Loading...
03-021 470 Coles Meadow Rd Zoning990002674 OR /5600/0298 1/28/1999 31 Planning Offi of 9 and Development . City of Northampton City Hall • 210 Main Street 9 587 -1266 MAR 01060 • Northampton, MA (413) FAX 413) 587 -1264 • EMAIL planning @city.northamptoan.ma.us 0 • Conservation Commission • Historical Commission • Planning Board • Housing Partnership • Zoning Board of Appeals DECISION OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS � � R n M N f-1 APPLICANT: APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: OWNER: OWNER'S ADDRESS: Robert Demetrius 50 North Maple Street Florence. MA 01062 George Page Delaney House Holyoke, MA 01040 APR. 2 Q 19°8 CITY �LERKS OFFICE NORTHAMPTON, MASS S� RE LAND OR BUILDINGS IN NORTHAMPTON AT: Coles Meadow Road ASSESSOR'S MAP and PARCEL NUMBERS: MAP #3 PARCEL #21 At a meeting conducted on April 15, 1998, the Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals voted 2:1 (Ghiselin opposed) to grant the request Ro bert Zoning e Ordinance for a D ING ge n use th provisions of Section 9.3 (1) (D) in the Northampton of apre- existing nonconforming structure for property located at Coles Meadow Road, also known as Northampton Assessor's Map 3 Parcel 21. Zoning Board Members present and voting were: Chair Mark NeJame, Vice Chair Alex Ghiselin and Larry Snyder. The Findings of the Board under Section 9.3 (1) (D) for a change in use of apre- existing non- conforming structure were as follows: 1. The Board found that the requested use as asingle- family residence would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the previous use as a barn storage building. Conditions imp osed with this Finding are as follows: 1. The Finding is for the use of the structure as asingle- family residence only. 2. There shall be no entrance allowed on the front side of the building (the side facing Coles Meadow Road). ORIGINAL PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Doc, 990�;4 OR /56tk299 01128119991131 S%MW • applicant shall create a bermed, landscaped 3. As offered by the applicant, the pp . • en eighteen inches and three feet in height area with plantings betwe g circling back to • approximately e extending approx y ht feet out from the house and g the entrance of the garage. H VV a -R 2 4 1998 LD CITY - LERKS OFFICE NURTHAM� i ON, MASS 710 ,%" �.. Doc: 990002674 OR t/ 01/28/19991131 Laws (MGL) Cha ter 40A, Pur suant to Massachusetts General La Section 11, no Finding or any p . • hereof, shall take effect until a copy of the decision Baring extension, modification or renewal t � - has been Clerk that twenty days have elapsed after the decision the certification of the City C y is recorded in the been filed that it has been dismissed or denied, filed, or if such an appeal has be applicable, and indexed under the of Deeds or Land Court, as app Hampshire County Registry 's certificate of title. The fee owner o f record or i s recorded and noted on the owner name o f the own • - shall be aid by the owner or applicant. It is the owner or for such recording or registering p i Clerk and record it at the • responsibility to ick u a the certified decision of the Cit applicant's p p Registry of Deeds. • hereby certifies that a Finding has been Granted The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals h y . Th p - referred to in it have been filed with the Planning and that copies of this decision and all plans p Board and the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A, Section 15, notice is hereby given that this ton City Clerk on the date below. the Northam decision is filed with p - must be filed pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A f y ou wish to appeal this action, your appeal p notice I y pp ' Superior Court or Northampton District Court an Section 17, with the Hampshire County p decision was • of this appeal filed with the City C lerk within twenty (20) days of the date this p filed with the City Clerk. Demetrius - Coles Meadow Road, Northampton Applicant: Robert . This Decision is Dated: Aril 15 1998 • C erk on: APri1 24 1998 This Decision was Filed with the City C AL L k. F 2 4 1.998 LNORTN CITY "LERKS ZiPYON I�tASS�OtOfiO i Uoc; 990002614 OR /5600/0301 01/28/19991131 IJ T 'i lk Ma 15, 1998 I. Christine Skorupskir C it y Clerk of the City of Northampton, hereby certify that the above Decision of the Northampton Zoning as filed i Board of Appeals w in the office of the Ci Clerk on",.April 24, 1998, that twent da have elapsed since such filin and that no,;.',.-appeal.has been filed in this atter. 10 A A ntes , t 4: 4F' City Q --' of Northampton 1 -v ATTIS REGIS �T, UW; I MRM7M� L. DONOHUE CITY'OF N FINDING APPLICATION (Change of aPre- Existing Nonconforming Use or Structure) H A 1. Applicant's Name � '� �� M � '°�''�'��` Address: C� M Ppk Telephone: �'� ''�`�'�-` S � � '� 503 roe Owners Name. ��, 2 • �' � _ � Address: Telephone: L ntract Purchaser Lessee Other atus of App _owner Co - 3. St (explain: r • 2 - 1 Zoning District(s) • • Ma # Parcel #, g Parcel Identification: Zoning p Street Address is Section g _._. -. s being requested under Zoning Or Findln � g q d Work Pro ect: (use additional sheets ii ncccsSCAVY Narrative Descri tion of Pro ose ;v � ,� ,'� *!jam t *i w / j ' _ a 14 ' 'din Criteria: (See Applicant's Guide and ✓° 7. State How Work Pro osal Com lies with Fin use additional sheets if necessary} i ,E S rr V,) k X . �- 8. Attached Plans. � Sketch Plan Site Plan None Required _ • • Assessors' Office must be attached. 9. Cert Abutters List from ;��;Jo I tW%_K_- �t f Yom« -/" � .. - 4 �+ E TY ---1 `t • 14. Certification 1 hereby certify that 1 have re ad the FINDING CRITERIA and that the • information contained herein is true and accur ate to the best of my knowledge. 1 (or • grant Zoning Boar the landowner, if I am not the landowner} gran g d and Planning Board • the roe to review thl permit a Icatlon. permission to enter property rty Date: 73 Applicant's Signature: Date Filed: (memorex\wp\zba\finding.zba 10/20/92) a D wp CITY CLERKS OFFICE NORT HAMPTON , - MASS 01060 File #: _._, scanned 7 digitized checked..,.- Fiie No zONING p.ERMTT APPLICATION (§10.2) P FA.S TYPE OR PR�T ALL INFORMATION 1 Name of Applicant: ' one . � ele h Address. -� t 1� owner of Propel. � Telephone: Address:�� ' Owner � Contract Purchaser _____-- Lessee 3. Status of Applicant: _ O - Other (explain): _ 4. 1cb Location •. Parcel# � � D . in Ma p# � EN Parcel Id: Zoning P IN BY THE BUILDING DEPARTM (TO BE FILLED S. E-xisbing Use of StruciuCe�roperty g_ Description of Proposed UseNV.orkJProject/Occupation: (Use additional sheets if necessary): �,7 Engineered /Surveyed Plans Sketch Plan Site Plan Attached Plans: heokin with the Building Dept or Planning Department Files. m Answers to the following 2 questions may be obtained by c 9 'ance�Findin ever been issued for /on the site? o. Has a Special PermitNan 9 DON T KI`�^, : ^r YES - ------------ - IF YES, date issued: Nn IF YES: Was the permit recorded at the Registry of Deeds? . NO DON'T KNOWN � YES C Pa e �-�' and/or Document # IF YES: enter Book g � DON'T KNow � YEs contain a brook, body of water or wetlands . NO g Does the site , IF YES, has a permit been or need to be obtained from the Conservation Commission? • Obtained ,date issued: Needs to be obtained > 5 A KS O-sC dTY � (Z ;� 106%0 ( FORM CONTINUES ON OTHER SIDE) t t l ' YES NO 10. y �C Do an signs exist on the property? IF YES, describe size, type and location: s i g ns intended for the property? YES_ _ Nfl changes to or additions of g Are there any proposed IF YES, describe size, type and location: .ED I or PEPAI T CAN BE DENIED DUE TO ALL �'NF' oRMATXON MUST BE COMPS �.1. LACK GE XNFORMATION - MLi.s to J. filled in ?min jle-F-ft roman t Existing i Proposed �4 S s. c- Lot size � ,7 AGtz -'� �yv1 F rontage .. Setbacks - �- R � + L: _ R•________ - side �• 9 - - rear 'din he i 2.0+ Bu i l ding g by the '0" g Required By Zoning � o 000 40 S'v 3�"'M�• Bldg Square fo ota g e %open Space: a r ea minus bldg ( Lot �^ d ,off ; &Pa p a' _ P • Spaces # o g parking #` of Loading Docks --' Fill: -�tme i • -& locaton) ...�- �( vo3 i op ' at the info at,ion contained herein 13 , C e r tification: : I hereby cert t h at , . a nd accurate to the best of my knowl g'e • is true a _ 1 APPLICANT s SIGNATURE DATE iioant's burden t o�ony with 011 'i'i f O ning p ssuanoe o a M ermit doe$ no t relieve an p ' • HoTE: I ed yet -mite i m the Board of No itti. Gonservt�t$on zoning re�quiramomnt-n and obtain all requir p , iioabla pQr�mit gra,nting authors is� �Commis sion Department of Pub tio Wot-ks end other app .FILE , s office of Planning and Development City of Northampton City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 587 -1266 FAX (413)587- 1264•EMAIL planning G,ity.northampton.ma.us •Conservafion Commission •Historical Commission •Planning Board • Housing Partnership .Zoning Board of Appeals DECISION OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICANT`. Robert Demetrius APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 50 North Maple Street Florence, MA 01062 OWNER: George Page OWNER'S ADDRESS: Delaney House Holyoke, MA 01040 RE LAND OR BUILDINGS IN NORTHAMPTON AT: Coles Meadow Road ASSESSOR'S MAP and PARCEL NUMBERS: MAP #3 PARCEL #21 At a meeting conducted on April 15, 1998, the Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals voted 2:1 (Ghiselin opposed) to giant the request of Robert Demetrius for a FINDING under the provisions of Section 9.3 (1) (D) in the Northampton Zoning Ordinance for a change in use of a pre - existing nonconforming structure for property located at Coles Meadow Road, also known as Northampton Assessor's Map 3, Parcel 21. Zoning Board Members present and voting were: Chair Mark NeJame, Vice Chair Alex Ghiselin and Larry Snyder. The Findings of the Board under Section 9.3 (1) (D) for a change in use of a preexisting non- conforming structure were as follows: 1. The Board found that the requested use as a single - family residence would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the previous use as a barn/storage building. Conditions imposed with this Finding are as follows: 1. The Finding is for the use of the structure as a single - family residence only. 2. There shall be no entrance allowed on the front side of the building (the side facing Coles Meadow Road). 3. As offered by the applicant, the applicant shall create a bermed, landscaped area with plantings between eighteen inches and three feet in height extending approximately eight feet out from the house and circling back to the entrance of the garage. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) Chapter 40A, Section 11, no Finding or any extension, modification or renewal thereof, shall take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that twenty days have elapsed after the decision has been filed, or if such an appeal has been filed that it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds or Land Court, as applicable, and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of title. The fee for such recording or registering shall be paid by the owner or applicant It is the owner or applicant's responsibility to pick up a the certified decision of the City Clerk and record it at the Registry of Deeds. The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals hereby certifies that a Finding has been Granted and that copies of this decision and all plans referred to in it have been filed with the Planning �oard and the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A, Section 15, notice is hereby given that this decision is filed with the Northampton City Clerk on the date below. If you wish to appeal this action, your appeal must be filed pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A Section 17, with the Hampshire County Superior Court or Northampton District Court and notice of this appeal filed with the City Clerk within twenty (20) days of the date this decision was filed with the City Clerk. Applicant: Robert Demetrius - Coles Meadow Road, Northampton This Decision is Dated: April 15 1998 This Decision was Filed with the , City Clerk on: April 24, U 1998 i Office of Planning and Development City of Northampton City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 587 -1266 FAX (413)587- 1264•FNIAIL planning©city.northamptmt.ma.us -Conservation Commission •Elisto kal Commission , Planning Board • housing Partnership -Zoning Board of Appeals Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting April 15, 1998 The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals held a meeting on Wednesday, April 15, 1998 at 7:00 p.m, in the Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal Building, 212 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Mark Nelame, Vice Chair Alex Ghiselin and Larry Snyder. Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner Cynthia Williams, Board Secretary Laura Krulzler. At 8:19 p.m., NeJame opened the Public hearing on a request filed by Robert Demetrius for a Finding for a change in use of a pre - existing nonconforming structure under Section 9.3 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at Coles Meadow Road, Northampton, also known as Assessor's Map 3, Parcel 21. NeJame explained the procedure he would use in conducting the hearing. Patrick Goggins of Goggins Real Estate, 226 King Street, Northampton, presented the application, representing the applicant, Robert Demetrius, and the owner, Bill Page of Holyoke. Goggins Real Estate has the property listed for sale, Goggins noted. Goggins stated that he was present to suggest that the intended use of the property will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the present use. Goggins explained that the intent is to convert the existing structure from use as a barer to use as a residence. The owner has already substa dially improved the barn to use as a place to work on and restorevehicles, so the structure already has such features as aluminum siding, airconditioning, heat, and a washer and dryer, lending itself to uses beyond those typically associated with a bam, Goggins said. The Finding is sought because the property seemed to have the greatest market appeal as a single- family residence. Goggins stated that the structure will not be different from other residences which sprinkle the Coles Meadow Road area, except that the building sits on the road and has no setback. This has always been the case, he noted, as the barn has always been in its present location. The fact that the ORIGINAL PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER residencc wi 11 have only one bedroom indicates that there wi II not be a significant aurounl of activity there, he said. The applicant is interested in vehicles and attracted to the property because of the garage area, he noted. Once the structure has been converted with windows and back doors, it will feel much more like a dwelling and be more consistent with the neighborhood and not substantially more detrimental than the existing use, Goggins commented. Goggins stated that, except for the front setback, the property meets all other zoning requirements. 'fhe property is sizable (1.7 acres), with more than enough frontage, and the amount of open space is far in excess of that required, he observed. All other setbacks meet the requirements of zoning. Also, the property has an approved septic system, a five - hundred (500) gallon underground propane tank and adequate parking - four spaces. Goggins passed out an updated floorplan. Snyder confirmed that the footprint of the building would not change, but the applicant will remodel the existing structure. Robert Demetrius explained that he will put in an efficiency apartment - a matter of simply putting up a wall. All the plumbing needed for a residence is already in place and is commercial grade, above and beyond what is needed for a residence. The building already has a kitchen sink. Demetrius said he would merely partition off the building to create livable space. In response to questions from members, the applicant presented the following additional details: - - -- Parking will be to the right of the building. The driveway to the left of the building [as shown on the plan] is overgrown. - - -- The existin septic system was designed to accommodate a three - bedroom home but has not been used since installed. The septic system will be inspected per the requirements of Title V. — There is expansion space upstairs, so the building could be constructed as an expandable cape. If this were done, the first -floor bedroom would become living room space. NeJame pointed out that a legal residence could be built on the property if the barn were tom down. However, Goggins responded that there is a nice view from the barn, and the barn is so overimproved that the costs associated with the barn would result in a higher price for the land than someone would be willing to spend for a building lot, Cynthia Williams asked whether the garage had been used for restoring antique vehicles? The use was mostly for storage, Goggins responded. Williams asked if the applicant was going to change the use of the garage? Demctrius said he would use the garage for parking his personal vehicles and will not bring in vehicles from the outside. When asked how Ire would enter Coles Meadow Road, the applicant said he would drive into the parking area and go from there to tie road. Demetrius said he would not drive right in next to the garage but would [pass) fifteen or hventy fact from the garage. The Department of Public Works (DPW) had no concerns. NcJamc asked if there were any public comments? Alvin Rejniak of 414 Coles Meadow Road said he did not care what the applicant builds, but he noted that there are no frostwalls under the building. He asked if this meant the structure would shift? Also, he asked if the lot had a leach field? Goggins said the lot does have a ]each field. Regarding the frostwall, he said he had heard the building had eight inches of poured concrete in the floor. Demetrius said the bam was put up in the early 1900's and hasn't moved. Ile said Ire thought the condition of the bam testifies to [the building's stability]. Rejniak also commented that he has a license for construction with the Massachusetts Department of Safety, and the trusses in the bam are "highly questionable." The trusses are not snapped together but have plywood pleats, he elaborated. Builders usually use steel members to make joints, he remarked. Demetrius said he would be happy to have anyone take a look at the structure. Goggins pointed out that the applicant will need a building permit for conversion of the bam to residential use, and Ghiselin confirmed that the structure will be inspected by the Building Department. Discussion. Ghiselin noted that the reason for setbacks is safety, and, although there may not be children living in the house now, there could be in the future. [To address this concern], the Board could add a condition that there be no access from the roadside, he suggested. Demetrius stated that there is no access [from that side] now and would not be access from there. lie added a second egress to the west wall. Demetrius said. Ghiselin also questioned whether the Board could require thatthe driveway be moved further from the building? Goggins commented that a vehicle backing out of the garage would more than likely back to the west rather than toward the road and head out with the train of the car toward the road, adding to the driver's line of sight and giving passing vehicles more time [to see the vehicle]. Demetrius offered to build an eight -fool fieldstone wall to extend from the corner of barn, making sure the driveway entrance is further from the house. I lowever, Ghiselin wondered if that would create an additional zoning violation? Qcmclrius said there is four feet from the actual barn wall to the road. Ghiselin said he wouldbc more comfortable with the plans if they included something to force cars away from the building. In addition, the Board received the following public comments: Mark Rejniak ot16 Gilbert Road, Southampton expressed concerti about a child "Flying around the corner of the barn," since the barn is right on the road. He commented that the road is a route for local car dealers, who tend to pick up speed right near the barn. Mabi V. Swan of 471 Coles Meadow Road, the owner of the house on the opposite side of the street, said her main concern is safety. She said that if the use of the structure were to remain commercial or be highly- trafficked, this would definitely be of concern to the neighborhood. Swan said that the Structure is rarely accessed at this point, and she had not seen a single vehicle therein the past four or five months. Swan also commented that, although there are some houses nearby on Coles Meadow Road which at closer to the street than any other residences on the road, even those are at least five times farther from the road than the banr in question. For a residence, the setting is very close to the road, which leaves questions about safety, she remarked. NeJanre clarified that the applicant is proposing a residential use of the property. Regarding the limited activity at the site now, Goggins commented that that is why the building is being sold. He noted that, if the building's use is not changed [to a residence], it could potentially be used more intensively [as a garage] than it was used by Mr. Page. Demetrius commented that his GTO is "more dear to him than life," and he would crawl with it out of lire garage. Referring to the Finding criteria, Demetrius said he did not see how the use of the building as a residence would be more detrimental than the use of the structure as a workshop /storage area, although he did have a strong safety concern. wiIIisms said the Planning Department had a question as to whether the old use of the property was legal, since there were no permits on file, and therefore, would be concerned if the use were to continue. Goggins stressed that Mr, Page's use of the structure was personal, not commercial. As discussion continued, Goggins clarified that he was not aware of a Special Permit being issued for the property but was under the understanding that a permit was not required for Page's personal use of the barn for the storage of vehicles. Ne.lanic commented that, although he saw a safety issue, he did not see the proposed use as more detrimental. Snyder added that, regarding concerns about the safety of the driveway, the original use also would entail car flow through the driveway, so he didn't see the proposed use as more detrimental in that respect. A fence as suggested by the applicant would push the traffic over, he opined. Ghiselin said the use seemed more intensive to him, since commercial use is daytime use, while residents are there seven days a week, twenty -four hours a day. He said he did not think the proposed use was more detrimental, but since the Board has the opportunity to improve the situation, he thought pushing cars further from the house would be better. Goggins said this would be no problem. NeJanrc remarked that, if someone asked to build a residence so close to the road, the request would not be granted in anyway, shape or manner. However, the Board is just asked to look at whether the proposed use is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. It sounds like the proposed use is substantially more detrimental to the occupant but not to the neighborhood, he concluded. Snyder moved to close the Public Hearing. Ghiselin seconded. The motion passed unanimously 3:0. Snyder said he thought the permit should stipulate that there be no entrance on the road side of the building. Members also discussed requiring either a fence or a landscaped berm to separate the driveway from the structure. NeJame said he wanted to emphasize that the Finding is only for the use of the building as a single - family residence. Ghiselin expressed reluctance to vote for the request, saying the change in usewas "making a house out of something not placed properly for a house." lie did say lie did not see the change in use as being more detrimental to the neighborhood. NeJame agreed that it was not an appropriate place for a house but repeated that he could not come up with any reason to conclude that the use as a residence was more detrimental than the use as son agelhobby space. NeJame said the lot was not in any way wrong for residential use, although lie would love to move the house back. Snyder moved to grant the Finding under Section 9.3 of the Zoning Ordinance because the Aft chauge, extension Ora Iteration will not be substantial ly more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming structure and /or use, and said change, extension or alteration 1) will not extend any closer to any front, side or rear property boundary than the current zoning allows or existing structure already extends and will not create any new violation of other zoning provisions; and 2) does not involve a sign with the following conditions: The Finding is for the use of the structure as a single - family residence only. 2. ']'here shall be no entrance allowed on the front side of the building (the side racing Coles Meadow Road). 3. As offered by the applicant, the applicant shall create a bermed, landscaped area with plantings between eighteen inches and three feet in height extending approximately eight feet out from the house and circling back to the entrance o1 the garage. Ghiselin seconded. The motion passed 2:1 (Ghiselin opposed). CITY OF NORTHAMPTOO FINDING APPLICATION 2. (Change of a Pre - Existing Nonconforming Use or Structure) 1. Applicant's Name Address: Address: 3, Status of Applicant Owner k Contract Purchaser Lessee Other (explain: AS& ) 4. Parcel Identification Zoning Map # 3 Parcel# 71 , Zoning District(s) Street Address CoLC<_ 1.+5A, (W (k.NoO ✓ 5. Finding is being requested under Zoning Ordinance Section. Z , Page 10 7 io of Proposed Work /Project (use additional sheers if nccc ;ry) %�.r -n-r,, cY._I�Q.'r'1 'Cw P'. r,,r �r /`il Q r %wS �'�+u�n cStr1 C& S P- cWw: yitfX•q F _"":"aN+L�t�r use additional sheets if In (See Applicant's Guide and 8. Attached Plans a Sketch Plan Site Plan None Required 9. C ertified Abutters List from Assessors' Office must be attached. 10. Certification I hereby certify that I have read the FINDING CRITERIA and that the information contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I (or the landowner, if I am not the landowner) grant the Zoning Board and Planning Board permission to enter the property to review thi permit ication. Date ; (`� 4 Applicant's Signature: Dare riled: (memorex \wpkba \fi- zba ID /20/S2) r fl F rrrrr i 1998 , eerors�u�"�,,.:., i N28'36 03 "E r �9g , S2 "W 95.06 Aak I► NV. 190.52 SPRIWAY N56'40' 59 "W — g 258.00' Ci .. F All — I � — 9 BARN S19'5 "W �I 94.94' 1A 5j 3 . Z g 2 � o O In C - - -� CITY CLFRKS OFRGE INV. = 176.31 To u. c� c d.. LOT #1 \ `�fTt5 5-:-F.. 1. P, 1.70 Ac (FND) I i.?1� � T \o BIc -1, 6� �l J '� 5 4'g a�J O� c� W,Ma D �o 2 � A N n �F a� T �1 OTC L.___ N _ a _o a No x m a Po < n O O xt xz a z xm � �z m n n CUPBOARD O Tcm mvy pyD O?4 O�1 3N0 Tpc nr C� Cn mo m x ti z D D m T T