred to a ruling body like a quasi-judicial hearing officer. In general the courts agree that a historic district meets the zoni ng criteria of protecting public health, welfare, and safety. To respect the boards efforts to fulf ill this mission, the courts or the hearing officer must be required to consider the boards reas on for making an alternate decision in comparison to a prior similar judgement. The hearing officer must consider the boards evaluation to avoid the repetition of a poor design precedent in the district. Summary of Case Study and Related Issues Lake Eola Heights Historic Di strict, a National Regi ster Historic District, utilizes an Overlay Ordinance that references the Design and Demolition Standards in the Land Development Code. Even though non-contributing buildings can be modernized, they are reviewed with the same standards as contribu ting buildings because of their impact on the district. When used for the analysis of proposal s, these Standards are cl ear, concise and easily applicable. Therefore if allowed to exist, noncontributing buildings ar e sustained. This case

PAGE 195

195 study focuses on a proposal to demolish a non-contributing building and the proposed construction of two two-story duplexes. This case brought many interesting issues to the forefront. During the review process, there was a lack of understanding among the board members and the public concerning the Secretary of Inte riors Standards, as well as, how and when buildings are classified in histor ic districts. For example, stat ing that a building is historic because it is 50 years old is incorrect. Structures are judged when the district is formed; if the structure is less than 50 years ol d, it will be classified as non-cont ributing to the district. These classifications remain and are only reconsidered if the distri ct is resurveyed. Although not commonly done, when districts are re-surveyed, it is prompted by cases like this one. The result is either an extension of the existing period of significance or the recogn ition of another period of significance. The essence of this case study was that a non-contributing buil ding could enrich a district, in spite of its classification, a nd that the non-contributing classifi cation does not relate to its architectural significance. From th e beginning the residents were qui te verbal on the prospect of demolition, for they felt the house was in excellent condition, possessed an uncommon quality and size, and was worthy of pres ervation. The board seemed to agree, but did not make an emphatic judgment on the significance of the structure except for the denial of the demolition request. Unfortunately after the motion, second, a nd the actual vote, the board chair made the comment that no site plan was included in this submittal and a full set of plans would be required before a demolition could be approved. Perhap s he was representing the board member who voted for the demolition. In any event, the comment clouded the reason for the boards denial

PAGE 196

196 and gave hope to the applican t, who decided to continue th e design process for the future utilization by meeting with the Design Review Committee. Much later in the case, the a pplicant acknowledged his expectation was, to come to an agreement on the design and style of the duplexes . Apparently he misunderstood the purpose of the Design Review Committee. The Design Revi ew Committee and the Hi storic Preservation Officer advice and critique proposal s, but they do not dictate a fo rmula for the square footage of new construction. In fact this is impossible, becau se what is appropriate with adjacent structures largely depends on the buildings design. The Sta ndards for New Construction exist to provide direction for the design and the review of propos als. While the style of the duplexes was not a problem, the excessive mass was. Perhaps the applicant thought if he met with the committee and made minor changes to the proposed design, the board would eventually grant him approval for trying to conform to the Standards. Since the square footage of the buildings was never sizably reduced as recommended, they were not appropriate. After several Design Review Committee meetings, the propos al was brought before the Historic Preservation Board ag ain. Because the reason for deni al was unclear, board members were asked to clarify his or he r personal reason for their previ ous vote. Board consensus was the structure was significant irreplaceable, and an exceptional example of ranch style architecture. One member added the following comme nt for clarification, the plan s for future utilization were not relevant as she feels the structure should be saved. The board decision and explanation proves th e pertinence of professional boards. For example, a board member stated, even though the structure did not meet time requirements, the Board is allowed to make an exception to sa ve a significant structure. This Board member continued with an excellent summation stati ng he would vote to deny the demolition regardless

PAGE 197

197 of what is proposed to replace it, and the reason for denial is not a density issue but the boards finding that the structure is c ontributing, albeit outside of the window of the contributing definition. This statement demonstrates thorough understanding of the bui ldings classification, the boards decision to disagree with it and the denial of the demolition because of it. Undeniably the outcome of this case creates a precedent for what will be permitted for similar properties in the future. For example, if 223 East Concord Street is demolished, a remaining example like 323 East Concord Stre et may suffer the same fate. The demolition criteria dealing with remaining examples is valuable in that it makes connections between buildings of the same architectural era. Poor preced ent created by this case could result in loss of physical evidence of a later architectural move ment, erasing it from th e districts history. Reaction to the proposed new c onstruction ranged. The public felt the future utilization would not be as compatible as th e existing building. The a pplicant felt that hi s proposal related to the district better than the ex isting building. However, the desi gn never progressed to the point that staff could recommend approval. The propo sed duplexes were too large in relation to existing residential apartments and duplexes in the district. Either due to lack of information or skill, the proposed design was consistently unsympathetic to the adjacent properties. An appropriate design was achievable ha d the square footage been reduced. After the Board restated the significance of the building, the final motion for denial was exact and direct. If the demolition was appeal ed and overturned, the Design Review Committee would meet with the applicant once to address the size, scale and massi ng before this hearing was continued. In summary, the Board made no comment and took no action on the proposed new construction.

PAGE 198

198 When the Boards decision was tested by appeal the hearing officer uphe ld their denial of the demolition. He based this decision on three conc lusions. First, he ruled that the applicant failed to prove the house was not architecturally si gnificant or architectura lly significant to the ensemble of structures in the dist rict, or of aesthetic in terest to the district. Also, he failed to prove that the demolition of the structure would no t result in the loss of a rare ranch-style house in the district. In addition, he failed to present dr awings that depicted what the applicant stated would be built on the site. Secondly, he ruled th e applicant did present evidence that the house could be reproduced on the site, if the design coul d be approved by the board. Thirdly, he ruled that the applicant failed to prove five out of six applicable crite ria. Therefore the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition was denied, and after lengthy debate, the ranch style house proved worthy of preservation. Applications and Consequences of the Proposed Criteria In the future, 223 Concord Street will be recl assified as architecturally significant and preserved without question. The current building classification, non-contributing, will be used for review purposes. The Standards for Demolition in Appendix C will be used to generate a Mock Report for 223 Concord Street, refer to Appendix E. This staff report demonstrates the importanc e of thorough analysis. Unless a proposal is examined and analyzed, pertinent issues ar e overlooked especially when the issue is controversial. A systematic review identifies the attributes of the structure and defines the major issues in relation to the Standa rds for the proposed changes. Two-twenty-three East Concor d Street is labeled as a noncontributing building in the Lake Eola Historic District. For this reason, the concrete block exterior and the ranch style was most obvious. Although acknowledge d, the significance of the ranch style and stylistic influence of the Art Modern house was initially overlooke d. The importance of this information was

PAGE 199

199 restricted by the designated period of significan ce until the Historic Preservation Board denied the demolition. When viewed as a structure that enriches the district, other attributes are revealed: the house form, which responds to the scal e of the adjacent structures; the combination hip and side gable roof, which extends to fo rm shed accents; and two brick chimneys which complete the broad and rambling composition. This is not to mention the simple fact that the use of the house is consistent with that of the historical single family dwelling. Upon closer examination, the historical context of the house is linked to the history of the district and the City of Orlando. To recognize this segment of history, the district and the City benefit from the preservation of this ranch style house.

PAGE 200

200 Figure 4-1. 223 E. Concord Stre et. Non-contributing resource sheet with statement of significance pages 1-2. Courtesy of Or lando Historic Pres ervation Office.

PAGE 201

201

PAGE 202

202 CHAPTER 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This investigation has convinced me that the goal for individual buildings within a districts boundary should be authentic preserva tion instead of a quaint fabrication reflecting our perception of the past. To attain this goal, we must look at th e significance of non-contributing buildings, in spite of their age or when they were constructed. In addition we must better control the designs for new construction in districts, cr eate a preservation management standard for most residential historic districts and regulate th e preservation framework to correlate with the importance of the district. The recommendations th at are the result of this investigation are intended to apply to all local and landma rk historic district s throughout the nation. When historic districts are de signated, some buildings are cl assified as non-contributing. Because these buildings are not re-evaluated, this classification is permanent and many noncontributing buildings are lost to demolition or relocation. However, some of these buildings have developed significance over the years due to the nature of history, which is on-going. Our perception of history continues to develop and change, which aff ects our evaluation of individual buildings in the historic di strict. Many times the non-cont ributing classification no longer accurately reflects a buildings value over time. The non-contributing buildings that enrich the district should be recognized for how they contri bute, which would provide historic districts with flexibility and authenticity. The framework of most resident ial historic districts should be re-structured for flexibility in interpretation. This can be accomplished by making changes to the following factors. First, the historic period of significance shou ld be limited to defining the boundaries of the district and the contributing buildings in the distri ct. A visitor with a view of history as change and continuum may initially be uncomfortable with such an obsession with one episode or epoch. So much else

PAGE 203

203 has happened to a town, yet no one seems interest ed in describing it (History in Urban Places, Hamer, p. 37). Second, the other buildings in the di strict would be classi fied using the following terms: Potentially Significant is a building less than fifty years old at the time the district is designated or re-surveyed, and is not consider ed architecturally significant. When the building turns fifty years old, it will be categor ized as architecturally significant or ancillary. Potentially significant buildings can be re-categorized as architecturally significant before the age of fifty years. If approved fo r demolition, mitigation will be required. Abbreviated as PS. Architecturally significant is a building that was not built during the designated historic period of significance but enriches the district, in spite of this fact. Th e preservation of these buildings is of the utmost im portance. Abbreviated as AS. Ancillary is a building that s upports or aids the dist rict, at least by its existence, but does not possess architectural signifi cance of its own. Includes buil dings that existed during the designated period of significance but have lost their architectur al integrity. If approved for demolition, mitigation will be required. Abbreviated as A. These classifications would help to prevent the creation of a false co ntext in the district, where to the untrained eye the district looks like the pa st. The revised classifi cations would encourage forward thinking. Third, a standard process would be established for the re-survey of districts. If the new classifications are adopte d, all non-contributing buildings w ould have to be re-classified. Fourth, revise the districts pur pose stated in the ordinance to focus on the preservation of buildings. In many districts preser vation has become subordinate to other interests and must be brought back to the forefront. The purpose of hist oric districts must r ecognize preservation as primary and acknowledge that histor y is a continuum. Likewise, th e physical evidence of history cannot be frozen in time. Adapting a purpose that reflects these id eals would abandon the concept of noncontributing buildings and districts where, t he recent history . and other phases are ignored and it is taken back as fa r as possible to a pristine mome nt in time with all traces of intervening occupation removed. (Micke y Mouse History, Wallace, p. 92-93)

PAGE 204

204 The treatment of buildings in most residen tial historic district s would be improved by effective management through a system of fi xed components, which I refer to as the preservation management standa rd. While all components would apply to each district, some would vary in degree and detail to reflect the districts impor tance. The following components would apply equally to all distri cts: qualified board members, manageable workload and ample staff, the Secretary of Interior Standards as a portion of the Standards for Review, major and minor review processes, set procedures for the Advisory Council, and conditions for appeals. These components contain important features. For example, the Major and Minor Review processes would require that a ll buildings be reviewed with clear and concise Design and Demolition Standards regardless of classification or the importance of the district. A systematic written report for any major review with a st aff recommendation would be required as well. Components that would vary in intensity to reflect the districts importance are the Standards for Alterations, Additions, and New Construction, as well as, the Standards for Demolition and Relocation. However within th ese components there are still uniform requirements. To maintain auth enticity, the underlying philosophy in the Secretary of Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation must be upheld in composition and applicati on of the Standards for Design and Demolition for each locale. Standard s for Demolition and Relocation should be clearly written to prohibit demolition and relo cation of contributing buildings. However, a request for either action would require careful review with th ese criteria regardless of the classification. Beyond this, the importance of the district can shape the specific Standards for each district. In Landmark districts, the Standards for Alte ration to existing build ings would require a strict material review, a Minor Review for a Ce rtificate of Appropriatene ss. For example, if a

PAGE 205

205 material is unrepairable and must be replace d, the qualities of the replacement material should match the original. The Standards for New Cons truction, specifically the style requirement, would allow less variation in design. When build ings are approved for removal, mitigation will be required, a process that determin es whether or not aspects of th e building indirectly add to the district. If some contributing aspects exist, these become additiona l requirements for new construction. Also the Standards for New Constr uction would require compatible designs that differ from the established historic fabric. Re productions would be prohibited because they mislead the public as to the districts authenti city. For that same reason, the relocation of contributing buildings to provide a site for the reproduction of a prevalent style in the district would be prohibited. This is unacceptable for a Landm ark district that is not dedicated as a living museum. The Standards for Demolition and Relo cation would only allow these actions when there is no alternative to preserva tion. If this is the case, the ne w location should be reviewed and approved. These Standards tempered to the needs of a landmark district would help maintain authenticity. In local districts the Standards for Alterati ons to existing buildings would require for material review, a Minor Review for a Certificate of Appropriateness. For ex ample, if a material is unrepairable and must be replaced, the qualiti es of the replacement material should have a similar appearance to the original material. The Standards for New Construction, specifically the style requirement, would allow mo re variation in design. By in troducing preservation zoning and retaining the current Standards, contemporary de signs for new constructio n, or at least designs that appear as products of the current day, may be easier to achieve. Preservation zoning would be a modified version of the current residentia l zoning based on an average survey of the area and the re-designation of land more closely with the historic land use. The primary benefit would

PAGE 206

206 be to control the general form of new construc tion finitely by providing define requirements for the height, scale and massing (Floor Area Ratio ), setback, and rhythms of solids and voids (Impervious Surface Ratio). This single action would have the greatest positive impact on residential historic districts by helping to deter reproductions and produce appropriate new construction in the sense that it is different fr om the existing built environment. The Standards for Demolition and Relocation may permit these actio ns in more situations than that of a landmark district, but the request still requires a thorough review. If the building in question is contributing, the staff will not recommend approval to the board. Overall these standards would help maintain authenticity, which should be of importance in a local district. Although the current framework functions to re gulate historic districts, the level of regulation varies depending on the local attitudes toward preservation. This is insufficient. The level of regulation must correlate to the impor tance of the district. Because the field of preservation is more prevalent today than when the current framework was created, the existing preservation framework mu st be further developed. Some preservationists argue that the federal government should . legislate some form of protection for all properties lis ted on the National Register. Although it was politically necessary to leave such control out of the or iginal act, historic pr eservation has proved its worth, and many would argue that the ability of private developers to destroy national landmarks with impunity if they chose is no longer justifiable. (Tyler, 2000, p. 48) While protection for all propertie s listed on the National Register of Historic Places would be ideal and is a goal to work toward, the first ende avor must be to protect the countrys National Historic Landmarks. The case studies from the Old Historic District, a portion of the National Historic Landmark, Nantucket Is land, Massachusetts are convinci ng evidence that more federal responsibility is necessary at the landmark level. Therefore, the Secretary of Interior s hould mandate standard procedures for the management of National Historic Landmarks. When dealing with historic districts like the Old

PAGE 207

207 Historic District, the existing fr amework, such as the local preservation office, staff and existing review boards, would be retained but their performance must be improved by introducing a preservation management standard in each landmark district. Depending upon the current procedures, this may have a drastic effect on so me districts and a minimal effect on others. Also to further develop the existing preser vation framework, the Secretary of Interior should encourage and eventually require preservation zoning for historic dist ricts in towns, cities and counties. Since currently all federal power is procedural, many will reject the idea of federal regulatory power over historic property owners. Regulatory power is delegated to the local governments, only at the local level can histor ic properties be regulat ed and protected through legal ordinance (Tyler, 2000, p. 55). The problem is that local governments sometimes choose not to accept this power, meaning there are distri cts on the National Register of Historic Places that have no local framework: no professiona l commission, review process, standards for alterations, additions, new construction or de molition. With preservation zoning in place a measure of protection would be provided for a dditions and new construction. The Secretary of Interior could let local governments decide be tween creating a preservation framework and local preservation zoning or federally imposed preser vation zoning. If they we re willing to recognize these districts, the local government would proba bly find allies in the property owners because they tend to take ownership of their district. As demonstrated in the case study of Lake Eola Heights Historic District, the property owners were quite vocal on a proposal to demolish a noncontributing building and build two duplexes. Op inions on the new construction included, the house will be replaced with over-development and replacing it with four units would be a travesty. These comments do not demonstrate faith in the Design and Demolition Standards to produce compatible new construction. Even though the standards are quite thorough and concise,

PAGE 208

208 alone, they can only do so much. Preservati on zoning would allow the Design and Demolition Standards to work more effectively and the boards decisions on re quests would not rely completely on aesthetics, pleasing property owners in established districts a nd proposed districts. Beyond the obvious topic of how standards can be written more effectively and how districts can be managed more effectively, the concept of non-cont ributing buildings and alternatives to the non-contribu ting term must continue to be researched. A related issue preserving the recent past may provide further info rmation. Specifically it w ould be interesting to determine how buildings of newly recognized signi ficance are classified, as well as the criteria for their treatment. This information would proba bly be beneficial in the formation of new classifications to replace the c oncept of non-contributing buildings. Also it would be helpful to look at historic districts that have been re-surveyed due to re lated issues with non-contributing buildings, including not only the pro cess involved, but also how the classifications of individual buildings were altered in the district. It would be interesting to see if the new classifications suggested in this thesis would translate to individual buildings in the re-surveyed districts. On the topic of preservation zoni ng, a study of residential historic districts with this type of zoning could be conducted, mainly to examine th e impact it has on the built environment. In addition the study could determine if it is an effective way to help new construction appear as a product of the current day, to prevent reproduct ions and a fabricated environment, which misleads the public in regard to the districts au thenticity. Also, the issue of land use as it relates to preservation zoning must be further investigat ed, specifically where the continued existence of the district has depended on an adaptive reuse. If reverting to the histor ic land use would cause the demise of the district, th is would not be recommended.

PAGE 209

209 On the topic of Landmark Distri cts, an investigation that delv es into the National Historic Landmark Program would be helpful, specifically to determine if protection and management for National Historic Landmarks have been adequately researched. Perhaps there has been a lobby for such a requirement. If so this would uncover impediments that must be overcome to protect National Historic Landmark Districts. In conclusion, it is hoped that the proposals in this thesis wi ll lead to revisions of the definition of non-contributing buildings in historic districts. In addition, it is hoped that they also will lead to considerations for better contro l of designs for new constr uction in districts, the creation of a preservation management standar d, and regulation of the preservation framework to correlate with the importance of districts. Finally, it is hope d that the proposals will be found applicable to local and landmark districts throughout the nation.

PAGE 210

210 APPENDIX A BASIC RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for Ordinances Describe the area. If applicable include a concise history of the area including its residential development. Do not restrict the discussion of the bu ildings to what was fifty years old at the time of designation; in stead discuss the architectural si gnificance of the buildings in the district. Identify the prevalent architectur al styles built and the corresponding dates, but clearly state that the list is not limited to these styles. State the purpose of the ordinance, which s hould focus on the protection and preservation of elements that enrich the architectural and hi storic significance of the area. Avoid using the term contributing. Integrate a preservation philosophy into the purpose statement that will provide direction for the distri cts future. A philosophy can be embodied in a simple statement such as, the historic and archit ectural significance has been ac hieved over time and the growth and development of this area is part of the history of city, which is worthy of protection. If using an Overlay Ordinance reference the chapter of the Code dedicated to the Historic District Regulations and Standards. A Ce rtificate of Appropria teness must be acquired before a building permit is issued for exterior alteration, cons truction, or demolition, according to Chapter of the City Code. Exceptions specific to the concerns of the district should be li sted because District Ordinances take precedence over requirements in the Code. An example of this was that walkways and patios not subject to view, lands caping, emergency repair without change to exterior design, and paint color ar e not reviewed in the case study district. Also, items specific to the district that are permitted should be listed. For example, chai n link fences in the rear yard were permitted, as well as, permission for the Boar d to adopt legally valid criteria where needed. In this way the Ordinance can be updated or ch anged if approved by City Council. Instruct the

PAGE 211

211 board to adhere to the U.S. Secretary of In teriors Standards for Rehabilitation when considering requests for Certificates of Appropr iateness. List pertinent demolition criteria that correspond to the Demolition Standards in the Code Most importantly reco rd the date of the district acceptance by the City Council, which is instrumental in the in itial classification of buildings. General Recommendations fo r All Historic Districts The following are suggestions for the framework of a historic district, no matter what the size or significance. The members of the historic preservation commi ssion or board should be composed of one or more of the following organizations: a preserva tion professional, a local historian and/or architectural or art historian, a business, comm ercial finance or inve stment counselor, an architect, a city planner, a lands cape architect, a lawyer, an engineer or building contractor, a realtor or property appraiser, resident s of the citys historic districts. Use an overlay ordinance, which builds off the City Code. Include the Secretary of Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation in the Ordinance and the City Code as General Standards. Provide written standards and criteria for each area of work: Standards for Alterations to Existing Structures, Additions to Existing Structures, New Construction, Demolition, and Relocation. All buildings in the district, regardless of classifi cation should be reviewed with the corresponding criteria for th e proposed action requested. All National Landmark Districts should have a universal purpose with local concerns added as needed, which should center on the preservation. Develop two review processes for obtaining a Certificate of Appr opriateness. The Major Review applies to construction, alterations, additions, restorati ons, relocations or demolitions of a building in a historic district. A staff report will be written and the case will be placed on the agenda and reviewed at the next board meeting. This staff report will review the applicants proposal with the applicable Sta ndards and make a reco mmendation for approval or denial. The staff report along with a copy of the applicants submittal will be delivered to the commission members at least one day befo re the meeting. This will allow the board members to review the reports and visit the sites on the agenda. The historic preservation officer should be present at the commission or board meeti ng and available for questions when the case is discussed. The Minor Review is for construction and alteration to a building in a historic district that will have a minor im pact on the significant historical, architectural, or cultural materials of the st ructure in question. For a minor review, a staff report is not

PAGE 212

212 written and the request is not presented to th e full Historic Preserva tion Board. However, the Historic Preservation Officer consults the Standards, makes a recommendation and conducts a review with the Minor Review Committee, usually two or three members of the commission or board. If the applicant appeals a Minor Review decision, the request will be forwarded to the commission or board for Major Review. The Design Review Committee or Design Advi sory Council must be conducted more formally. Staff must chair the meetings and supply the pertinent Meeting Minutes to the attendees in order to direct di scussion. If a member brought atte ntion to the design issue, they should be present or provide a statement expl aining their concern. Meet ing minutes should be taken or transcribed from taped recordings immediately following the meeting. The meeting should conclude with stated recommendations for design changes base d on the standards. If a previous design decision proves unsuccessf ul, a professional boa rd or commission has the authority to make an alternate decision in the future. Building classifications must be standardized so they reflect the customary meaning in all districts. Verify the current building classi fications with a re-sur vey of the district. If the committee wishes to cha nge the status of a building, th ey must provide evidence to backup their decision. The committee or board must consider the a dvice of the historic preservation staff. The committee or board shall state their r easons for denial of a request in writing.

PAGE 213

213 APPENDIX B STANDARDS: LANDMARK DISTRICT, THE OL D HISTORIC DISTRICT, NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS Building Classifications The Historic District Commissi on should revise the building classifications by using the following terms: Potentially Significant is a building less than fifty years old at the time the district is designated or re-surveyed, and is not consider ed architecturally significant. When the building turns fifty years old, it will be categor ized as architecturally significant or ancillary. Potentially significant buildings can be re-categorized as architecturally significant before the age of fifty years. If approved fo r demolition, mitigation will be required. Abbreviated as PS. Architecturally significant is a building that was not built during the designated historic period of significance but enriches the district, in spite of this fact. Th e preservation of these buildings is of the utmost im portance. Abbreviated as AS. Contributing is a building that was at least fifty years old when the district was designated was built during the historical period of significance and enriches the district. Unless a building has been altered to the extent that it has lost its architectural integrity, these buildings would be preserved with out question. Abbreviated as C. Ancillary is a building that s upports or aids the dist rict, at least by its existence, but does not possess architectural signifi cance of its own. Includes buil dings that existed during the designated period of significance but have lost their architectur al integrity. If approved for demolition, mitigation will be required. Abbreviated as A. To discontinue the use of the term non-contribut ing, buildings within the district will be re-surveyed. After the classifi cations are assigned, if the Histor ic District Commission alters a buildings status, they must provide evidence for this judgment. If a majority of buildings are judged to be architecturally significant when th ey turn fifty years old, the designated historic period of significance should be reviewed. Either the original period of significance should be amended or an additional period of significance s hould be added. All classifications are subject to review by the applicable st andards for the work requested.

PAGE 214

214 Standards for Alterations to Existing Structures in the Old Historic District The integrity of a historic buildings faade should be maintained (Lang and Stout, 1995). Therefore when considering materials, if the existing material is in good condition, it shall be retained. If the existing material is repairable, it shall be repaired. If the existing material is deteriorated it shall be replaced to match the existing material in size, shape, and texture. No building shall be redesigned to cr eate a false historical appearance. Faade materials and treatment. The wall surface shall be cl ad with a small-scale textured material traditional to Nantucket with one material per single wall plane. Traditional exterior cladding material is white cedar shingles with a 5 exposure or wooden clapboard with a 3-1/2 exposure. It is inappropr iate to shingle a pre-Civil War building that was originally clapboard (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 84). Wood shi ngles, clapboard, trim and details in good condition or repairable shall be retained. Deteriorated wood sh all be replaced with wood to match the existing wood in size, shape and text ure. No aluminum, vinyl or other man-made cladding shall be used to repla ce or cover wood shingles, clapboa rd, trim or details. Sandblasting wood shingles, clapboard, trim or details or use of any abrasive, corrosive or damaging technique is prohibited (Derived from the City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-114). On historic structures gutters and leaders shall be made of wo od in a circular or rectangular cross-section, as they were hi storically (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 86). In addition, louvers and vents shall be constructed of wood and painted to match the wall surface. Metal and anodized aluminum louvers and vents are inappr opriate. Ridge-mounted roof ventilators and small roof cupolas are inappropriate (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 86). Existing masonry, typically select common br ick of uniform red tone, in good condition or repairable shall be retained. Repair or replacem ent shall be made with materials matching the existing masonry in color, composition, and text ure. No aluminum, vinyl or other man-made

PAGE 215

215 type siding materials shall be used to replace or cover masonry, trim or details. Sandblasting masonry, trim or detailing or use of any abrasi ve, corrosive or damagi ng technique such as blasting with pulverized material s, glass beads or other solids, with or without water, is prohibited (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-114). Mortar joints shall be repointed only where there are obvious signs of deterioration such as disintegrating mortar, cracks in the mortar joints, loose bricks, damp walls or damaged plaster work. Repointing shall match the existing mortar joints in size, compositi on, texture, color and structural strength (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-114). Roofs and roof material. Roof material traditional to Na ntucket, such as, rectangular shaped fire-resistant shingles or slate shingles are appropriate. Bu ildings located within a radius of 1-1/4 miles of the Pacific Na tional Bank must be clad with certified fire-retardant quality Class-C, three-hour rated wood shi ngles. Shingles must be uniform in tones of black, dark green, dark gray. However, the roof shingles can be no lighter than the color of weathered wall shingles (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 85). Original roofing material that is in good condition or repairable shall be retained. Deteriorated roofing material sha ll be replaced with new material that matches the original roof in composition, size, shape, color and texture. The original roof shape of the principal and secondary dwellings sha ll be retained. Architectu ral features that give the roof its character, such as dormers, overh angs, rakeboards, cornic es, towers, decorative brackets, eaves, chimneys, parapets and exposed ra fter ends shall be retained or replicated. Roof features, such as, skylights must have a flat profile and are not appropriate on the front roof plane. Skylights are a ppropriate on side or rear elevati ons in the upper one-third of the roof plane. Skylights must be construction of wood, have true di vided lights with muntins, and be a maximum of 2 feet by 3 feet (Lang and St out, 1995, p. 73). Solar panels are inappropriate

PAGE 216

216 (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 78). Roof walks are appropr iate for houses of two or more stories and shall exhibit traditional design. A buildings roof slope should not be obscured with skirts or aprons under the roof walk platform. Access to th e roof walk should be a roof hatch or scuttle (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 84). Windows, window treatment and accessories. Historic windows should be preserved (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 78). Window frames, gl ass, muntins, mullions, sills, lintels, and pediments in good condition or repairable and in character with the style and period of the building shall be retained. If wi ndows or window details are determined to be unrepairable, they shall be replaced with new windows matching the original material, size and muntin and mullion configuration. Windows of irregul ar shape and large sheet gla ss are inappropriate. Metal, aluminum or vinyl sashes are inappropriate. Fenest ration of the street faade should be preserved or restored to the original form (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 77). When re placing existing windows that are inappropriate to the style and period of the building, they shall be replaced with new windows that are appropriate to the style and period of the building. Windows shall be relocated, enlarged, reduced or introduced in to a faade only when the alterati on is appropriate to the style of the building. Interior storm windows are appropriate. When pr oposing exterior storm windows, the character and significance of the bu ilding must be considered. If permitted, they must be reviewed for appropriateness. Storm sash es and screens shall be the same color as the house sashes or frame. The color of storm or screen doors shall match the actual door and trim. Aluminum items may be left natural, but must be painted to blend with dark trim. Metal awnings, as well as, ornamental screens and storm doors are inappropr iate (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 78-79).

PAGE 217

217 Shutters in good condition or repairable and in character with the style and period of the building shall be retained. Missi ng shutters shall be replaced with wood shutters to match existing. All replacement shutters shall match the or iginal in size, configur ation and style, shall fit the window openings, shall not overlap the surface of the wall, (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD-62-115) shall be f unctional and operable and shall not have the appearance of a flat mounted s hutter (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 79). Doors and door details. Doors and door details, frames, lintels, fan lights, sidelights, pediments and transoms, in good condition or repairab le that are in character with the style and period of the building shall be re tained. If door or door details ar e found to be unrepairable, they shall be replaced with new doors and door details in character with the building in material, size and configuration. Only when the change is appr opriate to the style a nd period of the building shall doors be relocated, enlarged, reduced or introduced. Door s with modern designs, such as siding glass doors, French doors, metal doors, storm doors or any type of door that is inappropriate to the style and period of the building shall be prohibited (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD-62116). Solid or paneled wood doors shall be retained (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 78). Garage doors that are in good c ondition or repairable and are in character with the style and period of the building shall be retained. Gara ge doors shall be repaired so they match the existing materials, size and configuration. New ga rage door must be constructed of wood. A new garage door must be the same size as the one being replaced (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD-62-116). Porch and porch features. Porch and porch features that are in good condition or repairable and are in character with the style and period of the building shall be retained. Porch

PAGE 218

218 and porch features shall be repaired so th ey match the existing in materials, size and configuration (City of Or lando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-116). New porch elements, such as balusters and columns, shall be appropriate to the style and period of the building. Porches on principal facades shall not be enclosed with solid materials such as glass, wood or masonry. Porches on non-pr incipal facades may be enclos ed with screen. The framing members for screening shall have a design and scale that is character with the style and period of the building (City of Orlando, Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD-62-116). Site improvements. Replacement of drives, walks, patios, decks, stairs, fences and walls with no charge in the size and configuration and using the same materials are evaluated in the Minor Review process. Changes in the size, configuration, and mate rials of drives, walks, patios, decks, stairs, fences and walls, must undergo a Mi nor Review. Where a unified street edge exists, it must be maintained in the same manner, ei ther with hedges and fe nces or both (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 62). Fences shall be appropriate to the style and pe riod of the building. Picket, wood baluster, combination baluster fences are a ppropriate. Horizontal bo ard and vertical board fences shall not be located in the fron t yard setback (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 63-65). Entrances. The original entrance of an existing bu ilding, the steps and platform, in good condition or repairable and are in character with the style and period of the building shall be retained. If repairs are required, they shall match existing material s, size and configuration. For pre-Civil War buildings, platforms and railings shall be constructed of wood supported with 11/4 inch balusters. Balusters sh all be either turned newel tape red from the bottom or 1-inch square balusters with a four-inch square newel post. For a post-Civil Wa r building, the design of the stairs shall relate to the style and period of the building, co nstructed of wood, brick or stone. Iron railings with balusters lo cated 6 inches on center shall co mplement masonry platforms and

PAGE 219

219 stone stairs. They are appropria te for more expensive houses of ship owners, built after 1820. Brick stairs are appropriate fo r buildings built after 1900 (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 82). Exterior Stairs are only permitted when they are not visible from a public way (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 84). Exterior lighting, utilities, and color. Exterior lights must be a ppropriate to the style and period of the building and emit a warm color lik e that of incandescen t light. Walland postmounted metal lanterns are appr opriate. Public Utilities must be placed underground. Meters and similar devices shall not be visible from any public way (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 86). All exterior colors must be approved. The proposed color must blend with the adjacent buildings and setting. Colors sh all possess a subdued hue and inte nsity with a light to medium value. Foundations and trim may subtly vary or contrast with the color of the house. Elements and trim on Greek Revival buildings shall be pa inted white or another light neutral color like gray or sand. The trim of a Greek Revival build ing shall not be darker than the body. Refer to color chart page 88 of Building with Nantucket in Mind for appropriate options. Light gray must consist of black and white with no other dom inant hues (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 88). Interiors and other impacts. When making application for st ructural alterations to the interior of a structure in the Old Historic District, a professional photographic documentation is required. Any other request requiring a building permit determined by th e Planning Official or his designee to have an impact on an exterior structure in the HP Over lay district shall be reviewed by the Historic District Commission using the most closely analogous standards.

PAGE 220

220 Standards for Additions to Existing Stru ctures in the Old Historic District Scale, massing and height, and proportions. Adding bays or other massing interruptions to the principal faade of a contributing buildi ng is not permitted. Additions shall adjoin the existing building at the rear or side wall and shall not overwhelm the original building size (Lang and Stout, 1995, 68). Additions to existing buildings shall have similar scale, massing and height to the existing building (City of Orla ndo Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-117). The faade proportions of new construction shall be appropriate to the existing building (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 66). Roof shapes and dormers, skylights, and chimneys. The roof on an addition shall have similar shape, detailing, pitch and materials as the existing buildi ng (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD-62-117). Dormers on additions shall be proportional to the size of the addition with a minimum pitch of 4 to 12inch. Only small dormers are appropriate on the rear roof plane. The height of the dormers si dewall shall be minimal and the face of the dormer shall be predominantly window. Dormers shall be at least one foot from the face of the addition and three feet from each gable end (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 72). Skylights on additions shall be constructed of wood with a flat profile, parallel and close to the roof plane. Skylights are in appropriate on the front roof plan e. Skylights are appropriate on side and rear elevations within the upper one-third of the roof pl ane. Skylights must be made of wood, have true divided lights a nd a maximum size of 2 feet by 3 feet (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 73). Chimneys located on additions must be appropria te to the style and period of the existing building in design, placement and size. Chimneys sh all be constructed of select common brick or bricks with a parged surface. Chimneys may be pa inted gray without a black top border. Exterior chimneys or chimneys with a narrow width are inappropriate. Metal pipe chimneys shall be

PAGE 221

221 concealed with a brick encasement representative a masonry chimney. Metal pipe caps are inappropriate. A flat horizontal metal plate supported on piers ove r the chimney is appropriate (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 73-74). Windows. Requirements for windows on additions va ry depending on the elevation under construction. The street eleva tion windows of the addition shall match the original windows in materials, frame type, orientation and configurat ion. These windows shall be of a similar size to the original windows and possess a ra tio of glass to wall surface simila r to that of to the existing building. The windows on other eleva tions shall match the existing in material and frame type, may be similar to the existing windows in orient ation and configuration, but may differ in size. Metal or vinyl sashes are inappropriate. The ar rangement of the windows within each faade shall be ordered and balanced in keeping with the style and peri od of the building. Sliding glass doors, picture windows, bay windows, flex-vents, horizontal tilt out windows are inappropriate (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 77). Screens, storm doors, metal awnings, and shutters. Interior storm windows are appropriate. If it is determined that exterior storm windows will not detr act from the character and significance of the existing building, they will be reviewed for appropriateness to the existing building. Storm sashes and screens shall be the same color as the window sashes or frame. The color of storm or screen doors shal l match the actual door an d trim. Aluminum items may be left natural, but must be painted to ble nd with dark trim. Solid or paneled wood doors are appropriate for additions. Solar panels, metal doors, metal awnings, as well as, ornamental screens and storm doors are inappropriate (La ng and Stout, 1995, p. 78-79). Shutters may be used on additions when they exist on the original building and are appropriate to the style and

PAGE 222

222 period of the existing building. Shutters must be functional and operable. The appearance of a flat mounted shutter is inappropr iate (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 79). Porches and decks. A porch may not be added to the prominent primary faade of an existing building. A porch may be added to a sec ondary faade, behind the primary faade plane, if it is part of an addition and is appropriate to the style and period of the building and a common architectural feature of the existing buildings styl e. In other situations, porches may be added to the rear of the building, and desi gned with a size and placement th at will not detract from the historic integrity of the build ing (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 82). Porc h additions shall have a roof type similar to the existing roof or in character with the style a nd period of the building (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD-62-117). A deck is appropriate to the fi rst floor rear elevation of an addition or an existing building. The detailing should be appropriate to the style and period of the existing building (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 83). Exterior Stairs only permitted when they are not visible from a public way (Derived Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 84). Materials. The wall surface material shall be appropr iate to the style and period of the existing building. While the wall surface must ma tch the material and color of the existing building, the size, orientation, and texture of the material can be similar to the existing building. There shall be one material per single wall plane. Foundations of additions shall be similar to the existing building (Derived from Lang a nd Stout, 1995, p. 84 and City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-117). Trim, gutters and leaders, and louvers and vents. On additions to historic structures, the trim and ornament shall be appropriate to the st yle and period of the ex isting building (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 86). On additions to historic structur es, gutters and le aders shall be

PAGE 223

223 made of wood in a circular or rectangular cross-section as they were historically. Also, metal gutters painted to match the cornice and trim are appropriate (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 86). On additions, louvers and vents shall be constructed of wood and painted to match the wall surface. Metal and a nodized aluminum louvers and vents will corrode and are inappropriate. Ridge mounted roof ventilators and small roof cupol as are inappropriate (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 86). Exterior lighting, utilities, and color. Exterior lights on additions must be appropriate to the style and period of the building and emit a warm color like that of incandescent light. Walland post-mounted metal lanterns are appropria te. Additions must place public utilities underground. Meters and similar devices shall not be visible from any public way (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 86). All exterior colors must be approved. The proposed color must blend with the adjacent buildings and setting. Colors sh all possess a subdued hue and inte nsity with a light to medium value. Foundations and trim may subtly vary or contrast with the color of the house. Refer to color chart page 88 of Building with Nantucket in Mind for elements and the appropriate options. Light gray consists of black and white with no other dominant hues (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 88). Other Impacts. Any other request requiri ng a building permit determined by the Planning Official or his designee to have an impact on an ex terior structure in the HP Overlay district shall be reviewed by the Historic Di strict Commission usi ng the most closely analogous standards. Standards for New Construction in the Old Historic District Design expectation, contributing factors, and style. Designs for new construction shall strive for delineation from existing established stru ctures, but also be compatible in size, scale, color, material, and character of the immediate environment. Due to relocation or demolition

PAGE 224

224 mitigation, additional elements may be required in the new constructions design. Of specific importance are the general design, the relation to the street and other bu ildings, the sense of place, and any qualities the pres ence the building provided to the historical or geographic development of the district befo re it was relocated or demolished. New Construction may be influenced by, but not duplicate hi storic styles. If an historic style influences new construction, that style must already exist or have existed in the Old Historic District (City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-119). The design of new construction may not distract from contributing buildings. Setback and rhythm of solids and voids. The proposed front yard setback of new construction must follow a pattern of site uti lization similar to adjacent buildings. The front faade of the new building shall be aligned with in the general faade line of the adjacent buildings (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). New construction must be designed and positioned on the site in such a way that it reflects the re gular pattern of buildings and open space along the block face (City of Orlando, Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD-62-119). Delineation of street space, fences, hedges, and landscape. Where there is an adjacent unified street edge it must be created in the sa me manner, either with hedges and fences or both (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 62). Hedges shall be coor dinated with adjacent lots (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 63). Fences shall be appropri ate to the inspiration for the style of the building, but also match the height and alignment of adjacent fen ces if any are present. Horizontal board and vertical board fences shall not be located in the front yard se tback. New landscaping shall follow simple restrained designs (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 63-65). Site, garages, and secondary dwellings. Walkways shall be constructed of select common brick, rectangular blueston e, granite flagstone, pea gravel or crushed shell. Driveways

PAGE 225

225 must be brick, stone or crushed sh ell or black top with a covering of pea gravel or shell. Where retaining walls are required, they must be conceale d with select common or water struck brick or stone. The appearance of the retaining wall must be minimized by a rear lot location. Exposed cement block, concrete walls and pressure trea ted timber are inappropr iate (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 65). Place new garages in the rear of the lot to minimize the visual impact. New garages shall be plain in appearance or coordinated with th e style of the existing house (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). Gates are required at new driveways to maintain the unified street edge. Secondary Dwellings must be 1or 1-1/2 st ories with a maximum ridge elevation of 22 feet. The design of secondary dwellings must be inferior in form and scale, as well as, sympathetic in detail to the existing buildi ng. The location of a secondary dwelling must maintain clear views of the existing building fr om the street or public way (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 66). Scale, massing and height, and proportions. The scale of new construction and architectural elements shall be appropriate with that of adjacent build ings (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 67). Massing of new construction mu st utilize simple volumes and be appropriate to the adjacent buildings and buildings along the block face. Additive massing, th e addition of smaller masses to a visually dominant mass, must be uti lized for new construction to be compatible with existing buildings. Special consideration will be given for a constrained lot shape (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 67-68). The height of new construction must generally conform to the predominant facade heights of the adjacent build ings and buildings along the block face (Lang and Stout, 1995, 66). The faade proportions of new construc tion shall be appropriate with that of the adjacent buildings (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 66).

PAGE 226

226 Roof shapes and dormers, skylights, and chimneys. Roof shapes, pitches and materials of new construction shall be similar to roof sh apes, pitches and materials of adjacent buildings and buildings along the block face. Roof designs sh all be compatible with the existing rhythm of the roofs along the block face. The roof shall conf orm to the appropriate type per the inspiration for the style of the new construc tion. Roof pitches less than 4 to 12 inches and flat roofs are inappropriate. The roof overhang an d cornice detailing should be a ppropriate to the style of the new construction (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 70-71). Roof dormers on new construction shall be mode st in proportion to the existing house with a minimum 4 to 12-inch pitch. The height of the dormers sidewall shall be minimal. The location of the dormer shall be at least one foot from the building face and three feet from each gable end. The face of the dormer shall be predominantly window. Several small shed dormers are appropriate in lieu of one large dormer that covers the main roof plane. Flush gable dormers are inappropriate; however, th e Commission may allow them to encourage appropriate massing (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 72-73). Skylights on new construction shall have a flat profile, parallel and cl ose to the roof plane to emulate a roof hatch or scuttle. Skylights ar e inappropriate on the front roof plane, but are appropriate on side and rear r oof planes located in the upper one-third of the roof plane. Skylights must be constructed of wood with true divided lights and a ma ximum size of 2 feet by 3 feet. Skylights that bubble or protrude are inappropriate (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 73). Roof walks are inappropriate for new constructi on (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 84). Chimneys on new construction must be appropria te to the style of the building in design, placement and size. They shall be constructed of select common brick or bricks with a parged surface. They may be painted gray without a blac k top border. Exterior chimneys or chimneys

PAGE 227

227 with a narrow width are inappropriate. Metal pi pe chimneys must be concealed with a brick encasement to emulate a masonry chimney. Metal pi pe caps are not appropriate, instead use a flat horizontal metal plate supported on piers over the chimney (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 73-74). Windows. The fenestration of new construction sha ll utilize historic window types and arrangements, and be appropriate to the scale, proportion and rhyt hm of adjacent buildings, and possess a ratio of glass area to wall surface simila r to adjacent buildings. Interior storm windows are appropriate. Exterior storm wi ndows must be reviewed for a ppropriateness. Solid or paneled wood doors are appropriate. Irregular shaped win dows, sheet glass windows, metal sashes, vinyl sashes, metal doors and solar panels are inappropr iate. See the preservati on office for materials on energy conservation (La ng and Stout, 1995, p. 77-78). Screens, storm doors, metal awnings, and shutters. Storm doors shall be appropriate to the design and style of the new construction. Storm sashes and screens shall be the same color as the building sashes or frame. The color of storm or screen doors shall ma tch the actual door and trim. Aluminum items may be left natural, but mu st be painted to blend with dark trim. Metal awnings, as well as, ornamental screens and storm doors are inappropr iate (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 78-79). Shutters may be used on new construction when they are appropriate to the style of the new construction. Shutters must be func tional and operable. The appearance of a flat mounted shutter is inappropria te (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 79). Orientation. The front entrance includes the door, frontispiece, steps, platform, related fences and walks that connect to public sidewal k. The front entrance of new construction shall be located on the building plane closest to the st reet. The location of the entrance shall be compatible to the positioning, scale and rhythm of the adjacent buildings and buildings along the block face (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 80). French Door s are only appropriate were they cannot be

PAGE 228

228 seen from a public way (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 80-81). On new construction door platforms and steps shall reflect the characteri stics of historic examples, as we ll as, relate to the style of the new construction. They shall be constructed of w ood, brick or stone, and atta ched to the exterior wall plane, not constructed as an integral part of the buildin gs main mass (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 82). Porches. Porches on new construction must utili ze additive massing, specifically at the juncture of the porch roof and the main building. The porch detailing shall be appropriate to the style of the new construction and adjacent buildi ngs (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 82). Decks are appropriate at the firs t floor of the rear elevation only. Deck detailing shall be appropriate to the style of the new constr uction (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 83). Exterior Stairs are appropriate when they are not visible from a public way (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 84). Faade, foundation, roof material. Wall surfaces of new constr uction shall be clad with small-scale textured material traditional to Na ntucket. Appropriate materials are white cedar shingles with a 5 exposure, wooden clapboard w ith a 3-1/2 exposure, or select common brick of uniform red tone with only one material per single wall plane (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 84). Foundations of new construction shall be cons tructed of the following materials: select common brick with inch mortar joints, stone, concrete or concrete block if the cement is parged or grouted. New construction raised on pi lings is inappropriate except where required by site conditions. This condition will be reviewed for the appropriateness to the adjacent buildings (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 85).

PAGE 229

229 Appropriate roof material for ne w construction is rectangular sh aped fire-resistant shingles or slate. If using shingles, they shall be uniform tones of black, dark green, dark gray. If using dark gray, the color shall be no lighter than weat hered shingles. Within 1-1/4 miles of the Pacific National Bank, wood shingles must be certified fire -retardant quality Clas s-C, three hour rating (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 85). Trim, gutters and leaders, and louvers and vents. The trim and details of new construction shall be drawn from the existing bui ldings in the town. They shall reflect the Nantucket tradition of simple refinement (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 86). Gutters and Leaders on new construction shall be made of wood in a circular or rectangular cross-section as they were historically. However, metal gutters painted to match the cornice and trim are appropriate (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 86). Louvers and vents on new construction shall be constructed of wood and painted to match the wall surface. Metal and anodized aluminum louvers and vents will corrode and are not appropriate. Ridge mounted roof ventilators and small roof cupolas are inappropriate (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 86). Exterior lighting, utilities, and color. Exterior lights must be a ppropriate to the style of the building. The light cast shoul d be warm in color like that of incandescent lights. Walland post-mounted metal lanterns are appropriate. Public Utilities must be placed underground. Meters and similar devices shall not be visi ble from any public way (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 86). All exterior colors must be approved. The proposed color must blend with the adjacent buildings and setting. Colors sh all possess a subdued hue and inte nsity with a light to medium value. Foundations and trim may subtly vary or contrast with the color of the house. Refer to color chart page 88 of Building with Nantucke t in Mind for appropriate options. Light gray

PAGE 230

230 consists black and white with no other dominan t hues (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 88). Other impacts. Any other request requiri ng a building permit determined by the Planning Official or his designee to have an impact on an exterior structur e in the Old Historic District shall be reviewed by the Historic District Commission using the most closely analogous standards (Derived form the City of Orla ndo Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-119). Standards for Demolition The intent of the Standards for Demolition is to provide criteria to evaluate the architectural, historical, or cultural value of a structure. Therefore the Demolition Criteria, clearly listed and tiered in the following manner, should be used to review the structure. These Standards are based on the City of Orlando, Florida Land Development Code, Section 62.707. If Building Official and the Historic District Commission de termine that the building in question is an imminent hazard and repairs w ould be impractical, the Historic District Commission will consider a request for a Certif icate of Appropriateness for Demolition. If any measures have been taken to prevent the st ructure from deteriorating, such as normal maintenance and repairs and provision of normal tenant improvements, th e Historic Preservation Officer will recommend approval to the Board. However, if the structure was willfully or negligently allowed to deteriorate the recommenda tion to the Historic Di strict Commission will be further investigation of any measures taken to save the stru cture from further deterioration, collapse arson, vandalism or neglect If the structure is beyond savi ng or if certain measures are recommended and action is not taken, violations will be issued. In all other instances, the pr ocess of attaining a Certif icate of Appropriateness for Demolition is a two-step process.

PAGE 231

231 Step 1: Determination of Historic Viability A. The following criteria will be used for the sta ff report analysis and for the Historic District Commission discussion: The historic, architectural or enviro nmental significance of the structure. The historic, architectural or environmental significance of the structure to the overall ensemble of structures within the district and the importance of the structure to the integrity of the historic dist rict or the City. The aesthetic interest that the structur e adds to the district or the town. The number of remaining examples of simila r significance in the district or the town. The difficulty or impossibility of reproducing su ch a structure because of its design, texture, material, detail, size, scale or uniqueness of location. The possibility that the presence of the building provides information about later architectural movements within the district. Basic information for the future utilization of the site: the type of structure, the inspiration stylistically if any, and an estimated size of the building. B. The Historic Preservation Officer will provide the following information to the applicant: The square footage of the existing building and the adjacent buildings. The existing Impervious Surface Ratio for the site and the adjacent sites. Analysis of the proposed new construction will ex amine the relative mass, size, and location in contrast to the existing building. C. If it is determined that th e subject property is not histori cally viable, mitigation for the removal of the existing building will be consider ed. To determine if the existing building has elements that indirectly add to the district, it will be reviewed with the Standards for New Construction and the following criteria below: Building qualities that enrich the district, including the general desi gn of the building in question, as well as, the relation to the street and to other buildings (Lang and Stout, 1995, p.157).

PAGE 232

232 The sense of place, historical or geographic development of the district the presence of the building provides as part of the district (Lang and Stout, 1995, p.157). If any are identified, these elem ents must be incorporated in to the future utilization. Step 2: Future Utilization The floor plans, elevations, and a perspective will be submitted for the future utilization. The Standards for New Construction will be used to review these drawings for the staff report analysis and for discussion in the Historic Di strict Commission Meeting. Also, the staff report will review the proposed future uti lization of the site and the effe ct those plans will have on the architectural, historical, archeol ogical, social, aesthetic or envir onmental character of the historic district. If the demolition of a building and the new construction for the site are approved, the Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition and the New Construction will be issued at the same time, prior to receiving a building permit for either. If it is determined that the building does enrich the district and the applicant claims that this will impose an economic hardship, this will be reviewed by the Historic District Commission. If the Historic Di strict Commission determines th at an economic hardship may exist, they will follow the criteria in the Code, and make findings on the factors listed. Standards for Relocation Moving contributing historic buildings within or out of the Old Hist oric District of a National Historic Landmark is prohib ited unless it is a last resort, su ch as erosion or other natural disaster. The relocation of a building to make wa y for a new structure of a style more prevalent within the district is prohibite d. These Standards are based on th e National Register of Historic Places: Program Regulations. The appropriateness of the proposed location in respect to the hi storic orientation. The appropriateness of the proposed locati on in respect to the immediate setting.

PAGE 233

233 The appropriateness of the proposed location in respect to the general environment. If the proposed location is not reviewed or approved and the building is moved anyway, the classification of the building will be changed to ancillary. In turn, the ratio for contributing to the total in the district will be adjusted. If t oo many contributing buildings are moved, the district may be endanger of losing its National Re gister and/or National Landmark status. If contributing buildings are relo cated on a regular basis, the bu ildings in the district must be re-surveyed. If classificati ons of individual buildings have changed, the National Register Registration Form should be amended to reflect this change. If the relocation of an existi ng building and new construction for the site are approved, the Certificate of Appropriateness for Relocation and New Construction will be issued at the same time prior to receiving a building permit for either.

PAGE 234

234 APPENDIX C REVISED STANDARDS: LOCAL DISTRICT LAKE EOLA HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT, ORLANDO, FLORIDA Building Classifications When surveying buildings for a proposed hist oric district or re -surveying an existing district, use the following terms: Potentially significant is a build ing that is less than fifty years old at the time the district is designated or re-surveyed, and is not consid ered architecturally significant. When the building turns fifty years old, it will be categor ized as architecturally significant or ancillary. A potentially si gnificant building can be categ orized as architecturally significant before the age of fifty years. If approved fo r demolition, mitigation will be required. Abbreviated as PS. Architecturally significant is a building that was not built during the designated historic period of significance but enriches the district, in spite of this fact. Th e preservation of these buildings is of the utmost im portance. Abbreviated as AS. Contributing is a building that was at least fifty years old when the district was designated, built during the historical period of significance and enriches the district. Unless a building has been altered to the extent that it has lost its architectural integrit y, these buildings would be preserved without ques tion. Abbreviated as C. Ancillary is a building that s upports or aids the dist rict, at least by its existence, but does not possess architectural signifi cance of its own. Includes buil dings that existed during the designated period of significance but have lost their architectural integrity. Requests that concern these buildings would be subject to review. If a pproved for demolition, mitigation will be required. Abbreviated as A. To discontinue the use of the term non-contribu ting, buildings within the district will be resurveyed. After the classifications are assigne d, if the Historic Pres ervation Board alters a buildings status, they must provide evidence for th is judgement. If a majority of buildings are judged to be architecturally sign ificant when they turn fifty y ears old, the designated historic period of significance should be reviewed. Either the original period of significance should be amended or an additional period of significance s hould be added. All classifications are subject to review by the applicable st andards for the work requested.

PAGE 235

235 Standards for Alterations to Existing Structures Alterations to potentially significant, ar chitecturally significant, and ancillary structures in historic di stricts shall be reviewed for their ap propriateness in respect to the design, massing, and scale of the existing structure. An cillary buildings may be modernized but no structure shall be redesigned to cr eate a false historical appearance. These Standards are based on Section 62.704 of the City of Orlando, Florida Land Development Code. When considering materials, if the existing material is in good condition, it should be retained. If the existing material is re pairable, it should be repaired. If the existing material is deteriorated it shoul d be replaced to match the existing material in size, shape, and texture. This refers to the following: Wood siding, trim, and details Masonry Roof shape Dormers, cornices, towers, decorative brackets, eaves, chimneys, parapets, exposed rafter ends, and other character defining roof features Windows, frames, glass, muntins, mu llions, sills, lintels, and pediments Shutters Awnings Marquees Doors, door details, frames, lintels, fan li ghts, sidelights, pediments and transoms Porches Signs Site Improvements Other

PAGE 236

236 In this way materials of buildings are main tained. Aluminum or vinyl siding replacing or covering wood or masonry is prohibited. Since el ements such as roofs, windows and doors have a significant effect on the ability of buildings to retain their character defining features. The general premise under each element is to retain, repair or replace with new material that is similar to the original. This onl y allows changes that are appropr iate to the build ing, and insures that they remain authentic in appearance. The only revision to the Standards for Altera tions as written in the Land Development Code is the subject of windows. Specifically, if windows or window details are determined to be unrepairable, they shall be replaced with new wi ndows similar to the original in material, and matching in size and muntin and mullion proportion and configuration. Standards for Additions to Existing Structures These Standards are based on Section 62.705 of the City of Orlando, Florida Land Development Code. Additions to non-contributing, arch itecturally significant, and ancillary structures in historic di stricts shall be reviewed for their ap propriateness in respect to the design, massing, and scale of the existing structure. Ancilla ry buildings may be m odernized but shall not be redesigned to create a false hi storical appearance. Structures sh all not be redesigned to create a false historical appearance. The Standards for Additions to Existing Stru ctures are used to review requests for additions for all buildings within the historic dist rict. The primary focus of these standards is the appropriateness of the addition in respect to the existing struct ure, while exhibiting a true depiction of the buildings progression. Materials. The material of the addition must be a ppropriate to the existing structure, and be reviewed in respect to the size, shap e, color, orientation and texture.

PAGE 237

237 When considering the material of an addition to a brick stru cture, appropriate options are brick, wood siding or composite si ding. If siding is used, it shoul d be horizontally oriented, 410 wide and compatible with the existing structure. When an existing facade is clad with a combination of materials, the addition should be clad with one or more of the existing cladding ma terials in a manner that is appropriate to the style and period of the structure. If the addition is clad with concrete bloc k, the mortar joints shall match the existing. Windows. The windows on an addition must have th e same orientation and materials as the windows of the principal faade. The wi ndows on the addition will be reviewed for appropriateness to the existing stru cture in respect to the size a nd configuration, which allows the windows to differ from the original windows on the principal faade. Unaltered elements. The following elements insure that additions are visually linked to the existing building. They are eff ective as written and not revised. Roofs on additions are required to be similar in shape, material and pitch to the existing structure. Porch additions are required to ha ve a similar roof type to the existing roof to be appropriate to the style and period of the building. Scale, massing, and height of the addition is requi red to be similar to the existing structure. Standards for New Construction These Standards are based on Section 62.706 of the City of Orlando, Florida Land Development Code. Design expectation, other factors, and style. The goal of new construction should be defined as the construction of ne w buildings that exist harmoniously with the existing buildings, while at the same time differing from the existin g buildings and appearin g as a product of the current day.

PAGE 238

238 Consult preservation zoning, a scaled back form of the current residential zoning and based on an average survey of the area. This PZD w ould have requirements for height, Floor Area Ratio, setback and Impervious Surface Ratio found in the zoning table. PZD will also consider the land use in the district duri ng the historic period( s) of significance. Wherever possible the current land use should be return ed to the historic land use. Ideally new construction shall be contemporar y and also meet the other requirements in this section. If a historic style influences new co nstruction, that style must exist in the district, but may not be a reproduction. Height, scale and massing. Refer to the allowed height permitted in the preservationzoning district. Also, consider the proposed height must be appropr iate to the adjacent buildings. Refer to the maximum allowed floor area ratio permitted for the preservation-zoning district. Also, consider the proposed s cale and massing and their archite ctural elements must be appropriate to the adjacent buildings. Setback and rhythm of solids & voids. Refer to the minimum and maximum allowed setback for the preservation-zo ning district. Also, consider the proposed setback must be appropriate to the adjacent bu ildings. Refer to the maximum ISR for the preservation-zoning district. Also, consider th at new structures must be designed and positioned on their lots in such a way that they reflect the regul ar pattern of structures and open space along the block face. Unaltered elements. The following elements insure the basic form of new construction will be sympathetic to the existing buildings in th e district, while not inhi biting the design of new construction. They are effective as written and not revised. Fenestration patterns: Although they may appear in groupings, individu al windows shall have a vertical emphasis like the windows found on contri buting buildings in the historic district.

PAGE 239

239 Orientation: At least one public entrance shall be oriented towards the front lot line. The front door to a new building shall be articulated on the principal faade with covered porches, porticos, stoops, pediments, door surr ounds, or other architectural forms. Materials & Textures: The materials and textures on new structures shall be similar to the materials and textures of contributing st ructures in the HP Overlay district. Roof Shapes: Roof shapes, pitche s and materials on new buildings shall be similar to the roof shapes, pitches and materials of contributi ng buildings in the HP Overlay district. Standards for Demolition These Standards are based on Section 62.707 of the City of Orlando, Florida Land Development Code. The intent of the Standards fo r Demolition is to provide criteria to evaluate the architectural, historical, or cultural value of a structure. Therefore the Demolition Criteria, clearly listed and tiered in the following manner, should be used to review the structure. If Building Official and the Historic Preservation Officer determine that the building in question is an imminent hazard a nd repairs would be impractical, a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition will be considered by the Historic Preservation Board. If any measures have been taken to prevent the st ructure from deteriorating, such as normal maintenance and repairs and provision of normal tenant improvements, th e Historic Preservation Officer will recommend approval to the Board. However, if the structure was willfully or negligently allowed to deteriorate the recommenda tion to the Historic Pres ervation Board will be for further investigation of any measures taken to save the structure from further deterioration, collapse, arson, vandalism or negl ect. If the structure is beyond sa ving or if certain measures are recommended and action is not taken, violations will be issued. In all other instances, the pr ocess of attaining a Certif icate of Appropriateness for Demolition is a two-step process.

PAGE 240

240 Step 1: Determination of Historic Viability A. The following criteria will be used for the staff report analysis and for the Historic Preservation Board discussion: The historic, architectural or enviro nmental significance of the structure. The historic, architectural or environmental significance of the structure to the overall ensemble of structures within the district and the importance of the structure to the integrity of the historic dist rict or the City. The aesthetic interest that the structur e adds to the district or the City. The number of remaining examples of simila r significance in the district or the City. The difficulty or impossibility of reproducing su ch a structure because of its design, texture, material, detail, size, scale or uniqueness of location. The possibility that the presence of the building provides information about later architectural movements within the district. Basic information for the future utilization of the site: the type of structure, the inspiration stylistically if any, and an estimated size of the building. B. The Historic Preservation Officer will provide the following information to the applicant: The square footage of the existing building and the adjacent buildings. The existing Impervious Surface Ratio for the site and the adjacent sites. Analysis of the proposed new construction will ex amine the relative mass, size, and location in contrast to the existing building. C. If it is determined that th e subject property is not histori cally viable, mitigation for the removal of the existing building will be consider ed. To determine if the existing building has elements that indirectly add to the district, it will be reviewed with the Standards for New Construction and the following criteria below: The qualities the building which enrich the di strict, including the general design of the building in question, as well as, the relation to the street and to other buildings. The sense of place, historical or geographic development of the district the presence of the building provides as part of the district (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 157).

PAGE 241

241 If any are identified, these elem ents must be incorporated in to the future utilization. Step 2: Future Utilization The floor plans, elevations, and a perspective will be submitted for the future utilization. The Standards for New Construction will be used to review these drawings for the staff report analysis and for discussion in the Historic Pres ervation Board Meeting. Als o, the staff report will review the proposed future utilization of the site and the effect those plans will have on the architectural, historical, archeol ogical, social, aesthetic or envir onmental character of the historic district. If the demolition of a building and the new construction for the site are approved, the Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition and the New Construction will be issued at the same time, prior to receiving a building permit for either. If it is determined that the building does enrich the district and the applicant claims that this will impose an economic hardship, this will be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Board. If the Historic Preservation Board determines th at an economic hardship may exist, they will follow the criteria in the Code, and make findings on the factors listed. Standards for Relocation These Standards are based on the National Register of Historic Places: Program Regulations. The following should be considered: The appropriateness of the proposed location in respect to the hi storic orientation. The appropriateness of the proposed locati on in respect to the immediate setting. The appropriateness of the proposed location in respect to the general environment. If the proposed location is not reviewed or approved and the building is moved anyway, the classification of the building will be changed to ancillary. In turn, the ratio for contributing to the total in the district will be adjusted. If t oo many contributing buildings are moved, the district may be endanger of losing its National Re gister and/or National Landmark status.

PAGE 242

242 If contributing buildings are re located on a regular basis, the bu ildings in the district must be re-surveyed. If classificati ons of individual buildings have changed, the National Register Registration Form should be amended to reflect this. If the relocation of an existi ng building and new construction for the site are approved, the Certificate of Appropriateness for Relocation and New Construction will be issued at the same time prior to receiving a building permit for either.

PAGE 243

243 APPENDIX D LANDMARK DISTRICT: FIGURES AND MOCK REPORTS Figure D-1. Article from Inquire r and Mirror with details con cerning 20 Milk Street case.

PAGE 244

244 Staff Report for 10 Vestal Street TO: Historic District Commission FROM: Historic Preservation Staff RE: 10 Vestal Street APPLICANT: Val Oliver, Agent REQUEST: To demolish a single-family reside nce for the construction of a new two-story dwelling. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This dwelling was surveyed in August of 1989 by AGS. Per the Inventory Form, the one-story weathered shingle dwelling ha s a concrete foundation and was built circa 1930. The side gable roof is sheathed with composition shingles and there is a center brick chimney. Other architectural features include a central fl ush frame entry, plain corner boards and six-over-six windows. The structure is noted as being located in a densely built residential area of the Old Hist oric District. The si gnificance of the house to the National Register Historic Distri ct is non-contributing. ANALYSIS (demolition) : When reviewing an application fo r demolition, the Historic District Commission must consider the tie red criteria listed in the Standards for Demolition, Appendix B. Because the structure is not an imminent hazar d, the first step is to determine the historic viability. Therefore, the Historic District Commission will consider the following: Significance: (1) The historic, architectural or environm ental significance of the structure. 10 Vestal Street is a small cottage built circa 1930. There are no outstanding characteristics that indicate a particular architect ural style. However the use of exterior materials common to adjacent buildings, such as, composition shingles and wall shingles, as well as, exterior details, such as, a central flush frame entry, brick chimney, plain corner boards and six-over-six windows help the cottage to blend into the setting. (2) The historic, architectural or environmenta l significance of the structure to the overall ensemble of structures within the district and th e importance of the struct ure to the integrity of the historic district or the City. 10 Vestal Street is wedged be tween a gable one-story dwelling and a two-story Federal style house. The structure adds to the sense of place by providing a stop in the rhythm of the street. The presence of the cottage allows an accurate desc ription of the area; you are not in the midst of town but on the edge of the Old Historic Distri ct about to enter the outlying area (Figure D-2). (3) The aesthetic interest that the structure adds to the district or the City. The inventory form records the significance of th e structure to the National Register Historic District as non-contributing. This means the stru cture was not built during the historic period of significance for the district. The label non-c ontributing means when evaluated in 1989, the

PAGE 245

245 structure was defined as, a building which is not an intrusion but does not add to a historic districts sense of time, place and historic development (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 21). Remaining Examples : (4) The number of remaining examples of simila r significance in the di strict or the City. (5) The difficulty or impossibility of reproducing su ch a structure because of its design, texture, material, detail, size, scale or uniqueness of location. The number of remaining examples of 1930s hous ing in the district must be considered. Although the construction date for 8 Vestal Street, the house to the left of 10 Vestal Street, is unknown, it appears that they may be of the same era. These houses are minimal in design, detail, and size. These factors promote an effortless reproduction. However, no matter how simple the reproduction, when a house is demolish ed, texture and material are lost. Unless the unique characteristics of location are identifie d, they will be lost as well. As mentioned previously, the sense of place must be protected. The house is not in the midst of town but is on the edge of the Old Historic District a bout to enter the outlying area. Later Architectural Movements : (6) The possibility that the presence of the building prov ides information about later architectural movements within the district. This small 1930s cottage describes a different se t of economic conditions in the Old Historic District than the Victorian st yles built from 1865-1910, the Col onial Revival style built from 1876-1920, and the Bungalow style built from 19001940. Constructed ten y ears after the island became a summer resort, this cottage reflects the economic depression of the 1930s. Although Bungalow style houses were being constructed during the same time frame, the houses details are minimal in character. It may be representati ve of the Minimal Traditional style. These houses reflect traditional form but lack decorative detailing. In general roof pitches are low, eaves and rakes are close (McAlester, 1984). In any case, this house represents a different building type in the Old Historic District. Future Utilization : (7) Basic information for the future utilization of the site: the type of structure, the inspiration stylistically if any, and an es timated size of the building. The proposed future utilization is a 2-1/2-story house with three bays. The building is proposed to be 48 in length, 46 in width with a total square footage is 3031 SF and a roof ridge height of 26. The applicants propose a front door with sidelights located o ff-center, a chimney located at the side of the main mass, exterior clapboard sheathing and 6/6 windows, these are subtle characteristics of the early Federal style. Th is style is commonly s een in town and is inappropriate in this location. A Federally inspired reproduction w ould impact the rhythm of the

PAGE 246

246 street and the perception of the towns historic density. The sma ll cottage at 10 Vestal Street provides a distinct sense of place. The Standards state that the scale of new cons truction and architectural elements shall be appropriate with that of adjacent buildings. 10 Vest al Street is 648 SF, smaller than the adjacent buildings. The proposed 3,030 SF new construction is excessive almost 4.5 times the square footage of the existing building. Th e building on the right 14 Vestal Street is a rather large twostory new construction and on the left 8 Vestal Str eet is a one-story buildi ng similar in size to 10 Vestal Street. This is shown in the aerial photo (Figure D-3) a nd the building footprints (Figure D-4) and Vestal Street photogr aphs (Figure 3-1 and 3-2). Th erefore based on the proposed excessive square footage compared the size of 10 Vestal Street and 8 Vestal Street, the new construction at 14 Vestal Street is inappropriate and will detract from Old Historic Districts actual sense of time, place and historic development. Information for Applicant: (1) The square footage of the exis ting building is 648 SF. Although the exact dimensions for the adjacent properties are not available, the following are estimates from the building footprints. 8 Vestal Street: 829 SF (Figure D-5). 14 Vestal Street: 3,007 SF (Figure D-6). Ideally 10 Vestal Street should be compatible in size to 8 Vestal Street, but not as large as 14 Vestal Street. (2) The following is an estimate of the Im pervious Surface Ratio for the sites. 8 Vestal Street: 27% (Figure D-5). 10 Vestal Street: 13.5% (Figure D-7). 14 Vestal Street: 36% (Figure D-6). The proposed new construction at 10 Vestal Street would have an ISR is 51%. Mitigation : The Standards for Demolition require the Hi storic District Commi ssion to define any elements of 10 Vestal Street that may contribute to the historic district by applying the Standards for New Construction. As expected with a non-contributing building, a defi nite delineation exists between this structure and the contributing structures in the district. Also, the structure is compatible due to the use of similar materials and details to that of contribut ing structures, even though this is in a minimal fashion. 10 Vestal Street meets the de sign expectation for new construction. This building is not reproduction and does not po ssess a definable stylistic influence. It is possible that it is an example of the Minimal Tr aditional style. Further research would determine if this style exists or once existed in the Old Hist oric District. 10 Vestal Street does not distract from contributing buildings and meets the st ylistic requirement for new construction. While 10 Vestal Street and 8 Ve stal Street are sited similarl y about 12 from the sidewalk, 14 Vestal Street is about 7 from the sidewalk. The Standards state the proposed front yard setback

PAGE 247

247 of new construction must follow a pattern of si te utilization similar to adjacent buildings. 10 Vestal Street meets the setback requirement. A plan of 10 Vestal Street de picts the dwelling about 12-0 fro m the sidewalk, 17-0 from the left side property line, and 12-0 from the right side property line. This residence provides a stop in the rhythm of the street evident from the 1998 aerial view. The pr esence of the cottage allows an accurate description of the area. 10 Ve stal Streets placement has been part of the regular pattern along the block face since 1930. 14 Vestal Street is closer to the sidewalk than 8 and 10 Vestal Street, as well as, overly large in scale. Both aspects accentuate the small scale of 10 Vestal Street. This is further pronounced by the compatible scale of 8 Vestal Street and 10 Vest al Street. The Standards state that the scale of new construction and architectural elements shall be appropriate with that of adjacent buildings. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 67) While 8 and 10 Vestal Street meet this requirement, 14 Vestal does not seem to meet this requirement. Massing of new construction must utilize simple volumes and be appropriate to the adjacent buildings and buildings along the block face. 10 Ve stal Street is 26 in length by 29 in width with a total square footage of 648 SF. The house possesses a si mple rectangular volume, and meets the requirement for massing. This standard continues to describe how the building could be added onto with additive massing, Additive massing, the addition of smaller masses to a visually dominant mass, must be utilized for new construction to be compatible with existing buildings (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 67-68). The Standards state that the where there is an adj acent unified street edge it must be recreated in the same manner, either with hedges or fences or both. The inventory form photograph taken in 1989 shows where a fence once existed along the fr ont lot line. For some reason the fence was removed, this is inappropriate. The fence must be recreated to define the street edge. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Recommend denial of the demolition based on the inappropriate plans for future utilization. (If research revealed evidence of the Minimal Traditional style in the Old Historic District Significance, Remaining Examples and Later Architectural Movement would be included in the denial). However if demolition was approved, future proposals for new construction must meet the Standards for New Construction, as well as, the following mitigation requirements. 1Due to the fact that the cu rrent building setback about 12-0 from the sidewalk, 17-0 from the left side property line, and 12-0 from the right side prop erty line provide a stop in the rhythm of the street, this qua lity must be maintained by adhering to the current setbacks. 2-Considering 10 Vestal Street is appropriate in scale to 8 Vest al Street, the new construction must be compatible with 8 Vestal Street. Th is may be accomplished by designing the building so that it is additive in form. 3-The fence must be recreated to define the street edge.

PAGE 248

248 Staff Report for 125 Main Street: Demolition TO: Historic District Commission FROM: Historic Preservation Staff RE: 125 Main Street APPLICANT: David Wiley, Agent REQUEST: To demolish a single-family reside nce for the construction of a rear garage apartment and a large yard. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This dwelling was surveyed in August of 1989 by AGS. Per the Inventory Form, the one-and-three-quarter tall wood frame dwelling is clad with horizontal weathered siding and has a brick foundation. The gable roof is characte rized by extended eaves and exposed rafter tails. The roof is sheat hed with composition shingles. There are two unpainted, corbeled chimneys located off-center. The dwelling has a one-story front porch oriented to the side yard. Othe r architectural features include an off-center front door, plain corner boards and two-over-two windows. At some point in time, an addition was constructed to the rear of the house. As per the document enti tled, Nantucket Island Ar chitectural and Cultural Resources Survey, District Data Sheet, this bui lding is listed as cont ributing to the National Register Historic Dist rict and existed by 1887. ANALYSIS (demolition) : When reviewing an application fo r demolition, the Historic District Commission must consider the tie red criteria listed in the Standards for Demolition, Appendix B. Because the structure is not an imminent hazar d, the first step is to determine the historic viability. Therefore, the Historic District Commission will consider the following: Significance: (1) The historic, architectural or envir onmental significance of the structure. (2) The historic, architectural or environmenta l significance of the structure to the overall ensemble of structures within the district and th e importance of the struct ure to the integrity of the historic district or the City. (3) The aesthetic interest that the structure adds to the district or the City. The Standards state that the significance and importance of the structure as it relates to the other structures within the historic di strict should be examined. The la st page of the inventory form records the significance of the structure to the Na tional Register Historic District. Unfortunately this page is missing from the Historic District Commission files. However the document entitled, Nantucket Island Architectural and Cultural Resour ces Survey, District Data Sheet records the building as contributing to the Natio nal Register Hist oric District. This building is an example of the Folk Vict orian style, characterized by Victorian details applied to a simple house form. The structure ha s a gable front and wing form, a principal subtype of the Folk Victorian style. Also typical of the style is the one-s tory front porch located within the L. The porch is the primary location fo r application of Victoria n detailing. In character

PAGE 249

249 with the minimal use of ornament on Nantucket, the only detailing is the x motif on the porch rail. Other characteristics of the style are th e extended eaves, exposed rafter tails, simple pediments above the window and door surroun ds and two-over-two double hung windows. Remaining Examples : (4) The number of remaining examples of simila r significance in the di strict or the City. (5) The difficulty or impossibility of reproducing su ch a structure because of its design, texture, material, detail, size, scale or uniqueness of location. In general Victorian houses were popular fr om 1860 until about 1900. Due to advances in technology, these designs exhibite d complex plans and ornate de tailing once only available to expensive landmark houses. There are several styles grouped as Vict orian: Second Empire, Stick, Queen Anne, Shingle, and Fo lk Victorian (McAlester, 1984). Although few new buildings were built in Victor ian styles, a few examples of Victorian vernacular, or farmhouse architecture were c onstructed. Victorian de corative details were adapted to simple house forms, often front-gable two-story houses with symmetrical facades (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 45). This parallels the description of the Folk Victor ian style. Within the Ol d Historic District, the design guidelines locate a Folk Victorian at the corner of L yon and Fair Streets. Grander examples of Victorian style arch itecture are a Second Empire styl e house at 73 Main Street and a Queen Anne style house at 74 Main Street. Therefore the dwelling at 125 Main Street is not an anomaly in the Old Historic Dist rict. Also 125 Main Street conveys that the island of Nantucket was not completely isolated from the mainland s architectural influen ce and technology in the late 1800s. The design, size and scale of th e Folk Victorian at 125 Main Street could be reproduced. However, the loss of this particular building is the loss of texture and material authentic to the Victorian area. Also this styl e house in this location is defi nitely prominent and unique. Later Architectural Movements : (6) The possibility that the presence of the building prov ides information about later architectural movements within the district. The Victorian style has an exact context in Nantuckets history. In the end, the economic collapse of the isolated island in the 1850s, when whaling succumbed to the discoveries of oil and gold, was responsible for the unique preservation and integrity of the town today. Only in the late 1800s, when well-to-do pe ople sought out unspoiled Nantuc ket as a summer resort, were numbers of new houses built again (Lang a nd Stout, 1995, p. 35-36) and As the community turned to the summer resort trade, a few of these Victorian houses were built in town (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 44). One-twenty-five Ma in Street is physical evidence of this historical context.

PAGE 250

250 Future Utilization : (7) Basic information for the future utilization of the site: the type of structure, the inspiration stylistically if any, and an es timated size of the building. The proposed future utilization is a two-story dwelling 32 in length and 28 in width. The proposed square footage is 1676 SF with a roof ri dge height of 24. The proposed dwelling is 60 off the front property line and 8 off the rear pr operty line. This is inappropriate because the Standards for New Construction clearly state th at the proposed front yard setback of new construction must follow a pattern of site utilization similar to adjacent buildings and that new construction must generally ali gn with the faade line of adjacent buildings. The original house was 8 off the front property lin e, typical of houses on either si de of 125 Main Street. The front faade of proposed garage apartment would be locat ed at the rear of the property, 60 from the front property line. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Recommend denial of the demolition based on the classification of the building as contributing to the Old Historic Distri ct, an important portion of the National Historic Landmark, and (1)-(3) the significance of the building, (4) the importance of the building to other Victorian period buildings, (5) the authentic material and texture that is impossible to reproduce, as well as, the uniqueness of the location, (6) the information the building provides about later architectural movements, the impact of the Victorian era, (7) and the fact that the future utilization is inappropriate.

PAGE 251

251 Staff Report for 125 Main Street: Relocation TO: Historic District Commission FROM: Historic Preservation Staff RE: 125 Main Street APPLICANT: David Wiley, Agent REQUEST: To relocate a single-family residenc e for the construction of a garage apartment at the rear of the site a nd a large yard in the front. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This dwelling was surveyed in August of 1989 by AGS. Per the Inventory Form, the one-and-three-quarter tall wood frame dwelling is clad with horizontal weathered siding and has a brick foundation. The gable roof is characte rized by extended eaves and exposed rafter tails. The roof is sheat hed with composition shingles. There are two unpainted, corbeled chimneys located off-center. The dwelling has a one-story front porch oriented to the side yard. Othe r architectural features include an off-center front door, plain corner boards and two-over-two windows. At some point in time, an addition was constructed to the rear of the house. As per the document enti tled, Nantucket Island Ar chitectural and Cultural Resources Survey, District Data Sheet, this bui lding is listed as cont ributing to the National Register Historic Dist rict and existed by 1887. The Historic District Commission denied a request for the demolition of 125 Main Street because the building is contributing a nd historically viable to th e Old Historic District. ANALYSIS : When reviewing an application for re location, the Historic District Commission must consider the Standards for Relocation in Appendix B. First these standards clearly stat e that moving a contributing histor ic building is prohibited unless it is a last resort, such as coas tal erosion or other natural disast er. The applicants are requesting the relocation to create a large yard and a rear garage apartment, obviously this does not qualify as a last resort and should not be permitted. Furt hermore, the Historic Di strict Commission must consider the following: Historic Orientation : The appropriateness of the pr oposed location 7 Okorwaw Way in respect to the historic orientation of the current location 125 Main Street. After the economic collapse of whaling, Victorian style houses were constructed in the late 1800s, when well-to-do people sought out unspoiled Nantucket as a summer re sort (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 35-36). As the community turned to the summer resort trade, a few of these Victorian houses were built in town (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 44). As part of th e architectural fabric of the town, 125 Main Street is physical evidence of th is historical context. Other examp
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0017820/00001

Material Information

Title: Non-Contributing Buildings in Historic Districts
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Language: English
Creator: Stansberry, Amy J.
Publisher: Amy J. Stansberry
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2006
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0017820:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0017820/00001

Material Information

Title: Non-Contributing Buildings in Historic Districts
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Language: English
Creator: Stansberry, Amy J.
Publisher: Amy J. Stansberry
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2006
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0017820:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS


By

AMY J. STANSBERRY


















A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE INT ARCHITECTURAL STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2006
































Copyright 2006

by

Amy J. Stansberry


































To my husband, Mills, for all his support and encouragement









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank my chair, Professor Peter Prugh, cochair, Professor Emeritus Herschel Shepard,

and member, Professor Roy Eugene Graham for their advice and guidance. I thank Jodi Rubin,

the Historic Preservation Officer for the City of Orlando for her mentoring and patience. I thank

Amy E. Alvarez, Nantucket Historic District Commission Staff, for her assistance with

information for the case studies. I thank my parents, Roy and Judy Johnson, for their love,

support, and all they continue to do for me each and every day.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............. ...............4.....


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ...............8.....


AB S TRAC T ............._. .......... ..............._ 12...


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............14.......... ......


Obj ective to Accomplish ................. ...............14.......... ....
Path of Exploration ................. ...............14........... ....
Importance of Investigation ................. .. .......... ...............16......
Limitations and Parameters of the Investigation ................. ...............17...............

2 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ................ .............. ......... .....19


D efinition................. ...................1
Consequences of Listing............... ...............1
National Register Criteria .................. .......... ...............21......
Listing a Resource on the National Register ................. ...............22........... ..
National Historic Landmark Districts ................. ...............24................
Local Historic Districts ................. ...............27........... ....
Historic District Ordinances .............. ...............29....


3 LANDMARK DISTRICT .............. ...............35....


Case Studies: Old Historic District............... ...............35
10 Vestal Street............... ...............35.
125 M ain Street .............. ...............39....
18 Mill Street............... ...............49.
3 Coffin Street .............. ...............55....
20 Milk Street ................. ... ......... .............. .... .... .... .......5

Analysis of the Case Studies: Consequences of not Including Non-contributing
Properties in the Old Historic District............... ...............62
Consequence of Re-use ................. ...............62................
Consequence of Non-prevalence ................. ...............64........... ....
Consequence of Overlooked Significance............... ..............7
Consequence of Inconsistent Management .................. .......... .. .. ........ ... .........._..72
Proposed Criteria for Including Non-contributing Properties in a Landmark District........... 83
Revise the Building Classifications ................. .... ........ ...............83. ....
Qualifications for Historic District Commission Members............... ...............86
Restrict and Focus the Purview of the Existing Commission ................. .. ................ ..87
Establish an Overlay Ordinance and Include Secretary of Interior' s Standards .............88











Create Standards for Alterations, Additions and New Construction................ .............8
Establish Standards for Demolition ................. ...............95................
Establish Standards for Relocation ................. ...............99................
Establish a Universal Purpose .............. ...............102....
Establish Maj or and Minor Review Processes ................ ...............103........... ..
Improvements to the Design Advisory Council .............. ...............104....
Required Considerations for Appeals ................. ...............105........... ...
Summary: Case Studies and Related Issues .............. ...............105....
Application and Consequences of Proposed Criteria ................. .............................1 10

4 LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT............... ...............15


Case Study: Lake Eola Heights Historic District .............. ...............152....
223 East Concord Street ............... ... ............ ... ......... .......... ..........5
Case Study Analysis: Consequences of not Including Non-contributing Properties
in the Lake Eola Heights Historic District ................. ...............174........... .
Consequence of Perception ................. ........... ...............174 .....
Consequence of Historic Period of Significance ................. .............................175
Consequence of Reproductions ........._._ ....... ...............176........
Consequence of Plans for Future Utilization. ........._..... .... __.. ..... ..._._..........18
Proposed Criteria for Including Non-contributing Properties in a Local District ................181
Applications for the Revised Building Classifications............... ............18
Improvements to the Design Review Committee .....__................. ................. .184
Revise and Tier Standards for Demolition ................. ...............184..............
Establish Standards for Relocation.............._.... ......._.. .. ........_.._ ........ 18
Required Review for All Buildings in the District ................. ........_ ................1 86
Obj ectives and Standards for Appropriate Alterations ................. ................ ...._.186
Obj ectives and Standards for Appropriate Additions ................. .....__ ..............187
Obj ectives and Standards for New Construction ................. ....___ ................ .189
H eight ................ ............... 19.... 1....
Scale and massing .............. ...............191....
S etb ack .............. ... ..... ............... 19 1..
Rhythm of solids & voids............... ...............192.
Styles .................. ........... ........... . ... ...........19
Fenestration patterns, orientation, materials and textures, and roof shapes...........1 92
Required Considerations for Appeals ................. ...............193........... ...
Summary of Case Study and Related Issues............... ................194
Applications and Consequences of the Proposed Criteria ................ ................. ........198

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............. ...............202....

APPENDIX

A BASIC RECOMMENDATION S ................. ...............210...............

Recommendations for Ordinances....................................21
General Recommendations for All Historic Districts ................. .............................211











B STANDARDS: LANDMARK DISTRICT, THE OLD HISTORIC DISTRICT,
NANTUCKET, MASS ACHU SETT S............... .............21

Building Classifications................ ... ... .. .... .... ..... .......21
Standards for Alterations to Existing Structures in the Old Historic District. ................... ...214
Standards for Additions to Existing Structures in the Old Historic District. ................... .....220
Standards for New Construction in the Old Historic District............... ...............22
Standards for Demolition ................. ................ ...............230 .....
Step 1: Determination of Historic Viability ................. ...............231........... ..
Step 2: Future Utilization .............. ...............232....
Standards for Relocation............... ..............23


C REVISED STANDARDS: LOCAL DISTRICT, LAKE EOLA HEIGHTS HISTORIC
DISTRICT, ORLANDO, FLORIDA ................... ...............23

Building Classifications................ ... ..........23
Standards for Alterations to Existing Structures .............. ...............235....
Standards for Additions to Existing Structures .............. ...............236....
Standards for New Construction................ ............23
Standards for Demolition ................. ................ ...............239 .....
Step 1: Determination of Historic Viability .............. ...............240....
Step 2: Future Utilization .............. ...............241....
Standards for Relocation............... ..............24

D LANDMARK DISTRICT: FIGURES AND MOCK REPORTS .............. ....................24


Staff Report for 10 Vestal Street ............... ...............244...
Staff Report for 125 Main Street: Demolition............... ..............24
Staff Report for 125 Main Street: Relocation ................. ...............251........... ..

E LOCAL DISTRICT: FIGURES AND MOCK REPORT .............. ..... ............... 25


Staff Report for 223 E. Concord Street .............. ...............318............ ...

LIST OF REFERENCES ................. ...............327................

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............. ...............329....











LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

3-1 10 Vestal Street. Front elevation. ........._._ ...... .__ ...............112.

3-2 Vestal Street. Street elevation. ........._._ ...... .__ ...............112..

3-4 10 Vestal Street. Existing footprint. Courtesy of Nantucket HDC. ............. ..............114

3-5 10 Vestal Street. Proposed footprint. Courtesy of Nantucket HDC. ............. ..............11 5

3-6 125 Main Street. District Data Sheet from the "Nantucket Island Architectural and
Cultural Resources Survey"Courtesy of Nantucket HDC ............ .. ......_..........1 16

3-7 125 Main Street. Photographs depicting the side elevation. Courtesy of the Nantucket
HDC. ............ ...... __ ...............117..

3-8 125 Main Street. Proposed garage apartment and large front yard. Courtesy of
Nantucket HDC. ............ ...... ...............118..

3-9 127 Main Street. Front elevation located 10'-0" or less from the street. ......................119

3-10 125 Main Street. Hedge and fence replaced the Folk-Victorian house. 123 Main
Street in foreground. ............ ...... __ ...............119.

3-11 123 Main Street. Located 10'-0" or less from the sidewalk. ............. ......................2

3-12 Main Street. View of Main Street depicting the established site utilization. ................121

3-13 129 Main Street. House with a large front yard. ......___ ..... ... __ ......_ ......2

3-14 7 Okorwaw Way. New site for the Folk-Victorian style house ................. ................. .123

3-17 7 Okorwaw Way. Folk Victorian style house in new location. ................... ...............12

3-18 7 Okorwaw Way. Front door. .............. ...............126....

3-19 18 Mill Street. Located less than 5'-0" from the street ................. ........................127

3-20 18 Mill Street. Massing and volume are overly large. ....._____ .......___ ...............127

3-21 1 Norquarta Drive. Contributing bungalow style house that was originally located at
18 M ill Street. ............. ...............128....

3 -22 18 Mill Street. Relationship to adj acent one-story house. ................ ............ .........129

3-23 Mill Street. Sloping site condition. ............. ...............130....











3 -24 House across the street from 18 Mill Street with facade oriented to the side yard..........131

3-25 Four-bay side gable house facing the side yard. .............. ...............132....

3-26 18 Mill Street. Photograph of crisp new foundation ................. ......... ................1 33

3-27 18 Mill Street. Photograph showing the energy efficient windows. .............. .... ..........._134

3-28 1 Norquarta Drive. General setting is rural with no similarity to Mill Street. .................1 34

3-29 Norquarta Drive. General setting is rural with no similarity to Mill Street. ................... .135

3-30 Norquarta Drive. Closest structures with no similarity to the structures in the Old
Hi stori c Di stri ct ................. ...............135..............

3-3 1 3 Coffin Street. Detail of trim and color inconsistent with approved plans. ................... 136

3-32 3 Coffin Street. Photograph of front door, which lacks the light fixtures approved in
the elevations. ............. ...............137....

3-33 3 Coffin Street. Approved front elevation. ............. ...............138....

3-34 3 Coffin Street. Photograph of air-conditioning unit at second floor window. ...............139

3-35 3 Coffin Street. Footprint of new construction. ................ .............. ...._._.......140

3-36 Bartlett Farm. Rural surroundings and the poor condition of the relocated cottage........141

3-37 Bartlett Farm. Rural surroundings and the poor condition of the relocated cottage........141

3-38 Bartlett Farm. Relocated cottage in rural surroundings ................. ................ ...._.142

3-39 Bartlett Farm. Relocated cottage in rural surroundings ................. ................ ...._.142

3-40 Bartlett Farm. Relocated cottage in rural surroundings ................. ................ ...._.143

3-41 Bartlett Farm. Relocated cottage in rural surroundings ................. ................ ...._.143

3 -42 Bartlett Farm. Location of cottage. ........................... ........144

3-43 20 Milk Street. Bungalow style house. ............. ...............145....

3 -44 125 Main Street. Proposed site plan with a large front yard and rear garage
apartment ................. ...............146................

3-45 Milk Street. Houses adj acent to 20 Milk Street depict a regular and consistent street
edge. .............. ...............147....

3-46 Milk Street. Streetscape depicts a regular and consistent street edge. ................... ..........147










3-47 20 Milk Street. Proposed new location for the Bungalow style house. ...........................148

3-48 Norquarta Drive. Lot 13 proposed location for the 20 Milk Street bungalow. ................149

3-49 18 Mill Street. Adj acent one-story house with front yard. ................ ......................149

3-50 41 Liberty Street. Front elevation of the contributing building with no additions
visible. ..........._.._ ...... ...............150......

3-51 41 Liberty Street. Side elevation of contributing building with two additions visible....151

4-1 223 E. Concord Street. Non-contributing resource sheet with statement of
significance pages 1-2............... ...............200..

D-1 Article from Inquirer and Mirror with details concerning 20 Milk Street case. ..............243

D-2 10 Vestal Street. Property location in relation to outlying area. (Town of Nantucket.
(2006) Web-Based GIS: Maps and Parcel Data. ............. ...............253....

D-3 10 Vestal Street. Aerial photograph that depicts the massing along Vestal Street
(Town of Nantucket. (2006) Web-Based GIS: ...254................

D-4 10 Vestal Street. Building footprints displaying massing (Town of Nantucket. (2006)
Web-Based GIS: Maps and Parcel Data. ............. ...............255....

D-5 8 Vestal Street. Estimate of square footage (Town of Nantucket. (2006) Web-Based
GIS: Maps and Parcel Data. ........... ..... ._ ...............256.

D-6 14 Vestal Street. Estimate of square footage (Town of Nantucket. (2006) Web-Based
GIS: Maps and Parcel Data. ........... ..... ._ ...............257.

D-7 10 Vestal Street. Estimate for impervious surface ratio (Town of Nantucket. (2006)
Web-Based GIS: Maps and Parcel Data. ............. ...............258....

E-1 Historic Preservation Board staff report, pages 1-3 ......___ ... .... ._ ...............259

E-2 Criteria for Demolition from the City of Orlando Land Development Code. ................262

E-3 Lake Eola Heights Historic District Ordinance pages 1-9............... ...................6

E-4 Historic Preservation Board meeting minutes dated December 2000 pages 1-12..........272

E-5 Proposed site plan for two duplexes with garage apartments at 223 E. Concord
Street.. .........._ ..... ._ ...............284...

E-6 Addendum: Historic Preservation Board staff report March 2001 .............. ..............285

E-7 Historic Preservation Board staff report dated March 7, 2001 pages 1-7. Courtesy of...286











E-8 Proposed elevations and perspectives for two duplexes at 223 E. Concord Street..........293

E-9 Historic Preservation Board meeting minutes dated March 2001 pages 1-11 ................ .294

E-10 D efi niti on of' "Structure-Non-c ontributi ng"' from C ity of Orlando Land
Development Code............... ...............305.

E-11 Documentation of National Register of Historic Places listing ................. ................. 306

E-12 Excerpt from Lake Eola Heights Survey dated 1983. Courtesy of Orlando HPB. .........307

E-13 Excerpt from National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form dated 1980. ........308

E-14 Recommended Order for the Applicant' s Appeal pages 1-9. ................ .............. .... 309

E-15 223 E. Concord Street. .............. ...............323....

E-16 213 E. Concord Street. .............. ...............324....

E-17 229 E. Concord Street. .............. ...............325....

E-18 Arial view of 213, 223, 229 E. Concord Street............... ...............326









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Architectural Studies

NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS

By

Amy J. Stansberry

December 2006

Chair: Peter Prugh
Cochair: Herschel Shepard
Maj or Department: Architecture

A historic district is a geographic area comprised of a significant concentration of sites,

buildings, structures, or obj ects linked by past historical events, an aesthetic plan or the physical

development of the area. From an inventory of the proposed district, buildings are classified as

contributing, meaning they add to the district' s historic character, or non-contributing, meaning

they do not add to the district' s historic character. Two factors determine the classification: the

age of the building at the time the district is designated and the hi storic period of significance for

the proposed district. Buildings less than fifty years old when the district is designated and

buildings constructed after this period are generally considered non-contributing, and may be

removed from the district, either by demolition or relocation. In some districts, even buildings

classified as contributing are rendered insignificant and treated as non-contributing. With only

two possible classifications, these judgments are too absolute. Many non-contributing buildings

are significant, but presently there is no way to define how they contribute to the district.

The solution may be to eliminate the term non-contributing, use the historic period of

significance to define contributing buildings, and introduce new classifications that represent the

primary ways in which these buildings contribute. The value of non-contributing buildings, if

any exists, could be determined by examining the impact on districts where non-contributing









buildings have been removed. These buildings should be defined more accurately because non-

contributing buildings are usually replaced with new construction, sometimes heavily inspired by

the district's prevalent architectural style. The resulting environment misrepresents the past and

misleads the public with regard to the district' s authenticity. Because this practice is unrelated to

the actual mission of preservation, it must be prevented.

Therefore to examine these problems in detail, I have selected two existing historic

districts for discussion. Both were selected because of my familiarity with the districts and the

fact that they represent different levels of importance. The first district is the Old Historic

District, an important portion of the National Historic Landmark, Nantucket Island,

Massachusetts, which is important to the entire country. The second is the Lake Eola Heights

Historic District, Orlando, Florida, which is important at the local level but honored by being

listed on the National Register of Historic Places. By using two opposing districts, there is an

opportunity to set priorities based on the importance of each district.

Both districts had similar issues surrounding non-contributing buildings. In the Landmark

district, I questioned why contributing buildings of recognizable architectural style, considered

significant in other districts would be approved for removal from the Old Historic District. In the

local district, I questioned why a non-contributing building requested for demolition was not

classified as contributing. Fortunately it was determined to be architecturally significant. By

tracing these buildings through the individual review processes, it is possible to identify

modifications required to manage non-contributing buildings and related issues more effectively.

These modifications are applicable not only to these specific examples, but also to all local and

landmark historic districts throughout the nation.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Objective to Accomplish

This study investigates the term "non-contributing,"' buildings that were less than fifty

years old when the district was designated and were not built during the historic district's

designated period of significance. Currently non-contributing buildings are perceived as

insignificant to the district, which is not always true. In reality the category is composed of many

types of buildings that enrich the district in various ways. Some are an architectural style that

was unrecognized when the district was designated. Others were recently constructed and it is

too soon to fully appreciate their value. Also, some non-contributing buildings may describe the

district' s development after the historic period of significance, possess certain intrinsic values, or

support the district by their existence. Therefore, the current classifications, contributing and

non-contributing, Eixed by the designated period of significance are too rigid. I wish to determine

if the building classifications should be revised to eliminate the term non-contributing. Perhaps

new building classifications could be adopted that aptly describe how these buildings enrich the

historic district and the community. By doing so, the built environment of the historic district

would correlate to the history of the area, which is a continuum.

Path of Exploration

Due to Nantucket Island's appearance, National Historic Landmark status and the

published design guidelines, Bulikling~ \ ithl Nantucket in M~ind, I thought that the practice of

preservation would be stringent. However, when attending Historic District Commission

Meetings as a student at the University of Florida' s Preservation Institute: Nantucket, I witnessed

unmethodical decisions by the commission and a staggering volume of cases. I wondered why a

house of a recognizable architectural style, but not of the prevalent styles in the district, would be









moved out of the district. Then I questioned if similar decisions in the past had created the

pristine appearance of the district. To investigate these questions, I conducted Hyve case studies of

buildings in a portion of a National Historic Landmark, the Old Historic District, Nantucket,

Massachusetts.

While one case study investigates a non-contributing building, the other four investigate

contributing buildings. This may seem unrelated to the topic of non-contributing buildings, but

these buildings were rendered non-contributing by the way they were treated. From review of the

meeting minutes and design guidelines, I hope to understand how and why these buildings were

removed from the National Historic Landmark District. Also, I hope to determine if the new

locations were reviewed for appropriateness, review the buildings in their new location, and

determine the impact on the district where contributing buildings were replaced with new

construction. These Eindings will indicate if any deciding factors should be altered.

Due to the fact that the historic districts in Orlando, Florida lack National Historic

Landmark designation and separate published design guidelines, I thought that the practice of

preservation would be less strict than that of Nantucket Island. But after working as the Historic

Preservation Officer for the City of Orlando, I became convinced the opposite was true. The

Historic Preservation Board in Orlando, Florida was effective and thorough. When a non-

contributing building was requested for demolition, I questioned why it was not considered

contributing to the district. The house was a recognizable architectural style, celebrated in many

districts, however, it was not of the prevalent styles in this district. After extensive review and

controversy, the non-contributing building was declared architecturally significant and retained.

To investigate this question and board decision, I conducted a case study of this non-contributing

building in the Lake Eola Heights Historic District, Orlando, Florida.










I hope to understand how and why the demolition was denied and identify the factors that

formed the decision, "the non-contributing building is significant albeit outside the contributing

definition." These findings will indicate if alterations could be made to judge non-contributing

buildings by their attributes, for the benefit of all historic districts. Some of the deciding factors

consist of the following: the Overlay Ordinance for Lake Eola Heights Historic District, the Land

Development Code's Design and Demolition Standards, the requirements for preservation

commission members, a professional staff, written reports for requests, monthly meetings and a

manageable caseload.

From the case study analysis, proposed criteria can be suggested to include buildings now

classified as non-contributing and to manage all resources more effectively in most residential

historic districts. Furthermore, specific recommendations can be made for the Lake Eola Heights

Historic District in Orlando, Florida and the Old Historic District, Nantucket, Massachusetts.

Importance of Investigation

This investigation is important for two reasons. The first deals with the philosophy of

preservation, and the second deals with the actual management of historic districts. Both can be

viewed from the perspective of the district' s level of importance. For example, local Ordinances

and Design and Demolition Standards should embody the preservation philosophy and

management required for the district and should not be disregarded. However, Ordinances,

Standards and Design Guidelines at the Landmark level should be written and enforced to attain

a higher standard in the realm of preservation philosophy and management.

The mission of preservation should be authenticity both in the small realm, such as

materials, and in the large realm, such as the built environment. With this in mind the goal of the

built environment within a district' s boundary should be authentic preservation instead of a

quaint fabrication. We should be wary when we encounter the removal of an original building









with authentic material for a reproduction of a prevalent style in the district with new material.

When contributing buildings and some non-contributing buildings are moved or demolished to

improve the style in the district, this is exactly what is occurring. We must question, examine and

determine if this is appropriate preservation practice. If it is, we must define when it is

appropriate, because in most situations this practice is more related to an arbitrary form of

contemporary urban planning, far removed from preservation.

All buildings in historic districts, regardless of the district' s importance, are affected by

how they are managed. For the districts in the case studies, the amount of effective management

does not correlate to the importance of the district. Currently, while one district may strictly

adhere to management standards, another may be remiss to the point of negligence. For example

the preservation management in the landmark district is composed of: staff comments, which do

not sufficiently analyze the request; design guidelines, which do not provide direct standards; a

commission composed of non-professionals, who do not heed the advice of the professional

staff; and an overwhelming caseload. In comparison, the local district is composed of required

written reports, clear and concise standards, a board composed of professionals, and a

manageable caseload. Perhaps districts important to the entire country, National Historic

Landmark Districts, should operate at a higher standard than a district important at the local

level. Requiring this would elevate building protection at the landmark level, and the ruling body

would be held accountable. A standard procedure for preservation management should be

required for all residential historic districts, whether landmark or local.

Limitations and Parameters of the Investigation

As a former Preservation Officer I wanted to explore the main components that form

decisions on individual property requests of each historic district. Some of the components

include: enabling legislation or ordinances, design guidelines or standards for changes to










buildings, the review process, the commission or board composition, and the schedule of

meetings. By examining how and why the decisions were made, alterations can be suggested to

serve individual buildings more effectively. To fully understand the issues that surround non-

contributing buildings, I needed to use two locations that I was familiar with. However, because

it was time consuming to delve into the level of detail needed to gain this understanding, case

studies in other districts were not conducted.









CHAPTER 2
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

Definition

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the most important historic preservation

legislation ever passed by Congress, established the National Register of Historic Places. Until

this time, the historic preservation movement was centered on incredibly significant individual

landmarks. Preservation became proactive due to the National Historic Preservation Act, which

requires agencies to locate, inventory and nominate properties to the National Register of

Historic Places. This instills a responsible attitude toward the preservation of historic buildings.

The National Historic Preservation Act advocates the expansion of the register and maintenance

of the resources. After this act was passed, the Secretary of the Interior decentralized the

responsibilities of preservation (Murtagh, 1997). So in each state, there is now an appointee, a

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) that manages the directives at the state and local

level. The National Historic Preservation Act requires the documentation of significant historic

properties through grants from the State Historic Preservation Officer to local preservation

organizations (Tyler, 2000).

Consequences of Listing

Listing on the National Register of Historic Places provides a procedural protection against

federally funded, licensed, or sponsored proj ects. Under Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation must review and comment on

federal proj ects that may have an affect on National Register properties, both listed and eligible

for listing. However, this does not pertain to state, local, or privately funded projects that may

affect historic properties. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is an independent

Federal agency under the Executive branch that advises the President and Congress on historic










preservation policy. Currently the Council has twenty members including the secretaries of the

interior, transportation, housing, and urban development, and agriculture.

When a review is commenced, the federal agency that is involved in the proj ect must

identify the historic properties that may be affected, consults the State Historic Preservation

Officer or the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer to determine which properties are listed or

eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The Advisory Council determines whether

the proposed proj ect will have no effect, no adverse effect, or an adverse affect. If an adverse

affect is anticipated, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation consults with the State

Historic Preservation Officer and others to determine how to minimize the negative affect. This

results in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which outlines the mitigating measures to be

taken. If the Memorandum of Agreement is executed, the agency can proceed with the proj ect

under its terms (Tyler, 2000). So, this review process cannot halt federal proj ects, but there is

consideration for properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

There are misconceptions about listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Listing

on the National Register does not restrict what private citizens can do with their property and

their own funds (Murtagh, 1997). Property owners are free to maintain, manage, or dispose of

the listed property as they choose. If they wish, they can even prevent their property being listed

on the National Register of Historic Places by formally obj ecting (Ditchfield and Wood, 1995).

In this case, the property categorized as eligible for listing, rather than listed. However, this does

not prevent historic property laws from applying.

National Register properties enj oy many tax benefits. For properties listed on the register,

rehabilitation is encouraged for income producing historic properties that meet preservation

standards through tax incentives (Tyler, 2000). Property owners in a National Register Historic









District are eligible for a 20% rehabilitation tax credit on historic and non-historic buildings used

in trade, business, or production of income. This does not pertain to residential historic properties

used for a primary residence. The proposed rehabilitation's must adhere to the Secretary

Standards for Historic Preservation and be substantial. Substantial means the taxpayer' s

expenditures must be greater of the "adjusted basis" of the building, or $5,000 during any 24-

month period. The "adjusted basis" is the purchase price plus the amount of previous capital

improvements. This figure is then reduced by the depreciation deductions taken already. The

basis does not include the land value (Boyle, 1996). Furthermore, there are actually federal

income tax disincentives for the demolition of income producing property listed on the National

Register of Historic Places (Tyler, 2000).

Because of the concern that historic designation would give the federal government new

powers over individual property owners, the designation provisions in the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 did not allow for any direct federal regulatory power over private

properties. In fact, since the 1980 amendment to the Act, such listing can only be done after

notice to the owner is and provided the owner does not obj ect. If an owner obj ects, a historically

significant property would be listed as "Register Eligible"(Tyler, 2000).

Properties can lose their historic designation. Reasons for dedesignation range from an

unsympathetic renovation, neglect or an act of nature, but the result is the property's loss of

character defining features. The procedure for removal depends upon the ordinance for

designation. However, preservation law recommends there be a recession procedure.

National Register Criteria

In order to define a National Register Historic District (NRHD), one must understand the

National Register of Historic Places and historic districts. The National Register of Historic









Places is a list of historic and cultural resources with national, state, or local significance. The

specific criteria for listing on the National Register is defined as follows:

The quality of national significance is ascribed to districts, sites, buildings, structures, and
obj ects that possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage
of the United States in history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture and that
possess a high degree of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling, and association, and:

1. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to, and are
identified with, or that outstandingly represent, the broad national patterns of United States
history and from which an understanding and appreciation of those patterns may be gained;


2. That are associated importantly with the lives of persons nationally significant in the
history of the United States; or

3. That represent some great idea or ideal of the American people; or

4. That embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen
exceptionally valuable for a study of a period, style or method of construction, or that
represent a significant, distinctive and exceptional entity whose components may lack
individual distinction; or

5. That are composed of integral parts of the environment not sufficiently significant by
reason of historical association or artistic merit to warrant individual recognition but
collectively compose an entity of exceptional historical or artistic significance, or
outstandingly commemorate or illustrate a way of life or culture; or

6. That have yielded or may be likely to yield information of maj or scientific importance
by revealing new cultures, or by shedding light upon periods of occupation over large areas
of the United States. Such sites are those which have yielded, or which may reasonably be
expected to yield, data affecting theories, concepts and ideas to a maj or degree. (National
Park Service. (2002). National Register Bulletin 15: Criteria for Evaluation, Retrieved on
July 2006 from http://www.cr. np s.gov/nr/publi cati ons/bulletins/nrbl5 /nrbl15_9.htm)

Listing a Resource on the National Register

Before a district, site, building, structure or obj ect is listed, the resource is carefully

documented using a Registration Form, which can be obtained from the State Historic

Preservation Officer (SHPO). Citizens or organizations interested in the preservation of the

resource may initiate the process and prepare the forms, but the State Historic Preservation

Officer actually nominates the resource to the National Register of Historic Places. Each state









has a professional board that reviews nominations. They make a recommendation of eligibility to

the Keeper of the National Register, who conducts a review. Pending this approval, the resource

is listed (Boyle, 1996).

The purpose of collecting information on the resource is to determine the historic

significance. The historic significance of a resource must be based on one of four categories.

These are association with historic events or activities, association with important persons,

distinctive design or physical characteristics, or potential to provide important information about

prehistory or history. Obviously, the historic resource must meet at least one of these categories.

The general rule is that a resource is not considered historic until it is at least fifty years old.

Every Registration Form requires a resource to be placed within a historic context. Context

is the period, place, and the cultural events that created or influenced the resource. The historic

context links the resource to the big picture, the community, state or nation. In describing historic

context, association and period of significance are important factors. Association is how the

property relates to the chosen historic significance category, listed above. The association should

be direct. For example, if the property is significant for the association with significant people,

the person must have lived there, worked there, or been there when he/she achieved the

significant accomplishment. Period of significance is the time span during which the significant

events or activities occurred (National Park Service, National Register Bulletin, 1997).

Most importantly, all resources must possess integrity, the authenticity of physical

characteristics directly related to the property's significance. When a resource retains its

character-defining features, there is a clear relationship to the significant event, person, or

design. However, if the structure has been drastically altered or most of the historic material has

been removed, it may not be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.









Historic integrity is based on seven factors: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,

feeling, and association. The Register Form records the property as it is at the time of listing and

justifies how the property qualifies for the National Register of Historic Places. Additional

general information is required like the location, size, and boundaries of the property. Also, after

all resources have been evaluated the number of contributing resources is represented in a

percentage verse the total number of properties. The property's historic use and current use,

architectural and material classification are also recorded.

National Historic Landmark Districts

A resource listed on the National Register can be placed in a special category at the

National level and known as a National Historic Landmark (NHL). These properties are of

exceptional value to the nation as a whole, but this listing is honorific. However, National

Historic Landmark designation may provide a higher degree of protection from federal actions

(Tyler, 2000). This protection is procedural and would take action at the National level. National

Historic Landmarks are defined as buildings, sites, districts, structures, and objects that have

been determined by the Secretary of the Interior to be nationally significant in American history

and culture. This is the highest form of designation (Tyler, 2000). The specific criteria for listing

on the National Register as a National Historic Landmark is defined as follows:

The quality of national significance is ascribed to districts, sites, buildings, structures and
obj ects that possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage
of the United States in history, architecture, archeology, technology and culture; and that
possess a high degree of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling, and association, and:

(1) That is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to, and are
identified with, or that outstandingly represents, the broad national patterns of United
States history and from which an understanding and appreciation of those patterns may be
gained; or

(2) That are associated importantly with the lives of persons nationally significant in the
history of the United States; or









(3) That represent some great idea or ideal of the American people; or


(4) That embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen
exceptionally valuable for the study of a period, style or method of construction, or that
represent a significant, distinctive and exceptional entity whose components may lack
individual distinction; or

(5) That are composed of integral parts of the environment not sufficiently significant by
reason of historical association or artistic merit to warrant individual recognition but
collectively compose an entity of exceptional historical or artistic significance, or
outstandingly commemorate or illustrate a way of life or culture; or

(6) That have yielded or may be likely to yield information of maj or scientific importance
by revealing new cultures, or by shedding light upon periods of occupation over large areas
of the United States. Such sites are those which have yielded, or which may reasonably be
expected to yield, data affecting theories, concepts and ideas to a maj or degree.

Ordinarily, cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by
religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from
their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings and properties that have achieved
significance within the past 50 years are not eligible for designation. Such properties,
however, will quality if they fall within the following categories:

(1) A religious property deriving its primary national significance from architectural or
artistic distinction or historical importance; or

(2) A building or structure removed from its original location but which is nationally
significant primarily for its architectural merit, or for association with persons or events of
transcendent importance in the Nation's history and the consequential association; or

(3) A site of a building or structure no longer standing but the person or event associated
with it is of transcendent importance in the Nation's history and the consequential
association; or

(4) A birthplace, grave, or burial if it is of a historical figure of transcendent national
significance and no other appropriate site, building or structure directly associated with the
productive life of that person exists; or

(5) A cemetery that derives its primary national significance from graves of persons of
transcendent importance, or from an exceptionally distinctive design or from an
exceptionally significant event; or

(6) A reconstructed building or ensemble of buildings of extraordinary national
significance when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a
dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other buildings or
structures with the same association have survived; or









(7) A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic
value has invested it with its own national historical significance; or

(8) A property achieving national significance within the past 50 years if it is of
extraordinary national importance. (National Park Service. (2006). National Historic
Landmarks Program: Questions and Answers, Retrieved on March 2006 from
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/QA.htm#1)

About 2,200 sites, which are about 3% of the properties on the National Register are

National Historic Landmarks (Tyler, 2000, p. 106). As an example Central High School, in Little

Rock, Arkansas, is nationally significant because it was the site of the first maj or confrontation

over implementation of the Supreme Court's 1954 decision outlawing racial segregation in public

schools. The city's resistance led to President Eisenhower's decision to send Federal troops to

enforce desegregation at this school in 1957 (National Park Service. (2006). National Historic

Landmarks Program: Questions and Answers, Retrieved on March 2006 from

http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/QA.htm#1).

The National Park Service identifies these National Historic Landmarks through theme

studies, which analyze properties associated with a specific area of American history. The

National Park Service evaluates the historic importance of potential Landmarks through a

National Park System Advisory Board public meeting twice a year. The Advisory Board consists

of citizens who are national and community leaders in the conservation of natural, historic, and

cultural areas. Recommendations by the Advisory Board are made to the Secretary of the Interior

on potential National Historic Landmarks. Final decisions regarding National Historic Landmark

designation are made by the Secretary of the Interior. Designation may be delayed if the

Advisory Board or the Secretary of the Interior raises questions regarding the significance,

physical condition, or boundaries of a potential Landmark. The process for Landmark

designation is similar to listing a property in the National Register (National Park Service.










(2006). National Historic Landmarks Program: Questions and Answers, Retrieved on March

2006 from http://www.cr. np s.gov/nhl/QA.htm# 1).

Local Historic Districts

The maj ority of properties listed on the National Register are primarily of state and local

significance. The impact of this listing is restricted to a regional or smaller geographic area. For

example, many historic schools are listed on the National Register because of the historically

important role they played in educating individuals in the community or state in which they are

located. In layman' s terms a historic district is a neighborhood. The National Register of Historic

Places defines a historic district as,"A geographically definable area urban or rural, large or

small possessing a significant concentration, linkage or continuity of sites, buildings, structures,

and or obj ects united by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical development" (Murtagh,

1997, p. 103). Prior to the establishment of a historic district, an inventory is taken of the

structures within the district, meaning each structure is photographed and researched. From this

information, a structure is classified as contributing, meaning it adds to the historic character of

the district, or non-contributing, meaning it does not add to the historic character of the district.

The creation of a district is justified when a grouping of buildings has at least one unifying factor

that links all or most of the buildings within the boundaries. The factor the group of buildings

represents could be an architectural period, style, or an important era in the community's history.

In some cases a noncontiguous district may be supported if the unifying factor is early

settlement. However, the boundaries are substantially contorted, which does not capture the

sense of place (Tyler, 2000).

The boundaries of a district are important. Natural features and edges are probably the

most common forms of setting up boundaries. Early settlement patterns are a logical solution for

defining boundaries. If these patterns are not obvious today, early maps and descriptions can be









examined. Sometimes boundaries are simply reactionary, drawn to protect a historic area from

adj acent development (Tyler, 2000). Some boundaries are considered inclusive; meaning the

study committee has included more area, rather than less. The committee does this to include

every single historic property. Unfortunately this weakens the historic properties within the

boundaries, because the boundaries should have as much integrity as possible. They should have

some basis in logic. It is usually better to be more selective and restrict boundaries to the smallest

area that retains the strongest elements of the district' s goals. The State Historic Preservation

Officer considers approval for proposed districts by examining the ratio of historic properties to

non-historic properties. The higher the proportion of historic structures, the more likely the

historic district will be supported. The State Historic Preservation Officer does not recommend

gerrymandering the boundaries of a district to achieve the highest ratio possible (Tyler, 2000).

However, some ordinances cover a large portion of a city to give the commission as much

latitude for review as possible. In the Ypsilanti Historic District Ordinance, the district included

many non-significant structures because they were seen as part of the context to the surrounding

historic structures (Tyler, 2000). When submitting documentation for a proposed historic district,

the National Register of Historic Places requires certain information. First, a written statement of

the historic significance of the area is required. Second a map that shows the proposed district

boundaries and justification for the placement of the boundaries. Third, the percentage of

structures that contribute to the character of the proposed district versus the number of non-

contributing buildings must be calculated and a map locating the buildings in each category. The

percentage of contributing structures from that total number of structures determines whether the

proposed district qualifies as a historic district. Fourth, detailed descriptions of the individual










buildings in the area need to be recorded. Lastly, photographs of significant historic structures

and typical streetscapes (Tyler, 2000).

There are many reasons historic districts are created. In Norman Tyler's book, Historic

Preservation, he identifies motivation such as: to protect against a specific threat of

development, to encourage development in an older area, a tool of maintaining property values,

to improve the image of a community at large. At the heart of historic districts, there should be

history and we may have lost sight of this idea. While there are other valid reasons for creating a

district, preservationists should concentrate districts that are created simply for the history they

represent.

In some situations, a district may comprise noncontiguous sites or structures if they have a
common theme. Perhaps the structures representing early settlement, for example, are
scattered across a city. In this case, trying to collect the significant buildings within one
physical district would mean a substantial contortion of the boundary lines. A thematic
district made of noncontiguous elements may be the most appropriate approach, but this is
relatively rare, since it does not capture the sense of place, an important factor. (Tyler,
2000, p. 68)

One must question why a current sense of place is such an important factor if there is a

physical record of significant history.

Historic District Ordinances

A local ordinance may establish a Historic District Commission, who defines what

activities within the historic district are subj ect to review. The activities usually include exterior

alterations, additions, new construction, and demolition. The extent of control is a decision made

by the local community through its legislative body (Tyler, 2000). Owners of structures within

the historic district must obtain a Certifieate of Appropriateness for the work they plan to do

before a building permit can be issued. The historic commission' s approval or denial of the

request is based on criteria established in the ordinance. Historic District ordinances are often

overlay ordinances, which build on existing zoning ordinance.









Characteristics of Effective Ordinances. An effective ordinance will stand up to legal

challenges if it includes six factors. First the ordinance should adhere to the provisions of the

state enabling legislation and provide for local concerns. Second the ordinance should be

predictable in its application by the review agency. This allows property owners to be reasonably

certain of approval if provided clear and direct standards. If the approval by the commission is

unpredictable, the ordinance is either weak in composition or interpretation. Third an ordinance

should not be too vague. If so, approvals are based on the discretion of the commission or

sometimes the dynamics of the commission. Fourth ordinances must reference the standards and

guidelines by the Secretary of Interior. This helps to insure that the local commission does not

misinterpret the ordinance. The Secretary of Interiors Standards are nationally recognized for

determining appropriate alterations and additions. Commissions should work together to

formulate an understanding of what is appropriate design (Tyler, 2000). Fifth ordinances should

not attempt to define property maintenance provisions, which allows for a commission to take

action against an owner that fails to maintain a property. And finally the body that is responsible

for the enforcement should do so consistently. The code enforcement department is usually

granted this power. It is imperative for preservation staff to forge a good working relationship

with the inspector assigned to overseeing historic districts. If the inspector is selective in

enforcement, an owner may claim he has been singled out. "The argument may be awkward for

the commission or the city to counter, but the courts generally defer to commissions as expert

bodies, and failure to enforce in one case is not a legal defense in another" (Tyler, 2000, p. 75).

A historic district ordinance is a legal document and must follow requirements of the state

and local government. It should be evaluated according to three basic provisions. First, its

purpose should promote public welfare, written to benefit the community rather than a select










group of property owners. Second the ordinance should be rational, and third the ordinance

should be fair, applying to everyone equally within a specified group (Tyler, 2000).

Example of an Effective Ordinance. The Lake Eola Heights Historic District Ordinance

describes the area, as one of Orlando' s oldest and most architecturally significant. Originally a

citrus grove, residential development took place after the freeze of 1894. The ordinance does not

use the terms non-contributing and/or contributing. Rather than restrict itself to buildings that

were fifty years or older when the district was designated, the ordinance discusses what is

architecturally significant. The prevalent architectural styles built in the district and their

corresponding dates are identified, but the styles are not limited to this list, "ranging in

significant styles but not limited to..." (Lake Eola Heights Historic District Ordinance, 1989, p.

1). The purpose of the ordinance is, "to protect and preserve the elements which contribute to the

architectural and historic significance of the neighborhood..." (Lake Eola Heights Historic

District Ordinance, 1989, p. 1). The preservation philosophy for the district is proclaimed, "the

historic and architectural significance of the Lake Eola Heights neighborhood has been achieved

over time and the growth and development of this neighborhood is part of the history of Orlando

which is worthy of protection..." (Lake Eola Heights Historic District Ordinance, 1989, p. 2).

The concepts of significance achieved over time and growth and development worthy of

protection are the essence of preservation. This statement continues,

this ordinance seeks to maintain and preserve what is unique to the neighborhood by
preventing future growth that is incompatible with surrounding structures and
neighborhood and assure changes within the neighborhood will be compatible with the
historic character of the structures and the environment of the Lake Eola Heights
neighborhood. (Lake Eola Heights Historic District Ordinance, 1989, p. 2)

A Certificate of Appropriateness must be acquired before a building permit is issued for

exterior alteration, construction, or demolition, "according to Chapter 58 of the Orlando City

Code" (Lake Eola Heights Historic District Ordinance, 1989, p. 3). When an ordinance builds off









the existing zoning, it is called an Overlay Ordinance. Because the District Ordinances take

precedence over requirements in the Land Development Code, exceptions specific to the district

are listed. For example walkways and patios not subj ect to view, landscaping, emergency repair

without change to exterior design, and paint color are not reviewed in this district. For the same

reason there are certain items specific to the district that are allowed like chain link fences in the

rear yard and the permission for Historic Preservation Board to "adopt additional legally valid

guidelines and criteria as it deems appropriate" (Lake Eola Heights Historic District Ordinance,

1989, p. 7). Therefore the Ordinance can be updated or changed as needed if approved by City

Council.

Evolving from the district' s stated purpose, the Historic Preservation Board is reminded to,

" seek compatibility of structures in the district in terms of size, texture, scale and site plan" and

to consider the Secretary of Interior' s "Standards for Rehabilitation" when considering requests

for Certifieates of Appropriateness (Lake Eola Heights Historic District Ordinance, 1989, p. 4).

The authors recognized that the Land Development Code would allow construction inappropriate

to the character of the neighborhood. The ordinance' s demolition criteria correspond to the

Criteria for Demolition in the Design and Demolition Standards defining fiye criteria most

important to the Lake Eola Heights Historic District and omitting the category of existing

conditions or maintenance and economic hardship. Considering future utilization the ordinance

requires a "substantial plan" for the site, but exactly what drawings should be submitted and

what level of detail is required is not indicated. Finally the Lake Eola Heights Historic District

Ordinance was accepted May 22, 1989, which is the date of designation for the district.

Oppositions to Ordinances. Opposition to the establishment of a historic district comes

from several sources. Existing departments within local government may fear losing power or









not want the extra work. The City or County may not be willing to allocate additional funds for a

new department. If institutions have a stake in the property, they may not be in favor of a historic

district (Tyler, 2000). However, most opposition comes from homeowners in the proposed

district, who have two concerns.

First homeowners obj ect to design guidelines and standards that control alterations to the

exterior of their house. They believe obj ective standards for beauty or appearance is impossible,

because "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Therefore they see the legislation of aesthetics

subjective and arbitrary. Homeowners accept land use zoning, such as building codes, because

they know it protects their general welfare, health and safety. This is also accepted because it

does not impose restrictions on landowners regarding the aesthetic appearance of the built

environment. The courts have agreed that the preservation of historic districts meets the zoning

criteria of protecting the public welfare, health and safety. Although some homeowners of

proposed districts have no problem with guidelines and standards that preserve what currently

exists. They take issue with the guidelines and standards for additions and new construction,

basically the changes to the existing built environment. Property owners view these changes as

arbitrary. Admittedly some alterations to districts are far from the intent of preservation, and are

really closer to a contemporary form of urban planning.

Second homeowners oppose the creation of a historic district and feel it is a "taking," the

government is restricting the their rights to use or develop the property without compensation for

the loss in value. The opposition from the property owners is usually representative of the degree

of control being proposed. Obviously the key is to educate and persuade property owners that the

positive aspects of historic districts outweigh the negatives.









If the designation of an historic district were successful, the ideal board or commission

would be composed of an impartial panel of individuals who are knowledgeable of local history,

architectural history, and preservation. They should make judgements on requests for change

within the district (Tyler, 2000). Because members of a historic commission or board are

sometimes not required to be knowledgeable or not interested in becoming so, design guidelines

are helpful for visual instruction. Design Guidelines are defined as, "Criteria, locally developed,

which identify local design concerns, drawn up in an effort to assist property owners to respect

and maintain the character of the designated district..." (Murtagh, 1997, p. 216). Although in

some districts knowledgeable staff can serve this purpose by a personal consultation with the

applicants regarding their design request.

Historic Preservation is most effective at the local level because this is where ordinances

are created and proposals for changes to historic structures are reviewed. Property owners deal

directly with the historic preservation officer or planner and then with the Historic Preservation

Commission or Board. This is where the real protective power is found. The idea that the

community should determine for itself what is historically significant, and what steps should be

taken to provide protection encourages a comfortable and uncontroversial environment (Tyler,

2000). The concept here is understandable, the residents take ownership of the district and its

history. However, this is a conflict of interest for citizens to make decisions about what is

historically significant. Besides the fact that they may lack knowledge of the area' s history or

general preservation practices, their own property is at stake. Surely limitations that could be

placed on their property will effect their decisions. While this approach may be Eine for local

historic districts, the government should step in and make judgement calls for National

Landmark Districts.









CHAPTER 3
LANDMARK DISTRICT

Case Studies: Old Historic District

The citizens of Nantucket Island created the Nantucket Historic District in 1955. In 1966

the National Park Service designated the town of Nantucket a National Historic Landmark and

listed it on the National Register of Historic Places (Lang and Stout, 1995). Because of

incompatible new construction, the Nantucket Historic District Commission was formed to

review and approve all construction on the island with design guidelines, Bulikling~ \ ithl

Nantucket in M~ind (Lang and Stout, 1995). Originally the area under the Commission's purview

was restricted to two main districts of Nantucket and Siasconset, but in 1975 this was extended

to include the entire island of Nantucket (Lang and Stout, 1995). In 2000, the National Trust for

Historic Preservation placed Nantucket on its list of "America' s 11 Most Endangered Places"

due to, "the trend to renovate historic structures out of existence" (National Park Service. (2006).

National Landmarks Program: Search for a NHL, Retrieved on September 2006 from

http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?Resouc ld-8&ResourceType=District). These case studies

investigate properties located in the town of Nantucket, the Old Historic District.

10 Vestal Street

The dwelling at 10 Vestal Street was surveyed in August of 1989 by AGS. Per the

Inventory Form, the ownership history of the dwelling is unknown. This is a one-story weathered

shingle dwelling was built circa 1930. It has a concrete foundation, composition shingle side

gable roof, and a center unpainted brick chimney. Other architectural features include a central

flush frame entry, plain corner boards and six-over-six windows. The structure is noted as being

located in a densely built residential area of the Old Historic District. The significance of the

house to the National Register Historic District is non-contributing.









Request for relocation. Application #3 8,05 1: May 4, 2001: Request to Demolish or

Move Building. The existing building is recorded as being 26' in length and 29' in width with a

total square footage of 648 SF. The application differs from the inventory form, listing the date

of construction as 1956 (one-room house) with an addition in 1966. Also the applicant lists the

original builder as his grandmother. There are no staff comments attached to this application.

However, a plan of the existing site was submitted with the application, which depicts the

dwelling about 12'-0" from the sidewalk, 17'-0" from the left side property line, and 12'-0" from

the right side property line.

The Historic District Commission approved this application and issued the Certificate of

Appropriateness #3 8,05 1 on May 22, 2001.

Personal critique. The HDC review of the non-contributing property and the new

location was not critiqued, because the available paperwork did not note a proposed location.

Request for new construction. Application #3 8,050: May 4, 2001: Description of work

to be performed: Request to construct a two-story dwelling in the Old Historic District. The

structure is proposed to be 48'-0" in length and the 46'-0" in width. The proposed square footage

of the first floor is 173 1 SF and 1300 SF on the second floor with a 15' by 24' deck. The

proposed ridge height is 26'-0" above the finished grade in each direction.

The applicants propose an 8" poured concrete foundation to be painted gray and a

chimney constructed of"used red" brick. The proposed roofing material is gray asphalt

architectural shingles with wood gutters and 4" by 4" leaders. The proposed exterior treatment is

white cedar shingles and trim painted white. Other proposed architectural details are 1" by 6"

corner boards, double hung windows with true divided lights and sashes painted gray. The front

door is proposed to be six panel with sidelights and the rear door will be a french door, both










painted gray. The applicants propose a wood-applied overhead garage door and a gravel

driveway. The Historic District Commission approved the application and Certificate #38,050

issued May 22, 2001.

HDC review of the proposed new construction. This Certificate of Appropriateness

was not discussed at the HDC meeting. There were no staff comments or meeting minutes in

case folder.

Personal critique of the proposed new construction. The guidelines define a non-

contributing structure as, "a building which is not an intrusion but does not add to a historic

districts sense of time, place and historic development" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 21). Therefore,

10 Vestal Street meets the criteria for demolition under the second standard listed, "the structure

is a protected structure by virtue of its presence in the historic district but is non-contributing to

the district" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 21).

In spite of its classification as non-contributing, 10 Vestal Street is a small cottage

(Figure 3-1). It is wedged between a gable one-story dwelling and a two-story Federal style

house (Figure 3-2). This cottage provides a stop in the rhythm of the street. One could argue the

structure adds to the sense of place, you are not in the midst of town but on the edge of the Old

Historic District about to enter the outlying area. Even with some two-story dwellings sprinkled

intermittently this idea is evident. The decision to replace the cottage with a Federal-like two-

story house affects the perception of the town' s historic density. Stylistically, the proposed

building is a 2-1/2-story house with three bays as seen in the proposed front elevation (Figure 3-

3). The front door is off-center with sidelights and the chimney located at the side of the main

mass. The exterior sheathing is clapboard with 6/6 windows. These are subtle characteristics of









the early Federal style, commonly seen in town. A small cottage like 10 Vestal Street in this

location provides a distinct sense of place.

Since the mass and location of the 70 year-old cottage is not a consideration in planning

for new construction, the guidelines for Building in the Historic Town of Nantucket consider site

planning, bulk, proportion and scale, and massing. The size of the proposed new construction

may detract from Old Historic District' s actual sense of time, place and historic development.

There will be a definite impact on the context of Vestal Street by replacing a 1930 one-story

dwelling of 648 SF (Figure 3-4) with a two-story dwelling of 3,030 SF (Figure 3-5). The

proposed square footage is more than 4.5 times that of the existing building. Interestingly, the

guidelines do not address this issue directly. However, if more strictly applied, the

recommendation concerning scale would make a difference. "Any new construction in the town

should be on a scale compatible with that of adj acent buildings. Also the scale of spaces between

buildings should be carefully considered" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 67). If applied to what

existed previously, the latter statement here, "scale of spaces between buildings" could prove

useful in the preserving the Old Historic Districts sense of place.

The increase in the overall size of the building will be further impacted because the

building's setback is less. While the 1930-era house was located about 12' from the sidewalk

(Figure 3-4), the new construction will be about 7' from the sidewalk (Figure 3-5). From the

guidelines, "on a street of generally aligned facades, it is recommended that any new

construction conform to the predominant height of the facades of the existing buildings on the

street. In any case, no new construction should be more than 10% taller in either its facade or

overall height than the tallest building on the block on which it is to be built" (Lang and Stout,

1995). While the proposal may actually meet these criteria, one should require the height and









mass of the proposed construction be more visually compatible with adj acent dwellings to help

preserve the sense of place.

Additional guidelines could consider the qualities of a non-contributing structure. The

mere presence of the structure could be preserving aspects important to the district' s sense of

time, place and historic development. For example, if the footprint of a building were preserved,

it would help maintain massing important to the sense of place and the area' s density. Non-

contributing structures can function as a bookmark and hold a place in the built fabric. Non-

contributing buildings are usually visually obvious, as non-originals, but new construction in the

form of a reproduction cannot be easily read as a new addition.

125 Main Street

The dwelling at 125 Main Street was surveyed in August of 1989 by AGS. Per the

Inventory Form, the ownership of the building is private. The one-and-three-quarter tall wood

frame dwelling is clad with horizontal weathered siding and has a brick foundation. The gable

roof is characterized by extended eaves and exposed rafter tails. The roof is sheathed with

composition shingles. There are two unpainted, corbeled chimneys located off-center. The

dwelling has a one-story side porch oriented toward the facade. Other architectural features

include an off-center front door, plain corner boards and two-over-two windows. It is noted that

a side rear shed extension was added at some point in time.

The last page of the Inventory Form is missing from the Historic District Commission

files. This page records the significance of the structure to the National Register Historic District.

However, a separate document entitled, "Nantucket Island Architectural and Cultural Resources

Survey, District Data Sheet," lists all the properties in the district by address, and classifies 125

Main Street as contributing to the National Register Historic District. It also indicates this

structure existed by 1887 (Figure 3-6).










Request for relocation. Application #30,010: February 6, 1997: Request to Demolish

"or give away- 1895 to 1900 non-contributing building." The applicant noted the portion in

quotes. A site plan of the property was submitted with the application. The site is located on the

corner of Main Street and Quarter Mill Hill. It depicts an 8'-0" setback from the sidewalk.

This application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was presented to the HDC for four

times before being issued. This is the sequence of comments from the HDC meeting minutes.

February 11, 1997: Application for demolition presented to Historic District Commission.
The following staff comments were read, "Request advertising for potential move.
Housing Authority does not have use for it. Hold for consideration with proposed new
structure. Request for black and white photos." The following comment was made, "Mr.
Avery observed that this house is very typical of Victorian infill architecture. He said he
did not understand why it would not be contributing." Next a motion was made and
seconded to hold the application for viewing.

February 18, 1997: Application reintroduced. Ms. Butler states that "the purchaser of the
property, Wayne Dupont, is offering $3,000 to help someone move the house." Ms. Deeley
stated that she had a problem with the house being demolished and thought it was
"somewhat contributing". At this point Mr. Avery said that he did think the house would
be reused. Ms. Deeley then added, "Let' s see what [Mr. Dupont] is going to put in its
place". Motion and second to hold both applications until '/" drawings of the new scheme
are submitted.

March 4, 1997: Lack of quorum.

On March 11, 1997 the HDC approved and issued Certificate of Appropriateness #30,010

with a sixty-day hold on demolition allowing someone to move the structure for reuse.

According to the Historic District Commission meeting minutes, the approval of the demolition

was based on the "lack of historical or architectural significance."

Personal critique of the HDC review of non-contributing property and new location.

From HDC meeting minutes on February 18, 1997 in response to the question of the structure

being considered historic, Mr. Avery says he thinks the house will be reused. The issue of reuse

is separate from the issue of historic significance in a historic district the issue of reuse should

only be considered if the building is deemed to be insignificant.










Also, the next statement,"Let' s see what [Mr. Dupont] is going to put in its [the house' s]

place" leads one to think, if presented with an appropriate design, the house may not be that

historic. The obj ective to create an appropriately designed Nantucket-like dwelling in order that

the Victorian style house is not missed is faulty. When the discussion approaches this point, the

question of historic viability must be answered first. By making a determination on the historic

si gni fi chance of the structure, y ou prevent pitti ng the HD C agai nst the archite ct/owner/appli cant

in a contest for design appropriateness. This scenario affects both non-contributing and

contributing buildings. When dealing with the latter they are not usually of the style favored in

the district. In this case we have a Folk Victorian style structure in a district where the Typical

Nantucket style, Federal style and Greek Revival style houses are favored.

From the HDC meeting minutes on March 11, 1997, the "lack of historical or

architectural significance" is a failure of the HDC to fulfill its purpose. If the HDC cannot

research a historic property, the applicant who wishes to remove the structure will not. The HDC

should research the property and examine the guidelines for determining the future of this

structure. Each decision impacting a singular structure also impacts the district. The guidelines

provide an overview the HDC should follow in case by case decisions. "While there is no single

appropriate style for the island, as indicated by the diversity of its buildings, understanding the

continuity of development and relatedness of the styles described will exemplify the legacy

shared by all Nantucket buildings"(Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 37). For example, the Victorian

style has an exact context in Nantucket' s history. "In the end, the economic collapse of the

isolated island in the 1850s, when whaling succumbed to the discoveries of oil and gold, was

responsible for the unique preservation and integrity of the town today. Only in the late 1800s,

when well-to-do people sought out unspoiled Nantucket as a summer resort, were numbers of









new houses built again" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 35-36). In addition, "As the community turned

to the summer resort trade, a few of these Victorian houses were built in town" (Lang and Stout,

1995, p. 44). One-twenty-five Main Street is physical evidence of the, "continuity of

development" within this historical context. Without examples like 125 Main Street there is no

"relatedness of the style" to witness. The guidelines feature 73 Main Street, another example of

the Victorian style in the same vicinity. From this we can conclude the dwelling at 125 Main

Street is not an anomaly.

The property at 125 Main Street is an example of the Folk Victorian style (Figure 3-7).

This style is characterized by Victorian details applied to a simple house form. The structure is

one of the principal sub-types of Folk Victorian, a gable front and wing form, creating an

asymmetrical facade. Located at the front wing is a one-story front porch. Typical of Folk

Victorian, the porch is set within the L. The porch is usually the primary area for the application

of Victorian detailing, however the railing detail is minimal with an "x" motif. Other

characteristics of the style are simple pediments above the window and door surrounds and two-

over-two double hung windows.

Request for new construction. Application #unknown: January 22, 1998: Request for

new dwelling. The basic volume of the two-story dwelling is proposed to be 32' in length and

28' in width. The proposed square footage of the first floor is 896 SF and 780 SF for the second

floor. This is a total of 1676 SF. The proposed height of the roof ridge is 24' in all directions.

The applicants propose a 6"-8" deep parged block foundation. The proposed exterior

treatment is natural cedar shingles with white trim. The main roof and dormer roof is proposed to

be charcoal gray asphalt shingles at a pitch of 8 over 12 with wood gutters and downspouts. The










applicants propose double hung windows with true divided lights. The proposed front door and

garage door will be a wood. The proposed driveway material is shell.

Certificate #32,087: At the same meeting the approval to move the existing building from

125 Main Street was issued. However, the NHA' s application to move the same building to 7

Okorwaw Avenue was held for a viewing. The commission has approved the building relocation

without a specific location.

HDC review of new construction. These are pertinent excerpts from meetings.

From the HDC meeting minutes: January 27, 1998, Staff comments: "Recommend referral
to DAC (Design Advisory Council). The massing is not appropriate, particularly at the
front. The structure being set back from the street is atypical of Main Street houses."

January 27, 1998: HDC meeting minutes: Application introduced. "Twig Perkins attended
and stated that this design is intended to compliment the Rhodes House at 127 Main Street.
He explained the property was acquired by the Rhodes so their house could have a large
yard." The above staff comments were read. Then, Ms. Hall states, "If the proposed
structure is an outbuilding, it should match the main house." Mr. Avery then adds,
"Although the front dwelling is inappropriate for a second dwelling facing Main Street-
there are bigger issues at stake here than just the design," referring to the pattern of siting
on the street. At this point a motion was made and seconded for referral to the DAC.

February 3, 1998, Design Advisory Council Meeting Memorandum: The HDC members
present where D.Neil Parent and Duncan Fog. Their comments on the design where to
create a "carriage house" character with simple forms. They recommend a shed dormer on
the front elevation with a smaller shed roof over the entry. They state the massing is not
inappropriate, if "a more rural form is developed". In conclusion, they advise to see the
open lot and for it to be landscaped appropriately.

March 31, 1998, Staff Comments: Staff critiques the current proposed plans both as a main
residence and a garage apartment. For a main residence Staff recommends, Gable
dormers are the preferred type on the front [elevation], recommend gable type set back one
foot from the wall plane as recommended by the guidelines." For a garage apartment Staff
recommends, "Triple mulled 12/12 double hung windows are not appropriate to a simple
carriage house structure." Then staff continues by questioning the entire situation,

Staff is concerned with the precedent this case represents. The existing structure was
approved for demolition with the understanding that the new structure would closely
resemble a house that had been on this site previously. If the application is approved with a
different house in a different location, it not only erodes the traditional street edge, but also
it erodes the historical context of this neighborhood. Furthermore, it completely
undermines the HDC's policy of requesting development scenarios as a condition of










reviewing demolitions. Along this line, staff questions the validity of the demolition if the
premise upon which it was based is removed. Staff requests the opportunity to consult with
Town Counsel regarding this issue before the HDC acts.

March 31, 1998, HDC Meeting Minutes: The previous Staff Comments where read. The
outcome of this meeting is unknown.

April 7, 1998, Staff Comments: The Staff reiterates the statement from above, "If this
application is approved...the historical context of the neighborhood."

April 7, 1998, HDC meeting minutes: The concept of replacing a primary dwelling on
Main Street with a large yard and garage apartment is still a troubling concept. The only
redeeming thing about the situation is that the Housing Authority wants the existing
building. But after airing concerns the HDC instructs the applicant to, "bring in a
landscape plan showing how he proposes to make this lot more contiguous in nature with
127 Main Street. Mr. Perkins then pointed out that the yards get larger as you go up Main
Street." Motion and second was made to hold the application.

On April 27, 1998 a site plan was stamped received by the HDC office. This plan shows
the residence at 127 Main Street and a garage apartment at 125 Main Street with a large
landscape area in the front. The only feature addressing the street at 125 Main Street is a
fence. The garage apartment is in the same location at the rear of the property.

May 5, 1998, Staff Comments: The staff remains steadfast in their evaluation of the
situation.

Recommend a primary dwelling on the street due to the history and context of this lot. The
proposed landscaping may be beautiful but is not appropriate... The pattern of Main Street
is houses on the street. Recommend the HDC be consistent on this issue. If the HDC
deems this use of the property to be appropriate, recommend all dormers conform to the 1'
setback from the eave and the front transom be removed.

May 5, 1998, HDC Meeting Minutes: Basically the same delimma is restated in the
dialogue between HDC members. Ms. Voorhees states, "I think it is too bad that there is
not a house on the street." Mr. Perkins said he would feel differently about it if there were
not similarly large yards with houses set back a little farther up Main Street. Ms. Hall asks
if there is a reason the garden has to be in the front since keeping the street edge is very
important. Ms. Voorhees then states that she would not like to see this particular house o
the street edge. A motion was made and seconded to hold for revisions to the carriage
house.

At this point the paper trail of this case is incomplete. The last staff comment on record is

from May 12, 1998 where the staff states the requested revisions to the structure are appropriate.

I assume because of existing photos of the building this refers to the dormer offset and the panels

under the windows being removed.









Personal critique of the HDC review of the new construction. On March 11, 1997, the

HDC has allowed for the removal of a contributing building at 125 Main Street without a new

location determined. The new construction is not approved until May 12, 1998. What is the hurry

to remove a contributing building? Unfortunately, in the end, the new construction is not what

the HDC had originally bargained for. One of the HDC members voices this view, "I think it is

too bad that there is not a house on the street." The original house was 8' off the sidewalk, and

the proposed dwelling is 60' off the front property line and 8' off the rear property line (Figure 3-

8). To avoid this situation in the future, the HDC should hold issuing a COA for a building move

or demolition until they have approved the new development plans for that same site. This way

they can guarantee that these plans are not just proposals by the applicant, but the applicants' real

intentions.

On January 27, 1998, I must question what has happened here. In this meeting the HDC

clearly states that they are waiting for '/" drawings of the development plans. At this meeting, it

is obvious to the HDC that they have approved the removal of a contributing structure, so the

applicants can have a large yard and detached garage. When this is revealed, the discussion

centers on the pattern of buildings along the street. Obviously, the applicant' s intentions do not

follow the historical pattern of the street. With this issue in mind, the HDC refers the applicants

to meet with the DAC.

At the DAC meeting, the streetscape and pattern of houses along the street is not

addressed. Perhaps if the HDC member who brought up this important point had attended the

DAC meeting, this idea could have been the focus of the meeting. If the HDC members at the

DAC meeting had consulted meeting minutes, this would have been an evident issue to discuss.

After all the DAC would not want the applicants to go to the next HDC meeting and still have









issues that the maj ority of HDC members obj ect to. In situations like this staff can be helpful to

steer the DAC to serve the concerns of the HDC.

The HDC members that attended the DAC meeting were Parent and Fog, who apparently

had no issue with the historic pattern of buildings on the street. They instructed the applicants in

how to appropriately create a garage apartment on the rear of the lot and to appropriately

landscape the enormous front yard. However, this advice is not consistent with the comments of

HDC members or staff, nor is it representative of the guidelines. Under site planning, "new

construction should follow a pattern of site utilization similar to that already established adj acent

to it" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). One-twenty-seven Main Street (Figure 3-9) and 123 Main

Street (Figures 3-10 and 3-11) are 10'-0" or less from the sidewalk. The pattern is evident

(Figure 3-12) in the front yard setbacks of the houses at 1 19-123 Main Street. The guidelines

specifically state, "consideration should be given to the setback of the buildings from the street".

Also, "Where buildings are predominately aligned along the street creating a unified edge or wall

along the street space, the front of a new building should be aligned within the general facade

line of its neighbors" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). With all these recommendations directly

from the guidelines, Parent and Fog do not rely on them to advise the applicants.

At the HDC meeting on March 31, 1998, the staff comments read at the meeting critiques

the most current plans, even though they maintain their original opposition of the proposal. The

concept of replacing a primary dwelling on Main Street with a large yard and garage apartment is

a troubling concept especially for anyone involved in preservation. At this point, the HDC

advises the applicant to bring in a landscape plan and model the vacant lot on larger parcels

farther up Main Street. They seem to tire of the basic differences between what the applicants









want and what staff wants. The larger parcel they refer to could be 129 Main Street (Figure 3-

13).

On May 5, 1998, "Mr. Perkins said he would feel differently about it if there were not

similarly large yards with houses set back a little farther up Main Street." I think Mr. Perkins is

over simplifying the issue. The fact that there was once a contributing building in this location is

forgotten. While there are large yards farther up the street, they were not once occupied by a

contributing building that addressed the street. And if that was the case at one point in history, it

is not why this decision was made. The house at 129 Main Street has a large front yard, but was

constructed at a later era. This site follows a modern pattern of buildings along the street with

front yards (Figure 3-13) as the guidelines explain. "After the whaling era, houses diverged from

the customary single-plane facade and consistent street side building placement, thereby

fragmenting the unified street edge. New houses then began to have front yards, large lots, a lack

of consistency in setbacks from the property line, and orientations to the water or view rather

than the street"(Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). For this reason, a pattern of a large front yard or

side yard is not prevalent on Main Street nor is the likelihood of a Nantucket style house having

a large side yard. "Voorhees then states that she would not like to see this particular house

[referring to the "carriage-style" garage] on the street edge." This is a response to what the

applicant has designed not what could be designed. After they repeatedly disagree with a general

concept of the development plan, staff provides a backup comment, which is true in this case.

These design suggestions are implemented and the plan is granted a Certificate of

Appropriateness.

As a preservationist who has worked in a similar capacity, there are opportunities to learn

and improve this review process. Someone, staff or Mr. Rivers, should be required to write a









detailed report to analyze the issues in total. For example, there is not a traditional Nantucket

style house like the one at 127 Main Street that has a large side yard on Main Street. The house

at 129 Main Street sits further back from the street but does not have a garage apartment to the

side. The person that writes the analysis should be present at the HDC meeting and available to

speak, especially when you are dealing with an elected board. This would provide some

continuity for important design and preservation issues. Some HDC members do not come from

a design or preservation background and would benefit from detailed guidance on controversial

cases, if not all. The property in question should and could be evaluated from a staff or Mr.

Rivers experience and credentials. One must question why the historical significance of the

property is unknown. It is there, ready to be investigated.

The plan submitted for new construction in the Old Town of Nantucket on this lot should

meet the goals for new construction. I believe this plan fails on the following points,

To preserve as unchanged as possible the old structures built before the middle of the 19th
century in their original settings and conditions; also to maintain the fundamental harmony
of the historic community by approving new structures and changes in old ones only when
they blend harmoniously with the era before 1846. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 9)

The fact that 127 Main Street has a large side yard and a rear garage apartment is not in

accordance with what would have existed before 1846. "To preserve the historic character of the

old town of Nantucket as a whole, including its pedestrian scale as well as its close and

complementary pattern" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 9). The Victorian style plays a part in the

historic character of the town and it was not preserved in this case. "To preserve the integrity of

the historic buildings that physically express the history of the island" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p.

9). As mentioned before, 125 Main Street was the physical evidence of a certain portion of

Nantucket' s long history. "To make certain all new buildings are compatible with the buildings

adj acent to them and contribute to the overall harmony of the street" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p.










9). As stated before and shown by the photos, the garage apartment is not compatible to the

buildings at 127 Main Street or 123 Main Street.

Personal critique of the contributing property in the new location. The new location

for the folk Victorian style house is near the Nantucket Memorial Airport at 7 Okorwaw Way

(Figure 3-14). The house is barely visible from the street (Figures 3-15 and 3-16). The

streetscape is very unlike the original site for the house. There are other dwellings in this area on

the same dirt road however there is no rhythm created or streetscape represented. The property is

in good condition (Figures 3-17 and 3-18). From this photo of the front facade one can clearly

observe the folk Victorian details, as mentioned earlier. While it is useful as low-income

housing, it is regrettable that the property has been relocated, especially without careful attention

to location.

18 Mill Street

The dwelling at 18 Mill Street was recorded by the HDC. The date is unknown. Per the

Inventory Form, Jerry E. O'Keffe owns the dwelling. According to the Sanborn Fire Insurance

Maps for the area, the dwelling was built after 1923 but before 1949. The dwelling is visible

from a public road.

This is a one-story three-bay Bungalow with a concrete foundation. The main roof is a

gable and the one-story front porch is a shed roof, both are composition shingles. There are two

unpainted brick chimneys, one located off-center the second on the end wall. Other architectural

features include an off-center flush frame front door, front stair with balustrade at the porch,

plain corner boards and six-over-one flush frame windows. The Structure is noted as having the

"Cape Revival" influence to the style of architecture. It is located 10 feet or less from the street

with the residential surroundings densely built up. Features related to the structure are the










gardens and parking. The structure is noted as being in good condition. The structure is classified

as contributing to the Old Historic District.

Request for relocation.

Application #32,826: August 31, 1998: Request to Move Building and for Demolition. The
applicant requests to demolish the rear section then move the house and front porch. The
square footage listed on the application is 1064 SF with a dwelling length of 38'-0" and a
width of 28'-0". There is a 10'-0" x 28'-0" deck.

Staff comments, September 8, 1998: "Structure is listed as contributing, the question is if
the house is a significant according to guidelines on page 162. If significant, the proposal is
inappropriate. Hold for black and white photos and an elevation of the proposed rear."

HDC Meeting Minutes, September 8, 1998: The staff comments above were read. Mr.
DaSilva made a motion for approval. Ms. Voorhees seconded, and it was so voted. Mr.
McLaughlin and Ms. Hall opposed.

Certificate #32,726 was issued. Immediately following this approval, Application #32,827
was heard. The applicant NHA Properties requested to move a building [dwelling located
at 18 Mill Street] to One Norquarta Drive. "Mr. Rivers read the following staff comments:
"Hold for the move off approval and elevation with new front entry door." Mr. DaSilva
made a motion to approve with driveway. Ms. Voorhees seconded, and it was so voted.
Mr. McLaughlin and Ms. Hall opposed.

Certificate #32,827 was issued.

Personal critique of the HDC review of the contributing property in the new location.

In the staff comments on September 8, 1998, they state that the building is classified as

contributing and the guidelines dealing with the structure' s significance on page 162, under the

Demolition Policy. If significant, the advice to the HDC is to deem the proposal inappropriate.

Since the structure is already defined as a contributing structure, "a structure which adds to the

District' s sense of time, place and historic development" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162), this is

confusing. The definitions continue and the significance of a building is described as,

Any structure within the Historic District of Nantucket Island which is in whole or in part
fifty years or more old and which has been designated by the Commission to be a
significant structure after a finding by the Commission that the building is either: (a)
importantly associated with one or more historic persons or events, or with the broad
architectural, cultural, political, economic or social history of the Island or the









Commonwealth; or (b) historically or architecturally significant (in terms of period, style,
method of building construction, or association with a famous architect or builder) either
by itself or in the context of a group of buildings. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162)

18 Mill Street is a bungalow style house. It is characterized by,

low-pitched roofs, exaggerated roof overhangs, and porches, often within massive, square
supports...traditionally one-to 1-1/2 story dwellings, modest in design, with a horizontal
emphasis, gently pitched roofs and incorporated front porches. .coziness of its porch,
which both integrates interior and exterior space and at the same time hints to the passer-by
the charming intimacy that lies within. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 49)

Request for New Construction. Application #32,944, August 17, 1998: Description of

Work to be Performed: Request to construct a two-story building in the Old Historic District.

The structure is proposed to be 74'-10" in length and 38'-10" in width. The proposed square

footage on the first floor is 2010 SF and the 1800 SF on the second floor with a 3,810 SF total.

The applicants also propose a 500 SF deck. The proposed height of the roof ridge is 29' 9-1/2"

from the finished grade.

The proposed dwelling will have an 8" brick foundation with exterior white cedar

shingles and wood trim painted white. The proposed roof pitch of the main mass will be 8/12 and

of the porch will be 4/12 covered with white cedar shingles. The applicants propose wood gutters

and leaders. The applicants propose wood windows and doors with true divided lights. The

proposed windows are 6/6 double hung windows with sashes painted white. The applicants

proposed a French door painted white for the rear facade. Other proposed architectural details are

white shutters and cornerboards.

HDC review of the new construction.

Staff Comment, August 25, 1998: Recommend a viewing. Proposal is overly formal and
out of scale with the immediate context. Guidelines recommend chimneys on larger houses
be interior, particularly in town. Guidelines discourage bay windows and hexagonal
masses in the OHD. 14" columns are atypical of Nantucket and the OHD. If this formal
five bay design is deemed appropriate, recommend the front second floor windows be
more traditional in their size. Note a move off demolition application will be required for
the existing building. May want to hold for approval of either.










HDC Meeting Minutes, August 25, 1998: The above staff comments were read. "Ms.
Voorhees was concerned with the size of the house. Ms. Voorhees made a motion to hold
for viewing and revisions per staff comments and would like to see application for the
existing 1923 house."

Staff Comment, September 8, 1998: Door change and chimneys moved interior is
appropriate revisions. Reduction of porch posts also appropriate. Otherwise general
concerns with overall appropriateness of the design in this context remain. Note new
context photos have been submitted.

HDC Meeting Minutes, September 18, 1998: The staff comment from September 8, 1998
was read. Mr. McLaughlin states the house is overpowering for the area it is in and there is
visibility, also east elevation windows are out of proportion. Ms. Hall stated that the house
is too large. Mr. DaSilva motioned to hold for revision. Ms. Hall seconded, and so it was
voted.

Staff Comment, September 22, 1998: Change to a less formal four bay is a tremendous
improvement. Use of mulled windows throughout is not in keeping with the historic
context. Detail of gable-end shutters should be provided. Scale and massing of east
elevation may be a concern in this context, as much of it will be exposed.

HDC Meeting Minutes, September 22, 1998: The staff comments from September 22,
1998 were read. Glenn Winn and Michael McClung attended on behalf of the applicant.
Ms. Voorhees stated that mulled windows are inappropriate. Ms. Voorhees agrees with
staff comments. Mr. McLaughlin stated east elevation is overpowering height, not
appropriate height compared to other houses in this area. Ms. Hall is concerned with the
overall sizing and agrees with staff comments. Mr. Winn stated that we could put more of
a jog in the building. Shortened 8-10' or lowered. Mr. DaSilva made a motion to hold for
revisions. Ms. Voorhees seconded, and so it was voted.

Staff Comment, September 29, 1998: Revisions are appropriate. Recommend approval.

HDC Meeting Minutes, September 29, 1998: Gary Winn attended on behalf of the
applicant. Mr. Avery abstained. The staff comments from September 29, 1998 were read.
Mr. DaSaliva made a motion to approve with dormers on the east elevation raised up and
shutters on the gable ends removed. Mr. Axt seconded, and so it was voted. Mr.
McLaughlin opposed. Ms. And Mrs. Osdell, abutters, arrived later in the meeting and
voiced their opposition to the proposal.

Certificate #32,944 was issued.

Personal critique of the HDC review of the new construction. Even though the staff has

recommended denial of the current design, they provide back-up advice in their comments dated

August 25, 1998, "If this formal five bay design is deemed appropriate..." because the HDC









does not always heed their advice. This is unfortunate, especially in a National Historic Register

District. The HDC is an elected body and benefit from staff guidance. In the guidelines, section 3

of Appendix A, "There is hereby established in the town of Nantucket an Historic District

Commission consisting of five (5) unpaid members who shall be resident taxpayers of the Town

of Nantucket, to be appointed by the Selectmen" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 155). Therefore, the

commission has no requirements for members to be design or preservation professionals.

The house at 18 Mill Street was classified as a contributing structure to the Old Historic

District. During the course of this review and approval, the contributing classification has been

stripped. Clearly, the guidelines created to protect this structure are not followed.

Also, the new dwelling is not consistent with a number of guidelines. The setback is less

than five feet from the street. This creates quite a formal feel for Mill Street (Figure 3-19). The

massing and volume of the house seem overly large (Figure 3-20). This is true when comparing

the new construction with the original contributing structure (Figure 3-21). The property records

indicate the square footage of the 2-1/2 story new dwelling is 3,185, while the one-story original

property was 1,064 SF. The new construction is almost 3 times the size of the original. Also

important is the relationship to the adj acent one story house (Figure 3-22). The site conditions do

not benefit the massiveness of the new construction. While the adj acent house is one story and

sits on the low side of the hill, the new two-story sits on the high side (Figure 3-23). This portion

of N. Mill Street is nearing the edge of the Old Historic District, as you can see on the map of the

Old Historic District. The street is less densely populated than the center of town; there are some

large vacant lots and more space is between houses. The house across the street is similar in

design to the new construction (Figures 3-24 and 3-25). However, due to the fact the front four-

bay side gable facade is facing the side yard, the overall result is much less formal. Before the









relocation of the contributing building and the new construction, the character of the area and

context of the street were representative of the edge of the district. With the formality of the new

construction, this quality will eventually be lost.

There are details about the construction, which reveal that it is recent. They had to be

pointed out to me, but I will relay them. The foundation has a crisp new appearance that original

foundations do not (Figure 3-26). Another detail is the energy efficient windows (Figure 3-27).

The plan submitted for new construction in the Old Town of Nantucket on this lot should

meet the goals for new construction. I believe this plan fails on the following points,

To preserve as unchanged as possible the old structures built before the middle of the 19th
century in their original settings and conditions; also to maintain the fundamental harmony
of the historic community by approving new structures and changes in old ones only when
they blend harmoniously with the era before 1846. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 9)

The contributing structure at 18 Mill Street has not been preserved in its original setting. The

mass and the style of the new construction do not blend harmoniously. "To preserve the historic

character of the old town of Nantucket as a whole, including its pedestrian scale as well as its

close and complementary pattern" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 9). "To preserve the integrity of the

historic buildings that physically express the history of the island" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 9).

The contributing bungalow style house plays a part in the historic character of the town Built

between 1923 and 1949, this structure is a product of Nantucket' s survival as a district. During

the time it was built, tourism was reborn on the island and became the town's livelihood. "To

make certain all new buildings are compatible with the buildings adj acent to them and contribute

to the overall harmony of the street" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 9). As stated before and shown by

the photos, the new construction is massive, close to the street, and stylistically confusing to

understanding the difference of the town verse the outlying areas.









Personal critique of the contributing property in the new location. Another unfortunate

aspect I see from a preservation standpoint is that the lack of concern for the placement of an

original structure. The HDC did not review the new site at 1 Norquarta Drive for the placement

of the contributing property. The general setting is rural, which is not consistent with the original

setting. The street itself has no similarity with Mill Street (Figure 3-21, 3-28 through 3-30). The

closest structures are not similar to the structures in the Old Historic District (Figures 3-29 and 3-

30).

3 Coffin Street

The Historic District Commission surveyed the dwelling at 3 Coffin Street, but the year

was not recorded. Per the Inventory form the ownership of the building was private. The one-

story three-bay structure has a weathered shingle exterior with a concrete foundation. The side-

gable roof is composition shingle with a metal chimney located off-center. The dwelling has a

covered front entry porch with trellis-walls on either side. Other architectural features include the

central flush-frame entry, plain corner boards and six over six windows. The building is

classified as contributing to the district. Additional information included on the form is the

building size of 1300 SF and setback noted as 10 feet or less from the street. The property is

noted as having a shed and fence, while the context is noted as densely built up.

Request for relocation. Application #37,092, November 21, 2000: Request to move the

building. The building is 38'-7"in length and 22'-3" in width. The applicant has noted the

structure as 644 SF, which differs from that noted on the inventory form.

Application #37,093, November 21, 2000: Request to move the building at 3 Coffin

Street to 33 Bartlett Farm Road. A site plan depicts the proposed location in the northwest corner

of the Bartlett Farm Property, roughly 120 feet from the side property line and 60 feet from the

rear property line.









Personal critique. The HDC review of contributing property in the new location was not

critiqued, because the meeting minutes were unavailable.

Request for new construction. Application #3 7,179, November 24, 2000: Request to

build a two-story dwelling at 3 Coffin Street. The proposed size of the new building is 3 8'-10 in

length and 22'-4" in width. The applicants propose 701 SF on the first and second floors. This is

a total of 1402 SF overall. They propose a one-story front entry porch, 6'-6" wide by 3'-6" deep.

The proposed height of the ridge above finish grade is 26'-6".

The applicants propose an 8"-16" concrete foundation and exterior sheathing of natural

white cedar shingles. The proposed roof pitch is a 7: 12 on the main and secondary roof, which

will be clad with gray asphalt shingles. The applicants propose a white aluminum skylight;

double hung windows and six panel wood doors. They propose the trim, window sashes and

doors be painted white. The proposed walkway will be constructed of slate. The existing fence

proposed to be painted gray.

HDC review of the new construction. The front, rear, and side elevations are stamped

approved June 13, 2000. There are no meeting minutes available for this case.

Personal critique of the new construction. My photos of the new structure at 3 Coffin

Street depict a two-story building that differs from the approved application details and

drawings. The trim is gray, not white as planned (Figure 3-31). The columns at the front entry

are unpainted (Figure 3-32). The approved elevation (Figure 3-33) depicts exterior lights

flanking the entry door, but they do not exist on the building (Figure 3-32). There is a window

air-conditioning unit at the second story of the left wing (Figure 3-34). Therefore, it seems the

building lacks exterior architectural details commonly found on most buildings in the Old

Historic District.










However, the footprint of the new construction is exactly the same as the contributing

one story cottage (Figure 3-35). Perhaps due to the small size of the site, only .11 acres, and the

only option for gaining additional square footage was to go up adding a second story. This

presents an interesting idea; new structures could conform to the footprint of the original to

preserve the rhythm and open space along the street. It was also prevent proposed structures from

being too massive.

Personal critique of the contributing property in the new location. The previous

contributing structure's new location on Bartlett Farm possesses no similarity to the original

context. The original context, as mentioned on the historic inventory was "densely built up,"

while the existing surroundings are rural (Figures 3-36 through 3-41). There is no relationship to

a primary or secondary type street (Figure 3-42). The original house is poor condition; the

building has been stripped of the character-defining front entry porch with trellis walls. The lack

of consideration for the building in its new surroundings and the lack of maintenance for the

building have rendered it non-contributing and non-significant.

20 Milk Street

The dwelling at 20 Milk Street was recorded by AGS on August 12, 1989. Per the

Inventory Form, the owners were Arthur & Mary Desrocher. The ownership history is unknown.

According to the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps and an aerial photo, the dwelling was built circa

1930. The dwelling is visible from a public road.

This is a 1-1/2 story Bungalow with a concrete foundation and a wood frame structural

system. The main roof is a hip with a one story shed porch that extends the length of the

dwelling. Both the main and porch roofs are covered with composition shingles. There is one

unpainted corbeled chimney located off-center. There is a hip dormer on the front facade. Other

architectural features include an off-center, flush frame front door, front stair with balustrade,










plain corner boards and six-over-one flush frame windows. The Structure is located 10 feet or

less from the street with the residential surroundings densely built up. Features related to the

structure are the garage and deck. The structure is noted as being in good condition. The

structure is classified as contributing to the Old Historic District.

Request for relocation. No application # at time that information was gathered.

Application submitted May 17, 2002: Request to Move Building. The historic name of the

property and the original builder are unknown. Also included in the application is a site plan of

the proposed location, Lot 13 on Norquarta Drive.

Personal critique. The HDC review of the contributing property in the new location was

not critiqued. When the information on 20 Milk Street was gathered, the house had not been

relocated and remained in the original location.

Request for new construction. No application # at time that information was gathered.

Application submitted May 15, 2002: Request to construct a new dwelling. The basic volume of

the new two-story dwelling is proposed to be 50'-10" in length and 27'-0" in width. The first

floor is planned to be 1170 SF and the second floor is planned to be 735 SF. This is a total of

1905 SF. The proposed height of the roof ridge is 25'-0" from the east and west, 26'-0" from the

south and 24'-6 from the north.

The proposed dwelling will have an 8" poured concrete foundation with exterior natural

cedar shingles and wood trim painted Nantucket Gray. The roof pitch of the main and secondary

mass will be 8/12. The pitch of the dormer will be 8/12 as well. The roof will be covered with

red cedar shingles. The gutters and leaders will be constructed of wood. The windows will be

double hung with true divided lights and a six over six light pattern with Nantucket Gray sashes.









The front door will be a six panel wood door. The side and rear door have four lights. All will be

painted Nantucket Gray.

HDC review of the proposed new construction. The remainder of my information was

attained from an article printed in the Inquirer and2~irror, Nantucket' s newspaper, Figure D-1.

The following was revealed about the case. The owners of 20 Milk Street are Ben and Adlumia

Garnnett. They own the property next door and purchased 20 Milk Street from the previous

owners, the Desrocher' s in May. Of interest is that Mr. Desrocher is a former selectman and state

legislator. The purpose of attaining this adj acent property was to increase the size of their yard or

build a garage. Also the owners wish to move the existing building to Norquarta Drive and

donate the building for affordable housing. Public comment on the issue was "Neighbors in the

Milk Street area supported the house move because they said the house did not fit into the

character of the neighborhood" (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A).

The HDC denied the owner's request to move the contributing structure from its original

site sometime on or around May 28, 2002. As quoted in the article, HDC member Dirk

Roggeveen defended the HDC's vote stating, "the 20 Milk Street home represented an

architecture style popular in the first half of the century. Roggeveen added that because a

building did not fit into the character of other buildings on the street, it did not mean the building

did not have historical significance" (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). He also pointed out the HDC's purpose

is not to "recreate a New England village" (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). The owner filed an appeal to the

Selectmen, who overturned the HDC's decision. Attorneys representing the owners sited a

previous case where the HDC allowed a bungalow style building to be moved from 18 Mill

Street to 1 Norquarta Drive in 1999. Matt Fee, the sole Selectman to vote against overturning the

HDC's decision stated, "he did not want to see the "Disney-ification' of Nantucket." Chairman









of the Selectman Committee, Frank Spriggs expressed his approval in the article, "he did like

that the housing proposed to replace the bungalow style house would go along with a similar

footprint of a building built in the 1840s" (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A).

Commission administrator, Mark Voight, said "the commission was not against creating

affordable housing, but the bungalow style home represented one of the 14 different styles of

architecture found on Nantucket" (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A).

Personal critique of the proposed new construction. This case raises the same issues as

125 Main Street. 20 Milk Street is defined as a contributing, "a structure which adds to the

District' s sense of time, place and historic development" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162).

Significance of a building is described as,

Any structure within the Historic District of Nantucket Island which is in whole or in part
fifty years or more old and which has been designated by the Commission to be a
significant structure after a finding by the Commission that the building is either: (a)
importantly associated with one or more historic persons or events, or with the broad
architectural, cultural, political, economic or social history of the Island or the
Commonwealth; or (b) historically or architecturally significant (in terms of period, style,
method of building construction, or association with a famous architect or builder) either
by itself or in the context of a group of buildings. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162)

20 Milk Street is a bungalow style house (Figure 3-43). It is characterized by,

low-pitched roofs, exaggerated roof overhangs, and porches, often within massive, square
supports .. traditionally one-to 1-1/2 story dwellings, modest in design, with a horizontal
emphasis, gently pitched roofs and incorporated front porches .. coziness of its porch,
which both integrates interior and exterior space and at the same time hints to the passer-by
the charming intimacy that lies within. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 49)

Beyond the fact that it is a bungalow with architectural characteristics, it speaks of a time on

Nantucket where the economy was no longer dependant on whaling. Under the Styles of

Architecture, Craftsman, and Bungalow Style (1900-1948), the Guidelines state, "Low,

unpretentious and ideally suited to the concept of the vacation get-away cottage, a handful of

craftsmen style cottages sprang up across the town .. and at 20 Milk Street ." (Lang and









Stout, 1995, p. 50). This structure is specifically mentioned and the HDC made a sound decision

in denying the proposal.

Selectmen or anyone should not be able to base approvals on poor decisions made in the

past. Does this mean that the approved plan is acceptable? Or that it is just okay to move the

bungalow? "The argument may be awkward for the commission or the city to counter, but the

courts generally defer to commissions as expert bodies, and failure to enforce it in one case is not

a legal defense in another" (Tyler, 2000, p. 75).

The proposed new construction with a large front yard and structure at the rear of the lot

(Figure 3-44) is inconsistent with the site planning guidelines. Under site planning, "new

construction should follow a pattern of site utilization similar to that already established adj acent

to it" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). The houses on either side of 20 Milk Street establish a

regular and consistent street edge (Figures 3-45 and 3-46). The guidelines specifically state,

"consideration should be given to the setback of the buildings from the street." Also, "Where

buildings are predominately aligned along the street creating a unified edge or wall along the

street space, the front of a new building should be aligned within the general facade line of its

neighbors" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). Because these recommendations come directly from

the guidelines, it is understandable why the Historic District Commission denied the request.

Personal critique of the contributing property in the proposed new location. The

area surrounding Norquarta Drive is rural. The street itself is becoming denser with a relocated

bungalow from 18 Mill Street (Figure 3-21) and new multifamily dwellings (Figures 3-29 and 3-

30). The proposed location for 20 Milk Street Bungalow is Lot 13 located to the left of the 18

Mill Street bungalow (Figures 3-47 and 3-48). Norquarta Drive is becoming a depository for the










islands unwanted bungalows. Affordable housing is a worthy cause. However, the absence of

this house in the Old Historic District is unfortunate.

Analysis of the Case Studies: Consequences of not Including Non-contributing Properties
in the Old Historic District

When noncontributing buildings are unrecognized, they suffer many consequences.

Unfortunately the effects are a detriment to the where they are located. This is evident in the case

studies of the Landmark Historic District, the Old Historic District, Nantucket, Massachusetts.

Consequence of Re-use

When considering a "move-off' request for a contributing building, approval is easily

attained if the building is being reused in another location on the island.

The case study of 125 Main Street is the most obvious example of this. When questioned if

the structure is historic, Mr. Avery says he thinks the house will be reused (Historic District

Commission Meeting Minutes, February 18, 1997). The issue of reuse is separate from the issue

of historic significance. Reuse should only be considered if the building is deemed to be

insignificant. The case study of 18 Mill Street case presents a similar situation. When

considering the building' s value, the staff comments, "Structure is listed as contributing, the

question is if the house is significant according to the guidelines on page 162. If significant the

proposal is inappropriate." The Historic District Commission approved the building's relocation

without discussion. The Historic District Commission may be open to "move-off' requests due

to the long tradition of building reuse on the island. Buikling nI ithr Nantucket in M~ind states,

There was no natural source of building materials on the island, so materials had to be
shipped in at considerable cost. .. A Nantucket house, moreover, was seldom destroyed;
it was moved or its parts reused as long as they endured. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 34)

However, this does not give the Commission permission to move contributing buildings today.

Eighteen Mill Street was relocated to 1 Norquarta Drive, a rural location becoming denser with









relocated bungalows and newly constructed multifamily dwellings (Figures 3-29 and 3-30).

These surroundings are not consistent with the context of Mill Street, where buildings were 10

feet or less from the street and the surroundings were described as "densely built up" (Figures 3-

21, 3-28 through 3-30). The closest structures are unlike the structures in the Old Historic

District (Figures 3-29 and 3-30). Another example is the case study of 20 Milk Street, where the

proposed new location is Lot 13 on Norquarta Drive adj acent to 18 Mill Street (Figures 3-48 and

3-49). Lastly, the case study of 3 Coffin Street fared the worst in relocation. This is a quaint

cottage with a covered front entry porch flanked by trellis-walls. It was classified as contributing

to the district. The new location is rural, located in the northwest corner of the Bartlett Farm

property, roughly 120 feet from the side property line and 60 feet from the rear property line

(Figure 3-42). This location possesses no similarity to the original context described as "densely

built up," and 10' or less from the street (Figures 3-36 through 3-41). Also, there is no

relationship to a primary or secondary type street (Figure 3-42). The building has been stripped

of character-defining features and is in poor condition.

The lack of consideration for the buildings' new locations causes them to be non-

contributing and non-significant. This is problematic for the Secretary of the Interior states,

"Properties listed in the National Register should be moved only when there is no feasible

alternative for preservation. When a property is moved, every effort should be made to re-

establish its historic orientation, immediate setting, and general environment" (National Park

Service. (2004). National Register of Historic Places: Program Regulations, Retrieved on April

2006 from http://www. cr. nps. gov/nr/regulations .htm#6014). If these buildings are to remain

contributing to the district, the new locations should be analyzed with the referenced criteria.

If it is proposed that a property listed in the National Register be moved and the State
Historic Preservation Offieer...wishes the property to remain in the National Register









during and after the move, the State Historic Preservation Officer...shall submit
documentation to the NPS prior to the move .. (National Park Service. (2004). National
Register of Historic Places: Program Regulations, Retrieved on April 2006 from
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/regulations.htm#614)

Due to the fact that the proper documentation was not submitted to approve the move,

these buildings can no longer be counted as contributing. The ratio of contributing to non-

contributing buildings must be altered, which may threaten the Landmark status of the historic

district.

In the event that a property is moved, deletion form the National Register will be automatic
unless the above procedures are followed prior to the move. If the property has already
been moved, it is the responsibility of the State, Federal agency or person or local
government which nominated the property to notify the National Park Service. (National
Park Service. (2004). National Register of Historic Places: Program Regulations, Retrieved
on April 2006 from http://www.cr.nps .gov/nr/regulations. htm#6014)

While moving a building within a registered historic district is not as grave as moving a building

individually listed on the National Register, the concept is the same.

The Historic District Commission should review a move-off request thoroughly. They

must verify that it is the only alternative for rehabilitation, not that they would rather have a

building with a more prevalent style built in this location. When buildings are moved, the new

site should be reviewed for consistency with the existing surroundings. Moving contributing

historic buildings within a landmark district should be prohibited unless it is an absolute last

resort, such as coastal erosion or a natural disaster. Moving a building to improve the

concentration of a certain style with a new structure is an arbitrary form of urban planning and

not related to preservation. It is inconceivable that the landmark status of the district can survive

this action.

Consequence of Non-prevalence

When most of the contributing buildings in a district exhibit certain prevalent styles,

contributing buildings of other styles are often moved or demolished. Many times they are










replaced with new construction, reproductions of the favored styles in the district. The island of

Nantucket is celebrated for many things, but people are drawn to the Old Historic District for the

quaint town atmosphere. In Bulikling~ \ ithl Nantucket in M~ind, many architectural styles are

discussed, but the prevalent styles in the district that create this quaint environment are the

Typical Nantucket style, Federal style and Greek Revival style. The buildings in the case studies

were not prevalent styles: Folk Victorian, Bungalows, and small cottages. All were relocated and

replaced with new construction.

Within the case studies of contributing buildings the consequence of non-prevalence is

demonstrated. For example, 125 Main Street case is a Folk Victorian built before 1887 (Figure 3-

7). The building possesses Victorian details applied to a simple house form: horizontal siding, a

brick foundation, a gable roof with extended eaves, and exposed rafter tails. There is a one-story

front porch set within the L of the building form, typical of the Victorian style. Other

characteristics are simple pediments above the window and door surrounds, as well as, the two-

over-two double hung windows (McAlester, 1984). The house is contributing to the National

Register Historic District, as documented in the "Nantucket Island Architectural and Cultural

Resources Survey, District Data Sheet" (Figure 3-6). The applicant requests to demolish or give

away the building. The Historic District Commission board member, Mr. Avery comments "this

house is very typical of Victorian infill architecture," and he did not understand why it would not

be contributing. Ms. Deeley felt the house was "somewhat contributing" and that it should not be

demolished but also adds, "Let' s see what [Mr. Dupont] is going to put in its [the house' s]

place". On March 11, 1997 the Historic District Commission approved the demolition or "move-

off" based on the lack of historical or architectural significance. The Folk Victorian house is not

of the prevalent styles in the district, which seems to make the contributing status negotiable.









Nine months later the applicants request a two-story dwelling clad with natural cedar shingles.

At the same meeting the Historic District Commission issues a Certificate of Appropriateness to

move the existing building from 125 Main Street. Later the applicants (the owners of the

adj acent house) present a site plan showing a rear location for the proposed dwelling, obviously a

garage apartment, and a large yard in place of the Folk Victorian building. The proposed

placement is atypical of Main Street; therefore staff recommends referral to the Design Advisory

Council.

The Design Advisory Council advises the applicants to create a "carriage house" character

with simple forms. They state that the massing (referring to the site) is appropriate if "a more

rural form is developed". For five months from January to May the Historic District Commission

struggles with the idea of losing a contributing structure to a lawn and a garage apartment. On

May 12, 1998, the staff states the revisions to the garage apartment are appropriate. Today the

view from Main Street is a white fence and a tall hedge; the roof is the only visible portion of the

new construction. This is a corner lot, and the structure can be viewed from Quarter Mile Hill

Way. From this location the garage apartment looks like it has always been there, because it

closely matches the main house, a contributing structure.

The premise from this case is that the historic viability of the existing property has to be

determined before new construction is considered. If not, this leads one to think if the committee

is presented with an appropriate design, the house may not be that historic. The obj ective to

create an appropriately designed Nantucket-like dwelling in order that the Victorian style house

is not missed is faulty. By making a determination on the historic significance of the structure,

the Historic District Commission and the architect/owner/applicant are not placed in a contest for

design appropriateness. In this case the outcome was not what the Historic District Commission










hoped for, and the final comments from staff and certain commission members reflect

disappointment. Staff states, "Recommend a primary dwelling on the street due to the history and

context of this lot, and the pattern of Main Street is houses on the street. Recommend the HDC

be consistent on this issue." At the meeting Ms. Voorhees states, "I think it is too bad that there

is not a house on the street."

The case study of 18 Mill Street is a one-story three-bay Bungalow built between 1923 and

1949. The architectural details of the building are typical of the bungalow style: a gable roof,

one-story front porch with a shed roof, porch balustrade, six-over-one flush frame windows and

plain corner boards. The structure is classified as contributing to the Old Historic District, but

was easily approved for relocation with no discussion noted in the HDC meeting minutes. The

Bungalow style is not one of the prevalent styles in the district, which seems to make the

contributing status negotiable. The proposed new construction shows influence of both the

Typical Nantucket and the Federal styles. Characteristics of the Typical Nantucket style are the

four bay facade, an off-center door with a transom above, first floor 12 over 12 double hung

windows; aligned with second floor smaller 6/6 windows, a roof with an 8 inch pitch, and small

plain cornice (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 39). Characteristic of the Federal style is shown in the

use of the twin chimneys rather than a central chimney (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 41). There are

details about the construction, which reveal that it is recent. The foundation has a crisp new

appearance that original foundations do not (Figure 3-26). Another detail is the energy efficient

windows (Figure 3-27). Because these details are not obvious to an untrained eye, it is

questionable if the new construction serves the true purpose of the Secretary of Interior' s

Standard. "All buildings, structures and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time.









Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be

avoided when possible."

The case study of 3 Coffin Street is a modest cottage, classified as contributing to the

district. The Historic District Commission approved the relocation. The style of the cottage is not

inspired by the prevalent styles in the district, which seems to make the contributing status

negotiable. The proposed new construction is a two-story dwelling with a minimum of

architectural detail, reminiscent of the Quaker influence with a shingled exterior, 6/6 windows,

trim, corner boards, and a small cornice. However the built product does not reflect the approved

elevations. In addition, the quality of construction is not of the high level seen in the district. In

this case, more than the existence of the contributing building is lost.

The case study of 20 Milk Street is a bungalow with a hip roof, one-story front porch with

a shed roof built in 1930. Other facade details are a central hip dormer, plain corner boards and

6/1 flush frame windows. The applicants propose to build a two-story shingled house with true

divided lights in a 6/6 light pattern, a side gable roof and two gable dormers. Characteristics of

the Typical Nantucket style are shown in the design details: an off-center front door with a

transom above, a roof with an 8-inch pitch and a plain cornice. However, because the new

construction sits at the rear of the lot, the contributing house is actually being replaced with a

large lawn (Figure 3-44). This is uncharacteristic of the other structures on Milk Street and

inconsistent with the site planning guidelines, "new construction should follow a pattern of site

utilization similar to that already established adjacent to it" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). The

houses on either side of 20 Milk Street establish a regular and consistent street edge (Figures 3-

45 and 3-46). The guidelines specifically state, "consideration should be given to the setback of

the buildings from the street" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). Also, "Where buildings are










predominately aligned along the street creating a unified edge or wall along the street space, the

front of a new building should be aligned within the general facade line of its neighbors" (Lang

and Stout, 1995, p. 61). With all these recommendations directly from the guidelines, it is

understandable why the request was denied.

The applicants reside in the adj acent contributing house and their obj ective is to gain a

garage apartment and large lawn. The Historic District Commission smartly denied the

applicant' s request, probably to avoid a scenario like 125 Main Street. In the defense of their

decision, a Commission member stated, "the 20 Milk Street home represents an architectural

style popular in the first half of the century" (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). Also, he added "that because a

building did not fit into the character of the other buildings on the street, it did not mean the

building did not have historical significance" (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). Most importantly he pointed

out that the Historic District Commission' s purpose was not to "recreate a New England village"

(Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). So unfortunately while the Historic District Commission made their

decision based on information stated in the design guidelines, Bulikling~ \ ithl Nantucket in M~ind,

the Selectmen overturned it based on a previous case, 18 Mill Street.

If this is the product we desire, we are not preserving but creating. We have left the realm

of historic preservation and entered the realm of theme districts for economic development. All

the existing buildings discussed above were contributing, which is alarming. The entire island of

Nantucket is on the National Register of Historic Places and the town of Nantucket is a National

Historic Landmark (Lang and Stout, 1995). Preservation at the Landmark district level should

exhibit the highest integrity. The Old Historic District is not just important to the region or

community, but to the entire country. One should be able to trust that the architectural fabric is

authentic and not construed to be Nantucket-like. Moving a building to improve the









concentration of a certain style with a new structure is an arbitrary form of urban planning and

not related to preservation. It is inconceivable that the landmark status of the district can survive

this action.

Consequence of Overlooked Significance

Even if a non-contributing building is not of a distinguishable style, it can add value to the

district. The size and scale of the property and/or the building may be a visual asset. The

presence of a non-contributing structure can geographically or historically describe the

development of a district. The case study of 10 Vestal Street is that of a small cottage built circa

1930 (Figure 3-1). It is wedged between a gable one-story dwelling and a two-story Federal style

house (Figure 3-2). This cottage provides a stop in the rhythm of the street; it is not in the midst

of town but on the edge of the Old Historic District about to enter the outlying area. Even with

some two-story dwellings sprinkled intermittently this idea is evident. The decision to replace the

cottage with a Federal-like two-story house impacts the rhythm of the street and affects the

perception of the town' s historic density. Stylistically, the proposed 2-1/2-story building reflects

subtle characteristics of the early Federal style commonly seen in town. This is seen in the

proposed front elevation (Figure 3-3). The front door is off-center with sidelights, and the

chimney located at the side of the main mass. The exterior sheathing is clapboards with 6/6

windows. A small cottage like 10 Vestal Street in this location provided a distinct sense of place.

The other four case studies document decisions made by the Historic District Commission,

which have stripped these contributing buildings of their status; therefore, they can be included

in this discussion. The presence of a building can historically describe the development of a

district. For example the Folk Victorian dwelling at 125 Main Street respected the street edge,

followed the established historic pattern, as well as, added to the "diversity of it' s [the island' s]

buildings and the "continuity of development" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 37). "While there is









no single appropriate style for the island, as indicated by the diversity of its buildings,

understanding the continuity of development and relatedness of the styles described will

exemplify the legacy shared by all Nantucket buildings" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 37). The

Victorian style has an exact context in Nantucket' s history. "In the end, the economic collapse of

the isolated island in the 1850s, when whaling succumbed to the discoveries of oil and gold, was

responsible for the unique preservation and integrity of the town today. Only in the late 1800s,

when well-to-do people sought out unspoiled Nantucket as a summer resort, were numbers of

new houses built again" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 35-36). "As the community turned to the

summer resort trade, a few of these Victorian houses were built in town" (Lang and Stout, 1995,

p. 44). One-twenty-five Main Street is physical evidence of the, "continuity of development"

within this historical context. Without examples like 125 Main Street there is no "relatedness of

the style" to witness.

The presence of a non-contributing structure can geographically and historically describe

the development of a district. For example, 18 Mill Street is a bungalow built between 1923 and

1949, and like 10 Vestal Street, it provides a sense of place. This portion of N. Mill Street is

nearing the edge of the Old Historic District. The street is less densely populated than the center

of town with large open lots and more space between houses. Before the relocation of the

contributing building and the new construction, the character of the area and context of the street

were representative of the edge of the district. With the formality of the new construction, this

quality is diminished and will eventually be lost.

The bungalow at 20 Milk Street is representative of a time on Nantucket where the

economy was no longer dependant on whaling. In fact this particular property is mentioned in the

design guidelines, under the Bungalow Style (1900-1948), "Low, unpretentious and ideally









suited to the concept of the vacation get-away cottage, a handful of craftsmen style cottages

sprang up across the town, .. and at 20 Milk Street. ." (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 50).

A new classification of "potentially significant" is required to protect buildings that cannot

be classified as "contributing", "architecturally significant" or "ancillary" when the district is

designated. These buildings could be re-evaluated when they are 50-years old, which would

provide flexibility for the district. While the 50-year time period may be arbitrary, it is probably

long enough to divulge significance. The primary purpose would be to protect structures until

enough time passes to make an informed judgment on the building's significance. If significance

is recognized before the fifty years, the structure can be re-categorized as "architecturally

significant", which recognizes a significant building that enriches the district even though it did

not exist during the designated historic period of significance.

Consequence of Inconsistent Management

There are nine management issues that impact buildings within the Old Historic District.

The first deals with the makeup of the Commission. The Historic District Commission is an

appointed body with no requirements for the appointees to be design or preservation

professionals, "established in the town of Nantucket an Historic District Commission consisting

of five (5) unpaid members who shall be resident taxpayers of the Town of Nantucket, to be

appointed by the Selectmen" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 155). The problem is the board lacks

professional knowledge and often disregards recommendations made by staff, which is

unfortunate in a National Register Landmark District. They could definitely benefit from the

staff' s professional knowledge. For example, in the case study of 125 Main Street, the staff is

presented with a proposal to replace a contributing house, which is located 8' from the front

property line with a garage apartment to be sited 60' from the front property line. Needless to

say, the staff remains steadfast in their evaluation that the applicant' s proposal is inappropriate.









"Recommend a primary dwelling on the street due to the history and context of this lot... The

pattern of Main Street is houses on the street. Recommend the HDC be consistent on this issue."

However, they supply alternate advice knowing that the Historic District Commission does not

always follow their recommendation. "If the HDC deems this use of the property to be

appropriate, recommend all dormers conform to the 1' setback from the eave and the front

transom be removed." Another example of the same disregard for the staff s professional advice

is the case study at 18 Mill Street. The Staff has recommended a "viewing" and pointed out

several basic design issues dealing with the formality and scale. Again knowing that the board

often does not heed their advice they make an alternative suggestion, "If this formal five bay

design is deemed appropriate, recommend the front second floor windows be more traditional in

their size" (HDC Meeting Minutes, August 25, 1998).

Often the Historic District Commission does not even discuss the staff comments, which

come directly from the design guidelines. For example in the same case, the initial staff

comments were as follows. "Structure is listed as contributing, the question is if the house is a

significant according to guidelines on page 162. If significant, the proposal is inappropriate. Hold

for black and white photos and an elevation of the proposed rear" (Staff Comments, September

8, 1998). The Historic District Commission meeting minutes note the following, "The staff

comments were read. Mr. DaSilva made a motion for approval. Ms. Voorhees seconded, and it

was so voted. Mr. McLaughlin and Ms. Hall opposed" (HDC Meeting Minutes, September 8,

1998). The purpose of the Historic District Commission is to uphold the design guidelines and

their review should directly involve requirements and suggestions from that document.

The second management issue is that the design of new construction cannot be handled

with staff comments. The staff comments are often written the day of the Historic District









Commission meeting. Staff does not have time to review the application and examine the site.

This system of making comments piece-meal only hits with the highlights, the most pressing

design issues. For example, the new construction at 18 Mill Street is inconsistent with a number

of guidelines. The setback of the structure is less than five feet from the street, creating a formal

feel for Mill Street (Figure 3-19). The siting of the new construction does not meet the

requirement in the guidelines, "Any new construction should follow a pattern of site utilization

similar to that already established adjacent to it" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). The adjacent one

story house is set at least 10' from the street and has a small front yard (Figure 3-49). In addition,

the massing and volume of the house seem overly large (Figure 3-20). This is evident when

comparing the facade of the new construction with the original contributing bungalow (Figure 3-

21). The design guidelines state, "The proportions of the facade of a new building along a street

should be compatible with the proportions of the existing buildings" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p.

66). This requirement is not met; the adj acent building is dwarfed by the new construction

(Figure 3-22). Even though the acts and amendments enabling the historic district state that,

The Historic District Commission shall not consider relative size of buildings in plan,
interior arrangement or building features not subj ect to public view. The Commission shall
not make any recommendations or requirements except for the purpose of preventing
developments incongruous to the historic aspects of the surroundings and the Historic
Nantucket District. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 158)

Not considering relative size in plan would be understandable if that was the only factor

examined. However, the relative size of the proposed building to adj acent buildings can be

informative, especially if other factors indicate that the building is too massive. For example, the

property records indicate the square footage of the new construction is 3,185, while the one-story

bungalow was 1,064 SF, similar in size to the adj acent one story house. The new construction is

almost 3 times the size of the bungalow that once sat here. Therefore the new construction

shows no relation to the adj acent one story house (Figure 3-22). Again this is in violation of the










design guidelines; "Any new construction in the town should be of a scale compatible with

adjacent buildings" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 67). In addition the large mass of the new

construction is exaggerated by the site conditions. While the adj acent house is one story and sits

on the lower side of the hill, the new two-story sits on the higher side of the hill (Figure 3-23).

Obviously, staff comments are not sufficient.

The third management issue is the lack of a written report to analyze the aspects of the

applicant' s proposal with a staff recommendation. Without a report of this type, fundamentals

fall through the cracks. For example, the request to move 125 Main Street is approved noting the

"lack of historical or architectural significance" (HDC meeting minutes, March 11, 1997). This is

a failure of the Historic District Commission to fulfill its purpose. If they cannot research a

historic property, the applicant who wishes to remove the structure will not. According to the

design guidelines, the Historic District Commission is allowed to request additional information,

documentation, or evidence as is necessary to make a decision, and is required to make its

decision based on all the evidence at the public hearing (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162). In this

case they could have requested staff research the property. Another effect of the lack of a written

report is that it causes misunderstandings. For example in the same case, 125 Main Street, Mr.

Perkins responds to the comment that there is no house on the street. He said, "he would feel

differently about it if there were not similarly large yards with houses set back a little farther up

Main Street." This is simplifying the issue. It seems that the fact a contributing building once

stood here is forgotten. While there are large yards farther up the street, they were not once

occupied by a contributing building that addressed the street. If they did, this is not the reason the

Historic District Commission made this decision. A well-written report could make distinctions










and improve the commission's decisions. The Historic District Commission is reminded to

consider,

the general design, arrangement, texture, material and color of the building or structure in
question, the location of the lot and the relation of such factors to similar features of
buildings and structures in the position of such building or structure in relation to the street
or public way and to other buildings or structures. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 157)

With this in mind, the staff report could consider the house at 129 Main Street, which has a large

front yard and was constructed at a later era. This site follows a modern pattern, buildings along

the street with front yards (Figure 3-13). The design guidelines explain,

After the whaling era, houses diverged from the customary single-plane facade and
consistent street side building placement, thereby fragmenting the unified street edge. New
houses then began to have front yards, large lots, a lack of consistency in setbacks from the
property line, and orientations to the water or view rather than the street. (Lang and Stout,
1995, p. 61)

A pattern of a large front yard or side yard is not common on Main Street. Another important

topic for investigation would be how common it is to have a Nantucket style house with a large

side yard on Main Street. The staff should be required to write a detailed report to analyze the

issues in total and make it available for the Historic District Commission members to review

before the meeting. The author of the report should be present at the Historic District

Commission meeting, available to speak. This would provide some continuity for design and

preservation issues. The property in question should be evaluated from a professional

perspective, and it is of the utmost importance in a historic district important at the landmark

level .

The fourth problematic management issue is that buildings are not protected until a plan

for new construction is approved. The Historic District Commission and staff must not issue a

Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition or relocation until the Certificate of

Appropriateness for new construction is issued. Currently, the Historic District Commission has










a policy described by staff as, "requesting development scenarios as a condition of reviewing

demolitions" (HDC Meeting Minutes, March 31, 1998). However, they have experienced first

hand that this is not adequate. For example, considering the case study of 125 Main Street, the

Historic District Commission issued a Certifieate of Appropriateness for relocation on March 1 1,

1997 based on the "lack of historical or architectural significance." This Certifieate of

Appropriateness may have expired, because on January 22, 1998 another Certifieate of

Appropriateness was for relocation. At this meeting, the initial proposal for new construction

was presented. However, at the next Historic District Commission meeting, January 27, 1998,

the applicants reveal their true intentions. "Twig Perkins attended and stated that this design is

intended to compliment the Rhodes House at 127 Main Street. He explained the property was

acquired by the Rhodes so their house could have a large yard." From this point forward, there is

an inherent discord where the applicant' s intentions do not conform to the historical pattern of

the street. At this point in time, the Historic District Commission could have cited the applicants

for changing their development scenario after receiving approval for relocation based on this

scenario. This could have been considered a violation, "for any person to knowingly submit

false, fraudulent or misleading information to the Commission in connection with any

application" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 158).

In the future, the Historic District Commission could specify that a Certifieate of

Appropriateness for relocation is contingent on the Certifieate of Appropriateness for new

construction. In this case, the new construction for the site is not approved until May 5, 1998 and

unfortunately it is not what the Historic District Commission had originally bargained for. To

avoid this situation in the future, it is imperative that the Historic District Commission adopt a

strict practice that insures submittals are the applicants' real intentions.









The fifth management issue deals with the Design Advisory Council (DAC). The Acts and

Amendments for the Nantucket Historic District require the following for denied requests. "In

case of a disapproval, the Commission shall state its reasons therefore in writing, and it may

make recommendations to the applicant with respect to appropriateness of design, arrangement,

texture, material, color and the like of the building or structure involved" (Lang and Stout, 1995,

p. 158). Therefore, the DAC meets with applicants to discuss appropriate design solutions. In the

future, staff must attend the meetings and direct Council members to the reason for the meeting.

For example, the first staff comments pertaining to 125 Main Street, "Recommend referral to the

DAC. The massing is not appropriate, particularly at the front. The structure being set back from

the street is atypical" (Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes, January 27, 1998). At the

Historic District Commission meeting, it is obvious they have allowed the relocation of a

contributing structure for the applicants to obtain a large yard and detached garage apartment.

Historic District Commission board member, Ms. Hall states, "If the proposed structure is an

outbuilding, it should match the main house" (HDC meeting minutes, January 27, 1998).

Historic District Commission board member Mr. Avery responds, "Although the front dwelling

is inappropriate for a second dwelling facing Main Street, there are bigger issues [the historic

pattern of buildings on the street] at stake here than just the design," (HDC meeting minutes,

January 27, 1998). With this in mind, the Historic District Commission refers the applicants to

the DAC.

The Historic District Commission members that attended the DAC meeting had no issue

with the historic pattern of buildings on the street, because they advised the applicants to design

the garage apartment to match the main house. Also, they suggested how to landscape the front

yard appropriately. This advice was not consistent with comments from Commission members or









staff, and does not conform to the guidelines. Under site planning, "new construction should

follow a pattern of site utilization similar to that already established adj acent to it" (Lang and

Stout, 1995, p. 61). The adjacent building at 127 Main Street (Figure 3-9), and 123 Main Street

(Figures 3-10 and 3-11) are 10'-0" or less from the sidewalk. The buildings at 119-123 Main

Street display the regular pattern of front yard setbacks (Figure 3-12), which is taken from a

point closer to town looking toward the 125 Main Street. The guidelines specifically state,

"consideration should be given to the setback of the buildings from the street". Also, "Where

buildings are predominately aligned along the street creating a unified edge or wall along the

street space, the front of a new building should be aligned within the general facade line of its

neighbors" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). Nevertheless the DAC does not rely on these

recommendations to advise the applicants. If the Commission member who brought attention to

the design issue was present at the DAC meeting, perhaps the outcome would have been

different. In any event, the attendees should be given copies of the Historic District Commission

Meeting Minutes. Preservation staff should steer the DAC to serve the main concerns of the

Historic District Commission.

The sixth management issue is that the Historic District Commission's responsibility does

not cease when the Certificate of Appropriateness is issued. The commission must make sure

that the built product is representative of the approved plans on file. When they fail to do so, the

results are unfortunate. For example, the built facade at 3 Coffin Street differs from the approved

plans. The trim is gray, not white as planned (Figure 3-31). The front entry columns are

unpainted (Figure 3-32). The approved elevation depicts exterior lights flanking the entry door

(Figure 3-33), which were not installed (Figure 3-32). There is a window air-conditioning unit at

the second story of the left wing (Figure 3-34). These architectural details do not exhibit the high









level of construction usually found in the Old Historic District. The design guidelines give the

Historic District Commission a defense.

No occupancy permit shall be issued by the Building Inspector with respect to any building
or structure in Nantucket Historic District unless and until the Building Inspector receives
a written certification from the Historic District Commission that the building has been
constructed or altered in compliance with the terms of the certificate of appropriateness
issued therefore. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 156)

However, to clear up discrepancies between the built product and the approved plans, they must

take advantage of this leverage.

The seventh management issue is the resulting negative cumulative effect. An example is

the case study of the bungalow at 20 Milk Street. The owners of the adj acent property purchased

the contributing bungalow for relocation, so they could increase the size of their yard and build a

garage apartment. Public opinion on the issue was, "Neighbors in the Milk Street area supported

the house move because they said the house did not fit into the character of the neighborhood"

(Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). Clearly the public has a stilted view of "preservation" formed by previous

Historic District Commission decisions. The Historic District Commission denied the owner' s

request to move the contributing structure from its original site on or around May 28, 2002.

Historic District Commission member Dirk Roggeveen defended the Historic District

Commission's decision, "the 20 Milk Street home represented an architecture style popular in the

first half of the century" (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). In addition to the fact that the bungalow has

architectural significance, it speaks of a time on Nantucket where the economy was no longer

dependant on whaling. This structure is specifically mentioned in the design guidelines, and the

Historic District Commission made a sound decision in denying the proposal. Then Roggeveen

added, "because a building did not fit into the character of other buildings on the street, it did not

mean the building did not have historical significance," and that the purpose of the HDC is not to

"recreate a New England village" (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). Historic District Commission









administrator, Mark Voight, said "the commission was not against creating affordable housing,

but the bungalow style home represented one of the 14 different styles of architecture found on

Nantucket" (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). This decision is pivotal, the Commission seems poised to

uphold the uphold the premise in the design guidelines."While there is no single appropriate

style for the island, as indicated by the diversity of its buildings, understanding the continuity of

development and relatedness of the styles described will exemplify the legacy shared by all

Nantucket buildings" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 37). The Historic District Commission members

realized that without examples like 20 Milk Street, there is no "relatedness of the style" to

witness.

The eighth issue deals with appeals to the Historic District Commission's decisions and is

demonstrated in the appeal of the 20 Milk Street case study. When the owner appealed to the

Selectmen, the Commission's decision was overturned. The owners' attorneys sited a previous

case, 18 Mill Street, a bungalow that was moved to 1 Norquarta Drive in 1999. The Selectmen

should not be able to blindly base approvals on past decisions made by the Historic District

Commission without considering the premise behind the Historic District Commission's altered

decision in the current case. "The argument may be awkward for the commission or the city to

counter, but the courts generally defer to commissions as expert bodies, and failure to enforce it

in one case is not a legal defense in another" (Tyler, 2000, p. 75). Matt Fee, the sole Selectman to

vote against overturning the Historic District Commission's decision stated, "he did not want to

see the "Disney-ification' of Nantucket" (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). The authenticity of the district is

brought to the forefront rather than a Nantucket-ish creation. Chairman of the Selectman

Committee, Frank Spriggs defended action, "he did like that the housing proposed to replace the

bungalow style house would go along with a similar footprint of a building built in the 1840s"










(Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). This would be a logical argument for a vacant lot, but it is not a good

defense for the loss of a contributing bungalow style house.

The ninth management issue is that the area under Historic District Commission

management is too large. In 1966 the town was placed on the National Register of Historic

Places and designated a National Historic Landmark by the National Park Service and the U.S.

Department of the Interior (Lang and Stout, 1995). In spite of all these protections, Nantucket

has been threatened by overbuilding for years. Nineteen seventy-two marked the peak of the

building boom after the restoration of the waterfront (Lang and Stout, 1995). Heavy

incompatible development caused the island to extend the jurisdiction of the Historic District

Commission to include the entire town of Nantucket (Lang and Stout, 1995). The Commission

was formed to review and approve all construction on the island and published Bulikling~ \ ithl

Nantucket in M~ind to provide a guide to appropriate design (Lang and Stout, 1995). Since July

1975 all of Nantucket has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places (Lang and

Stout, 1995). So, there is one commission to review and approve construction on the entire

island. There are too many responsibilities for one organization. There is not time for the staff to

consult the design guidelines, to write staff reports, to visit sites or research requests made by the

applicants. The lack of time for analysis compromises all properties on the island. The

geographic area under Historic District Commission review must be reduced to insure the

di stri ct' s integrity.

The Historic District Commission has nine management issues: a commission comprised

of non-professionals; inadequate time for staff to review maj or requests for Certificates of

Appropriateness; no requirements for written staff reports; no protections for existing buildings

while proposed plans for new construction are reviewed; an inconsistent relationship between the









Historic District Commission; staff and Design Review Committee; no verification that the

actual construction reflects the Historic District Commission's approved plans; arbitrary

decisions by the commission that create precedent leading to the Selectmen overturning their

decisions; and a management area that is too large.

Proposed Criteria for Including Non-contributing Properties in a Landmark District

The following recommendations would recognize the value of non-contributing buildings

and benefit the management of most residential historic districts. In addition, specific changes to

the governance and guidelines for the Old Historic District are suggested for the same reasons.

Revise the Building Classifications

Many residential historic districts would benefit by adopting new classifications that

accurately reflect the value of the district' s buildings. Buildings in proposed districts should be

surveyed, and non-contributing buildings in existing districts should be re-surveyed, using the

following terms: "potentially significant," 'architecturally significant," "contributing," and

"ancillary."

* The term "potentially significant" refers to a building that is less than fifty years old when the
district was (is) designated. These buildings will be evaluated when they turn fifty years old,
and categorized as "architecturally significant" or "ancillary." They are not eligible to be
"contributing" because they were not built during the designated period of significance. If
significance is recognized before the fifty years, the structure can be re-categorized as
"architecturally significant." This classification protects buildings that were recently built for
the reason that it might be too soon to fully appreciate their value. This term provides
flexibility for the district. There is no other reason for the set 50-year time period except that
it is probably long enough to divulge significance. This revision is necessary because non-
contributing buildings can be architecturally significant. Currently, for a non-contributing
building to be approved for demolition, it must be deemed architecturally insignificant.
Interestingly, architectural significance is not defined as fifty years or older at the time the
district is designated.

* The term "architecturally significant" refers to a building that was not built during the
designated historic period of significance but enriches the district, in spite of this fact. These
buildings would be preserved without question.









* The term "contributing" refers to a building that was (is) at least fifty years old when the
district was (is) designated, existed during the designated historical period of significance
and enriches the district.

* The term "ancillary" refers to a building that supports or aids the district, at least by its
existence, but does not possess architectural significance of its own. Includes buildings that
were built during the designated period of significance but have lost their architectural
integrity, or buildings that were not built during the designated period of significance and are
not architecturally significant.

While the district' s designated period of significance is upheld, the possibility of additional

architectural significance is recognized. If a maj ority of potentially significant buildings are re-

evaluated as "architecturally significant," the designated historic period of significance should be

reviewed for either an amendment to the original period of significance, or to add another period

of significance. In this situation, the architecturally significant buildings that correlate to this

change in the period would be classified as "contributing." If the governing body wishes to

change a building's classification after the re-survey, evidence would be required to show that

the building's status has changed.

The Historic District Commission staff should re-survey the buildings in the Old Historic

District with these revised classifications. When changes are proposed to buildings in the district,

they should be reviewed and evaluated regardless of classification. These buildings have an

effect on the contributing buildings as part of the district and many significantly enrich the

district. Therefore the New Standards would state, "Alterations and additions to potentially

significant, architecturally significant and ancillary structures in Old Historic District shall be

reviewed for their appropriateness in respect to the design, massing, and scale of the existing

structure." The concept of modernizing a non-contributing structure would be omitted, because

the term would be eliminated. The New Standards would continue, "No structure shall be

redesigned to create a false historical appearance" (Derived from Non-contributing Structures,

City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-1 14).









If these building classifications are not adopted, the Historic District Commission must

redefine their existing building classifications to reflect the universally accepted definitions.

Currently, the Nantucket Historic District Commission has great leeway to re-classify buildings

in the Old Historic District. The definitions in the Demolition Policy empower the Commission

to change the district drastically. In the realm of real protection from demolition or relocation, no

building is truly protected by classification alone. For example, the Demolition Policy's opening

statement is, "no Certificate of Appropriateness shall be issued for the demolition of any

protected structure (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162). Protected structures are defined as, "Any

significant structure which the Commission determines is in the public interest to preserve or

rehabilitate rather than demolish" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162). However, a "protected

structure" can be granted the Standards for Approval for demolition if the Commission finds that

either the structure is insignificant or that the structure is only considered protected because of its

presence in the district and is non-contributing to the district. So a significant structure in the

public interest to preserve is then judged non-contributing. The definition of a contributing

property is "A structure which adds to the District' s sense of time, place and historic

development" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162). The universal definition of contributing buildings

is that they enrich the district, and indicates the structure was present during the historic period

of significance and preservation is required. However, the Historic District Commission defines

the term significant structures to mean,

Any structure within the Historic District of Nantucket Island which is in whole or in part
fifty years or more old and which is or has been designated by the Commission to be a
significant structure after a finding by the Commission that the building is either: (a)
importantly associated with one or more historic persons or events or with the broad
architectural, cultural, political, economic or social history of the Island or
Commonwealth; or (b) historically or architecturally significant (in terms of period, style,
method of building construction, or association with a famous architect or builder) either
by itself or in the context of a group of buildings. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162)









Therefore significant structures are similar to contributing structures elsewhere.

No classification is completely dedicated to preservation. The high degree of flexibility is

not acceptable for a landmark district. Likewise the non-contributing is defined in the guidelines

as, "A structure which is not an intrusion but does not add to a historic district' s sense of time,

place and historic development" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162). Usually non-contributing is

defined as a structure that was not built during the designated period of significance and was less

than fifty years old when the district was designated. Alterations to a National Historic

Landmark should not be subject to the whim of the Historic District Commission. The

Commission members are not required to possess knowledge of preservation and do not seem to

heed the advice of the historic preservation staff. The following should be adhered to: "the

Commission shall state their reasons for denial of a request in writing" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p.

158). This should include the ability of the Commission members to re-classify buildings in the

district.

Qualifications for Historic District Commission Members

Members of the commission or board that reviews and approves proposed alterations in the

historic district, must be qualified. The commission should be composed of one or more of the

following organizations: a preservation professional, a local historian and/or architectural or art

historian, a business, commercial finance or investment counselor, an architect, a city planner, a

landscape architect, a lawyer, an engineer or building contractor, a realtor or property appraiser,

residents of the city's historic districts (Derived from City of Orlando Land Development Code,

1999, p. CD 65-21).

This would be a vast improvement for the Historic District Commission. Currently, the

only requirement for Commission members is that they are resident taxpayers of the Town of

Nantucket. This is insufficient for any historic district and especially for a National Historic









Landmark. The preservation staff should identify current members of the community that meet

these criteria and nominate them to the Selectmen.

Restrict and Focus the Purview of the Existing Commission

In historic districts the governing body should have a manageable workload and ample

staff. Otherwise the integrity of the buildings in the district and the status of the district may be

compromised. Currently, the purview of the Historic District Commission is defined as the

Nantucket Historic District, "the land and waters comprising the Town of Nantucket" (Lang and

Stout, 1995, p. 156). This is too massive for one Commission. In addition, to require the

Landmark Historic District guidelines be followed outside the Old Historic District is demeaning

to the original construction of the town of Nantucket. Therefore, to manage the district more

effectively the responsibility must be delegated.

Two review commissions with ample staff support should be created. First, an appearance

and environmental review board, the Outlying Area Commission would manage proposals for

alterations in the open space and moors. Standards for review should be developed from Chapter

V, pages 101-148 of the current guidelines, Bulikling~ \ ithl Nantucket in M~ind. Second, another

historic review commission would manage individual historic districts in other towns on the

island like Siasconset, Quidnet, Wauwinet, Surfside and Madaket. Standards for review should

be developed for these districts from Chapter IV, pages 89-100 of the current guidelines,

Buitling n ithr Nantucket in M~ind. Both commissions would follow the same management

procedures as the Old Historic District, such as, monthly meetings and written reports for Maj or

Reviews to analyze requests with the Standards.

With the new boards established, the Historic District Commission can restrict their review

to the Old Historic District. This would allow preservation staff the ability to concentrate on the










design guidelines, write staff reports, visit sites of current cases, and conduct research for

applicants requests for one Historic District Commission meeting per month.

Establish an Overlay Ordinance and Include Secretary of Interior's Standards

Historic Districts should use an overlay ordinance, because it is directly linked to the

Standards for Alterations, Additions, New Construction, Demolition and Relocation in the Land

Development Code. For example, the Lake Eola Heights Historic District is a Historic

Preservation Overlay District with an Overlay Ordinance, which builds off the Land

Development Code. As referred to in the Ordinance, "A Certificate of Appropriateness shall be

required when a building permit is required for the exterior alteration, construction, or

demolition of a structure in a historic district according to Chapter 58 of the Orlando City Code"

(Lake Eola Heights Historic District Ordinance, May 22, 1989, p. 3). Also the Secretary of

Interiors Standards for Historic Preservation should be included in the Ordinance and the Town

Building Code. For example, the City of Orlando lists the Secretary of Interior' s "Standards for

Rehabilitation" as General Standards in Section 62.201 of the City of Orlando, Land

Development Code. They provide a philosophy for the district and can be used for review when

a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness does not correlate to the Standards for Alterations,

Additions, New Construction, Demolition or Relocation. The Old Historic District would benefit

from an Overlay Ordinance and the incorporation of the Secretary of Interior' s Standards for

Historic Preservation.

Create Standards for Alterations, Additions and New Construction

Historic districts should provide clear and concise standards for three areas of work:

Standards for Alterations to Existing Structures, Additions to Existing Structures, and New

Construction. They should be written to retain existing material and to recognize all contributing

buildings in the district.









In the Old Historic District the following steps were taken to create Standards for review

from the existing design guidelines. The requirements in the guidelines were separated from the

explanations and divided into the appropriate area of work. Then direct and concise criteria were

incorporated into the requirements to fill in where gaps existed. Lastly the criteria were revised

to recognize all contributing buildings.

After the requirements were separated from the architectural, historical, and cultural

explanations, they were sorted into three areas of work, Alterations, Additions and New

Construction. Currently requirements, recommendations, and considerations are embedded in

one lengthy document, "Guidelines for Building in the Historic Town of Nantucket" under nine

headings. While the explanations are interesting and insightful, the guidelines provide too much

information. Applicants probably have difficulty sifting through the information to determine

what is allowed. Described as, "criteria by which the Commission will determine the

appropriateness of this new construction" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 59), they are directly

referenced in the staff comments but usually the Commission members do not reference them.

Straightforward standards would insure that the committee's decisions are based on the

guidelines and not a whim. For example consider the following regarding the "Siting of a

Building" as currently written,

Any new construction should follow a pattern of site utilization similar to that already
established adj acent to it. In particular, consideration should be given to the setback of the
buildings from the street, the width of their facades and the spaces between them,
especially because these factors contribute to the rhythm and continuity of the buildings as
seen together. Where buildings are predominantly aligned along the street creating a
unified edge or wall along the street space, the front of a new building should be aligned
within the general facade line of its neighbors. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61)

Keep in mind this only reflects the italicized portion in the guidelines, more information exists in

the text. Therefore the regulations for the "Siting of the Building" must be simplified. Compare

the site-planning standard as written above to the following with the explanations and










background omitted. "The front yard setback of new construction must follow a pattern of site

utilization similar to the adj acent buildings. The front facade of the new building should be

aligned within the general facade line of the adjacent buildings" (Derived from Lang and Stout,

1995, p. 61). When the criteria stands on its own, it is hard for the applicant, the staff or the

Commission, to vary from it.

Next, other design standards must be incorporated to fill voids in the current guidelines.

For example, the concept of the rhythm of solids and voids is introduced to complete the Siting

the Building" requirement. "New construction must be designed and positioned on the site in

such a way that it reflects the regular pattern of buildings and open space along the block face"

(City of Orlando, Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD-62-119). This concept comes from the

Design Standards from City of Orlando Land Development Code, which were used to fill in

where there were omissions in the requirements. These were selected because they deal with

materials, concepts and elements in a direct and thorough manner.

Another benefit of using the Design Standards from City of Orlando is that they place an

emphasis on material. The existing requirements in the design guidelines seem to overlook

material. The Commission permits regular maintenance, repair or replacement of exterior

architectural features that does not change the design, material, color, or "the outward

appearance thereof" without a Certificate of Appropriateness. This creates a permissive attitude

of the maintenance, repair, and replacement of the existing fabric. Compare this to Historic

District Commission' s definition of "subj ect to view":

wherever such exterior features are subj ect to view from a beach, public way, public park,
public body of water, traveled way, a street or way shown on a land court plan, or shown
on a plan recorded in the registry of deeds, a proprietors road or a street or way shown on a
plan approved and endorsed in accordance with the Subdivision Control Law. (Lang and
Stout, 1995, p. 157)









Adopting an all-encompassing philosophy to material review would establish the fabric of the

building as a priority.

In a National Landmark Historic District these small but important material replacement

requests should require Historic District Commission review to obtain a Certifieate of

Appropriateness. Specifically the Standards for Alterations will address materials and elements:

wood, masonry, roof and roof features, windows, shutters, door and door details, garage doors,

porch and porch features, site issues, entrances, color and other items, with the following basic

philosophy. If the existing material is in good condition, it shall be retained. If the existing

material is repairable, it shall be repaired. If the existing material is deteriorated it shall be

replaced to match the existing material in size, shape, and texture. The Standards for Alterations

would also include the concept of proper treatment of materials and replacement of items that are

inappropriate to the style and period of the building. Perhaps the emphasis on material will

translate into a renewed sensitivity to "gut rehab" and curtail this practice of removing a

building's original interior fabric for new material. By preserving material, the authenticity of

individual buildings and the entire district is maintained.

Lastly the Standards must be revised to recognize all contributing buildings in the district,

which helps to develop concise and straightforward Standards. For example the current

guidelines for roofs on additions designate the appropriate pitch for each traditional roof shape.

Compare this to, "Roofing on additions to existing buildings should be appropriate to the period

and style of the original structure" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 71). In this case to achieve a concise

Standard for roof additions, the design variables that must be appropriate are specified. "The roof

on an addition should have similar shape, detailing, pitch and materials as the existing building"









(City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-117). Because all contributing

buildings are valued, the standard can be simplified.

Other revisions have been made to the Standards when needed. For example, emphasis on

material in National Historic Landmarks is important, but buildings should be allowed to develop

naturally. Therefore when considering windows on additions, the Standards should incorporate

the philosophy from the Secretary of Interior' s "Standards for Rehabilitation." "All buildings,

structures, or sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no

historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged" (City of

Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-6). When the fenestration of an addition is

closely matched to the original, an earlier appearance may be created. However, small variations

from the original would not be detrimental if controlled. Therefore, the Standard would read,

Requirements for windows on additions vary depending on the elevation. On the street
elevation, windows shall match the original windows in materials, frame type, orientation
and configuration. These windows should be of a similar size to the original windows and
possess a ratio of glass to wall surface similar to that of to the existing building. On other
elevations, windows should match the existing windows in material and frame type, may
be similar to the existing windows in orientation and configuration, but may differ in size.
The arrangement of the windows within each facade should be ordered and balanced in
keeping with the style and period of the building. (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p.
77)

When considering the Standards for Additions, a strict material standard may create the

illusion of an earlier appearance. Therefore the revised standard would permit a small variation

in the design of the addition. "The wall surface material should be appropriate to the style and

period of the existing building. While the wall surface must match the material and color of the

existing building, the size, orientation, and texture of the material can be similar to the existing

building. There should be one material per single wall plane. Foundations of additions should be

similar to the existing building." While more detailed than the current rules and regulations, the

new standards will insure a truthful depiction of the building' s progression.










The quality of a building's progression must not be lost or the environment becomes too

staid. The Nantucket Federal Style house located at 41 Liberty Street is a 2-1/2 story with some

Greek Revival detailing. From the primary street facade there are no additions visible, and the

12/12 windows and clapboard wall surface are consistent (Figure 3-50). The side of the building

tells a different story. At least two additions are visible. The first addition exhibits 2/2 windows,

typical of the Victorian era and the same clapboard wall surface. The second addition has three

windows and the wall surface is wood shingles instead of clapboard (Figure 3-51). With many

inconsistencies this elevation does not even meet the revised Standards for windows on

additions. However due to the similarity in window material, size, and orientation, the overall

effect is successful. The inconsistencies do not detract, but add to the authenticity of the building.

Other changes to the Standards deal with porch and roof walk additions. Currently,

"Porches additions should be kept to the rear where they can be unobtrusive" (Lang and Stout,

1995, p. 82). However, in certain situations porches could be added as part of an addition and

uphold a historical precedent. For example, there are many Nantucket-style houses with side ell

additions and recessed first floor porches. Therefore the revised standard would read, "A porch

may not be added to the primary facade of an existing building. A porch may be added to a

secondary facade, behind the primary facade plane, if it is part of an addition and is appropriate

to the style and period of the building" (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 82). The only

situation where a porch may be added to the primary facade is if convincing evidence is

presented that a porch originally existed as part of the facade and that porches are appropriate to

the style and period of the building. Situations like this would not be spelled out in the Standards,

but would be open to the discretion of preservation staff. "Any other request requiring a building

permit determined by the Planning Official or his designee to have an impact on an exterior









structure in the Old Historic District shall be reviewed by the Historic District Commission using

the most closely analogous standards" (Derived from City of Orlando Land Development Code,

1999, p. CD 62-118). To create Standards for specific types of work, some revisions are

necessary to cover a topic that is not addressed in the design guidelines. For example, the

appropriateness of a roof walk as a portion of an addition is not specifically discussed in the

existing guidelines. However, the guidelines do state that they are a historical feature of many

Nantucket buildings found on visually dominant masses. Since additions should not be visually

dominant, "Roof walks are not appropriate for additions."

Finally, the revisions made to the Standards for New Construction serve to uphold the

integrity of the district. The design expectations for new construction in historic districts range

from conforming to a prevalent style in the district to simply sharing design variables with

contributing buildings in the district. In historic districts that function as living museums, there is

merit in creating a seamless district, one frozen in the designated period of historic significance.

However, for buildings in residential historic districts, this does not meet the philosophy of the

Secretary of Interior' s Standard, which states, "All buildings, structures, or sites shall be

recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which

seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged" (City of Orlando Land Development

Code, 1999, p. CD 62-6). Alterations that seek to create an earlier appearance should be avoided

in a National Register Historic District, where the built surroundings should be authentic. The

current philosophy for new construction in the Old Historic District is, "A building can fit into its

context if it embodies relatedness to surrounding structures. Relatedness means, simply, a

similarity of a number of different architectural aspects among neighboring buildings" (Lang and

Stout, 1995, p. 59). Therefore, hypothetically the guidelines permit design that would be










recognized as a product of the current day. If Standards that promote similarity to the built

surroundings are maintained, the design inspiration for new construction could widen, while

avoiding the extremes, contemporary design or reproductions. Presently, the guidelines do not

address the sensitive issue of style. However, it must be confronted: "New Construction may be

influenced by, but not duplicate historic styles. If a historic style influences new construction,

that style must already exist or have existed in the Old Historic District" (Derived from the City

of Orlando, Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-119). The design of new construction may

not distract from contributing buildings" (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 59). Designs

for new construction should differ from the existing established structures. Also, the design

should strive for compatibility in size, scale, color, material, and character of the neighborhood

or immediate environment.

National Historic Landmarks deserve all the protections available. The recommendations

in the current design guidelines, Buikling8 n ithr Nantucket in M~ind, would be updated to reflect

the new Standards, and both could work together to benefit the Old Historic District. The

preservation staff could provide applicants with the appropriate Standards for the requested

proposed work, explain the ideas behind them, and if needed refer to the guidelines for further

explanation. When the applicants bring in preliminary drawings, the staff could work with

applicants on the design of the proposal. These changes will help Nantucket operate in a more

organized fashion, as a landmark district should.

Establish Standards for Demolition

When considering a demolition proposal, the building in question should be reviewed with

the Standards for Demolition. These Standards would provide clear criteria to examine the

building in a larger realm specifically the building's architectural, historical, and cultural

significance. All buildings in the district that are requested for demolition, regardless of









classification must be reviewed with these criteria. These Standards will provide the framework

for the staff report and commission review.

Key elements of the Standards for Demolition respond directly to current problems with

non-contributing buildings in landmark districts. First, the demolition request should be tiered as

a two-step process with the determination of historic viability as the first step. In fact only basic

information on the future utilization may be provided: the type of structure, the inspiration

stylistically, and an estimated size of the building. Additional information is distracting to the

commission and may cloud their decision on the building's historic viability. Only after the

building is determined as significant or insignificant will the future utilization, the second step,

be considered. The reason for this tiered process is to insure that the built fabric of the landmark

district remains authentic. The second key element is the concept of mitigation for buildings that

are determined insignificant, which entails reviewing the building with the Standards for New

Construction. The purpose of this is to determine if there are any aspects of the building that

indirectly add to the district. If some exist, these values will be incorporated into the

requirements for the future utilization. For example, if the footprint of the original structure

added to the rhythm and open space along the street, the footprint of the new building would be

required to conform to the footprint of the original to preserve the rhythm and open space along

the street.

The Standards for Demolition follow. The commission will consider a Certificate of

Appropriateness if a building is defined as an imminent hazard, "the determination by the

building official and the historic preservation officer that the repairs would be impractical"

(Derived from City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-120). As part of this

determination Criteria (g) and (h) would be considered for the purpose of to discouraging









intentional harm to buildings. Therefore, if any measures have been taken to prevent the structure

from deteriorating, such as normal maintenance, repairs, provision of normal tenant

improvements, the historic preservation staff will recommend approval to the commission

(Derived from City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-120). However, if the

structure was willfully or negligently allowed to deteriorate the recommendation to the

commission will be for further investigation. If so, any measures taken to save the structure from

further deterioration will be taken into consideration, such as collapse, arson, vandalism or

neglect (Derived from City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-120). If the

structure is beyond saving or if certain measures are recommended and action is not taken,

violations will be issued.

Otherwise, to obtain a Certifieate of Appropriateness for Demolition, the building would

be reviewed with the Standards for Demolition, which is a tiered two-step process. The first step

would be to concentrate on the buildings historic viability, specifically architectural significance,

as defined in Criteria (a)-(c), and remaining examples, as defined in (d) and (e). Also, the

following criteria will be considered:

* The qualities of the building which enrich the district, including the general design of the
building in question, as well as, the relation to the street and to other buildings.

* The possibility that the presence of the building provides information about later architectural
movements within the district.

* The information the building provides to the sense of place, the historical development or
geographic development of the district (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 157).

The applicant may provide basic information for the future utilization of the site: the type of

structure, the inspiration stylistically, and an estimated size of the building. Historic preservation

staff will help the applicant gauge an appropriately sized proposal for new construction by

providing the square footage of the existing building and the adj acent buildings, as well as, the









existing Impervious Surface Ratio for the lot and the adj acent lots. While these values are not

requirements, the square footage of the building provides an easily understood comparison. If the

proposed new construction is significantly greater the design may be denied. Applicants will be

informed that the analysis of the new construction will examine the relative mass, size, and

location to existing buildings in the district.

If the subj ect property is determined to be insignificant, mitigation must be considered. If

the building indirectly enriched the district in some way, the future utilization must incorporate

these values into the design proposal. The second step would concentrate on the future

utilization. The applicant will be required to provide drawings for staff evaluation. This Standard

will be revised, "The floor plans, elevations, and a perspective of the future utilization of the site

and the effect those plans will have on the architectural, historical, archeological, social,

aesthetic or environmental character of the district" (Derived from City of Orlando Land

Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-120).

If the applicant feels two submittals and reviews by the commission is an imposition, he or

she will be reminded that it is not easy to get a building demolished in a Landmark district.

Because new construction must be approved before a permit for demolition can be issued, the

Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition and the New Construction will be issued at the

same time. This will be stated in terms of the Certificate of Appropriateness to provide a direct

correlation to the Historic Preservation review process. "The applicant must present a Certificate

of Appropriateness for demolition and new construction based on the standards set forth in this

Chapter, prior to receiving a building permit for either" (Derived from City of Orlando Land

Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-122). If it is determined that the building enriches the

district and the applicant claims an economic hardship, this will be reviewed by the commission,









as defined in criteria (j). The commission will follow the criteria and investigate the factors

listed in this section (Derived from City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-

120).

The Old Historic District would benefit by adopting Standards for Demolition. Currently,

the Demolition Policy in Appendix C of the guidelines states the intent, building definitions and

Standards for Approval. However, there are no clear criteria to examine the significance of a

building. The intent of the Historic District Commission' s Demolition Policy is,

to avoid the unnecessary demolition of architecturally, historically or culturally significant
structures by providing a suitable time period during which the owner or agent and
interested persons may explore reasonable alternatives to demolition and make appropriate
arrangements for the preservation of such structures; and by providing a process whereby
determinations can be made between the rights of the public to continue to enj oy the
structure and those of the owner to enjoy the property. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162)

Basically if the style of the structure is not prevalent on Nantucket, demolition is almost a given.

A designated time period to suggest alternatives to demolition is provided, but this is insufficient.

Also the second portion of the intent gives the property owner too much power. When

considering demolition in a landmark district, the focus should be the architectural, historical, or

cultural value of the building. If the building is significant, alternatives for preservation are not

an issue, and demolishing or moving the building should be prohibited. If the building is

insignificant, it may be a candidate for relocation or demolition. However, it would be incorrect

to assume that an ancillary building is automatically a candidate for relocation or demolition.

These buildings can support the district in a significant ways, which can only be defined through

the review process.

Establish Standards for Relocation

When considering a proposal for a move-off or relocation, the building in question should

be reviewed with the Standards for Relocation. These Standards would examine the proposed









location compared to the existing location in respect to the historic orientation, immediate

setting, and general environment. All buildings in the historic district regardless of classification

must be reviewed with these criteria. However, because universally a contributing building is

one that enriches the district, moving this type of building will be prohibited and only permitted

in rare occasions, such as, a natural disaster. If the commission permits relocation, the new

location must be reviewed.

Key elements of the Standards for Relocation directly respond to the problems encountered

with non-contributing buildings in the landmark historic district. The first key element is to tier

the Standards for Relocation, making it a two-step process. The first step is to determine the

historic viability of the building with only basic information concerning the future utilization.

Any additional information is distracting to the commission and may cloud their decision on the

building' s historic viability. If the building is determined to be insignificant, mitigation will be

provided and the aspects of the building that indirectly add to the district will become

requirements for the future utilization. The second step considers the future utilization of the

property. The reason for the tiered process is to insure that the built fabric of the landmark

district remains authentic. Overall these Standards would provide the framework for the staff

report and the maj or topics for review in the commission meeting.

The National Landmark or National Register Staff should caution governing bodies that if

the new location is not reviewed for appropriateness to the original location or if the new

location is not appropriate and the building is moved anyway, the classification of the building

will be changed to ancillary. In turn, the ratio for contributing to the total number of buildings in

the district will be adjusted. If too many contributing buildings are moved, the district may be in

danger of losing its National Register and/or National Landmark status. If requests for relocation